(OE28.132) Module O4 Rule - The reference to Mega-gauss cannons should be (OE28.5). - Ken Kazinski, 10 Mar 2013.

(OE28.132) Omega Master Rulebook - The reference to Mega-gauss cannons should be (OE28.5). - Ken Kazinski, 10 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, March 11, 2013 - 09:42 pm: Edit

(OR20.PL0) Omega Master Rulebook Annex #3 Bolosco Pods - To match convention docking points should be +1, explosion strength should be listed as +0, +1 and +2; command rating should be +0. - Ken Kazinski, 11 Mar 2013.

(OR20.PL4) Omega Master Rulebook Bolosco P-VL - The escort chart should start at Y125. - Ken Kazinski, 11 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 09:03 pm: Edit

(OR19.S1) Omega Master Rulebook Annex #4 Ryn Admin - Should the product be O1/O4 as the Ryn were not introduced until O4? - Ken Kazinski, 14 Mar 2013.

(OR19.S1) Omega Master Rulebook Annex #4 Ryn Admin - The rule should be OR19.S1. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Mar 2013.

(OR19.S2) Omega Master Rulebook Annex #4 Ryn MRS-A - The rule should be OR19.S2. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Mar 2013.

(OR19.S2) Omega Master Rulebook Annex #4 Ryn MRS-B - The rule should be OR19.S2. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 07:31 pm: Edit

(OR19.3) Module O4 Ryn CM - The TEM missiles have a YIS of 110 per OFD2.0 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y67; there is no refit to add this system. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Mar 2013.

(OR19.4) Module O4 Ryn DS SSD - The note for the special sensors being destroyed by torp hits is missing. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Mar 2013.

(OR19.6) Module O4 Ryn CA - The Transporter-Emitter Missile system has a YIS of 110 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y89; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Mar 2013.

(OR19.9) Module O4 Ryn FFM - The Transporter-Emitter Missile system has a YIS of 110 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y65; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 07:34 pm: Edit

(OR19.13) Module O4 Ryn CMS - The Transporter-Emitter Missile system has a YIS of 110 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y105; there is no refit. The note that states this unit always had the Y141 refit seems also to be in error as the YIS for this unit is Y105. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 11:07 pm: Edit

(OR20.7) Module O4 Bolosco TG SSD - IWT #3 & 4 probably should have a firing arc of RS and not LS. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Mar 2013.

(OR20.9) Module O4 Bolosco GV - The escort table should begin at Y125, the same as the unit's YIS, and not Y170. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Mar 2013.

(OR20.9) Module O4 Bolosco GV - Annex 7G shows 2 bays but the SSD states there are 3. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 17, 2013 - 12:24 am: Edit

(OR21.2) Module O4 Qixa CG - Per the timeline Qixa the Warp Engine has a YIS of 98 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y85; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 17, 2013 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Annex #10 Omega Master Rule Book Qixa FF - The listing should include the FF and probably should be "FF, FFL." - Ken Kazinski, 17 Mar 2013.

(OR21.3) Module O4 Qixa DD - Per the timeline Qixa the Warp Engine has a YIS of 98 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y50; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Mar 2013.

(OR21.5) Module O4 Qixa DDS - Per the timeline Qixa the Warp Engine has a YIS of 98 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y67; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Mar 2013.

(OR21.6) Module O4 Qixa DDV - Annex 7G, shouldn't the fighters be 0-12, Admin 2-14, Deck Crews be 0-12? - Ken Kazinski, 17 Mar 2013.

(OR21.8) Module O4 Qixa FF - Per the timeline Qixa the Warp Engine has a YIS of 98 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y59; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Mar 2013.

(OR21.10) Module O4 Qixa FFT SSD - There are no T-Bombs on the SSD and there should be 2 T-Bombs and 2 Dummy T-Bombs. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 24, 2013 - 10:36 pm: Edit

(OR22.2) Module O4 Branthodon HT - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.2) Module O4 Branthodon HT - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.3) Module O4 Branthodon VY - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.3) Module O4 Branthodon VY - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.4) Module O4 Branthodon YN - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.4) Module O4 Branthodon YN - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.5) Module O4 Branthodon MT - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.5) Module O4 Branthodon MT - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.5) Module O4 Branthodon MT SSD - Shouldn't the ability table title be "Mature Special Abilities". - Ken Kazinski, 23 Mar 2013.

(OR22.6) Module O4 Branthodon AD - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.6) Module O4 Branthodon AD - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.7) Module O4 Branthodon OL - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.7) Module O4 Branthodon OL - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.8) Module O4 Branthodon EL - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.8) Module O4 Branthodon EL - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.8) Module O4 Branthodon EL - Life Support is 2 and should be 1.5 for size class 2 units. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.9) Module O4 Branthodon AN - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.9) Module O4 Branthodon AN - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.9) Module O4 Branthodon AN - The rule does not contain the escorts and fighters for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.9) Module O2 Branthodon AN - Life Support is 2 and should be 1.5 for size class 2 units. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.11) Module O4 Branthodon VYS - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.11) Module O4 Branthodon VYS - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.10) Module O4 Branthodon YNV - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.10) Module O4 Branthodon YNV - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.12) Module O4 Branthodon ADC - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.12) Module O4 Branthodon ADC - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

(OR22.PF1) Module O4 Branthodon BY - Per (G9.413) mimimum crew units should be the same as the number of crew units 4 and not 2. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Mar 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, March 30, 2013 - 09:47 pm: Edit

(OR2.17) Module O5 Maesron FFP - There is a 'P' note, and per K2.111 there should be at least 6 PF Mech Link's and there are only 4 - Ken Kazinski, 29 Mar 2013.

(OR2.17) Module O5 Maesron FFP - There is a 'P' note, and per K2.111 there should be repair system and there are none - Ken Kazinski, 29 Mar 2013.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, March 30, 2013 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Ken, before you go on to other PFTs, I would advise checking the empire-specific rules governing gunboat deployments in (OR1.PF3).

Mæsron PFTs (to include the FFP and SCS) have a minimum of four mech-links because their gunboat flotillas only operate four boats at a time, instead of the six seen as standard in the Alpha Octant or Lesser Magellanic Cloud. (A Mæsron boat is somewhat large for a PF, thanks to the size flexibility offered by the "volatile warp" engines used in Omega Octant gunboats.)

And in terms of repair systems, the R-section for the Mæsron FFP addressed this issue. Essentially, this ship, the first of its kind in the Omega Octant, was an exercise in trial-and-error for the New Alliance in terms of pioneering gunboat operations. The ships had no repair systems when first launched, and by the time the Mæsrons managed to develop repair facilities capable of being mounted on a warship, they installed them into a (yet-to-be-published) cruiser-sized PFT hull and retired the FFP class outright.

Other empires' tenders (and flotilla organizations) have similar historical quirks and notes to bear in mind, when it comes to seeing which apparent discrepancies are genuine oversights, and which are intentional aspects of a given class' design.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 09:10 am: Edit

Gary,

I looked at OR1.PF3 again and based on that to get a P note:

MÆSRON, TROBRIN, PROBR, IRIDANI, WORB: 4 PFs.

KOLIGAHR, VARI, LORIYILL: 5 PFs

FRA (Conjectural), Qixa: 6 PFs.
DREX: 8 PFs.
BRANTHODON: if baby dragon ships allowed.

Is that how you read the rule?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 09:19 am: Edit

As for the P note and not repair capability.

The unit's rule is clear that it had no repair capability but should it have a P note as it does not meet the criteria of K2.111? I could see there being a casual PFT note.

The next generation of PF's would have the P note.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 01:31 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

No system is perfect, and you can drown in trying to have variations of symbols to reflect differences. If a Mæsron player is looking for a PF tender on the MSC, the "P" note tells him the ship is a PF tender and will carry a flotilla of PFs. He needs to see the SSD and ship description to know if there is anything else odd about it. Do we really need a "Pr" to tell him "it is a PF tender but does not have repair capabilities?" Or do we need to be absolutely rigid and never do any "historical background" ships where you can see concepts "evolving?" For that matter, see the Light PFTs in the Alpha Octant which have only three mech links, but are noted as "P," i.e., true PF tenders because they were part of the evolution of the concept.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Steve,

I am not suggesting there should be different symbols. I am stating that this unit does not meet the criteria of K2.111. If there the criteria is going to change then the rule should reflect what the change is or the unit should not be receiving the benefit of being a PFT. It could very easily meet the criteria for a casual PFT.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 02, 2013 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Ken:

The Criteria is changed by the unit's ship description. The unit forms its own exception just as the Light PFTs do in the Alpha Octant. They are a historical footnote on the development of the doctrine for operating PFs.

It is not a casual PF tender because no casual PF tender carries a full flotilla (for that Omega Octant Empire) and no casual PF tender is allowed to operate a PFL, or a PFS, nor can a casual PF tender be lent EW by a its scout PF or provide EW to its whole flotilla through a scout channel.

Sorry, but this stays as it is.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Annex 7N - Omega Master Rules - Is Annex 7N drone reloads missing from the OMR? - Ken Kazinski, 14 Apr 2013.

(OR2.B5) Module O5 Maesron GPC - As the GPC is a true PFT (per the "P" note), shouldn't it have 150 spaces of drone / missile storage per (K2.651) and not 100 tachyon missiles? - Ken Kazinski, 14 Apr 2013.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, April 15, 2013 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

None of the Omega Octant ships qualify to be listed in Annex #7N so it was not included.

As to the Mæsron GPC, if you can find a Mæsron unit, any Mæsron unit, in fact any unit built in the Omega Octant (as opposed to arriving from outside of the Omega Octant), that could actually use drones there might be a point to the question. As there are none such, specific overrides general, and the rules on the Mæsron GPC are specific too it, using tachyon missiles (which the Mæsrons use) in place of the drones normally listed.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 - 06:56 pm: Edit

(OR3.PF2) Koligahr PF OMRB/Omega 5 - I have multiple notes stating what the ACG's firing arc should be. 4/17/2007, http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/All_Omega_Errata.pdf, states RA; 12/20/2008, CL38S lists the arc as RH; 1/16/2010, http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/Omega_5_Errata_19_Jan_.pdf lists the arc as RH; 8/24/2011, http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Omega/Omega_MRB_&_O5_Errata.pdf, lists the firing arc as RA. Which is correct? - Ken Kazinski, 21 Apr 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - 10:20 pm: Edit

(OR4.16) Module O5 Trobrin PFT - When comparing the PFT to the FF it looks as if the special sensor should be destroyed on phaser damage points and not torpedo. - Ken Kazinski, 05 June 2013.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - 11:46 pm: Edit

That may have been intentional, torpedo hits less common than phasers....

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, June 06, 2013 - 01:20 am: Edit

Special sensors are usually hit on the weapon that they replace.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, June 06, 2013 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Sigh.

Way back when there was this rule, (S3.3), which was used for ship modifications. Obviously one of the things you could modify was to replace some system with a special sensor. So a rule was written that special sensors were destroyed by damage on the weapon they replaced. There were few scouts in that period.

The game grew, and scout design changed. More attention was paid to the "tactical consequences" and how the designer's "wanted the scout to take damage." And sometimes systems get moved around a lot, such as on the Police Cutter Scout where it loses a photon and a phaser, and the second FA phaser moves o the photon position, so some could argue that under the rule one special sensor should be destroyed on "torpedo" damage points and the other on "phaser" damage points. (for tactical damage absorption both are destroyed on "torpedo" damage points.)

And of course we did not want to delete the old rule because (S7.0) (the new ship modifications rule) is going to be published some day.

So, in short, the Trobrin PFT's special sensor is destroyed on "torpedo" damage points as a design decision, and it is not going to be changed.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, June 08, 2013 - 09:59 am: Edit

It is not just spelled out in the S-series rules. (G24.17) is specific.

Normally when I post these type of questions I am also verifying that was what was intended.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, June 08, 2013 - 10:43 pm: Edit

(OR5.B2) Module O5 Vari FGB-S - The minimum crew units should be 2 and not 1. Carriers (Units with a V? Note) subtract their deck crews to determine the crew size for use with (G9.41). - Ken Kazinski, 08 Jun 2013.