Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 29, 2026	25		08/01 11:53am
	Archive through August 05, 2026	25		08/05 04:56pm
	Archive through August 06, 2026	24		08/06 10:42pm
	KEPT FOR REFERENCE	1		08/10 03:28pm

PROCESSED Stew while Ryan and Turtle review to make sure we haven't missed something. Consider that these are not Scenarios but rather Scenario Rules. If we reserved the 640s for these rules then 641-644 get used here leaving us 6 slots 645-650 for future development.

The Warbook TOC could then back up the listing from 650 to 640 (keeping the majority of scenario affecting rules together)

SPECIAL SCENARIO RULES .......... 640.00*
641* Influence Points
642* Civil Wars Territorial Rules
643* Civil Wars Asset Neutrality
644* WYN in Other Scenarios
645-650 (Future development)
651 grand campaign
652 free campaign
653 balance factors
654 limited war
655 no tholians
656 Feds early war
657 Middle years rules

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, August 06, 2026 - 08:43 pm: Edit

PROCESSED (661.121) WHEN DECLARED: should be replaced with (661.121) When Declared:. RATIONALE: Formatting. Staff misrepresented this in the initial delivery, three decimal rule numbers are formatted at a lower case and may be or may not be bold (these should be lower case and bold). - L. Bergen 6 AUG 2026

(661.122) TARGET: should be replaced with (661.122) Target:. RATIONALE: Formatting. Staff misrepresented this in the initial delivery, three decimal rule numbers are formatted at a lower case and may be or may not be bold (these should be lower case and bold). - L. Bergen 6 AUG 2026

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, August 06, 2026 - 08:53 pm: Edit

PROCESSED I like the idea of making the 640-657 as Special Scenario Rules. This leaves 6 spots available for future rules.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 06, 2026 - 09:18 pm: Edit

PROCESSED That was my idea, to keep the 640s for special senarioish rules.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, August 06, 2026 - 10:42 pm: Edit

PROCESSED (209.113) end of paragraph has extranous " at the end.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 02:20 am: Edit

PROCESSED I must note that there are minor oddities in the scenario numbering thing that should not have happened. Nothing not in a mainline F&E product should have had a 3-numberal hard number, although we did switch to that decades ago. I should have done better, but at this point changing an existing hard number would be more trouble than it is worth and more chaos than is survivable.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 07:30 pm: Edit

PROCESSED Eh, so after (639) we jump past Maelstrom (675) then …

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 07, 2026 - 09:50 pm: Edit

PROCESSED The next scenario rules will be 645-650, the next scenarios 661-675.

By Greg Ernest (Gernest) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 03:59 pm: Edit

STAFF CAN SUBMIT TEXT IF NEEDED Does the scenario for the War of Return include being incorporated into the full General War if it is in play? I want know about possible Coalition or Alliance support for either side.

Same question for the Romulan Civil War.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 04:10 pm: Edit

STAFF CAN SUBMIT TEXT IF NEEDED Both the War of Return and the Romulan Civil War take place after the end of the General War - as opposed to the war between the Tholian Holdfast and the Seltorian Torch expedition, which broke out in Y182 and which carried over into the era of the ISC Pacification.

There are provisional rules in ISC War which account for these conflicts to a limited extent, in the context of the broader Pacification Campaign. However, in light of the publication of both Minor Empires and (soon) of Civil War, perhaps a future "warbook" revision to the ISC War rulebook - whenever that ends up being - might be a good opportunity to integrate these conflicts in a more systemic manner?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 09, 2026 - 06:11 am: Edit

PROCESSED Gary, you would actually have to mention that in the correct topic if you want it done.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 10, 2026 - 03:22 pm: Edit

PROCESSED

(712.25) - LAH = 'Counts as LAV' should be 'Counts as LAP' by (530.223). SWFrazier 080426

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, August 10, 2026 - 04:33 pm: Edit

PROCESSED (712.25) - LAH = 'Counts as LAV' should be 'Counts as LAP' by (530.223). SWFrazier 080426

I reviewed this, it's a little complex because its both see below. Relevant rules are in green.

General rule: Auxiliaries and their production limits is covered under: (513.112) and (549.1) govern productions of large and small auxiliaries allowing "only one Large Aux Carrier to be produced per year".

(549.121) Each empire may produce one auxiliary (of any type) per turn (the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, and the ISC may produce two per turn), but only one per year may be a large, jumbo, or heavy auxiliary. One large or two small auxiliary troop ships can be built each turn in addition to that number. Some auxiliaries have an “in service” limit (762.0). Some smaller empires have lower limits in their order of battle.

Specific rules: To Stew's point the specific rule for Heavy Fighters add on to the general rule as follows:

(530.222) Changeover: Changing an existing carrier to use heavy fighters requires payment of the EPs (or free fighter factors) for the difference in cost. This changeover has no other cost and does not require the use of any conversion capacity by a base. Only carriers in supply can be changed in this way. Changeovers of existing carriers to heavy fighters are limited only by the rules herein; conversion of non-carriers into carriers for heavy fighters or building new heavy fighter carriers is under the normal limits on carrier production. There is a limit of one free HF changeover per turn. After the PF introduction date, the construction of a heavy fighter carrier or conversion of a non-carrier to heavy fighters may be counted against that empire’s PFT limit (530.223) or against its carrier limit; additional HF changeovers beyond the one free one per turn count against these limits. Note that Federation carriers for A-20 heavy assault fighters have their own specific (lower) limits (532.0).

(530.223) Production: Each empire may, on and after the date specified for the introduction of heavy fighters (or availability of specific ships with heavy fighters), produce one carrier per turn (by substitution or conversion) for use with heavy fighters. This is above the carrier limit but counts against the PFT limit. (This is true even before there is a PFT limit; in actual fact, PFTs count against the heavy fighter carrier limit.) The Kzintis, however, are allowed to produce two such carriers per turn for Turn #20 through Turn #24, after which they are limited to one per turn. Lyrans and Gorns are limited to one per year. Once the PFT limit is in place (on the PF2 turn), an empire can build heavy fighter carriers under the PFT limit or under the carrier limit and could even build one under each limit on the same turn. Note that the Federation could build a carrier for F-101s under either limit (or both) but can build carriers for F-111s only under the PFT limit, and that carriers for A-20s have their own separate sub-limit but also count against the overall heavy fighter limit. A carrier for heavy fighters later converted to a PFT counts against the PFT limit regardless of which limit it was originally built under. Because most Federation players build all the A-20 carriers they can, there will be relatively few F-101 carriers due to lack of space under the limits.

EDIT: I would recommend Ryan review the above and what is on everyone else's OOB as they almost all say Counts against LAV limits in the Aux chart box for LAH. Exceptions: Feds because well they are the Feds. And for the ISC which is missing an entry for SAH/LAH.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, August 10, 2026 - 08:36 pm: Edit

I JUST NEEDED TO UPDATE THE TABLE TO KEEP THEM THE SAME. You can build the heavy fighter aux against either the carrier or PFT limits but the inservice limit falls under the carrier limit.

Leave text as is keeping all empires the same.

Ryan

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 - 03:50 pm: Edit

I have done everything. Check the above and see if you have questions. If you staff guys want another PDF let me know.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 - 07:16 pm: Edit

PROCESSED

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 - 09:08 pm: Edit

PROCESSED

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 01:14 am: Edit

PROCESSED

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 05:23 pm: Edit

PROCESSED

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, August 12, 2026 - 08:35 pm: Edit

PROCESSED

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 16, 2026 - 04:32 pm: Edit

PROCESSED, ALL DONE
MFR: E-mail copy of this report sent to ADB
THERE WAS LITTLE NEED FOR AN EMAIL COPY.

(712.5) Within this rule, suggest replacement of all instances of the generic JACV with F&E WYN JUV (R12.44A); suggest replacement of all instances of the generic JASC with F&E WYN JUB (R12.44B). These are located in the 'Summary By Year’ addition at: Y170; Y172; Y180; Y181. Include the units also listed within the Y180 and Y186 OOBs (Pre and Post Usurper War): 2xJASC and 2xJACV. Rationale: Historical accuracy. FEDS - 16 AUG 2026

(712.5) Suggest adding to Y175: HUC. While Y174 states 'Conversion of the Nancy begins.’ there is no specific year in service given in this rule. The MSC has Y175. Also suggest adding a HUC to the Y180 OOB. FEDS - 16 AUG 2026

(712.5) Y144: Suggested correction: from (146, 158, 169, 177) to (Y146, Y158, Y169, Y177). Rationale: Style consistency. FEDS - 16 AUG 2026

I COULD ARGUE THAT THIS ONE IS A TRIVIAL VARIATION AND NOT WORTH MY TIME, BUT WHAT THE HECK. (712.5) Suggest removal of all instances of “1x”. The style is inconsistent with current F&E style formatting; see the examples in the Y186 OOB where some single units are NOT list with “1x”. If using search and replace for ‘1x", be mindful that ‘11x’ could be changed inadvertently. FEDS - 16 AUG 2026

(634.21) WYN FORCES: Suggest removal of all instances of “1x”. The style is inconsistent with current F&E style formatting. If using search and replace for ‘1x", be mindful that ‘11x’ could be changed inadvertently. FEDS - 16 AUG 2026

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, August 17, 2026 - 10:41 am: Edit

PROCESSED
Per Chucks entry above: Cross verification against counter sheets printed; confirm JUV and JUB are consistent with WYN counters printed on 2021 Tactical Operations sheet TANGO. THANKS FOR THIS ONE

Over the weekend I also sent an email for two line items discussing the TOC format and missing items listed in the Table of Contents. RE-posting here to save SVC having to do it. I SHAKE MY HEAD AT HOW MUCH TIME YOU WASTED ON THIS FOOLISH CONSISTENCY THAT DOESN'T MATTER AND DELAYS OTHER PRODUCTS.

(115.2) TABLE OF CONTENTS: SVC Decision on formatting needed. The format of the table of contents for each rule book has been different. In the boxed set rules it is set up as the RULE HEADER....(x00.00) then the MAIN RULE....(xXX.00) or (xXX.0), then the SUB-RULES...(xXX.XX). In the subsequent modules the rule numbers precede the rule titles. This is a module so would follow this format. However in modules AO, FO, and ME. The number is in parentheses and has a single decimal space, no separator from the Title. The format of rule numbers are limited to MAIN TITLES meaning they are the 3 digit number decimal zero. As follows (XXX.0) TITLE.....Page#. In modules SO and PO this was followed with the added formatting of tabbing in the SUB-RULE, number still in parentheses but essentially the same format with a single decimal sub-rule number, example: (XXX.7) TITLE.....Page#. An alternate format exists in Combined Operations, ISC War, and TO where the MAIN RULE Number is presented first without parentheses and a single decimal, then dots used as a separator from the MAIN RULE TITLE, then the page number as follows. XXX.0....MAIN RULE TITLE....Page#. Civil Wars follows this format except there is an inconsistency with the rule numbering. The first three rules have a decimal following the pre-established format. The remaining 18 rules listed lack a decimal. Suggest if the format will follow the alternate format from CO that the decimals be added as follows. Note that SIT rule number entries do not have decimal zero after their number.
331.0 .............. Robot-Controlled Combat ................................... 5
332.0 .............. Barrier-Disabled Combat .................................... 7
506.0 .............. Off-Map Areas .................................................. 11
554.0 .............. WYN-Specific Rules ......................................... 13
555.0 .............. WYN Ship Types .............................................. 16
556.0 .............. WYN Capital Assault Rules .............................. 19
634.0 .............. Into the Whirlpool ............................................. 23
635.0 .............. Uneasy Lies the Head ...................................... 25
636.0 .............. Lyran Civil War ................................................. 29
637.0 .............. Ravaging Crosswinds: Romulan Civil War ....... 34
638.0 .............. Reignstorm: WYN War of Return ..................... 41
657.0 .............. Middle Years Scenario Rules ........................... 49
641.0 .............. Influence Points ................................................ 52
642.0 .............. Civil Wars Territorial Rules ................................ 54
643.0 .............. Civil Wars Asset Neutrality ............................... 57
644.0 .............. WYN in Other Scenarios .................................. 40
712.0 .............. WYN Order of Battle ......................................... 69
712 .............. WYN Ship Information Table ............................ 73
RATIONALE Format consistency. L Bergen 15 AUG 2026

(115.2) TABLE OF CONTENTS: Considerations to add these missing items to the Table of contents.
700.0 .............. Order of Battle Updates ................................ 59
704.IF ............. Romulan Imperial Faction Order of Battle ..... 61
704.R .............. Romulan Republic Faction Order of Battle ..... 63
705.P .............. Kzinti Crown Faction Order of Battle .......... 65
705.C .............. Kzinti Count Faction Order of Battle .......... 67
RATIONALE Missing. L Bergen 15 AUG 2026
NOT MISSING, DON'T NEED TO BE LISTED

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 17, 2026 - 11:52 am: Edit

PROCESSED

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 17, 2026 - 04:33 pm: Edit

ALL DONE.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 - 08:51 pm: Edit

Thanks for the updated version Steve I sent it along to the Staff not on the email as instructed.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 - 03:13 pm: Edit

One more thing, maybe add a shout out to SFB Staff Marc Cocherl for his contribution to the War of Return idea back in 1987 (as mentioned in Module C3 1993) or maybe that callout in C3 was enough? Either way here we are 39 years later.

WYN WAR OF RETURN: Staff Officer Marc Cocherl first proposed the WYN "fish" ships and the "War of Return" in 1987, but they had to wait until after Doomsday for publication. The ships are superb designs and have been popular in playtesting since they were first released. ...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Too late to add anything. Ask me in 2031 when we do the update. Or whoever is in charge then.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, August 19, 2026 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Will do.