This topic is now open for business.

Jean
WebMom

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, August 18, 2014 - 03:04 pm: Edit

R2.10 Paragraph starting with "Operation." Last word in the second sentence should be "rating." S. Petrick 8/18/2014

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, August 18, 2014 - 04:08 pm: Edit

How many pages is this book? I bought the loose-leaf version and want to make sure I got it all. I have up to page 158.


Garth L. Getgen

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Monday, August 18, 2014 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Sample pages look good. Can't wait until Friday so I can buy the PDF version!

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, August 18, 2014 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Garth, the front of the book should tell you there are 158 pages in it.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, August 18, 2014 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Thanks, Jean. I did not see that (otherwise, I would not have asked here). The last page doesn't have any sort of closing paragraph / designer's notes that I'm used to seeing.


Garth L. Getgen

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 09:03 am: Edit

I take it that it has been shipped then. Has the Captains Log been shipped also?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 11:37 am: Edit

Yes, both have been shipped.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, August 22, 2014 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Page 2, Col 2. wwwStarFleetGames.com should read www.StarFleetGames.com Ryan J Opel, 22 Aug 14

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, August 22, 2014 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Page 103, left column half way down: stray "Thunderbolt-F Fighter Conveyor (Thunderflash) (R1.PF5)".

By Mike Bennett (Mike) on Saturday, August 23, 2014 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Just curious. when will these corrections find their way into the e-version that is for sale on e23?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, August 23, 2014 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Give em a month or so to find more.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 23, 2014 - 05:15 pm: Edit

To find something worth fixing...

By John Pepper (Akula) on Saturday, August 23, 2014 - 05:51 pm: Edit

The YFF warp nacelles are on the wrong side per r8 cover.

I would also suggest adding a list of ships not in the master ship book. These include...

SSJ ships
Turret Cruiser
Gatting gun cruiser
cvn
diplomatic dreadnought
F22/F122
A7

Also a list of ships mentioned but not yet published would be helpful. They include:

a couple of generic vessels from F&E
NDD

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 23, 2014 - 07:56 pm: Edit

I would also suggest adding a list of ships not in the master ship book.
SVC: We aren't going to be adding anything, at least not before a new edition in 3 years. These are all items we decided to NOT include. No reasoning has been found to change that decision.

SSJ ships
SVC; I vote "no".

Turret Cruiser
SVC; I vote "no".

Gatting gun cruiser
SVC; I vote "no".

cvn
SVC; Absolutely positively NO.

diplomatic dreadnought
SVC; I vote "meh".

F22/F122
SVC; I vote "meh".

A7
SVC; This unit was not put in the game. It was rejected and has no place in FMSSB.


Also a list of ships mentioned but not yet published would be helpful. They include:

a couple of generic vessels from F&E
SVC; You can't possibly expect us to know what you mean.

NDD
SVC; I vote "no".

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Saturday, August 23, 2014 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Page 130, the fighter deployment section after the "if heavy fighter modules (R1.70) are present": From Y183 onward there should only be 12 F-18C instead of 24; the additional modules have F-111s or F-101s.

Page 130, the fighter deployment section: "12 A-10 or 6 A-20F" should start at Y181, not Y180, per rule at right top of page. (Applies twice)

Page 150, same two comments apply.

Page 154, same first comment applies.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 02:39 am: Edit

Is the Fralli cruiser in there? I imagine the powers that be refused to look at it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 24, 2014 - 09:41 am: Edit

Indeed

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 25, 2014 - 11:26 am: Edit

Jon Hall reported the same issues as John Wyszynski above.

Also Kent Ing has noted that somehow the pictures for the NHA (R2.134) and the NHS (R1.113) got switched.

By john hal (Fedf111fan) on Thursday, August 28, 2014 - 02:44 am: Edit

For the F-101 Voodoo fighter(R2.FA14), the rate of fire of 2 was updated to 3 Offensive drones plus 1 type 6 in Captain's Log #36 page 28 left column bottom line.
Maybe only the F-101C should get this since, it was only the advanced Klingon & Kzinti Heavy Superiority fighters got this launch rate, not the regular heavy fighters.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, September 02, 2014 - 11:47 pm: Edit

(R2.FA12), Page 98-99, print edition. The image used on Page 99 to illustrate the B-3 bomber looks almost the same as that seen on Page 92 for the B-2 (R2.F18), which seems in keeping with its description in the R-section. Yet the SSD outline presented for this unit on Page 98 does not share the same "flying wing" layout. Should the line art be changed to more closely match the SSD, or vice versa? (In this case, I should note that I don't have a copy of Module J2, so I apologise if this issue has been addressed there already.) - Gary Carney 02 September 2014

(R2.208), Page 108, print edition. The image used for the GVX line art looks to be very blurry, at least in my copy. (An ironic misfortune, given how prominently this ship featured on the cover of CL40.) - Gary Carney 02 September 2014

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - 11:54 pm: Edit

(R2.55), Pages 27-28, print edition. According to this listing for the Vincennes-class CX, the ship had been included in Advanced Missions prior to being supplanted by/reasssigned to (R2.201) in Module X1, and that later print runs of the former book included a corrected SSD. (Which may still leave the SSD "out of date", relative to the X-ships in a file like X1R, perhaps.) However, neither my print copy of the Advanced Missions rulebook (the 1999 edition) nor my electronic (2014) edition of the SSD book purchased from Warehouse 23 include this ship. If the CX had once been, but is now no longer a part of this product, should the FMSSB entry be edited to clarify when this removal took place? - Gary Carney 03 September 2014

(R2.201), Page 106, print edition. Same as above: this entry refers to an SSD included in Advanced Missions which appears to be absent from my own copies of that volume. - Gary Carney 03 September 2014

(R2.A30), Pages 75-76, print edition. The R-section entry for the Fed OCA states that this ship, a "stretched" version of the Terran-hull CL, could not be expanded upon any further. However, while the initial Move Cost 1 cruiser developed by the Federal Republic of Aurora from a common CL template, the CLA (OR17.4), is a slightly less massive hull than the OCA, the later Auroran BC (OR17.6) is larger, and the DN (OR17.11) is much larger still. (Although the Aurorans were only capable of constructing the latter two hull types after receiving Mæsron technical assistance in Y173, which allowed them to expand their jury-rigged cruiser yard.) Is there a particular aspect of the OCA's layout which would have prevented Star Fleet from pushing the design yet further, in contrast to what happened with the CLA for the Auroran Navy? Or were the Aurorans able to benefit from Mæsron (or other) assistance in a way which the Federation did not? Or to put it another way, would Star Fleet have been able to do more with the Terran cruiser template if they were so minded, or did the sheer necessity placed upon their Auroran counterparts provide the spark of invention required for this technology branch to press forward? - Gary Carney 03 September 2014

(YR2.6), Page 112, print edition. The graphic used for the Federation YDN has the same 15-box warp nacelles as the "modern" DN and variants shown elsewhere. Yet the SSD shows the same 12-box nacelles used for the YCA (YR2.4) and its respective variants. Should the YDN art be adjusted to match the YCA's nacelles (to include the "two-stripe" struts to port and starboard of the secondary hull)? - Gary Carney 03 September 2014

(YR2.9), Page 113, print edition. The graphic used for the Federation YTG has the same 15-box warp nacelles as the "modern" Tug and variants shown elsewhere. Yet the SSD shows the same 12-box nacelles used for the YCA (YR2.4) and its respective variants. Should the YTG art be adjusted to match the YCA's nacelles? - Gary Carney 03 September 2014

(YR2.34), Page 122, print edition. The graphic used for the Federation YBB has the same 15-box warp nacelles as the "modern" BB and variants shown elsewhere. Yet the SSD shows the same 12-box nacelles used for the YCA (YR2.4) and its respective variants. Should the YBB art be adjusted to match the YCA's nacelles (to include the "two-stripe" struts to port and starboard of the secondary hull)? - Gary Carney 03 September 2014

(YR1.12-2), Page 153, print edition. The graphic used for the YCT as used in Federation space is the same as that used for the Fed-service YFT in (YR1-11.2). The YCT should have a similar octagonal hull outline to the "modern" CUT in (R1-86.2). - Gary Carney 03 September 2014

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Page 153, print edition. The Federation use of the Early Supply Dock (YR1.1-2), featured in SFB Module Y1, is not presented in this section. (Does any line art currently exist showing what a YDK looks like?) - Gary Carney 10 September 2014

Page 153, print edition. The Federation use of the Early Base Modules (YR1.2-2), featured in SFB Module Y1, is not presented in this section. (Does any line art currently exist showing what these early modules look like?) - Gary Carney 10 September 2014

Page 153, print edition. The Federation use of the Early Base Station (YR1.3-2), featured in SFB Module Y1, is not presented in this section. (Does any line art currently exist showing what a YBS looks like?) - Gary Carney 10 September 2014

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

What is unclear about "Early Years General Units that an be used by the Federation are listed here with needed changes. General Units requiring no changes, e.g., early small and large freighters, early augmentation modules, etc., are not listed and simply used as is."

The Federation Early Dock was printed in Module Y1. There is no Generic Early Dock SSD that requires you to insert the appropriate weapons. There is no listing in (YR1.1) that says "for the Federation Early Dock Weapon A is X, Weapon B is Y, and etc. Same goes for the Early Base Station. And the Early Modules are specifically mentioned in the introduction to this section. Please do not report errors that are not errors.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 05:37 pm: Edit

SPP:

In that case, should the Federation YDK and YBS then be listed in the Early Years section starting on Page 111?

Whether they count as "Federation units", or as "generic units under Federation service", they are (or were) prominent logistical units in their era, with their own distinct SSDs in print. Since the various bases that replaced them in the modern era (and the published X-bases that replaced some of those in turn) have illustrated entries in the book, ought these two base types not be granted a similar position?