Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 09, 2013	25		03/09 11:28pm
	Archive through June 08, 2013	25		06/08 10:43pm
	Archive through July 16, 2013	25		07/16 07:55pm

Ken Kazinski:

The Branthodon GPF and GPC are not going to get PF repair systems. Dragonships do repairs differently than normal ships (OG19.444), and it was a design decision that having repair systems to fix the small exoskelton ship parts of the BYs was not a good use of resources. You can take this as a case of a specific (the designs of the two ground bases) overriding general, that is to say (K2.111). If the dragon parts of BYs were able to be repaired by repair systems, such repair systems could also repair the dragon parts of other such ships. You may not agree with the design decision (not being sarcastic here, just acknowledging that it is your right to disagree), but barring a really good analysis that says the economic realities are wrong, this is not going to change. A Klingon PF has (excluding warp booster packs and shields and working with the standard combat variant) 25 systems that can be repaired during a scenario. A short flotilla of four such boats would have 100 boxes (again, less the warp booster packs which could also be repaired and the shield boxes which can also be repaired). A BY has only 12 systems that can be repaired (no shield boxes or warp booster packs), a flotilla of four has 48 such systems. Everything else on the BYs (28 dragon systems) can only be repaired by regeneration. Given their small number of ship systems repairable by Damage Control (as opposed to regeneration) Tactical Repairs between scenarios (G17.132) would allow a BY to repair eight of its systems (Dam Con and one excess damage repair automatically, plus three times the dam con rating for six more systems). While a Klingon G1 could repair the same eight systems, it could not use regeneration to repair its warp engines, or its heavy weapons and would be much more limited in its capabilities as a result.

So, repair systems are not going to be added to the Branthodon ground bases. Nor are the rules for BYs going to be modified to say that dragon ships mind linked to BYs have repair facilities added as well. The Branthodons are "different" because of the ships and technology they use, and this is one of the reflections of that difference.

Really, this was a case where you might have asked if this was an intentional design decision or an oversight. While there are a lot of "original" Omega design decisions I was not part of, I freely admit that the decision to not put repair systems on these two Branthodon ground bases was mine. It was not an oversight, it was done after consideration of how the Branthodon differ from any other empire in the Alpha Octant, and to reflect their very different technology and background.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Thanks Steve, just making sure it was not an oversight.

By Andrew Granger (Captaincf) on Thursday, July 18, 2013 - 06:20 am: Edit

Not sure if it has been addressed but on the SSD for the Brathodon Adult Dragoship (AD) the tail slap chart damage reads 12, 10, 8, 6, 3, 0. The tail slap damage on the Mature Dragonship (MT) reads 10,9,8,6,4,2. This would mean the Mature does more damage on a 5 or 6 than the Adult, is that correct?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 18, 2013 - 11:50 am: Edit

Andrew Granger:

That gets back into decisions I was not part of. To some extent every dragonship's "natural" abilities seem to be unique to a given class and this COULD have been a design decision of some kind. To some extent, it might have been an oversight of some kind. I do not know, but it does not really seem to harm anything (the difference is three points overall).

By Andrew Granger (Captaincf) on Thursday, July 18, 2013 - 12:47 pm: Edit

I was just curious. Thanks.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, July 20, 2013 - 02:57 pm: Edit

(OR6.F2) OMRB Probr FTF - The unit rule has (FF) but Annex 4 shows FTF. - Ken Kazinski, 20 July 2013,

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 05:20 pm: Edit

(OR9.F1) O2 Alunda RM - Annex #4 in Omega 2 shows the damage to be 9, while the ship ssd's show the damage to be 10. Annex #4 should be updated to damage 10. - Ken Kazinski, 21 July 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 21, 2013 - 08:28 pm: Edit

(OR9.F1) OMRB Alunda RM - The whipcrack refit normally adds a "w" to the end of the unit type. Shouldn't the second RM entry in Annex #4 be RMw? - Ken Kazinski, 21 July 2013.

(OR9.F7) OMRB Alunda ERM - The DFR for this unit should be 2 the same as the RMe. EW fighters do not loose or gain DFR from the conversion per R1.F7. - Ken Kazinski, 21 July 2013.

(OR9.S1) OMRB Alunda Admin - To match the convention with the other Omega admin shuttles the rule should be OR1.S1. - Ken Kazinski, 21 July 2013.

(OR9.S1) OMRB Alunda Admin - Should there be a whipcrack refit for the admin in Y128?. - Ken Kazinski, 21 July 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 09:30 pm: Edit

(OR10.F2) OMRB Hiver B-2 - The product should be Omega #2 and not Omega #1. - Ken Kazinski, 22 July 2013.

(OR10.F3) OMRB Hiver B-A - The product should be Omega #2 and not Omega #1. - Ken Kazinski, 22 July 2013.

(OR10.F4) OMRB Hiver B-H - The product should be Omega #2 and not Omega #1. - Ken Kazinski, 22 July 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 22, 2013 - 11:36 pm: Edit

(OR11.S1) OMRB Sigvirion GAS (PE) - The product should be Omega #2 and not Omega #1. - Ken Kazinski, 22 July 2013.

(OR11.S1) OMRB Sigvirion GAS (IPE) - The product should be Omega #2 and not Omega #1. - Ken Kazinski, 22 July 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 08:11 pm: Edit

(OR12.F7) OMRB Loriyill AQAE - When creating a EW fighter the DFR rating is not reduced per R1.F7. The DFR should be 3 the same as the AQA. - Ken Kazinski, 23 July 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Fighter Reload Boxes - OMRB - The Dark Matter Pulsar is not listed on the fighter reload boxes table on page 288. - Ken Kazinski, 23 July 2013.

Fighter Reload Boxes Table - OMRB - The Dark Matter Torpedo is not listed on the fighter reload boxes table on page 288. - Ken Kazinski, 23 July 2013.

Fighter Weapon Symbols Table - OMRB - The Dark Matter Pulsar is not listed on the fighter reload boxes table on page 288. - Ken Kazinski, 23 July 2013.

Fighter Weapon Symbols Table - OMRB - The Dark Matter Torpedo is not listed on the fighter reload boxes table on page 288. - Ken Kazinski, 23 July 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, July 27, 2013 - 05:35 pm: Edit

(OR14.F9) OMRB Iridani S2E - The DFR for this unit should be 3 the same as the S2b. EW fighters do not loose or gain DFR from the conversion per R1.F7. - Ken Kazinski, 27 July 2013.

(OR14.F10) OMRB Iridani S3E - The DFR for this unit should be 4 the same as the S3. EW fighters do not loose or gain DFR from the conversion per R1.F7. - Ken Kazinski, 27 July 2013.

(OR14.F12) OMRB Iridani SFE - The DFR for this unit should be 3 the same as the SFa. EW fighters do not loose or gain DFR from the conversion per R1.F7. - Ken Kazinski, 27 July 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 28, 2013 - 03:06 pm: Edit

(OR1.S1-OR17) Module O1 FRA Admin - The year in service (19) is before the FRA was formed in Y130. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Jul 2013.

(OR1.S1-OR17) Module O1 FRA Admin - The Phaser-3 system has a YIS of 62 (Alpha Federation) and is after the unit was first introduced in Y19; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Jul 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - 05:41 am: Edit

(OR20.F3) OMRB Bolosco SRC - The unit text states there are 4 pod rails but these are not listed in Annex 4. - Ken Kazinski, 29 July 2013.

(OR20.S2) OMRB Bolosco MRS - Annex 4 shows a reference of OR1.S2, shouldn't OR20.S2 be listed instead? - Ken Kazinski, 29 July 2013.

Fighter Reload Boxes - OMRB - The Gauss Cannon is not listed on the fighter reload boxes table on page 288. - Ken Kazinski, 29 July 2013.

Fighter Reload Boxes Table - OMRB - The Gauss Cannon is not listed on the fighter reload boxes table on page 288. - Ken Kazinski, 29 July 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Fighter Reload Boxes - OMRB - The Ultra is not listed on the fighter reload boxes table on page 288. - Ken Kazinski, 30 July 2013.

Fighter Reload Boxes Table - OMRB - The Gauss Cannon is not listed on the fighter reload boxes table on page 288. - Ken Kazinski, 30 July 2013.

(OR21.S2) OMRB Qixa MRS - As there is a rule for the MRS shouldn't the rule in annex 4 be listed at OR21.S2 and not OR1.S2? - Ken Kazinski, 30 July 2013.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Annex #8B: In the 2011 OMRB, Adrenaline Batteries, the Subspace Coagulator, and the Jammer are currently in the initial category of optional weapons (those allowed for use in Omega option mounts). However, according to (OG4.26) and (OG8.14), the SC and JMR should be listed under the "SIMULATOR USE ONLY" heading instead. (The adrenaline batteries are already marked as NA in Annex #8B, since they are biological components of Alunda Host ships; but they should perhaps be moved down under the same heading for neatness' sake.)

(OE22.13): The current rule reads that subspace rockets "Are Worb only weapons that can only be used in Omega and simulator option mounts". However, if it is available for Omega option mounts, it would not be "Worb only". Does the SSR count as a restricted weapon? (It is listed under the initial category in Annex #8B, though that itself may need to be adjusted depending on the answer here.)

(OG14.0): The Subspace Energy Field is listed under the initial category in Annex #8B, yet the SEF rules do not specify one way or another if this system was intended to be restricted Worb technology or not. Should it be available for use in Omega option mounts, or is the intent for it to be for Worb and simulator use only?

(OH2.26): While the Jammer itself is a restricted Hiver technology, it is noted that the JPR can be used in Omega option mounts. To clarify, is this intentional? (Since the system does not require the presence of a jammer to be functional, it may still be of use as a means of supporting one's electronic warfare adjusstments; but I wanted to be sure that it being available for non-Hivers to use was not an oversight.)

By James Everett (Jetedguy) on Monday, February 03, 2014 - 12:19 am: Edit

(OR2.F2) Tachyon Fighter (TF): After the Vari were observed operating antimatter cannon-armed fighters, The Vari had particle beam armed fighters - James Everett 2 Feb 2014

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Sunday, March 09, 2014 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Omega MRB Annex #7A Color of Counters- The Alunda and Ymatrians are both listed as White/Black/Orange and both of their counters are White/Black/Orange. The Alunda are on Omega Module #1 and #2 countersheets. The Ymatrians are on Omega Module #3 countersheet. If the Omega Countersheet #3 were ever to be reprinted maybe the Ymatrian colors and Annex #7 should be changed? S. Hantke 9 March 14.

By John Christie (John46) on Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - 06:14 am: Edit

Gary Carney
Wondering if you know where the Playtest Tournament Ships SSD's for Omega are available for download? I've been looking for them previously, but have been unable to find them.
If you have them readily to hand, would it be possible to E-mail me the SSD's at christieja@bigpond.com ?
Thanks

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - 10:35 am: Edit

So far as I'm aware, Barry Kirk is the man to talk to about the current crop of playtest Omega TCs.

If I'm not mistaken, some empires (Mæsron, Probr, Trobrin, and others) have sample ships done up already, but others (like the FRA and Iridani) remain to be looked at.

The best place to discuss them would be in this thread.

By John Christie (John46) on Wednesday, April 09, 2014 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Gary,
Thanks. The Maesron and Trobrin are the ones I'm particularly interested in.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, July 30, 2016 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Should the Trobrin DSN really have a breakdown of 5-6, or should it be 3-6 like almost all other dreadnoughts? Even if the Trobrin have super sturdy ships, should it be as good as their cruisers? I am think if that is the case it should be 4-6 at best.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 08, 2017 - 12:41 am: Edit

Apologies if any of these have been thrown up before, but a recent review for another topic led me to ask the following questions:

(OJ2.71). According to my copy of the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook, this rule requires the use of "+" reload boxes to re-arm focused energy beam pods. However, FEBs are listed under "=" reload boxes on page 380. Plus, given that ship-armed FEBs may be armed from a ship's phaser capacitor if needed according to (OE17.22), there might perhaps be cause to allow a "=" box to arm a FEB pod. In any case, would the "+" or "=" designation be correct?

(OJ2.72). According to my copy of the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook, this rule requires the use of "+" reload boxes to re-arm short-range cannon pods. However, SRCs are listed under "=" reload boxes on page 380. While Auroran carriers do have a certain number of "+" boxes (save for those converted to "^" boxes when supporting tachyon missile-armed fighters), I had been under the impression that those were only intended to re-arming light photon-armed fighters instead. In any case, would the "+" or "=" designation be correct?

(OR20.F2). The YIS date for the Enchanter in the MSC from the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook is listed as Y125. However, the OR-section entry is explicit in stating that this size-1 fighter type entered service during the Superpower Wars (at some point after the introduction of as-yet-unpublished improved Zosman fighters). Should a later YIS date - say, Y168 or thereabouts - be assigned to the Enchanter instead?

(OR20.F3). The YIS date for the Sorceror in the MSC from the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook is listed as Y168. However, the OR-section entry is explicit in stating that this size-2 fighter type entered service during the Second Great War (at some point after the introduction of an as-yet-unpublished Zosman heavy fighter). Should a later YIS date - say, Y186 or thereabouts - be assigned to the Sorceror instead?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, March 13, 2018 - 05:26 pm: Edit

To follow up on the above Bolosco questions:

(OR20.5). The YIS date for the Exchanger in the MSC from the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook is listed as Y119. By comparison, the YIS dates presently listed for the Escorter (OR20.10) and Exchanger Scout (OR20.11) are Y101 and Y112 respetively - although I might question the Escorter YIS date, as noted further below. Should the Exchanger have a YIS date of either Y100, to match the Tradeship (OR20.4); or Y101, to match the Guild Cruiser (OR20.3)?

(OR20.10). The YIS date for the Escorter in the MSC from the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook is listed as Y101. Given that the OR-section entry for this unit notes it as being designed as an "escort variant" of the Exchanger, particularly to act in support of the Guild Carrier (OR20.9), should the YIS date for the Escorter be revised to Y125, to match the YIS date of the Guild Carrier itself?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 - 08:43 am: Edit

(OE25.15) (OE25.15) should be (OE24.15) on page 63 of the 2011 rulebook. - Ken Kazinski, 6 Nov 2018

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, August 31, 2020 - 08:01 pm: Edit

Timeline Y171 OMRB - On page 16 "border, but soon realize this cannot be the empier they were searching for and leave", empier should be empire. - Ken Kazinski, 31 Aug 2020.