| By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Friday, December 09, 2011 - 08:51 am: Edit |
This topic is now open for business.
Jean
WebMom
| By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, December 09, 2011 - 03:04 pm: Edit |
AFTER-action report for E3??
Has it gone to press???
If so - I had no idea it was that far along! Can we order it? (What's it look like???)
| By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Friday, December 09, 2011 - 03:07 pm: Edit |
| By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 11:54 am: Edit |
Any word if this will be headed to e23?
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 08:06 pm: Edit |
Annex #3: RB100.4 The ship designation for this unit on the MSC is DN, it should be DNW. Steven P. Petrick 10 December 2011
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, December 17, 2011 - 11:56 am: Edit |
Sigh. Module E3 error report received:
(RB100.6) SCS: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair is destroyed on "Cargo" damage points" and the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.9) BCS: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair is destroyed on "Cargo" damage points" and the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.25) P-P: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.37) PFT: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.45) PFTL: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.53) SB: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair is destroyed on "Cargo" damage points" and the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.54) STB: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.55) BATS: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.56) BS: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
| By Charles Gray (Cgray45) on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 - 07:43 pm: Edit |
Yeah, I'm interested in the E23 question as well, as I've pretty much run out of space for more paper products.
| By Kevin Humar-Barrett (Cheethorne) on Sunday, January 01, 2012 - 02:21 pm: Edit |
(RB100.33) CLB: SSD: Phasers are mislabeled, skipping #4 and going directly from #3 to #5.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, January 01, 2012 - 03:47 pm: Edit |
Module E3 Errata to date:
Annex #3: (RB100.4) The ship designation for this unit on the MSC is DN, it should be DNW. Steven P. Petrick 10 December 2011
(RB100.6) SCS: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair is destroyed on "Cargo" damage points" and the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.9) BCS: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair is destroyed on "Cargo" damage points" and the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.25) P-P: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.33) CLB: SSD: Phasers are mislabeled, skipping #4 and going directly from #3 to #5.
(RB100.37) PFT: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.45) PFTL: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.53) SB: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair is destroyed on "Cargo" damage points" and the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.54) STB: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.55) BATS: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.56) BS: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
| By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Monday, January 02, 2012 - 08:42 pm: Edit |
(RB100,20) TUG: SSD: This ship is displaying the "old" HK-B fighter SSDs and data. It should be displaying HK-D fighter SSDs and data. George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.29) P-V: SSD: The carrier pod is displaying the "old" HK-B SSDs and data (The second squadron SSD is also displaying the "old" HK-B SSDs). It should be displaying the HK-D SSDs and data. George Duffy 2 January 2012
[The fighter SSDs are showing 2x ph-2s instead of one ph-2 and 1x ph-3]
(YRB100.7) YFF: The text is cut short at the end with the words "... because it was cheap, and the". Indicating that there was something else needed to finish the sentence. George Duffy 2 January 2012
| By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Monday, January 02, 2012 - 09:05 pm: Edit |
(deleted by author double post)
| By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 08:59 am: Edit |
We will put this on e23 during January.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 11:51 am: Edit |
(E107.0) States that megaphasers and the Borak do not exist in the normal SFB universe. Data later in this product seems to indicate that the Borak did exist in the early years time frame (as an empire with warships) that operated W and Y ships which were armed with an early version of the megaphaser. Richard B. Eitzen 3 Jan 2012
(G52.0) Should probably be changed to a Borak rule numbering system and replace all references to Qari to Borak. Note that with the Borak, this system is not simulator only, they actually had turreted ships in the Y-period. Richard B. Eitzen 3 Jan 2012
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 01:36 pm: Edit |
(YRB100.7) YFF: The text is cut short at the end with the words "... because it was cheap, and the". Indicating that there was something else needed to finish the sentence. George Duffy 2 January 2012
Does anyone have a quess what I meant to say? The part of the text cited above was written by me, an clearly I was interrupted before I finished the thought, and now I have not got a clue what I was going to say.
| By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Tuesday, January 03, 2012 - 02:01 pm: Edit |
This is purely a guess, but perhaps:
"and the loss of a frigate would be easier to replace than that of a destroyer." ?
based off the added text from the YDD description.
| By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 05:35 pm: Edit |
(RB100.F4) MEGAFIGHTERS: The SSD for FD-CM should not have a FA ph-2 on it (RX ph-2 is hidden). George Duffy. 5 January 2012
(RB100.F14) JAMMER-A (JM_A): last sentence of first paragragh should read: "The fighter gave up its heavy, rear-mounted phaser-2 to accommodate the electronic warfare pods, though a phaser-3 tail gun was retained." (No FA ph-3 was removed from the FD-B to add the rear-firing ph-3). George Duffy, 5 January 2012
(RB100.F34) BOMBER-D (BM-D): The SSD shows two ph-2s and two ph-3 in the FA position when it should only be three ph-2s. George Duffy, 5 January 2012
(RB100.F34) BOMBER-D (BM-D): SSD book: The SSD shows two ph-2s and two ph-3 in the FA position when it should only be three ph-2s. George Duffy, 5 January 2012
(RB100.F) Master Fighter Chart Annex: The MFC has the wrong weapons data displayed for the BM-DM it is showing BM-CMs instead of BM-DMs. George Duffy, 5 January 2012
(RB100.F) Master Fighter Chart Annex: All reference numbers (last column) are off by a count of twenty in relation to the corresponding fighter in E3. George Duffy, 5 January 2012
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, January 06, 2012 - 06:59 pm: Edit |
Current List of E3 Reports:
(E107.0) States that megaphasers and the Borak do not exist in the normal Star Fleet Battles universe. Data later in this product seems to indicate that the Borak did exist in the Early Years time frame (as an empire with warships) that operated W and Y ships which were armed with an early version of the megaphaser. Richard B. Eitzen 3 Jan 2012
(G52.0) Should probably be changed to a Borak rule numbering system and replace all references to Qari to Borak. Note that with the Borak, this system is not simulator only, they actually had turreted ships in the Early Years period. Richard B. Eitzen 3 Jan 2012
(RB100.06) SCS: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair is destroyed on ‘Cargo’ damage points" and the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.09) BCS: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair is destroyed on ‘Cargo’ damage points" and the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.10E) CAE: RULE: Originally, all "E"-type ships were to be phased out by Y160, hence no refits. However, with the line added that some were still around as late as Y190, should these surviving ships be receiving either the "plus" and/or "war" refits for their phaser-2s? George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.10E) CAE: SSD: Originally, all "E"-type ships were to be phased out by Y160, hence no refits. However, with the line added that some were still around as late as Y190, should these surviving ships be receiving either the "plus" and/or "war" refits for their phaser-2s? I suggest the following refits should be added: "Plus" refit, change all FA phaser-2s to phaser-1s (+4). "War" refit, change all LS/RS phaser-2s to phaser-1s (+4). George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.15) CF: RULE: Delete the word "on" from the text ". . . and one on that . . ."
(RB100.16) CV: SSD: This ship should have Fighter-Destroyer-Cs, a Jammer-B and Hunter-Killer-Ds.
(RB100.20) TUG: SSD: This ship is displaying the "old" Hunter-Killer-B fighter SSDs and data. It should be displaying Hunter-Killer-D fighter SSDs and data. [The fighter SSDs are showing two phaser-2s instead of one phaser-2 and one phaser-3.] George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.25) P-P: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.29) P-V: SSD: The carrier pod is displaying the "old" Hunter-Killer-B fighter SSDs and data. It should be displaying Hunter-Killer-D fighter SSDs and data. [The fighter SSDs are showing two phaser-2s instead of one phaser-2 and one phaser-3.] (The second squadron SSD is also displaying the "old" Hunter-Killer-B SSDs.) George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.31E) CLE: RULE: Originally, all "E"-type ships were to be phased out by Y160, hence no refits. However, with the line added that some were still around as late as Y190, should these surviving ships be receiving either the "plus" and/or "war" refits for their phaser-2s? George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.31E) CLE: SSD: Originally, all "E"-type ships were to be phased out by Y160, hence no refits. However, with the line added that some were still around as late as Y190, should these surviving ships be receiving either the "plus" and/or "war" refits for their phaser-2s? I suggest the following refits should be added: "Plus" refit, change all FA phaser-2s to phaser-1s (+4). "War" refit, change all LS/RS phaser-2s to phaser-1s (+4). George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.33) CLB: SSD: Phasers are mislabeled, skipping #4 and going directly from #3 to #5.
(RB100.37) PFT: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.39E) DDE: RULE: Originally, all "E"-type ships were to be phased out by Y160, hence no refits. However, with the line added that some were still around as late as Y190, should these surviving ships be receiving either the "plus" and/or "war" refits for their phaser-2s? George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.39E) DDE: SSD: Originally, all "E"-type ships were to be phased out by Y160, hence no refits. However, with the line added that some were still around as late as Y190, should these surviving ships be receiving either the "plus" and/or "war" refits for their phaser-2s? I suggest the following refits should be added: "Plus" refit, change all FA phaser-2s to phaser-1s (+4). "War" refit, change all LS/RS phaser-2s to phaser-1s (+4). George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.44) CVE: SSD: This ship should have Fighter-Destroyer-Cs and Hunter-Killer-Ds.
(RB100.45) PFTL: SSD: This ship is missing the "Repair boxes can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.46E) FFE: RULE: Originally, all "E"-type ships were to be phased out by Y160, hence no refits. However, with the line added that some were still around as late as Y190, should these surviving ships be receiving either the "plus" and/or "war" refits for their phaser-2s? George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.46E) FFE: SSD: Originally, all "E"-type ships were to be phased out by Y160, hence no refits. However, with the line added that some were still around as late as Y190, should these surviving ships be receiving either the "plus" and/or "war" refits for their phaser-2s? I suggest the following refits should be added: "Plus" refit, change all FA phaser-2s to phaser-1s (+4). "War" refit, change all LS/RS phaser-2s to phaser-1s (+4). George Duffy 2 January 2012
(RB100.53) SB: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair is destroyed on ‘Cargo’ damage points" and the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" notes.
(RB100.54) STB: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.55) BATS: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.56) BS: SSD: This base is missing the "Repair boxes on PF docking modules can only repair damage to PFs (K2.611)" note.
(RB100.58) L-Q: SSD: This ship should be updated to use Hunter-Killer-Ds.
(RB100.59) S-Q: SSD: This ship should be updated to use Hunter-Killer-Ds.
(RB100.F14) JAMMER-A (JM-A): RULE: last sentence of first paragragh should read: "The fighter gave up its heavy, rear-mounted phaser-2 to accommodate the electronic warfare pods, though a phaser-3 tail gun was retained." (No FA phaser-3 was removed from the Fighter-Destroyer-B to add the rear-firing phaser-3). George Duffy, 5 January 2012
(RB100.F34) BOMBER-D (BM-D): SSD: The SSD shows two phaser-2s and two phaser-3s in the FA position when it should only be three phaser-2s. George Duffy, 5 January 2012
(RB100.F34) BOMBER-D (BM-D): SSD: The SSD shows two phaser-2s and two phaser-3s in the FA position when it should only be three phaser-2s. George Duffy, 5 January 2012
(RB100.F4) MEGAFIGHTERS: RULE: The SSD for FD-CM should not have a FA phaser-2 on it (RX phaser-2 is hidden). George Duffy. 5 January 2012
(YRB100.07) YFF: RULE: The text is cut short at the end with the words ". . . because it was cheap, and the" indicating that there was something else needed to finish the sentence. George Duffy 2 January 2012
Annex #3: (RB100.4) The ship designation for this unit on the MSC is DN, it should be DNW. Steven P. Petrick 10 December 2011
Annex #4: All of reference numbers (last column) are off by a count of twenty in relation to the corresponding fighter in E3. George Duffy, 5 January 2012
Annex #4: (FD100.F24) The MFC has the wrong weapons data displayed for the BM-DM it is showing BM-CMs (FD100.F23) instead of BM-DMs. George Duffy, 5 January 2012
| By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - 04:34 pm: Edit |
(RB100.1) Special rule and additional information. Suggest changing "rule" to "rules" as there are more than one rule in this section. S. Hantke, 8 Feb 2012.
| By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - 04:48 pm: Edit |
(RB 100.1B21) Is missing. Should the "Minimum # of Accompanying Warships" Chart have this number or is (RB 100.1B22) Flagships numbered out of sequence with (RB 100.1B23) Size Class 4, (RB 100.1B24) Non Carriers, and (RB 100.1B25) Scouts and Commando Ships also out of sequence. S. Hantke 8 Feb 2012.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, February 08, 2012 - 06:23 pm: Edit |
Added to errata:
(RB100.1) Changing "rule" to "rules" as there is more than one rule in this section. NEW 8 Feb 2012
(RB 100.1B21) This rule number is missing and should have been associated with the "Minimum # of Accompanying Warships" Chart. NEW 8 Feb 2012
| By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Friday, February 10, 2012 - 09:36 pm: Edit |
(R1.67-RB100) BORAK PRIME TRADERS (PT) Suggest leaving "s" off of "Traders" in Bold title. "Prime Traders" in the description makes sense. S. Hantke 10 Feb 2012
| By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Friday, February 10, 2012 - 09:46 pm: Edit |
(R1.68T-RB100) BORAK SELF-DEFENSE SKID TYPE-I Missing abbreviation "(SDS1)" S. Hantke 10 Feb 2012
(R1.68W-RB100) BORAK FIGHTER SKID Missing abbreviation "(FTRS)" S. Hantke 10 Feb 2012
| By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Saturday, February 11, 2012 - 05:41 pm: Edit |
(R1.74-RB100) BORAK HEAVY AUXILIARY TROOP TRANSPORT (FTH): REPLY: -Delete "REPLY:" S. Hantke 11 Feb 2012
| By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 - 09:51 pm: Edit |
(RB100.N3) BORAK MARINE ORGANIZATIONS Delete "s" from "Organizations." S. Hantke 15 Feb 2012
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 16, 2012 - 11:02 am: Edit |
Shawn Hantke:
Sorry, but "Organizations" is correct. Two different organizations are shown, the battalion and the heavy company.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |