By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, March 27, 2026 - 10:27 am: Edit

GHOST BOXES REMOVED
There are 4 'ghost boxes' that show up in various places. Likely a .pdf conversion error on a carriage return or some such. They are visible at these 4 locations.

(115.3) DESIGN CREDITS: After Chuck Strong, USAF there is a ghost box that needs removal from the early bird release copy. L Bergen 27 March 2026

(209.144) Pursuit: At the end of the line (not sentence) there is a ghost box that needs removal from the early bird release copy. L Bergen 27 March 2026

(636.26) In the blank line space between the end of rule (636.25) and this rule number, there is a ghost box that needs removal from the early bird release copy. L Bergen 27 March 2026

(638.132) At the end of the last sentence in the rule, there is a ghost box that needs removal from the early bird release copy. L Bergen 27 March 2026

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, March 27, 2026 - 11:14 am: Edit

REMOVED CONTRADICTION
(209.142) and (209.143) There is conflict between these two rules that requires resolution. I have highlighted the conflict below.

(209.142) Other Ships: Non-belligerent ships retreating into the Cluster are interned by the WYN. Ships hostile to the WYN retreating into the Cluster are automatically captured by the WYN (the tactical situation may justify doing this). Ships retreat out of the barrier normally, but would be barrier-disabled if they face combat in the hex they retreated into. See (332.2).
(209.143) Prohibited Units: Hostile units may not retreat into the Cluster.

Discussion: One of these conflicting statements needs to be removed. Hostile units being restricted from entering the Cluster could be a valid prohibition to avoid player meta-gaming abuse. (Even if there exists a history of an enemy retreating into the Cluster, although I do not know of one where the move was an act of desperation not intended attack.)

FEDS to review. L. Bergen 27 MARCH 2026

FEDS: Strike the text from (209.143) "Hostile units may not retreat into the Cluster."

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, March 27, 2026 - 12:34 pm: Edit

DUPLICATION REMOVED
(209.14) and (209.142) There is a duplicative statement in these rules and one seems unnecessary. I have highlighted the comparison below.

(209.14) RETREAT MOVEMENT: The barrier restricts retreat movement. 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).

(209.142) Other Ships: Non-belligerent ships retreating into the Cluster are interned by the WYN. Ships hostile to the WYN retreating into the Cluster are automatically captured by the WYN (the tactical situation may justify doing this). Ships retreat out of the barrier normally, but would be barrier-disabled if they face combat in the hex they retreated into. See (332.2).

Recommend keeping statement as written in (209.14) and removing statement from (209.142).

Rationale: During final staff editing the operational clarification was moved from the later paragraph into section header; increased clarity and scope. In the higher order section rule (209.14) the general statement now covers all ships that are able to retreat making the same rule within (209.142) unnecessary.

FEDS: CONCURS.

========

NOTED title change for (209.142): If the "Ships hostile to...." statement is also removed then recommend the title block be changed to reflect rule content: (209.142) Non-belligerents: L. Bergen 27 MARCH 2026

FEDS: CONCURS.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, March 27, 2026 - 04:44 pm: Edit

I HAVE IGNORED THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION OF MAPS BUT WILL CONSIDER CHANGES IF CHUCK WANTS THEM. GARY'S HOMEWORLD COMMENT AT THE END MIGHT DESERVE A MOMENT OF THOUGHT.

From the Civil Wars map pack:

Off-Map Maps file, page 1: My copy of the PDF file has the Kzinti Survey Area superimposed over a number of the coreward provinces on this map. Furthermore, there appear to be a number of partially-obscured artifacts (boxes with "A" and "B" in them respectively) along the top third of the map. - Gary Carney, 27 March 2026

Off-Map Maps file, page 3: There is a major "off-map" planet in hex 0001. However, as per the playtest "lost empire" Carnivon map printed on page 106 of Captain's Log #51, this region was part of the former Carnivon Remote Ranges - which, historically, were violently depopulated near the end of the Early Years time period. Given this, it is doubtful that even the noted Lyran capacity for population growth would be enough to bring a new colony world in the region up to major planet status in so relatively short a time. Thus, I would propose moving this major planet to a hex further away from the former Carnivon territories. (Perhaps to the same hex as the Far Stars capital starbase itself?) - Gary Carney, 27 March 2026

Off-Map Maps file, page 3: Historically, the Lyran Far Stars Duchy launched its campaign of conquest against the Peladine Republic in Y130. Given the state of development which Far Stars itself would have been at by this point in time, it would seem that the Peladine home system had to have been located somewhere within the space shown on this hex map. Thus, would it be possible to assign one of the hexes on this map as the location of the Peladine home world? (While the Peladine have yet to be previewed for F&E the way that the "lost empire" Carnivons and Paravians have been by this time of typing, it is something that might be possible at some point in the future.) - Gary Carney, 27 March 2026

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 28, 2026 - 01:46 am: Edit

PART OF THE DISCUSSION, NO ACTION TAKEN.
Gary:

I would suspect that actual finalized and published SFU material would supersede notional playtest material especially regarding placement on the F&E map, so I will differ this to ADB.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, March 29, 2026 - 11:25 am: Edit

PART OF THE DISCUSSION, NO ACTION TAKEN.
FEDS:

Understood, and thank you kindly.

-----

To provide a bit more historical context to the Peladine request for ADB to consider should they so wish, I wanted to refer to one of the major industrial planets currently on the Federation and Empire hex map: Cygnus (in hex 2306).

In F&E terms, this planet lies within the "Zone of Influence": the Federation border provinces which had once belonged to the Kzinti Hegemony, and which were (eventually) wrested from them after two Federation-Kzinti wars. If I recall correctly, there is a playtest scenario for the second such war somewhere, which might be worth revising in a future product someday.

My point here being that, whether it was as a Kzinti subject world or as a Federation member planet, Cygnus counts as a major industrial world in this game system - and as a key flashpoint between the Federation and the Kzintis in the decades prior to the General War.

Economically-speaking, the Ranel and Phelen - whom, unlike the Cygnans prior to the initial Kzinti conquest in Y48, had achieved "Middle Years" warp travel prior to their conquest by the Lyrans - would also qualify for this status, in that the heavy tribute exacted by the Lyrans would provide comparable benefits to the Far Stars Duke's EP balance sheet.

-----

So, to try and put a long story short: even were the Peladine never to appear in F&E as a "forgotten empire" faction, I might argue that one of the major off-map planets under Lyran control should, itself, be the Peladine home world - regardless of exactly which Far Stars province it ought to be located in.

Actually, how about this: if the major planet currently in hex 0001 was moved to 0Y03, perhaps it could then be re-designated as the Peladine home world? In so doing, this would place the Peladine under the direct control of the Far Stars Duke - and also, ensure that even on the "Carnivon Empire" hex map from CL51, the Lyrans would still "keep" the Ranel and Phelen as subject species, rather than lose them to the Carnivons instead.

Might this be an option for ADB to consider?

By Joshua I. Penick (Tricericon) on Tuesday, March 31, 2026 - 11:30 am: Edit

I CANNOT FIND MAPS IN MY FILES. I VAGUELY REMEMBER THAT CHUCK DID THE MAPS AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, HE NEEDS TO SEND ME A CORRECTED MAP. IF I DID THE MAPS I NEED TO BE TOLD TO GO FIND THEM.
Re: the Civil Wars Map Pack, in the EXPANDED LYRAN SPACE map, NIGHT ROAR is misspelled NIGHT NOAR.


FEDS: Noted. Will wait for other reports before sending update to ADB.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, April 04, 2026 - 07:22 pm: Edit

SEE BELOW
OK, what happen to (658.0)'Sudden Storm' and (660.0)'Eastern Sunrise' from Tactical Operations [(659.0) was noted as a scenario from Captain's Log #44] ?? What's getting renumbered??

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, April 04, 2026 - 07:28 pm: Edit

I WILL RENUMBER WHEN THE STAFF TELLS ME TO DO SO.
Stew,

Thanks.

We missed those.

We'll likely renumber stuff in CW.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, April 05, 2026 - 11:03 am: Edit

I WILL DO WHATEVER CHUCK WANTS BUT SO FAR I HAVE DONE NOTHING.
(637.0): When the Romulan Civil War was being previewed for Federation and Empire back in Captain's Log #50, an "ISC Reprisal" portion was offered in the CL50 Supplemental File, which (for anyone reading this post who has yet to see it) can be downloaded from Warehouse 23 here. However, it would appear that the "pre-final" version of the scenario in my PDF copy of Civil Wars does not include this section. Would it be possible to re-integrate this portion to the "final" version of the scenario, so as to more fully account for the intervention of the Echelon of Justice at Tibernia IV? If so, the numbering of the rules in this portion would need to be adjusted, so as not to clash with the (637.24) rules currently in the "pre-final" scenario.) - Gary Carney, 05 April 2026

-----

(638.256) Non-Interference: In (634.42), there is data referring to the historical ISC incursion into the WYN Cluster in Spring Y187. With this in mind, I wonder if it might be possible to adjust this rule, in order to more fully account for the historical role which the ISC played in hastening the end of the War of Return.

For example, how about this?

<HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT><P>(638.256) Non-Interference: Initially, the Usurper's War of Return was viewed as an internal Kzinti matter by the ISC. This began to change in late Y186, as the return of the Cluster Cartel's Crimelord to the "post-Usurper" WYN governing council led to an uptick in pirate activity in the region, and as the Concordium gained a more thorough understanding of the role which the Usurper, from his prior vantage point within the WYN Cluster, had played in triggering this latest round of conflict. Thus, the ISC launched an intrusion into the WYN Cluster in Spring Y187; see (634.42) for more details on this matter, Nonetheless, they abstained from enforcing their Pacification cordons in provinces 0701 and 0803 until this "domestic conflict" ended.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0>

<HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT><P>(638.75) ISC INTERVENTION: In Spring Y187, the ISC intervened in the War of Return by launching an incursion into the WYN Cluster; see the data in (634.42) in order to cover this incident. Historically-speaking, news of the ISC incursion caused the WYN-Orion ships in the Usurper's Order of Battle (638.422) to withdraw back to the Cluster; this in part led the Usurper to agree to a "duel" of space control ships in order to settle his dispute with the Crown Prince once and for all. As for the withdrawing WYN-Orion ships: they would arrive home mere days before the one spectacular Andromedan attempt to invade the Cluster - an event which might be covered in a future product.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0>

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, April 07, 2026 - 09:32 pm: Edit

SUMMARY OF FIXES MADE
I GOT FED UP WITH TRYING TO EDIT LONG POSTS AND JUST COPIED IT TO WORD.
+++++++
(554.223) If I'm reading this right, the three neighboring empires receive one EP on diplomatic income on Turn #1 (and the three WYN DIPs must start in their capitals for the first turn of WYN Trade/ship sales)?
-For the WYN, is this part of their 6 EP of trade in (712.31)??
FEDS: No.
WHAT DOES THE STAFF WANT DONE? I HAVE MADE NO CHANGES.
=========
FIXED (554.323) XRef (354.312) should be (554.312) [need for an external supply point outside the Cluster for salvage outside of Cluster]. SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: CONCURS.
DONE
======
(556.316) Xref (509.1U) shown without '-' here but with '-' in (556.411) '(509.1-U)'…
FEDS: go with 509.1-U.
FIXED
=======
(556.412) Missing '.' at end of sentence. SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: please correct.
FIXED
======
(634.21) Shows both an PBB and LDD in set-up when the latter is converted into the former (712.4)-Y180. SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: change to read "(either PBB or LDD)".}}
DONE
=====
(635.0) Does the 'MIST:" mean anything in the header?
FEDS: It's a weather event - no change needed.
SVC: MOST SCENARIOS ARE NAMED FOR WEATHER EVENTS. WE’RE RUNNING OUT OF WEATHER EVENTS.
=======
(636.433) Mislabeled, should be (636.44) with corrections in the next three sub-rules. SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: CONCURS.
DONE
===
(636.871) Ref should be in BOLD. SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: CONCURS.
DONE
======
(638.73) Ref should be (638.71) with corrections to the next two rules. SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: CONCURS.
DONE
=====
(701.115) While this fits, it doesn't mesh with current system [being redone?]
-SAP delete late sentence due to (549.23)/(526.442). SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: CONCURS.
DONE
=====
(712.115) AuxPods do not match (712.11). SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: go with the specific text in 712.11.}}
DONE
===
(714.115) AuxPods do not match (714.1). SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: go with the specific text in (714.1).
DONE
====
(715.115) Mislabeled, should be (717.115) [715 = Seltorians], AuxPods do not match (717.1). SWFrazier 260407
FEDS: go with 717.1.}}
DONE, SEE REPOST BELOW.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, April 16, 2026 - 12:51 pm: Edit

SEE REPOSTED FILE BELOW FOR CORRECTIONS MADE

STAFF SEND NOTE YOU WANT ADDED(554.223) If I'm reading this right, the three neighboring empires receive one EP on diplomatic income on Turn #1 (and the three WYN DIPs must start in their capitals for the first turn of WYN Trade/ship sales)?
Staff Review: Confirmed, yes this is true. The WYN can pre-place their DIP's and earn money right away 1 EP for themselves and the trade partners per rule (554.223). Note should probably be added that this rule is active during a General War and other scenarios involving the WYN section of space if all players agree the WYN hex is on the table for the taking. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

STAFF: SEND NOTE YOU WANT ADDED.-For the WYN, is this part of their 6 EP of trade in (712.31)??
Staff Review: No the DIP income in (554.223) is independent per the rule (554.115) which describes in the second paragraph where the income originates. A note should be added in (554.115) to delineate the difference. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

APPARENTLY FIXED EARLIER (554.323) XRef (354.312) should be (554.312) [need for an external supply point outside the Cluster for salvage outside of Cluster]. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed needs fixing. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

HOW FAR I GOT ON TUESDAY, MORE FIXES TOMORROW.

(556.316) Xref (509.1U) shown without '-' here but with '-' in (556.411) '(509.1-U)'…
Staff Review: Confirmed needs to be consistent. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(556.412) Missing '.' at end of sentence. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed needs fixing. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(634.21) Shows both an PBB and LDD in set-up when the latter is converted into the former (712.4)-Y180. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed in the history. Entry should be changed to: "1xPBB (Y180+) or 1xLDD," - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(635.0) Does the 'MIST:" mean anything in the header?
Staff Review: Its just part of the name of the scenario aligned with weather events but also preserves Pete's contribution. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(636.433) Mislabeled, should be (636.44) with corrections in the next three sub-rules. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed main rule (636.433) should be (636.44); sub-rule (636.431) s/b (636.441); sub-rule (636.432) s/b (636.442); sub-rule (636.433) s/b (636.443); - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(636.871) Ref should be in BOLD. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed needs bold. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(638.73) Ref should be (638.71) with corrections to the next two rules. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed: please renumber (638.73) to the corrected (638.71), renumber (638.74) to the corrected (638.72), renumber (638.75) to the corrected (638.73) - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(701.115) While this fits, it doesn't mesh with current system [being redone?]
-SAP delete late sentence due to (549.23)/(526.442). SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed and suggest removal of last portion of sentence which states, "...or to send independent flotillas into battle." This is a violation of rules (549.23, 524.442 and 319.13). - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(712.115) AuxPods do not match (712.11). SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: AuxPod rules were more clearly defined and updated in Civil Wars, the listed number of WYN AuxPods in (712.1) reflects their wartime schedule allotment. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(714.115) AuxPods do not match (714.1). SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: AuxPod rules were more clearly defined and updated in Civil Wars, the listed number of LDR AuxPods in (714.1) reflects their wartime schedule allotment. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(715.115) VUDAR: is mislabeled, should be (717.115) VUDAR: [715 is the Seltorians], AuxPods do not match (717.1). SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Mis-labeling confirmed s/b (717.115) VUDAR:; Comments: AuxPod rules were more clearly defined and updated in Civil Wars, the listed number of VUDAR AuxPods in (717.1) reflects their wartime schedule allotment. Also per "(717.1) Aux pods do not carry over if unused; they are lost. The various auxiliary ships are defined on the SIT as to how many AuxPods each one requires." this still applies and is confirmed within the new Civil War updated rule (549.1213). - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

(715.115) SELTORIANS: Add this missing rule. (715.115) SELTORIANS: May not produce Auxiliaries (nor do they have an AuxPod slot allotment) and can only be gifted or purchase Auxiliaries from other empires per rule (715.22). - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, April 16, 2026 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Additional Line items:

FEDS: CONCURS with all of the following.

(549.12) PRODUCTION OF NEW SHIPS:; Reorder of rule as follows; During peacetime or limited war status empires may produce auxiliaries in addition to their normal build schedule. During wartime (full war) this production increases. See empire specific OOB for additional limits and restrictions.
Rationale: This brings the rule into alignment with wartime status clearly stating the difference between full war and limited war. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026 SVC DID THIS
====
(549.121) Replace last line in parenthesis; (You do not actually buy “aux pods” but you use “aux pod slots” to build auxiliaries of any kind.), can remove the parentheses and replace with: Players do not actually buy “aux pods”, rather they are allotted a number of “aux pod slots” to allowing them produce (pay for) various auxiliaries within specified type limits, see (549.122) and the specific OOB. Rationale: Restructured for definition and process clarity. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
MANY TYPOS IN LAR TEXT. SVC CORRECTED THEM AS FOLLOWS: (549.121) (Updated): Each empire has a number of “Aux Pod Production Slots” which can be used to produce auxiliary ships. Players do not actually “buy aux pods.” Rather, they are allotted a number of “aux pod slots” to allow them to produce (pay for) various auxiliaries within specified type limits, see (549.122) and the specific OOB.
=======
(555.45) SPECIAL CASE: change title block to (555.45) JINDARIAN CL: Rationale: This makes the rule title specific and easily searchable. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
SVC DID THIS
=====
(712.115) WYN CLUSTER (JCL entry)
JCL: Last line place holder stating "It has special rules." should be replaced with specific rule cross reference "See rule (555.45)." - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
SVC DID THIS
====
PAGE 70: (712.24) Espionage & Sabotage; The last word on the page "...turn." runs into the next line and overlaps the formatting line above the footer. Confirmed on copies purchased from two different digital vendors. - L. Bergen & R. Opel 15 APR 2026
SVC FIXED THIS
===
(712.32) CAPITAL SYSTEMS: The dashed line created by keystroke entries separating the "Klingon" side systems and "Remote" systems has a , ) in the line where dashes should be. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
SVC FIXED THIS
=====
PAGE 71: END OF (712.0) - this "END OF" block and graphic should be removed as it is not the end of the rule. - R. Opel 15 APR 2026
IT USED TO BE. SVC FIXED THIS.
=====
PAGE 72: (712.4) is a duplicate number of the same found on page 71. Recommend this changed to be (712.5). - R. Opel 15 APR 2026
SVC FIXED THIS

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, April 19, 2026 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Rule (332.41) should be renumbered and moved immediately after (332.12). It reads like a definition and falls logically right after the statement that there are "severe degradations". (332.41) specifies those degradations.
John Christiansen 04/19/26


FEDS: I think we're okay as is.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 08:45 pm: Edit

(209.16) STRATEGIC MOVEMENT: While the WYN rarely used strategic movement, these rules apply to scenarios, campaigns, or expeditions. Add Xref as follows: See (554.211) or the WYN OOB for Strategic limits. Rationale: Missing Xref L. Bergen 14 MAY 2026
FEDS: CONCURS.
SVC ADDED THIS

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, July 21, 2026 - 08:36 pm: Edit

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 22, 2026 - 06:24 am: Edit

.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 28, 2026 - 05:17 pm: Edit

I GOT CONFUSED HERE SO THIS IS WHERE THE FILE STANDS. LET ME KNOW IF MORE FIXES ARE NEEDED.
======

(707.115) THOLIAN HOLDFAST
Aux Pods: one per turn in peace or war.

(708.115) ORION PIRATES
BRS: A scout conversion of a battle raider.
DWX: An X-technology conversion of a war destroyer.
Aux Pods: None.

(709.115) HYDRAN KINGDOM
Aux Pods: One per turn in peace; two per turn during war.

(710.115) ANDROMEDAN INVADERS
Aux Pods: None.

(711.115) LYRAN EMPIRE
Aux Pods: One per turn in peace; two per turn during war.

(712.115) WYN CLUSTER
Aux Pods: See (712.11).
FPL: Converted from a captured Federation police cutter.
LPL: Converted from a Lyran police cutter.
ZFF: Converted from a Kzinti frigate.
CWPX: A gunboat tender variant of a CW.
Already in TacOps or CivWars: ZDW, OLR, KG2,
SFF: Converted Seltorian frigate, a gift from the Klingons.
SDD: Converted Seltorian destroyer, a gift from the Klingons.
JCL: Converted from an old Jindarian CL found abandoned centuries earlier in the Cluster. A formidable warship, it cannot leave the Capital Core Prefecture. It has special rules.
CWS: A war cruiser with special sensors in the option mounts.
CWSX: An X-technology war cruiser with special sensors in the option mounts.

(713.115) ISC
They got a few of the cheaper bases that lack fighters.
Aux Pods: Two per turn in peace; four per turn during war.

(714.115) LDR
Aux Pods: See (714.1).

(715.117) VUDAR
Aux Pods: See (711.1).

END OF (700.115) UPDATES

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 28, 2026 - 05:22 pm: Edit

SEE ABOVE, STAFF HAS SOME THINGS TO DO BEFORE I CAN FINISH THIS.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, July 28, 2026 - 09:29 pm: Edit

STAFF SEND NOTE YOU WANT ADDED (554.223) Nothing needs to be added here but the point about "what could happen if the WYN hex was added to a scenario?" is a good question we have not answered directly. We don't have that as an optional rule in Civil Wars for including the WYN in other scenarios. We did discuss it very high level in Amarillo but were focused on the included scenarios. As you imagined the rules to do this would be short (1/4 to 1/2 of a page?) and be more about restrictions so not to unbalance the game. I can look for the notes if you like. L. Bergen 28 JULY 2026
NO ACTION TAKEN, NOT LEAST BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ADDED, GET IT TO ME BY MONDAY WITH AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT IT IS AND WHY YOU WANT IT.

STAFF: SEND NOTE YOU WANT ADDED.-For the WYN, is this part of their 6 EP of trade in (712.31)??
Nothing is needed to be added to this rule. Stew was just questioning how it works as we do not currently allow DIPs to be pre-deployed. The design of this rule made a deployment allowance for the WYN so their small economy could benefit. The staff discussed it and the rule is fine the way it is written. There is a note with the second paragraph that points to the separate rule (449.0) WYN Trade. L. Bergen 28 JULY 2026
NO ACTION TAKEN

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 04:00 pm: Edit

SVC REPLIES EDITED INTO TEXT.
======
(554.223) If I'm reading this right, the three neighboring empires receive one EP on diplomatic income on Turn #1 (and the three WYN DIPs must start in their capitals for the first turn of WYN Trade/ship sales)?
Staff Review: Confirmed, yes this is true. The WYN can pre-place their DIP's and earn money right away 1 EP for themselves and the trade partners per rule (554.223). Note should probably be added that this rule is active during a General War and other scenarios involving the WYN section of space if all players agree the WYN hex is on the table for the taking. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
STAFF SEND NOTE YOU WANT ADDED
==========
For the WYN, is this part of their 6 EP of trade in (712.31)??
Staff Review: No the DIP income in (554.223) is independent per the rule (554.115) which describes in the second paragraph where the income originates. A note should be added in (554.115) to delineate the difference. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
STAFF SEND NOTE YOU WANT ADDED
============
(554.323) XRef (354.312) should be (554.312) [need for an external supply point outside the Cluster for salvage outside of Cluster]. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed needs fixing. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
APPARENTLY FIXED EARLIER
===============
(556.316) Xref (509.1U) shown without '-' here but with '-' in (556.411) '(509.1-U)'…
Staff Review: Confirmed needs to be consistent. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(556.412) Missing '.' at end of sentence. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed needs fixing. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(634.21) Shows both an PBB and LDD in set-up when the latter is converted into the former (712.4)-Y180. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed in the history. Entry should be changed to: "1xPBB (Y180+) or 1xLDD," - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(635.0) Does the 'MIST:" mean anything in the header?
Staff Review: Its just part of the name of the scenario aligned with weather events but also preserves Pete's contribution. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(636.433) Mislabeled, should be (636.44) with corrections in the next three sub-rules. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed main rule (636.433) should be (636.44); sub-rule (636.431) s/b (636.441); sub-rule (636.432) s/b (636.442); sub-rule (636.433) s/b (636.443); - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(636.871) Ref should be in BOLD. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed needs bold. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(638.73) Ref should be (638.71) with corrections to the next two rules. SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed: please renumber (638.73) to the corrected (638.71), renumber (638.74) to the corrected (638.72), renumber (638.75) to the corrected (638.73) - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===

(701.115) While this fits, it doesn't mesh with current system [being redone?]
-SAP delete late sentence due to (549.23)/(526.442). SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Confirmed and suggest removal of last portion of sentence which states, "...or to send independent flotillas into battle." This is a violation of rules (549.23, 524.442 and 319.13). - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(712.115) AuxPods do not match (712.11). SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: AuxPod rules were more clearly defined and updated in Civil Wars, the listed number of WYN AuxPods in (712.1) reflects their wartime schedule allotment. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(714.115) AuxPods do not match (714.1). SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: AuxPod rules were more clearly defined and updated in Civil Wars, the listed number of LDR AuxPods in (714.1) reflects their wartime schedule allotment. - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(715.115) VUDAR: is mislabeled, should be (717.115) VUDAR: [715 is the Seltorians], AuxPods do not match (717.1). SWFrazier 260407
Staff Review: Mis-labeling confirmed s/b (717.115) VUDAR:; Comments: AuxPod rules were more clearly defined and updated in Civil Wars, the listed number of VUDAR AuxPods in (717.1) reflects their wartime schedule allotment. Also per "(717.1) Aux pods do not carry over if unused; they are lost. The various auxiliary ships are defined on the SIT as to how many AuxPods each one requires." this still applies and is confirmed within the new Civil War updated rule (549.1213). - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
DUPLICATED REPORT, FIXED TUESDAY
===
(715.115) SELTORIANS: Add this missing rule. (715.115) SELTORIANS: May not produce Auxiliaries (nor do they have an AuxPod slot allotment) and can only be gifted or purchase Auxiliaries from other empires per rule (715.22). - L. Bergen 15 APR 2026
====
new text in book as of 29 july 2026
- - - - - -
(713.115) ISC
They got a few of the cheaper bases that lack fighters.
Aux Pods: Two per turn in peace; four per turn during war.

(714.115) LDR
Aux Pods: See (714.1).

(715.115) SELTORIANS: May not produce Auxiliaries (nor do they have an AuxPod slot allotment) and can only be gifted or purchase Auxiliaries from other empires per rule (715.22).

(716.115) VUDAR
Aux Pods: See (711.1).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 04:22 pm: Edit

ATTN STAFF; i have done all I can. If you want anything else done, get it to me by Monday in complete form or forever hold your peace.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 04:52 pm: Edit

CHUCK: Please, if there are civil wars map updates, send them to Albert by Monday.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 - 08:40 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

STAFF SEND NOTE YOU WANT ADDED (554.223) Nothing needs to be added here but the point about "what could happen if the WYN hex was added to a scenario?" is a good question we have not answered directly. We don't have that as an optional rule in Civil Wars for including the WYN in other scenarios. We did discuss it very high level in Amarillo but were focused on the included scenarios. As you imagined the rules to do this would be short (1/4 to 1/2 of a page?) and be more about restrictions so not to unbalance the game. I can look for the notes if you like. L. Bergen 28 JULY 2026
NO ACTION TAKEN, NOT LEAST BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ADDED, GET IT TO ME BY MONDAY WITH AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT IT IS AND WHY YOU WANT IT.

---