MRB page 3 ToC delete bold "BASIC SET" underneath FD0.0 Drones header. S. Hantke 18 Dec 2011

MRB page 4 ToC delete "(S2)" after G32.0 PRIME TEAMS. S. Hantke 18 Dec 2011

MRB page 4 ToC delete "(R6)" after G33.0 HDW OPTIONAL SYSTEMS. S. Hantke 18 Dec 2011

MRB page 5 A1.11 PREVIOUS EDITIONS: Last sentence-The 2004 Master Rulebook...replace 2004 with 2010. S. Hantke 18 Dec 2011.

MRB page 5 A1.2 Star Fleet 2400 Miniatures. Delete "2400" from header. Recommend adding a paragraph talking about how Star Fleet 2500 resin miniatures are now available in addition to the pewter 2400s. S. Hantke 18 Dec 2011.

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Thursday, May 03, 2012 - 04:42 am: Edit

(D7.12) "The Gorn and Kzinti empires are physically larger and more powerful than the other empires in the game."
Appears to have been caught in the global search-and-replace of "races" with "empires," however, in this case "races" really is the correct term.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, May 03, 2012 - 11:41 am: Edit

That would actually be species.

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Thursday, May 03, 2012 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Species is fine too! Just as long as you don't try to distinguish Vulcans and Romulans with it

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Friday, May 04, 2012 - 08:53 pm: Edit

(G24.1852) "A Special Sensor cannot have any direct affect on a unit inside nebula, but can have indirect effects..."
* Special Sensor should not be capitalized
* "affect" should be "effect"
* "inside nebula" should be "inside a nebula"

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 - 02:21 pm: Edit

(FP11.11) specifies the cost as 0.25 BPV per ready rack, but this should be per fighter box. E.g., a heavy fighter ready rack should cost 0.5 BPV.
Andy Vancil 13 June 2012

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 - 02:50 pm: Edit

I think Special Sensor is capitalized as a game term, so may not be incorrect.

Doesn't each box with a + or = in it contain a ready rack, even if the shuttle in question occupies more than one box?

By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Wednesday, June 13, 2012 - 06:31 pm: Edit

SPP

In the list of products is:

5412 SFB MASTER RULEBOOK: ... Updated with Revision C in 2011 and Revision D in April 2012.

Revision D includes errata and new material through what date and product?

I am looking at purchasing an updated version as mine is dated June 2004.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, June 14, 2012 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Joseph R. Carlson:

Revision D errata is still collecting. The Fighter ready rack issue (which only surfaced yesterday) is going to need resolution before that project moves ahead.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 14, 2012 - 02:37 pm: Edit

eMRB errata:

I belive the following costs are correct:

one extra type VI dogfight drone, slow (spd 12) costs .5 BPV (there is no spd 8 dogfight drone)

upgrade to spd 20 costs .25 extra over base cost (.75 total) BPV

upgrade to spd 32 costs .5 extra over base cost (1.0 total) BPV

So looking at the drone propulsion cost chart:

(FD10.52) Propulsion Module Cost chart
Speed-8, 1/2 space is correct with no listing.
Speed-12, 1/2 space, should cost .25 (not .50 as listed).
Speed-20, 1/2 space, is correct at .50.
Speed-32, 1/2 space, is correct at .75.

The speed 12, 1/2 space should change from .50 to .25 so that the total cost of a spd 12 type VI is (.25 warhead + .25 engine) = .50 total cost.\

Upgrading to spd 20 should be a .25 cost difference, not the free upgrade that is currently shown (standard drones have no cost difference between spd 12 and spd 20 as they start at spd 8, dogfight drones don't start at spd 8 and have to pay for each spd upgrade). Upgrading to spd 32 should be a .50 difference from spd 8, not the .25 difference that is currently shown.

I believe I have reported this before (at least once if not twice), but it never gets fixed. Either because it falls through the cracks, or because I am wrong, but if I am wrong can someone explain to me why, as it doesn't make sense to me as is.

So again, the Speed 12 1/2 space engine cost in table (FD10.52) should be .25, not .50 BPV.

By Sean Hunt (Coppro) on Saturday, June 30, 2012 - 03:09 am: Edit

(C6.51) should explicitly state that any roll greater than six is not a breakdown.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Saturday, June 30, 2012 - 03:34 am: Edit

Any roll greater than six is always a breakdown, you want to roll low.

By Sean Hunt (Coppro) on Saturday, June 30, 2012 - 01:52 pm: Edit

Err, sorry. Other way around. It should state that any roll greater than six is a breakdown. A ship with a breakdown rating of 6 making a roll with a +1 modifier should not be exempt from a breakdown by rolling a 6--a modified 7. This is, by strict reading of the rule, not a breakdown since it is outside the range of 6.

EDIT: Also, the note at the end of (XC1.313-2) seems wrong, maybe; wouldn't still use this rule for determining some aspects of movement, even if (XC1.32) plotted movement is being used? For instance, if a non-nimble X ship was scheduled to move the same impulse as a nimble non-X ship, then presumably the X ship would have to move before seeing the non-X ship's movement, even though it was pre-plotted.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 02, 2012 - 03:17 pm: Edit

I spoke with Steve Petrick and R1.F7 requires an update to include the PL-K. The current rule reads:

"DRONE-armed (including plasma-D) fighters: Replace two type-I drones or plasma-Ds with EW pods. Delete any special drone rails (and the type-III drones on them). The speed and dogfight rating are unchanged. There is no C-refit for EWFs. Type-VI drones are retained. Note the Federation F-15E is a special case, retaining four type-VI drones."

I believe it would be clearner if a the Drone-Armed section was revised and a new section added:

"DRONE-armed fighters: Replace two type-I drones with EW pods. Delete any special drone rails (and the type-III drones on them). The speed and dogfight rating are unchanged. There is no C-refit for EWFs. Type-VI drones are retained. Note the Federation F-15E is a special case, retaining four type-VI drones."

"Plasma-D-armed fighters: Replace two plasma-Ds with EW pods. There is no C-refit for EWFs. PL-K plasma's are retained and add two PL-K rails.

- Ken Kazinski, 2 July 2012.

The only question I would have is whether you are adding an additional 2xPL-K's if the fighter already has PL-K rails.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Wednesday, August 22, 2012 - 05:50 pm: Edit

SFB Master Rulebook. (FP11.11) last sentence. "See (K1.384) for Romulan Starhawks". There is no (K1.384), this almost certainly refers to (K2.384). 22 August 2012, Xander Fulton.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, September 22, 2012 - 10:00 pm: Edit

SFB Master Rulebook. (C1.454) 'note' block describes the rule "applied only to an enraged mother space dragon (SM7.0) defending her young or to a “striking Moray Eel” (C1.42)" with the caveat that new rules may someday come that provide units with that ability. The Master Rulebook already has such units, with the Plasma Sabot (FP11.0) - the exception note should be either removed, or updated to include the sabot. 22 September 2012, Xander Fulton.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 05:08 pm: Edit

SFB Master Rulebook. (G9.42) rules on usage of crew units on undermanned ships appears incomplete. (G9.421) and (G9.422) note what actions crew units being assigned to a system can perform, but there are no rules on when they have to be assigned to the system box (what step of the impulse or turn), when they can be re-assigned, how long that takes, etc. Working assumption is that something like the (G22.132) rules for how legendary officers are moved around the ship and perform tasks should apply, here, but currently there isn't anything like this defined. 25 September 2012, Xander Fulton.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 02:52 pm: Edit

SFB Master Rulebook. (D15.86) COMBAT ENGINEERS:
Add to end of rule that Combat Engineers count against the limit for Heavy Weapons Squads.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 03:01 pm: Edit

Adm - note my January 08, 2011 post over on the Module G3 AAR. It's something that comes up pretty much every other battle force.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Xander; Okay, what does that have to do with the lack of any such limitation in the Rulebook?

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 06:03 pm: Edit

I don't think that should be in the main rules, as it would cause confusion. When buying these units as part of Commander's Options, the limitation is in the Annexes relating to CO's. When buying them as part of a force for a ground combat scenario, the limits may be different (such as when buying troops as companies via the defined-unit rules).

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 11:11 pm: Edit

My thought was with Terry's - the primary issue (and why it keeps coming up in battle force after battle force from every person who looks at the option) is that the annexes are really not clear that the total for one counts for both.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 03:15 pm: Edit

SFB Master Rulebook. (YM4.4) last word 'Module' is italicized, it should not be. 5 October 2012, Xander Fulton.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, October 06, 2012 - 10:14 am: Edit

SFB Master Rulebook, does not list (J17) or (J18) in the Index.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Monday, November 05, 2012 - 07:17 pm: Edit

SFB Master rulebook Update D, ...thanks to..."Sean Hantke" should be "Shawn" S. Hantke 5 Nov 2012
SFB Master rulebook Update D, (A1.12) ...(probably in 20015-20016) Should that be, I hope 2015-2016? S. Hantke 5 Nov 2012