| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Saturday, March 08, 2025 - 11:32 am: Edit |
Ken,
That is a great idea !
I will apply this method until an official Bpv value is presented.
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, March 23, 2025 - 11:56 am: Edit |
A question about plasma-DX racks:
According to (XFP10.14), a plasma-DX rack has six plasma-D torpedoes, plus two sets of reloads. However, (XR4.25) says that the upgrade from plasma-D to -DX adds a third set of reloads.
To clarify, which is the correct number of reload sets here: two, or three?
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 04:04 pm: Edit |
Gary Carney: The SkyHawk-E entry #(XR4.25) was deleted from the game along with the original X-tehnology rules. It was replaced in Module X1 with the Romulan SkyHawk-E (Escort) and the new rule number (R4.25) note, No "X" precedes the number]. It was published in the 2012 edition of Advanced Missions. At the time the X rules were updated (an extract is included in the 2012 edition) which noted the racks are limited to four plasma-Ds and prior to Y175 two sets of reloads at no additional cost, more reloads can be purchased as if they were spare drones. So the correct answer is one set of reloads prior to Y174, and two sets from Y175 plus any additional purchased plasma-Ds (Commander's options).
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 24, 2025 - 10:41 pm: Edit |
SPP,
In Module X1R - and, following this, in my PDF copy of the 2012 Electronic Master Rulebook - (XR0.0) was used to refer to the concept of partial-X refits. Which, now that I think about it, might not have been an optimal choice, as it invites potential overlap with "R-section' ship entries, as appears to be the case here.
In this instance, under the current crop of partial-X rules as noted above, (XR4.25) refers to the upgrading of non-X plasma torpedo launchers (to include plasma racks) on XP-ship hulls. It is this rule which speaks of adding "a third reload", as part of the upgrade from a non-X plasma rack to a plasma-DX rack.
For comparison's sake, Module X1R has an SSD for the Gorn advanced technology scout carrier (R6.209); the plasma-DX racks on this ship are shown as having six plasma-Ds, plus two sets of reloads, as per (XFP10.14) in my copy of the 2012 MRB.
In retrospect, it would appear (to me, at least) that the rule for the partial-X conversion is in error; as in, the same two sets of reloads a non-X plasma rack has from Y175 onwards under (FP10.14) is retained in the upgrade to a plasma-DX rack. However, I still wanted to double-check, just in case.
Actually, I'm left to wonder if it might be a good idea to change the rule designations for partial-X refits from (XR0.0) to something else entirely, so as to avoid similar potential rule conflicts in the future. Are there any "spare" letters in the alphabet which might work better for this?
| By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 11:03 am: Edit |
Questions regarding Gorn Early Years ships:
The Y-Tug is listed with command rating of 8 (more than the YCL's rating of 6).
The YFF is listed with command rating of 4 (more than the modern FF and warp-refitted FF ratings of 3).
Are these values correct?
| By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 02:03 pm: Edit |
Carnivon WCL has rear shield of 6 boxes while the WCL has a rear shield of 7 boxes. are these both correct? (Nick Samaras, March 25, 2025)
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 04:01 pm: Edit |
Nick Samaras: At this juncture, I can only hazard a guess the the large command rating on the tug was intended to allow it to serve as the centerpiece of a defending squadron and thus allow escorts to break contact or join it to defend the tug but the is only guess work. It may be a simple error. I have checked the books and cannot find any errata. And the ship is no larger than is typical fir cruisers in the period.
As the frigate, my best guess is that the two columns got mixed up. The frigate should not have a larger command rating than a more modern ship. Frigates should be two, or at most three. But probably two in this case.
Can. you clarify your Carnivon question as you are referening two ships, but they seem to be identical?
| By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 08:24 pm: Edit |
SPP,
I think the Gorn YFF should be command rating 3, given the WFF and modern FF both have command rating 3. It would be strange for the YFF to drop in between.
The Carnivon warp-refitted CL has a 6-box #4 shield, where as the warp refitted DD has a 7-box #4 shield. I know such oddities exist in the game but it does not follow the pattern of the later YCL (11 boxes) and YDD (10 boxes).
Also I noticed the following items for Module Y1 (I don't see and after action topic to report these):
(YR4.2) Romulan Vulture SSD: Delete note about the ship having one shuttle bay, as the SSD only shows one. (Nick Samaras, March 25, 2025).
(YR4.6) Romulan YFA SSD: Minimum crew should be 3 as it has only 12 crew units, not 4. (Nick Samaras, March 25, 2025).
(YR8.3) Orion WDD SSD: Minimum crew should be 3 as it has only 12 crew units, not 4. (Nick Samaras, March 25, 2025).
Paravian SSDs all note the aerodynamic landing system but do not mention the powered landing and landing bonus listed on the Master Ship Charts, (Nick Samaras, March 25, 2025).
| By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Tuesday, March 25, 2025 - 11:19 pm: Edit |
(YR8.2) Orion WCA SSD: Has 2 HET bonuses but ship is not listed as being nimble anywhere. (Nick Samaras, March 25, 2025).
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, March 26, 2025 - 01:42 pm: Edit |
Nick Samaras:
Orion WCA has two het bonuses as an Orion (C6.521).
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, May 04, 2025 - 03:51 pm: Edit |
SPP,
I see the Tholian DNS in R7 dated 2002 and the revised version of the DNS in CL 29 dated 2004.
Is the revised version the official ship to use ?
There are other Tholian ships with a revision.
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
| By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Sunday, May 04, 2025 - 04:35 pm: Edit |
All of the Tholian DNs were revised. They are in Module R4T.
| By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Sunday, May 04, 2025 - 04:43 pm: Edit |
I also see there was an R7 dated 1999.
What are the differences between them?
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, May 04, 2025 - 06:02 pm: Edit |
I don't recall exactly when the change happened, but at some point the power distribution for the Tholian D and DH were reworked. As originally published, the D had 36 warp engine boxes, 6 impulse, and 6 APR; a total of 48 points of "generated" power. At some point I believe SVC (at least, if I recall correctly) decided the depicted engine arrangement didn't quite match the engineering, as demonstrated in the model. So the D was reworked to give it 34 warp engine, 6 impulse, and 8 APR; the same total of 48 points generated power, but arranged slightly differently.
The DH received similar revision; same generated power (60 for the DH) but slightly less of it from the warp engines.
The HCW has also been revised from the initial version, but not with a change to power. The corrected (that's the term used in Module R4T) Tholian HCW has a different movement cost and weapon suite frm the original HCW.
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 01:12 pm: Edit |
Thank you gents !
I am working on the Tholians in my campaign and now cannot find the DDV ship.
My G3 shows it is in R11 but my R11 does not have the ship.
Does anyone know the module the Tholian DDV is in ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 01:43 pm: Edit |
Frank, interesting. My copy of the Tholian DDV is in R11 on page 56 of the SSD book (2007 edition).
T
| By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 02:02 pm: Edit |
ROFL.
Perhaps it will help if I look at the proper module.
I now see I was looking for the DDS in Module R12.
Sheesh and this is embarrassing.
Thanks Ted.
Cheers
Frank
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 05, 2025 - 03:35 pm: Edit |
Don't sweat it, Frank! I can't even count the number of times I've facepalmed myself at my own silliness! 
| By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 11:36 am: Edit |
Why do X-Ships have more crew than their standard tech counterparts?
I'd have figured the more advanced ships would have fewer crew in following the same tradition of modern wet navy deployments of modernized or otherwise technologically superior ships.
| By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 05:28 pm: Edit |
Good question, Rusman. I can't answer officially, but my WAG is that with the first generation X-ships, there're teething troubles.
Much of the X-ships are still the older ships. Older power feed systems, older life support systems, a lot of stuff that's mature. Then SOMEbody adds all that new stuff.
The mature systems are being asked to do stuff the original designers had no idea that it ever might be, and that's making it cranky.
The new stuff is having teething troubles.
All that makes for a maintenance nightmare.
My guess is that when second generation X-ships are built (post Y-225?), they'll be built from the keel up to incorporate all the X-tech more smoothly, the maintenance will be easier, and the crew sizes, particularly the minimum crew requirements, will go back to what they are with standard tech warships.
Again, this is just my wild (somethingorother*) guess... 
(*I generally prefer to avoid using profanity on The Boards... )
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 19, 2025 - 07:33 pm: Edit |
That is actually close to how it is portrayed historically.
First-generation X-ships are integrating advanced technologies (engines, batteries, phasers, fire control systems, etc.) into hulls that were not originally designed to incorporate them. Thus, the maintenance workload is much higher than the non-X equivalent hull would be - even for X1-ships built as new construction.
It remains to be seen what the long-awaited X2-ships shall offer from Y205 onwards. But, as suggested above, I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to get by with smaller crew complements than their respective X1-ship forebears - even if I would not expect them to go entirely back to the pre-X1 levels.
| By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Tuesday, May 20, 2025 - 03:44 pm: Edit |
X-tech had a steeper learning curve.
| By Robert Russell Lender (Rusman) on Sunday, June 22, 2025 - 07:11 pm: Edit |
Why do Omega SSDs have a different look and feel?
(Straight lines instead of pixelated lines, different fonts etc).
Never understood why they were done by a different method and not standardized to the existing line of SSDs.
| By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, June 23, 2025 - 11:10 am: Edit |
Most likely because they were made by Bruce Graw originally, and he likely used different software to make them than did ADB.
I am pretty sure later SSDs were done in-house by ADB and those had the more traditional style.
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 23, 2025 - 12:40 pm: Edit |
My understanding is that the SSDs from the first four SFB Omega Octant modules, plus some of the playtest Omega SSDs printed in older issues of Captain's Log, were drawn up by Bruce Graw himself, prior to the fateful computer crash in which he lost his original set of Omega-related computer files.
Module Omega #5, however, was developed and published "in-house" by ADB, and uses the same "Omega" template.
Since then, some of the playtest Omega SSDs printed in more recent issues of Captain's Log have been in the "Omega" format; others, such as the playtest Zosman and Omega-Paravian SSDs, are in the "traditional" format.
For comparison's sake, the Lesser Magellanic Cloud units published in Module C5, plus the playtest Triangulum Galaxy SSDs in Module E2 and in Captain's Log #23, are each in the "traditional" format.
Meanwhile, the playest Omega and LMC Ship Cards for Federation Commander were drawn up in a template set by Rick Smith, using a different set of software to that used "in-house" for FC Ship Cards at ADB. Although they are intended to closely follow the "default" FC Ship Card template.
-----
At some point, it would be welcome to see the ships from the five published Omega modules offered in some form on Warehouse 23.
And yet, this raises some not entirely unrelated issues:
First: as noted, the data from the first four modules is now lost. So they'd need to be re-created from scratch - to include having more "contemporary" SSD features, such as the infamous Crawford Boxes, factored in along the way. (Fortunately, the SSDs in the fifth module are set to the "contemporary" standard.) Where, if anywhere, could the required "design time" be found to do this?
Second: if all that "design time" would have to be taken up in order to re-make the units from the first four modules anyway, should they stay in the "Omega" format as outlined by Bruce Graw - or should the opportunity be taken to convert them into "standard" SFB SSDs instead?
To this, I would add a third question: both in-universe, and in a number of sample playtest SSDs in recent issues of Captain's Log, the question of warp refits has been looked into: as in, ships which, in some cases at least, were upgraded to "speed-30" warp engines at some point during the Y170s or later. (When proposing these warp refits, my intent was for them to not be universal, so as not to invalidate the use of the pre-existing crop of printed Omega SSDs in scenarios set after the dates from which these warp refits are to be introduced.) Might it be better to "retcon" these warp refits into this project, or to keep them aside for future publications?
And, how about a fourth question: Even after five published Omega modules, none of the Omega empires have yet reached "campaign compatible" status, the way that the three "Magellanic Powers" (Baduvai, Eneen, and Maghadim) have courtesy of Module C5. So, would it be best to effectively start over, by putting the work needed to resurrect the four "lost" SSD books into a new range of Omega "R-modules", which each provided a more in-depth range of ships and support units for a smaller number of Omega empires at a time?
There are no easy answers to the above questions. Not least since there is only so much SFB "design time" that can be afforded to Omega at present. Still, I hope that, one day, there might be the opportunity to try to consider these questions in more detail.
And, for that matter, for more progress to be made in terms of introducing Omega as a setting over in FC and elsewhere.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |