CARNIVON R-SECTION (MOSTLY MINOR TYPOS)

CARNIVON GENERAL UNITS: Page 58, first paragraph, last sentence: (ad 1 BPV….) should be (Add 1 BPV). (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

R19.N3 (G34.0) DROGUES: Reference to (F20.20) should be to (FD20.20). (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

(R19.8) CVA: Fighter table: Y172 escorts lists a CWA, should be CWE. (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

(R19.14) CA: First paragraph, fourth sentence “battlecruiser” is mispelt “battleceruiser”. (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

(R19.65) P-DB Bombardment Pod: Second last sentence “… whether on the rack is on the tug…” should be “…whether the rack is on the tug…”. (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

(R19.M2) 4th sentence: Need to capitalize “strike” at start of sentence. (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

(R19.M2) 7th sentence: Need to capitalize “hunter” at start of sentence. (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

(R19.F10) First sentence “… and the firing arc of the rear phaser-3 was installed…” The word “installed” should be “improved”. (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

(R1.60-19)Delete reference to Y175 refit as this ship was built in Y180 and would have the refit when built. (Nick Samaras, November 12, 2013).

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, November 23, 2013 - 06:20 pm: Edit

PARAVIAN GENERIC UNIT R-DESCRIPTIONS:

(R1.13A-18) Delete reference to disruptor-armed fighters. (Nick Samaras November 23, 2013)

(R1.13B-18) Delete reference to disruptor-armed fighters. (Nick Samaras November 23, 2013)

(R1.31-18) Delete reference to disruptor-armed fighters. (Nick Samaras November 23, 2013)

(R1.55-18) Delete reference to disruptor-armed fighters. (Nick Samaras November 23, 2013)

(R1.157-18) Delete reference to disruptor-armed fighters. (Nick Samaras November 23, 2013)

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Thursday, January 09, 2014 - 08:13 pm: Edit

(R18.63) P-R: The Paravian repair pod is the only repair pod (real, conjectural, or simulator), in the entire Alpha Octant that has no boarding parties. This seems seems especially odd when it is identical in all respects to the Kzinti (R5.39) and Klingon-model (R3.69) (R4.126J) (R11.37H) repair pods except that the tenth crew unit is not two boarding parties. Intentional differentiation or oversight?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Steven Ehrbar:

The lack of boarding parties was a deliberate difference.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 03:35 am: Edit

(R1.84-18) Rule: Free Escort Carriers can only carry 6 fighters, not 12.

(R1.84-19) Rule: Free Escort Carriers can only carry 6 fighters, not 12.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 17, 2014 - 08:14 pm: Edit

(R18.67) CONFUSING TEXT: LTTs cannot operate SCS multi-pod:
"It could only be carried by a tug, or by a raid mothership."
But later text says:
"Carrier: This pod makes the tug or light tactical transport that is carrying it a true carrier." STRONG - 17 Jan 2014

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 01:34 am: Edit

As written, one could see it that though the LTT could not operate a SCS multi-pod the LTT could still be considered a true carrier and receive all the benefits as such. (Have escort ships and be defended by aegis-equipped ships, land, repair and reload fighters in the shuttlebay, etc.)

Then again, it could be just an error

(I like the first option better)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 04:52 am: Edit

GD: The SCS multi-pod cannot be carried by an LTT therefore THIS specific pod cannot make the LTT a true carrier.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 10:57 am: Edit

Can't the LTT carry the pod as cargo and not operational. I don't have my rule book with me right now but I though LTT's could always transport a pod as inactive.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 11:44 am: Edit

Ken:

No.

LTT rule (R18.30) specifically states: "...This ship cannot carry a triple-weight pod such as the space control pod (R18.67)."

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, January 18, 2014 - 01:59 pm: Edit

The reference to the LTT being able to carry the SCS pod in (R18.67) is in fact an error for which I take full blame. It slipped past in the editing. There were so many distractions trying to get this product done (crashes, outright deaths of computers, etc.) that it is amazing worse things did not slip past. It may be a case that the text was rewritten several times (being destroyed in a crash and then trying to recreate it by using a duplicate set of text from another tug as a guide) and it just finally got to a point that I was not really seeing what I was editing. It is not an excuse, but a statement of what probably happened.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 12:18 am: Edit

MSC R18.0: Recommend Paravian carrier pods (V/VA) have a +1 command rating; recommend SCS pod with +2 rating as it is two links pods. From F&E: "(509.33) CV/CVA pods do not increase the combat factors of the tug but add 1 to the Command Rating." Disregard this recommendation if ADB has made a special exemptions in these case. STRONG - 19 Jan 2014

MSC R18: Recommend Paravian scout pods have a +1 command rating. Rationale from F&E (317.52): "...Scout pods add one to the command rating of the tug or LTT carrying them but no tug can be increased to a command rating more than ten." STRONG - 19 Jan 2014

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 10:35 am: Edit

Chuck Strong:

If SVC so orders these changes will be made (his universe, I just get to play in it), however, I prefer a little diversity and some differences in how empires operate rather than a rigid all do all things exactly the same way except that they use different weapons" mentality. (Not directed at you.)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 12:00 pm: Edit

SPP:

Fully understand, however the consequences of such a decision may require rule changes in to Basic F&E 2010 and to Advanced Operations unless it is ADB's intension not to have continuity in this aspect. Please advise as this issue also effects the F&E submission to CL48.

V/R,
Chuck

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Colonel Strong:

I raised the issue with SVC at lunch and he said that in this instance SFB was not going to be changed to accommodate F&E.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 20, 2014 - 01:58 pm: Edit

No need to change 2010; just note the exceptions in the Paravian rule. (Not strictly necessary to do that as specific overrules general every time. A SIT listing of +0 overrules a rule saying in general all such pods have +1.)

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, February 02, 2014 - 04:51 pm: Edit

More on Death Bolts.

In scouring the Death Bolt rules, there does not seem to be a specific rule that limits Death Bolt Racks to firing only 1 Death Bolt per turn. Is this intentional?

Without a "you can only launch 1 Death Bolt from a Death Bolt Rack per turn" rule (which still might be there, and I just couldn't find it), you could conceivably launch 2 in a given turn (launch a DB on impulse 1; on Impulse 9, two Deck Crews start to prepare a new DB for launch, which will take 16 impulses; Impulse 26, launch a second DB).

I suspect this is an error/oversight. That might have already been fixed (but I haven't found such a note yet).

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, February 02, 2014 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Peter, from the Rules Question Topic;

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, January 30, 2014 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Matthew Potter:

The second paragraph of the introduction to the death bolt rule (FD20.0) says that rules in (F0.0) are used unless modified. Rule (F0.0) includes (F1.4). Nothing in (FD20.0) modifies (F1.4), which means that (G4.2), specifically (G4.231), applies if the death bolt is identified. So the target is revealed as well as any modifications (if you can detect endurance and armor, you can detect the modifications to the warhead).

That same paragraph says that the rules of (FD0.0) are used, and the rules for death bolts use deck crews, so yes a given rack could use two deck crews to launch a second death bolt during a given turn provided the first death bolt was launched early enough in the turn to make this possible.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 03, 2014 - 10:28 am: Edit

Guys:

The limits on death bolts is that they require deck crew actions, and most death bolt armed ships are not carriers and cannot purchase additional deck crews. They are allowed to use the (J4.814) deck crews in addition, but run into the problem that if deck crews are in a death bolt rack area when it is destroyed, they are all dead (that is all deck crews in a death bolt room that is destroyed are killed, not necessarily all deck crews on the ship). So massing your deck crews in one death bolt rack runs the risk of your having death bolts, but no way to launch them even if you repair the rack. You also lose your ability to perform some shuttle activities. For example, if you sent all of your deck crews to work on the death bolt racks, and you recover an unmanned shuttle, you cannot use it as a wild weasel or scatter pack (J1.869), nor do any deck crew repairs on any shuttle.

So, yeah, you can double up the deck crews and have one rack launch two death bolts in a given turn. It is your crew, you can decide what they are doing and transfer them around, but once your deck crews are all killed, no matter how many death bolts you have remaining, you cannot launch a single one.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 03, 2014 - 10:36 am: Edit

In short, it was one of the things to make them "Different" from just being another empire with drone racks.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 08:40 am: Edit

Ah, ok. So for the sake of clarity, it *is* possible to launch 2x death bolts from a given launcher on one turn:

Impulse 1: Launch a death bolt.

Impulse 9: Start preparing a second death bolt with 2 deck crews.

Impulse 25: Finish preparing second death bolt.

Impulse 26: Launch second death bolt.

(I'm not 100% sure that you need to wait till I26 to launch the second one, as opposed to impulse 25, as I don't have the SOP near by and don't know when in an impulse deck crew actions happen…)

There are certainly risks for doing this. But I'm just trying to get the actual sequence down.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 11:30 am: Edit

Peter Bakija:

Been too long, I would have to research the deck crew actions myself, so I cannot answer that one off the top of my head as to specific impulses, but the sequence is correct.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 05:22 pm: Edit

To be clear, it is possible for a given Carnivon ship with two death bolt racks to launch two death bolts from each rack in a given turn if the commander has assigned the (J4.814) deck crews to that duty also. A ship with four death bolt racks could launch two death bolts from each of three racks in a single turn, but only by doubling up the two deck crews from the third and fourth racks on one rack and not launching from the fourth rack.

Depends on how the Carnivon commander wants to run things.

It does impose some restrictions on his shuttle operations.

Death bolts can be identified, and are easily countered by drones, not as easily countered by tractors, are susceptible to mines.

Even if one rack can launch two death bolts in a given turn, there are many tactical reasons that might preclude doing so (if you are not pressuring the enemy when you launch the death bolts, it is not that hard for him to counter them and then come for you).

So, yes, tactically you can do this. And, yes, tactically the opposition must consider the timing that might allow you to do so and what you may be up to.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Oh, sure (and thanks for the detailed replies!); I'm not wondering about the tactical implications of all of this (of which there are many). This is just all about figuring out how they actually work.

I'm surprised that this works--now that I closely read the rules, it is apparent that they were specifically designed to do this. Although I don't know that it is *that* clear in the rules (I read the rules months ago and only just now realized that they could get launched twice in one turn); I suspect a lot of folks haven't yet realized this. I just assumed that there was a general "only one launch per turn" rule (which there isn't), and that the death bolt deck crew rules were a convoluted way to make them slightly slower in launching than regular drones. But in the end, it turns out that the death bolt deck crew rules exist to make it so they can potentially launch *two* death bolts on a given turn (although not also on the next turn as well) if you want to risk your deck crews in this way. Which is certainly interesting and makes the death bolt deck crew rules make a lot more sense then I originally thought they did. But still, is slightly surprising and not necessarily completely obvious in the death bolt rules.

By Steven E. Ehrbar (See) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Sounds like a Term Paper. Probably others lurking.