CLEARED

Thanks,

I hadn't got to that point yet.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 13, 2025 - 06:46 pm: Edit

CLEARED
I hid it the best I could. My numbers can be adjusted with staff concensus. Not one staffer, a consensus.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 13, 2025 - 07:01 pm: Edit

CLEARED
Thanks, Jessica, if the staff and I can just hang on for one more week this will be done. Assuming nobody has a heart attack or one of us murders one of us.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, December 13, 2025 - 07:21 pm: Edit

CLEARED
Both a possibility.

WHICH WILL COME FIRST?
EXECUTE THE STAFF OR ASSASSINATE THE LEADER?

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, December 13, 2025 - 07:30 pm: Edit

NO HARM IN THIS KIND OF REPORT BUT USUALLY UNNECESSARY. I FIX THOSE AFTER ALL CHANGES ARE MADE BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE NEXT CHANGE WILL JUST MESS IT UP AGAIN.

Page 31: Move (636.52) from bottom of column 1 to top of column 2. Move (636.55) from bottom of column to up of column on page 32

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, December 13, 2025 - 07:34 pm: Edit

DONE
(636.741) line 4 Reference (WXY.000) could be (659.3)

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, December 13, 2025 - 07:42 pm: Edit

DONE

(627.15) Refers to sections (704.L) and (704.R)
DO YOU MEAN 637?

(704.IF) Renumbers of (704.L) and rename to Romulan Loyalist Faction
LOYAL TO WHOM? IMPERIAL FACTION USED.

(704.RR) Renumber to (704.R)
RR WAS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, December 14, 2025 - 01:27 am: Edit

FIXED
\(638.163) Reference end should be (638.273) not (873...)

(638.256) last line referes to province 0903. In both (638.223) and ^38.231) refere to it as province 0803. Recoommend change (.256) to 0803 for consistency.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 15, 2025 - 03:09 pm: Edit

ALL CLEAR TO THIS POINT

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, December 15, 2025 - 08:00 pm: Edit

DONE

(627.15) Refers to sections (704.L) and (704.R)
DO YOU MEAN 637?

I did mean 637. Whatever number is referenced in (637.15) need to match the rule number of the annexes.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, December 15, 2025 - 09:53 pm: Edit

ADDED TRADE NOTE, RENUMBERING NOT NEEDED

(657.13) CHANGE: TRADE: Trade during this period was restricted and may not begin until Y150.

(712.11) ADD Construction Schedule (Peacetime)
See (712.4)

Move everything up by 1
(712.11) > (712.12)
(712.12) > (712.13)
(712.13) > (712.14)


(712.12) Construction Schedule ADD (Wartime)

Change ?xAuxPod to 4xAuxPod. RATIONALE: Per (712.115)

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, December 16, 2025 - 11:06 am: Edit

TEXT CHANGED, RENUMBERING NOT NEEDED

Humble apologies to ADB and Jean. Gratitude and Apology candy delivered yesterday. Staff review of last Thursday eve's compiled rules turned up a flaw in retreat movement. It is rewritten below.

(209.14) RETREAT MOVEMENT: The barrier restricts retreat movement. Rationale: No change here, included for completeness. On to the next...STAFF 15 DEC 2025.

(209.141) replace with general rule text as follows: "(209.141) Any ships able to retreat out of the barrier may do so normally, but would be barrier-disabled if they face combat in the hex into which they retreated. See (332.2)." Rationale: Retreat out of the cluster through the barrier may enter an occupied / combat hex using retreat priorities and as such would have to follow the (332.2) rules. This is a general rule for any and all ships retreating (leaving) the hex. The referenced rule in (332.2) provides specifics as to the varied combat situations that may occur as forces retreat. STAFF 15 DEC 2025.

(209.142) formerly (209.141); renumber to (209.142) and replace text as "(209.142) Friendly Ships: WYN and allied ships adjacent to the Cluster may retreat into the Cluster." Rationale: Several things were going on here. First cleaning up of the intent that ships 'adjacent' were already external and therefore the rule was only intended to cover retreat back into the Cluster. Second because the rule tried (poorly) to also convey retreat out of the cluster this was removed and subsumed into the general rule for all ships as they are all treated equally when leaving (i.e. possible to face combat). STAFF 15 DEC 2025.

(209.143) formerly (209.142); renumber to (209.143) and replace text as: "Non-belligerents: Non-belligerent ships retreating into the Cluster are interned by the WYN." Rationale: This needed to be its own rule, hostile ships is moved to prohibited and the general rule was moved up to the beginning to cover all ships trying to leave. STAFF 15 DEC 2025.

(209.144) formerly (209.143); renumber to (209.143) and replace text as: "Prohibited Units: Hostile units may not retreat into the Cluster. Slow units, including auxiliaries and overloaded transports (517.4), may not retreat into or out of the Cluster as they would be destroyed if they attempted to do so. If slow units remain present against opposing forces after their fleet retreated into the Cluster, they would follow (302.74). Those remaining at the end of (302.742) slow unit retreat would be destroyed. An overloaded transport may drop pods to enable retreat under (517.26)." Rationale: The hostile ships is moved to prohibited as under normal priorities and logistics rules listed in (554.5) there was no path to allow it. The general rule covering hostile units leaving the cluster was moved up to the new (209.141) to cover all ships trying to leave. Slow units needed further clarification but the overall intent remains the same. Typo: Remove the open ended quote at the end of the line. STAFF 15 DEC 2025

(209.145) formerly (209.144); renumber to (209.144) Pursuit: The Barrier prevents pursuit combat of any kind. Rationale: Renumber to (209.145), no other change needed. STAFF 15 DEC 2025.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, December 16, 2025 - 12:58 pm: Edit

DONE, BUT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM NECESSARY

(554.5) WYN NEUTRALITY VIOLATIONS
Replace Treaty information/definition text of "...recognized the WYN Cluster (hex 0804) as a special neutral zone hex that prohibits entry without the consent of the WYN government. The treaty also established how trade was to be conducted." with the following: "...affirmed the WYN Cluster (hex 0804) as as neutral territory (503.1), prohibiting entry without consent of the WYN government. The treaty formally established how trade was to be conducted." Rationale: Clarifies treaty language adding rule reference for WYN neutrality from basic set and expands treatment of non-belligerent/hostile units wishing to enter the Cluster. Also supports middle years timeline (line item by Ryan above) for early trade and explains the delays in establishment of formal trade rules. STAFF 15 DEC 2025.

(554.51) INTERNMENT: replace text "...will be classified as an invader; see (554.53)." with text as follows: "...will be considered in violation of treaty subject to sanctions under (554.52)." Rationale: previous version skipped completely over the progression step of violation of treaty. STAFF 15 DEC 2025.

(554.52) NEUTRALITY VIOLATION:; Replace "(but not devastating a planet)" with "and refusing internment (503.11)," Rationale: The minimum violation outlined in this rule (and the accompanying sanctions) is triggered by the refusal of non-belligerent empire to be interned altering their status immediately to a hostile empire. STAFF 15 DEC 2025.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, December 16, 2025 - 02:23 pm: Edit

DONE
(638.812) replace original; "A Federation squadon consisting of a CH, 2xNCL, NSC, 3xDW, 3x FFG, is allied to one side or the other. It begins in hex (@@@)," replace with corrected version, "A Federation squadron consisting of a CB, 2xNCL, NSC, 3xDW, 3xFF, is allied to one side or the other. It begins in hex (1802)," Rationale: Corrects typos, ship designations to F&E and adds a starting hex. STAFF 15 DEC 2025

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, December 16, 2025 - 02:25 pm: Edit

DONE
(658.0) INFLUENCE POINTS by Lar Bergman; please correct my name to Lawrence Bergen. L. Bergen 16 DEC 2025

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, December 16, 2025 - 02:33 pm: Edit

ALL DONE TO HERE, THE STAFF BETTER BE FINISHED MESSING WITH THE RULES.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, December 16, 2025 - 03:00 pm: Edit

I promise we are completely finished.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, December 16, 2025 - 04:50 pm: Edit

I never said that.

There is a ghost in the machine.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, December 17, 2025 - 10:54 am: Edit

Apologies for being a bit late to reply, but I had a few notes about the most recent OOB summary by year, as posted by SVC last Friday:

-----

*Y136: The Amarillus, the Orion ship which arrived in the Cluster in this year, is marked presently as a CR; historically, it was an LR.

The SFB scenario (SH269) The First Intrusion, from Module Y3, covers this seminal event.

-----

*Y189: In the present listing, there is a WYN DN added to the OOB in that year. However, my understanding is that all WYN Size Class 2 ships are campaign conjectural; perhaps due to the WYN(/Orion) shipyard lacking a slipway of sufficient size to produce such a ship.

I should note that the WYNs do get an HDWX in Y189 historically, as per Module X1R; however, there might be an issue with adding this ship to the list at present, for the following reason:

-----

*Y188 and Y189: At this time of typing, no Alpha Octant empire has an historical Order of Battle later than Spring Y188 - and nor, for that matter, do they have counters for ships with YIS dates later than Y188. The reason for both of these omissions to date is that such units have to wait for the future Andromedan War module to be published, so that the proper historical context can be provided for those Alpha counters and OOBs which emerge in the midst of the invasion.

Further, in the case of the WYNs, it is unclear as to whether or not the one "spectacular" attempt by the Andros to invade the Cluster takes place - only that it is said to happen mere 'days" after those WYN-Orion ships that had exited the Cluster in support of the Usurper's War of Return campaign had returned home. Which, in turn, was triggered by the failed ISC incursion of Spring Y187, (So would that lean more towards a Fall Y187, or perhaps Spring Y188, window for the Andro attack?)

So, I would strongly suggest not going any farther than Y187 in this document right now, and leaving anything "post-ISC incursion" - or rather, "post-WYN-Orion withdrawal to the Cluster" - to be handled in the future Andro War module. Not least since this would allow for such "Invasion era" units as the WYN HDWX to be properly factored in to this game system at that point in time.

-----

Y187: Speaking of the above WYN-Orion withdrawal to the Cluster, I would suggest adding those WYN-Orion ships that are removed from the in-Cluster OOB in Y186 which can be said to have survived the War of Return back to the in-Cluster OOB here, after the "ISC incursion fails" note. Thus, as and when the time comes for the Andromedan attempt on the Cluster to be detailed in F&E terms, these hulls can be present and accounted for, as was the case historically.

Also for Y187, this is the YIS date listed in Module G3 for the WYN-Seltorian frigate and destroyer. Thus, 2 SDDs and 3 SFFs ought perhaps to be added to the "in-Cluster" OOB in this year. (The question might be exactly when in Y187 this happens, however: not least in terms of whether or not they arrive in time to respond to the ISC incursion - or, indeed, in time to face the Andromedan one.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 17, 2025 - 01:48 pm: Edit

I will let the staff endorse (comment, approve, revise) Gary's report before I deal with it.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, December 17, 2025 - 09:48 pm: Edit

The only comment I have is that i agree with the overall sentiment to leave Andro era units either:

1. Included as a footnote not to be mossed when we do that product
2. Not included marked ‘out of scope’ for this effort but placed in a future file or thread.

As i am not the deep SFB/SFU history guy in the group i will defer to the others to corroborate if the quoted scenario and units are valid additions or subtractions.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, December 17, 2025 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Will the staff get another version to review with current edits included?

I ask because tomorrow is our last staff meeting of the year. The next two weeks we will be spending time with family and traveling.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 17, 2025 - 10:35 pm: Edit

There haven't been many edits since the last one I sent and I am having surgery tomorrow so I will not be in the office until Monday. You knew that the last draft you got would be the last one you would get before publication of the PDF. That draft was marked LAST CHANCE.

And as I have said, you don't need meetings to do reports. Each of you can send your own report of what you found. I learned in the military and in corporate life that the best way to avoid finishing a project is to have a meeting about the project.

I am not going to hold this product until next year. When Petrick and Jean finish, the PDF edition gets released and you can have a meeting about things before the print edition in February.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, December 18, 2025 - 01:42 am: Edit

Not a problem at all. We weren't planning on any major discussions or reviews. I was mainly asking to see if the new revision created anything that needed review.

And to the point about the meetings. When there isn’t one scheduled it gives no one that sense of accountability to get things done. Having set the standard (and expectations with the other life people we are responsible to) allows us space to collaborate and make progress.

Hope your surgery goes smoothly.

I found some small typos tonight in 659 and will post them in the morning. Items Jean will more likely catch but no need to give her extra work when we know these exist.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, December 18, 2025 - 01:52 am: Edit

I think Y187 is a good cutoff year fpr us without getting into AndroWar. I would not not recommend any individual module go beyond that until we have AW started.