Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through November 16, 2016	25		11/16 07:54pm

I hate to admit that I am unaware of a rule, so can someone point me to the rule that says an Oversized Squadron cannot include both size-1 and size-2 fighters? Note, a single squadron cannot be composed of both types, but an oversized squadron is actually two different squadrons for all purposes. So I need the specific rule that says an oversized squadron cannot include both single space and double space fighters.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 05:11 pm: Edit

J4.462.size-1 fighters cannot be combined into a squadron with size-2 fighters or size-3 or size-4 bombers.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Gregory S. Flusche:

Yes, but oversized squadrons are not the same squadron. They are two different squadrons for all purposes, but count as a single squadron. You are not combining heavy fighters with non-heavy fighters in a single squadron. Rule (J4.462) does not prohibit a heavy carrier from having a squadron of Z-Hs and a Squadron of Z-Ys. It does prevent that carrier from mixing the two groups (say into two groups of six Z-Ys and three Z-Hs each) and then designating each as a squadron so that the Z-Hs can act as EW fighters for each squadron. You can still only have one Z-H be fitted with the EW software at one time, and irrespective of that a Z-H cannot lend electronic warfare to the Z-Ys, and any Z-YE could not lend electronic warfare to the Z-Hs. The Carrier COULD organize the fighters as above TACTICALLY and as long as each group was within ten hexes of the carrier could generate EW for each group, but it would still be lending that EW to the two squadrons (six Z-Hs in one squadron, even if three of them are working with six Z-Ys on one flank of the carrier and the other three are working with six Z-Ys on the opposite flank).

The rule does not specifically override the rule on oversized squadrons which specifically notes that the oversized squadron is two different squadrons.

So, is there a rule that specifically forbids heavy fighters from being in an oversized squadron? Specifically says that a given carrier cannot have an oversized squadron that consists of one squadron of size-1 fighters and one squadron of size-2 fighters?

There is a rule that says a carrier cannot have two squadrons of heavy fighters, yes.

But is there a specific rule that says an oversized squadron cannot include a squadron of heavy fighters?

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 07:40 pm: Edit

My recollection is that originally J2 said that an ACS had an oversized squadron, but the F&E rule published around the same time stated that an ACS did not. There was a ruling that F&E was correct, and is reflected in the "OS" note is not on the ACS on the MSC.

F&E has a specific rule (318.8) in Fighter Operations 2016. It says that an oversized squadron cannot have heavy or special fighters.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, November 19, 2016 - 07:50 pm: Edit

In SFB under [(S8.32) CL#40] this is noted with 'OS' in the MSC Notes.

IIRC, carriers with heavy fighters (replacing a normal squadron) usually have their designation changed ('H' added or replacing another).

No specific rule excluding heavy fighters found but F&E notes that ACSs have two separate squadrons (318.8).

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - 09:53 am: Edit

I have a question about YIS dates for the Hydran ships used during the first War of Return. (HN, SC, LN, RN)

All of the YIS listed in the MSC give Y134, because (I presume) that is the first date that the galactic intelligence agencies first saw them.

Initially, the same date was ascribed to the St-1, but a Captain's Log article wrote a back story for the fighters, and created the St-0 with a YIS of 124, placing it in service during the Civil War period.

If there were sufficient M series ships available for the War of Return, they must have been in production earlier. We know that the Old Colonies shipyards were not vast, and likely could not have produced sufficient ships without a lead-in time before the start of hostilities.

This leads me to wonder what the *true* YIS dates are for the above classes.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - 05:33 pm: Edit

Mike Dowd:

Yes, Y134 was the first year anyone outside of the Hydran Old Colonies saw those ships (at least saw them and lived to tell the tale). While it may sound trite, only the Hydrans know when the ships started production, and they obviously have valid reasons not to tell anyone else what those dates were. (Makes it difficult to figure out how many ships they have and what their production rates are, or were). As there is not any real game function that is served by going back and assigning arbitrary dates at this time (the history article for the Early Stingers allows some "Hydran Civil War" scenarios, and those can use the declining numbers of older ships), but does not really create any significant interactions with the Star Fleet Universe.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, November 22, 2016 - 06:17 pm: Edit

OK, fair enough. Thanks!

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, July 03, 2018 - 09:17 pm: Edit

(R9.6) MSSB-R09 Hydran HN - The known names paragarph does not contain the designation 'Iniguezian' found in CL33 (SL250.0). - Ken Kazinski, 03 Jul 2018.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, June 04, 2022 - 08:37 am: Edit

(R9.AF7) Hydran St-2B - St-B in "(R9.AF7) STINGER-2B (St-B)" should be (St-2B). Both Captain's Log #21 and G3 show the type to be St-2B. - Ken Kazinski, 4 Jun 2022.

(R9.AF10) Hydran St-2Gv - St-2Gv in "(R9.AF10) STINGER-2GV (St-Gv)" should be (St-2Gv). Both Captain's Log #21 and G3 show the type to be St-2Gv. - Ken Kazinski, 4 Jun 2022.