F&E WARBOOK

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E PRODUCTS: F&E Future Products (Near Term): F&E WARBOOK
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
Warbook Update Combined Operations (CO)  113   05/17 09:07pm
Warbook Update Fighter Operations (FO)  789   03/13 07:04pm
Warbook Update Advanced Operations (AO)  68   06/08 02:38pm
Warbook Update Planetary Operations (PO)  28   07/16 07:13pm
Warbook Update Strategic Operations (SO)  21   06/29 08:58am
Archive through February 15, 2006  25   02/16 04:59am
Archive through March 19, 2006  25   03/19 11:36pm
Archive through March 21, 2006  25   03/21 11:47am
Archive through March 24, 2006  25   03/24 09:49am
Archive through May 12, 2006  25   05/13 10:57am
Archive through May 14, 2006  25   05/14 01:45pm
Archive through May 16, 2006  25   05/16 06:43pm
Archive through May 19, 2006  25   05/19 12:56am
Archive through May 21, 2006  25   05/22 03:13pm
Archive through August 17, 2006  25   08/18 02:22pm
Archive through December 01, 2006  25   12/18 05:01pm
Archive through December 31, 2007  25   01/01 11:55am
Archive through January 11, 2008  25   01/12 06:12pm
Archive through January 28, 2008  25   02/01 06:45pm
Archive through February 06, 2009  25   02/08 11:15pm
Archive through August 06, 2009  25   08/24 04:35pm
Archive through October 17, 2009  25   11/15 10:35pm
Archive through June 27, 2011  25   06/28 03:27pm
Archive through November 08, 2011  25   09/17 11:01am

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - 01:32 pm: Edit

(606.22) Kzinti retreat from 0703 to 0704 '...the only hex that satisfies the requirements of (302.73).' 0704 is in error and should be 0702 - supply from 0902 (SB) and 0801 (CVL). SWFrazier - 111109

0704, though in supply at the time of the evaluation, is also a battlehex that the Kzinti would have to win to supply 0704, plus the Lyrans could retreat to 0704 and fight the CVE/BC (as a fighting retreat) after destroying the base...

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 09, 2011 - 03:19 pm: Edit

In evaluating 606.22 I cannot see how its legal for the Kzinti to retreat to 702. 702 while in supply is a longer supply route than a retreat to 704. 704 at the time of the evaluation is adjacent to supply (803 is still a pending battlehex) while 702 traces supply 801 then 902 so the Kzinti MUST retreat to 704.

Indeed the Lyrans could FR over top of the forces at 704 but thems the breaks, and hopefully at 0 - 10 the Kzinti CVE will have enough fighters to suck up the damage without much harm.

704 is not a battlehex at the time of retreat decision that I can see as the scenario rules and setup do not call for any ships to be in that hex for either side.

So unless there is errata to this scenario I am missing, or I just missed something I have to say Stewart is incorrect and that the scenario is correct as written and the Kzinti retreat to 704.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, September 16, 2012 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Imported from Q&A regarding 601.12

By Dave Butler:


Quote:

There are two flaws with that. First, you're arguing the case for the construction with the comma after the "so" which would open the whole hex to attack. The rule, however, has the comma before the "so", which turns the first clause into an explanation for the second, but tells us nothing about the third.
Because hex 1805 is part of the Duke's Fleet, the BATS in that hex may be upgraded. A Coalition attack on that BATS while it has not been upgraded will not activate the Federation.
(The position of the comma changes the meaning of "while" from "whereas/although" -- which is the meaning you want -- to "during the time that" -- which is what the rule actually says.)

Secondly, you're omitting the wider context which is not "the Marquis deployment area", but rather "the two provinces adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone". In this context, fleet deployment areas are irrelevant (do the rules as written not permit the "CC + 5 ships" to move to 1805?), so you can't read anything about the deployment areas into the wider context. Well, not legitimately.




Dave, your argument isn't right and my interpretation is not flawed. First, the position of the comma in this case is not dispositive of the clear intent of a "therefore" statement. While the comma would work better to establish a dependent clause after the "so", and I believe would reflect better style, the meaning of the sentence would not change. In other words "Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while that BATS in that hex can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation" has precisely the same meaning as "Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet so, while that BATS in that hex can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation." ***

The question is stylistic only and has no impact on meaning. However, given the independent clause that comes afterward, a more proper re-write of the sentence would use a semicolon:
"Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet; so, while that BATS in that hex can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation."

Second, I'm not ignoring the wider context, but I would submit that you are arguing the language of the rule without considering its history. Use of the artifact "two provinces" is precisely the source of confusion between the original and the change made in AO. The original language referred to the "two provinces" and was straightforward. Then, instead of re-writing the whole rule, they just added the idea of the Duke's deployment area. F&E 2010 then added the last sentence in order to "clarify" the meaning that the Duke's additional deployment area was effectively carved out from the two provinces with respect to the release conditions of Marquis and the Federation 4th fleet.

If anything, the wider context - including the rule history - shows a clear intent to carve out at least hex 1805 from the release triggers for Marquis and 4th Fleet.

So, both from plain rule meaning and from its wider context, the conclusion is about as clear as day that any Coalition impingement on hex 1805, or even its occupation, does not trigger the release conditions of Marquis and 4th Fleet. Arguments to the contrary rely on reading prior sentences that 1) constitute general statements overridden by the specific last sentence of the rule and 2) clearly are artifacts from prior rule versions.

This conclusion (attacking and/or occupying 1805 doesn't trigger the release conditions) also seems to me to be the same as that of substantial majority of the BBS community on this issue - but I don't want to be accused of putting words in people's mouth so I apologize in advance if anyone takes offense.

So, the solution is to completely re-write this rule so that it accomplishes what it is meant to accomplish without any possibly confusing artifacts from prior rule versions.

Perhaps my proposal needs tweaking, dunno. I'll address that next.


*** Suggest that Jean weigh in on this issue. As she is a grammar expert I would appreciate her opinion on whether these sentences have equivalent meaning.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 10:54 am: Edit

Ok, so here is my suggestion on this front--we should all not worry about parsing the verbiage and punctuation of the existing rule, and instead decide on:

A) What the rule is *supposed* to be doing.

and

B) How to word the rule so it does that.

I realize that a lot of people think they know exactly what the rule is supposed to say and that it says that and whatever. But clearly, the existence of this discussion indicates that, at least on some level, there is ambiguity. So let's just accept that as the case, and move on.

So:

A) What is the rule supposed to be doing?

Up until 2003, the Marquis Zone was those two provinces adjacent to the Federation neutral zone. If the Coalition entered any hex of either of those two provinces, the Fed were activated. Very cut and dry. The Duke's fleet deployment area (post the 2K printing) did not include any of the Marquis Zone areas. Those two provinces, and BATS 1805, were inviolable. This was changed in AO and that change was ported into 2K10. The change seems to want to say that BATS 1805 is *not* part of the Marquis Zone, and if the Coalition attacks it (or enters hex 1805 and possibly 1705 as well), it will not activate the Feds. Ok. Is this something that is needed? The BATS is mostly irrelevant, but for my money, that the Kzinti lose that extra EP for a contested province for those 5 turns is significant. Which perhaps is an intended effect of this implementation ('cause, as we well know, the Kzinti have *way* too much money early in the game...). As Ted pointed out, it is possible that 1805 is a problem if the Kzinti can base Raids from there, so BATS 1805 needs to die on T2 to prevent forward Raiding. Which might be the case, but as there aren't Raids in the basic rules, it seems wonky to have a rule that punishes the Kzinti in the basic rules for something that they can only take advantage of in the advanced rules.

But in any case, if the intention is that the Coalition can freely enter hexes 1705 and 1805 and can freely destroy BATS 1805 and can freely occupy hexes 1705 and 1805 for whatever reason, then let's make sure that the rules say this unambiguously.

B) How to word the rule so it does that.

I'm not a brilliant technical writer. But someone should come up with some new wording for (601.12) so that it clearly, unambiguously states:

1) What the Marquis Zone is (i.e. define the term as a specific area, including hexes).

2) What hexes and bases are *not* part of the Marquis Zone.

and

3) What happens when the Coalition enters the now defined Marquis Zone and what happens when the Coalition enters hexes that are not in the Marquis Zone (but probably used to be, and are in those provinces but not part of the Marquis Zone).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 11:01 am: Edit

Peter, I have a new proposed rule langauge in the Warbook->AO 600 rules thread. Go look there, as it's different than my first proposal. Dave Butler pointed out several problems with the first proposal.

Anyway, my new posted proposal in that thread answers all of your questions (I think).

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 11:41 am: Edit

What thread is that in? I thought this was the right thread. Yargh.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 11:51 am: Edit

Ah, ok, found it:

Federation & Empire: F&E Future Products: F&E WARBOOK: Warbook Update Advanced Operations (AO) : AO - Section 600 Reports Scenarios

Is the intention that this wording change *only* affect Advanced Operations, or will it pertain to the game (and basic set rules) as a whole?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Peter - I don't know the answer to your last question. I truly have no idea what SVC's intent was.

By Michael Tisdel (Jtisdel) on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Peter, I would assume the wording change would be to the game as a whole instead of just AO. The converse, it being only applied to AO, would cause much the same confusion that lead to this discussion.

Making the rule part of the Basic Game means that the causi belli are the same no matter which set of rules are used.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 01:12 pm: Edit

Well, my question about "AO or Not AO" is basically addressing Michael's comment--I figure it should be the same in both the basic rules and AO. And if that is the case, why is it being discussed in the specific AO sub-sub thread?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 01:14 pm: Edit

I'm reposting Ted's suggested wording for the new rule here, and suggesting that it be the wording in all rules sets of the game (i.e. the basic rules as well as AO and all subsequent scenario chunks):

Proposed re-wording for rule 601.12 to remove apparent confusion caused by history of rules changes from F&E2K to AO to F&E2010 (Draft 3):

"The "Marquis Zone" consists of province 1802 (hexes 1801, 1802, 1901, 1902, and 2001) plus hexes 1704, 1803, and 1804. If any Coalition unit enters the Marquis Zone prior to Turn #7, then all of the following occurs: 1) The Marquis fleet is fully released; 2) The Federation 4th fleet is released immediately and may operate in Kzinti territory; and 3) the Federation goes to limited war to support the Kzinti. For purposes of this rule, any Orion mercenary in the employ of the Coalition counts as a Coalition unit. Hexes 1705 and 1805 (and BATS 1805) are part of the Duke's deployment area and are not subject to this restriction. Therefore, for example, the Coalition may enter and occupy Hexes 1705 and 1805, and attack or destroy BATS 1805, prior to Turn #7 without triggering any of the above events."

Ted Fay 17 September 2012.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 11:37 am: Edit

Actually, 1804 is also part of the Duke's Fleet area. See (705.0).

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, January 03, 2013 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Are these all the products that would be included in the Warbook update:
Combined Operations (CO)
Fighter Operations (FO)
Advanced Operations (AO)
Planetary Operations (PO)
Strategic Operations (SO)

All the older rulebooks would be concidered superceded correct?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 10:51 am: Edit

Ken, I believe the plan is, at a minimum, to get the already published products upto date in the 2010 standard. This is truly needed for the Warbook to be effective. Also ISC War should be included. I beleive that Civil Wars, in whatever form it becomes published in, as well as Andro War will be a part of it.

Note: this is my opinion as a fellow player only. Only SVC knows for sure. :)

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Thanks Turtle,

I was cleaning up books and I wanted to put away all the old books that have been superceded. Making sure I use the current books which should be 2012, CO, FO, AO, PO, SO and ISC War correct?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Yes, that's correct. I have mine in a 3in 3 ring binder in sheet protectors. When I replaced the 2K rulebook with the 2010 rulebook I had to add a bunch of additional sheet protectors to hold it. I don't mind though. I do want the warbook for better continunity of rules and such

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 04, 2013 - 06:22 pm: Edit

***MARKER***MARKER***MARKER***

Ryan:
Please consolidate and sort all the reports and Q&A from this topic above this marker. Please assign a leading rule reference number to the Q&A items as to allow us to sort them.

Format:
(XYZ.123) Question....followed by the answer.

F&E Staff:
Stand-by for a WARBOOK PLANNING ORDER

Intent -- Once Ryan assigns and sorts the Q&A and other reports by product, we will review and address the items not already answered. We will then post each item in the relevant CO/FO/AO/SO/PO module topic (see above). I will then ask ADB to review our recommendations. The idea here is that once all issues for a given module are addressed and resolved, that gives ADB the option to publish and release an update to that given module at their convenience.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 08:45 pm: Edit

I had asked a question on the Q&A form about what "early variants" meant. FEDS said it was in reference to the 433.31 optional rule.

I think that rule should be listed beside "No Early Variants (433.31)" to clarify th reasoning, or better yet, since 433.31 is an *optional* rule, simply list all the ships it applies to within that paragraph.

I went through all the SITs, and the following have "no early variants" in the SITs:
Federation DNG, DNH, DNL, CVB, NHA, NHV, NAC, NPF, NVA, NVH, NVS and Gorn CV and HV.

The Lyran Maulers do not have this note n any SITs, even though 433.31 does mention it. So the SITs I guess would need updated if the block in the book is not.

Also, (431.37) Accelerated Production needs a bullet stating "Accelerated production cannot produce a ship that has not yet achieved its YIS date." or some such in order to make it more clear.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 - 11:21 pm: Edit

FEDS RECOMMENDATION FOR ADB & F&E STAFF: [041321]

Propose adding:
(431.745) Free Fighter Factors can only be used for production within the main supply grid that contains the primary shipyard for that empire.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password:

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation