Archive through March 29, 2008
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Ships:
R11: LYRAN PROPOSALS:
FOLDER: OLD LYRAN IDEAS:
Lyran BCH:
Archive through March 29, 2008
I just finished reading the Lyran conversation in the Andro Tactics thread. The off-topic was with regard to S8 forcing Lyrans to field PFs on their BCH and DN. Many players were unhappy with this ruling and demanded a rule change to S8, which was of course denied. There is however a less disruptive solution that was overlooked: Print a new SSD.
Take the Lyran BCH (and any other Lyran that you feel unjustly falls into the S8 required PF trap) and remove the components that make it a PFT.
Personally I'd make it a unique ship so as not to distort the history over much, but there may be reasons I haven't thought of for why such a class deserves a larger deployment.
Am I to understand there is a ruling that requires any Lyran warship that qualifies as a PFT to carry a full flotilla under S8? That could very well change some opinions about Lyran fleet compesition.
Quote:(S8.34) PF TENDERS ... PFTs cannot be used without at least four PFs. ... The Lyran DN and BCH and Romulan ROC are "PFTs without special sensors" ...
It's not a "ruling". It's a rule that's been there and applies to all races, not just the Lyrans.
Quote:Print a new SSD.
Take the Lyran BCH (and any other Lyran that you feel unjustly falls into the S8 required PF trap) and remove the components that make it a PFT.
The only Lyran ship that "unjustly falls" into this group is the BCH. ONE ship that isn't available until Y180, which is 2 years after Lyran PFs are available. (Don't count the Lyran DN since you can always say any specific one never received the refit to make it a PFT.)
There already is a SSD. It's the "Wildcat" BC. It's still carries casual PFs, isn't restricted as a "Heavy Ship" (S8.333), is available in Y168, and has only 2 less APR and 2 less Battery.
For this minor difference, I don't see what all the complaining is about.
Lyran complaint:
"My BCH has to have PFs, which are a core of my Y178+ strategic doctrine."
Other races complaint:
"The Lyrans functionally get their BCH in Y168 as the "Wildcat" BC". And it doesn't even count under the "Heavy Ship" restriction.
"The Lyrans get to convert their Light Cruisers into Battle Cruisers/Heavy Battle Cruisers in addition to what they directly build, vastly outstripping other races ability to field these heavy ships."
"The Lyran BC has a Command Rating of 10 in only Y168. Everyone else has to use a dreadnaught or battletug, which are in much shorter supply."
"As the BC, the Lyrans can avoid the PFT restriction even though it still carries 6 combat PFs and full REPAIR capability. No other "casual" PFT has this many MechLinks or REPAIR capability."
"The Lyrans can bring more PFs to a fleet battle without using a command slot on a less combat effective PFT by using their BCH and DN hulls.
Yeah, I can tell who is getting the short end of the stick in this deal.
[slightly edited to expand a point]
There are many players who:
1) failed to understand the impact of (S8.34) on the Lyran BCH
2) now thanks to Gary understand it and are unhappy
I'll also add that the Lyran DN SSD states:
"Before Y178 -6 No Mech Links"
This sounds about as optional as a Y175 refit, which is to say it is not. Even given the 5-year (S8.132) exception eventually the Lyran DN will get swept up in the same net.
I'm not taking the position that something needs to be fixed. I am merely proposing that the publication of 1 or 2 SSD and a note that these unique/limited units never received the PF upgrade due to technobabble* would make a certain segment of players happy without needing to make a rules change.
* these ships were fitted with mech-links for the conjectural trimaran PFs that were supposed to replace the catamaran PFs, but the trumaran PFs concept was found to be fatally flawed and eventually shelved. These units were never converted back to support standard PFs because studies had shown by this point that PF production was unable to meet existing demands.
Good point on the (S8.132) rule requiring refits 5 years after their introduction. That would make PFs mandatory on the Lyran DN after Y183.
Still not sure that it just isn't "racial flavor" and having to deal with it, like many races that have "sweet spots" and "sour spots" of certain ships.
Growler/ SPP:
Given the above discussion about P noted "true PFTs."
Is there an exception for the "lite pfts?" I am NOT suggesting that the S8 part about true PFTs be rewritten, but AM asking about its applicability...
1.) The SSDs is NOT going to be changed.
2.) As was stated in my very first reply the rules under (S8.0) are already subject to modification if the players agree (see the third paragraph of the introduction to the rule).
3.) If someone can state a case wherein they have been (I say again: they HAVE been) subject to being forced by their opponent to take the PFs, i.e., their opponent absolutely refused to let them use a PFT without the required PFs in order to keep them from using the ship then a case can be made that MAYBE something is wrong.
4.) For now, the rule reflects the Lyrans and their PF deployment. But as stated (as stated in my first reply to this question when I said that was what the rule said, and noted the following) the players can mutually agree to not use any of the rules in the section if they want. That would include agreeing that each player was going to build his battleforce entirely of PF tenders with scout sensors but no PFs or anything else they wanted.
So, I will be clear:
A.) The rules is not going to be changed because there is no valid reason to change it.
B.) The SSD is not going to be changed.
SPP/ Growler
My question is in reference to the DW based "lite pfts" from the last R module.
MOST of them have a nominal capacity of only 3 PFs on links with a fourth "internally" docked IIRC.
So THESE pfts have to ALWAYS have their full compliment?
Michael C. Grafton:
As the rule is now written they would have to have at least three PFs (their full normal complement) because they are PFTs but more than three PFs is more than their normal deployment.
Hopefully when it comes time to do a revised (S8.0) there will be a line item reminding us of the ships and getting us to put in a change specifically covering them, and covering a chickenhawk operating independently.
I have added such a note to my file.
Just how many Lyran Players have been forced to take PFs to use a Lyran DN or BCH in the last nine years?
How many non-Lyran players have felt it necessary to demand that the Lyrans use PFs?
I will again say that I am not going to make a rules change, including changes to a published SSD or SSDs, without some indication that it is:
A: Wrong.
or
B: Being abused in ways not intended.
If players want to use the Patrol scenario rules and pretend that (for example) PFs were never invented and no one ever built PF tenders, that is their option (and, yes, under those circumstances a Lyran player might convince his non-Lyran opponents to reduce the BPV of the BCH in the same manner as a Lyran DN without the mech link refit).
And, yes, if you changed the background to eliminate PFs for your patrol scenarios, you might demand that the Fed Players give up their F-111 carriers and the "third way", or allow all players to use the "third way" but still require the Feds to give up their F-111 carriers, or what have you.
But HISTORICALLY the Lyran BCH was built AS A PFT, intended to carry PFs into battle to increase its firepower. If you want to play ahistorical and not use PFs, you can do that (again, Paragraph #3 of the introduction says so).
Unfortunately, there is no "Third Way" in SFB. Only in F&E.
Maybe another note for any future (S8.0) revision?
I've restricted myself in games, without bothering to ask my opponent, to not taking the Lyran BCH if I wasn't willing/couldn't afford to take PFs.
Just like I don't buy a carrier if I can't fit in the escorts.
[shrug]
I'm really amazed that this is a surprise to people. The rule has not only been there all along but specifically names the Lyran BCH.
"How many non-Lyran players have felt it necessary to demand that the Lyrans use PFs? "
From now on, the answer will be "all of them".
Micheal Powers:
So your contention is that if the rule is not changed no non-Lyran player will allow you to use the ship without PFs?
That I should therefore (I guess) delete the line of text in the third paragraph of the introduction to (S8.0)?
Or perhaps (S8.0) should be deleted in its entirety?
This is a total non-issue; it may hurt somebody making a Battleforce for a CapLog article, but as far as regular play goes it will affect nothing.
Anybody who is so anal as to try and 'force' a Lyran player to 'take PFs' in a friendly pick-up game will soon find himself playing the game solitaire.
Gary Bear: the Lyran DN must have the refit as of Y178. That is on the SSD. You can only delete the mechlinks prior to that year. Presumably, according to the SSD (but not necessarily in a campaign), you may not have a Lyran DN in Y178 or later without mechlinks, which makes it a PFT.
And I'll again take issue with the clarity you see in S8 that others do not (at least not universally). While SPP's ruling is clear, the language of S8 is not. The use of the term "true PFT" and not just "PFT" is what led to my confusion in thinking that a "true PFT" was only a PFT for the purpose of being eligible to carry a PFS and PFL (it can't lend, so apparently the only other effect is enhanced supplies and the S8 rule you have noted and correctly interpreted).
Now, I don't think this is that big a deal (except perhaps for the DN as of Y178 - as noted above, this is not a Y183 issue). What it really means as a practical matter is that Lyran players need to be more familiar with Module K if they want to fly the DN, and be willing to use the PF if other players assert S8 (at least the provisions we've been discussing).
SPP: I think the problem is that some players did not know of the S8 application that you clarified, and therefore have not had the opportunity to require (or be the subject) of its application.
Again, this is probably not a big deal. But DNs are frequently flown (perhaps BCHs and BBs less so) and this does matter to people who didn't know about it. with that said, it simply means that people will have to use PFs if they play with S8 and a Lyran DN in or after Y178.
What it also means is that Module K is a virtual must-have, and an integral part, of playing Lyrans if you want to use a mainstream hull like the Lyran DN. It's just part of the flavor of Lyrans, in addition to ESGs. But Module K may be a whole set of rules that some players find intimidating.
I'm not complaining, just pointing out the effect I see.
Quote: the Lyran DN must have the refit as of Y178. That is on the SSD.
No, the refit for the MechLinks starts being available in Y178. It isn't required to have the refit until 5 years later (S8.132).
Quote:And I'll again take issue with the clarity you see in S8 that others do not (at least not universally). While SPP's ruling is clear, the language of S8 is not. The use of the term "true PFT" and not just "PFT" is what led to my confusion in thinking that a "true PFT" was only a PFT for the purpose of being eligible to carry a PFS and PFL (it can't lend, so apparently the only other effect is enhanced supplies and the S8 rule you have noted and correctly interpreted).
Huh, I'm not following your logic? I think the clarity issue is in your perception, not the rule.
Try reading (S8.34), which doesn't even use the term "true PFT", and the definition of a PFT in (K2.11). It's pretty clear, especially if you realize that the Lyran BCH has a "P" designation in the MSC Notes.
SPP: There is probably a third question that should be asked:
How many players in the last 9 years have played (or have played against) a Lyran DN, or BCH and didn't realise it HAD to have PFs by (S8.34)?
Data point: There is a Lyran DN in FOG6 PBEM (12 v 12 fleet battle). It for sure isn't carrying 4 PFs. Possibly the year is pre-Y178 (FOG is wierd, the year isn't set), possibly it got a special dispensation from the moderator (counting as 'mutual agreement to vary S8') but most likely 24 players (many of whom are experienced at BIG fleet battles), plus observers plus XOs plus the moderator (call it 30 SFB players) just had never noticed that implication of (S8.34)...
The fact we are having this discussion says something. We don't have these discussions about 'What! An ESG goes to range 3!'. 
Gary: the Lyran DN must have mechlinks, and therefore it's a PFT, in Y178. It's not a question of being a refit - it's on the SSD as a standard ship system. It's a required system in Y178 if it says before that you may delete them - after that you can't. If it's not before Y178, you can't delete them. It's on the SSD. If you take the position that a PFT's mechlink are a refit (using the Lyran DN is a PFT), then can I delete mechlinks from other PFTs and cite the absence of a refit?
Further, by the logic of "Lyran flavor" the DN would be the first ship to get the refit.
And Gary, if you aren't hearing that other people read the rule the way I do I don't know what topic you are reading - it's more than just me. "true PFT" is a concept set forth in the space control ship description, which is a key concept to understanding the S8 rule - read SPP's posts. They are PFTs without special sensors, and these inlcude the Lyran BCH and DN. I think you even cited it in one of your posts. Let's not argue the point to argue it.
The MechLinks on the DN are a refit. See the (R11.2) description of the LION and they are specifically listed under it's "REFITS" section.
Per (S8.132), there is a 5 year window that some ships of a class will have a refit applied and others won't, yet.
I can't see how they, magically I guess, appear on all DNs in Y178. Those ships have to go back to a base to be refitted and they won't all do it at the same time, even if it had the highest priority.
FWIW, in F&E adding mech links to a Lyran DN to make it a PFT is a "true" refit, requiring conversion facilities and the expenditure of EPs. It is therefore possible, at least in F&E, to have non-PFT Lyran DNs, and even to build non-PFT DNs, after Y178, or Y183 for that matter. It is even possible to build non-PFT BCHs for the Lyrans under F&E rules. This all may not be applicable to the vagaries of S8.0 patrol scenarios, but it does mean that the non-PFT Lyran capital ships are "real" ships in the Star Fleet universe.
Cheers,
Jason
Quote:And Gary, if you aren't hearing that other people read the rule the way I do I don't know what topic you are reading - it's more than just me. "true PFT" is a concept set forth in the space control ship description, which is a key concept to understanding the S8 rule - read SPP's posts. They are PFTs without special sensors, and these inlcude the Lyran BCH and DN. I think you even cited it in one of your posts. Let's not argue the point to argue it.
I can't argue this as I have no clue what you're trying to say.
I look at (K2.111): "The Master Ship Chart (Annex #3) designates all true PFTs with a "P" in the notes column, and some are also noted in their ship description."
I look at the Master Ship Chart entry for the Lyran BCH and find a "P" in the NOTES column.
I look at the R-Section for the "Hellcat" BCH (R11.36): "The Hellcat is a true PFT."
I read (S8.34) and it says, "A PFT must have a minimum of four PFs to be used."
I can't figure out how the rules can be clearer than that.
The Lyran BCH is clearly defined as a PFT.
PFTs are required to have a minimum of 4 PFs.