Gary Carney:

The Generic Units are only listed if there is a GENERIC SSD that must be modified to create the unit for the Federation. So there is no listing for the Small Freighter (R1.5) in the General Generics, or for the Early Small Freighter in the Early Years, or for the Federation X-Express in the Advanced Technology era. There are no Generic SSDs being modified.

The Federation Starbase gets listed because it is a Generic SSD in Basic Set and because of the fighter bay modules, heavy fighter bay modules, and conjectural PF modules, even though there is an Empire Specific SSD in Module R1 (which is noted in the ship description). The Federation Advanced Technology Starbase gets listed, even though it is not a "generic SSD" (the Federation X-Starbase SSD is in Module X1) because of all those fighter, heavy fighter, and conjectural PF modules. The fighters create different years, i.e., when F-8s are used, when F-18s are used, when F-14s are used, when F-18Bs are used, when F-18B+s are used, when F-14Cs are used, when F-18Cs are used, when F-14Ds are used, when A-10s are used, when A-20s are used, when A-20Fs are used, when PFs are used.

The Federation Y-Dock does not get listed because it is not generic, and it does not have to account for fighters, so there are no changes. And no, it does not get listed with the Federation ships.

Same for the Federation Battle Station (Generic in Basic Set, Empire Specific SSD in Module R1) and Advanced Technology Battle station (no generic SSD, empire specific SSD in Module X1), because again there are all those fighters and PFs that have to be accounted for.

But the Early Base Station has an Empire specific SSD in Module Y1 and does not have to account for changes caused by adding fighters and PFs, so there are no changes to note (yes, the early years tractor and transporter refits are refits, but not enough to create an entry).

So, no. And it is not a mistake.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Somewhere down the road, if the Master Starship Books do well, we might do an "R1.0" Master Starship Book that will cover all of the generic units with any special subnotes that have developed in the interim. As an example, maybe the entry for Starbase will spell out the Modifications (weapons) for the Frax, Qari, Trixians, Sharkhunters, and etc. In such case, a listing for the YDK would probably also include instructions to modify it for empires that are under the Alpha Octant operational doctrines if they had operated a YDK.

But until such a thing is done, the YDKs are not going to be listed unless there is something significant, and right now the only YDK that I can think will be listed with its empire will be the Romulan YDK (some significant changes over time) and possibly the Gorn YDK (also some changes in weapon mounts over time).

Until such time, YDKs are not going to be listed BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CHANGE OR MODIFY. A YDK with four cargo early cargo modules is not a reason to list it.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 06:18 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

...if the Master Starship Books do well...

---

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 06:20 pm: Edit

SPP:

I was uncertain as to whether there were plans for an R1.0 book or not. (I had been under the impression that these units would have been divided up by empire, rather than have a distinct volume of their own.)

But if such a book is at least up for consideration, and if the YDK and YBS are best left until that volume is gotten around to, well and good.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 07:14 pm: Edit

Randy Blair:

A question I cannot answer.

Gary Carney:

You cannot divide generic units up by empire. Almost (not all) every empire in the Alpha Octant has a starbase. Almost (not all) every empire in the Alpha Octant has fighters that go through a period of development (from early war to late war) during The General War and will operate from Hangar Bay Modules from their Starbase.

Most (not all) Empires operate Auxiliary Cruisers, the weapons they put on these ships vary.

Most (not all) Empires operate Monitors, and again the weapons vary, and many of these can operate fighters which again vary over the course of The General War.

So, no, they cannot be "divided up by Empire." It would be ridiculous to put the Romulan Auxiliary Space Control Ship in the Inter-Stellar Concordium book with all other Auxiliary Space Control ships. Auxiliary Space Control ships are specific by Empire, but there is only a single (generic) SSD. So in the current system there is a listing for the Auxiliary Space Control Ship which only lists the weapons in its weapon mounts, and any specific special information (such as the fighters it operates in Federation Service by year).

The SHIP DESCRIPTION of the Auxiliary Space Control Ship is not in the Federation Book. If we do a (R1.0) MSSB, the Ship Description will be in that book. Just like the Ship Descriptions of all of the other Generic Units that have appeared in the Federation Master Starship Book are not in that book, only the information that is specific (weapons, fighters) or relative to (seeking weapon control rating, pertinent Empire specific refits) to that Empire. It would be ridiculous for the Federation Small-Armed Freighter to list the Hydran "fusion holding refit" for example.

But we are NOT going to be repeating the ship descriptions of the Generic Units in every book. We are only putting in the information that is pertinent. And there is no pertinent information for the YDK that needs to be in every single book we do.

You will note that the entry for the Federation Starbase includes the data on the Federation converting docking Module #4, because it is pertinent to the Federation, but there is nothing about the ability of the Starbase to hang Augmentation Modules, or about the special starbase damage rules because those are not limited to the Federation Starbase. So again, and for the last time, it was NOT a mistake to not put the Early Dock or the Early Base Station into the Federation Book. The situation was reviewed, it was recognized that there was no specific "Federation" information that needed to be appended to those bases, so they were not listed because there is no change to them.

So please do not report mistakes that are not mistakes.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 07:35 pm: Edit

SPP:

I apologize for not being clearer in my last comment.

When I posted the original items earlier today, I had not thought of there being a file for the (R1.0) units in and of themselves. Due to a lack of imagination on my part, the way I had envisioned it being was that only the generic units used by a certain empire (and the specific configuration in play for each) would appear in a given empire's MSSB volume. So, in my own mind, I was worried that there would be nowhere for units like the YDK and YBS to go, if they weren't going to go in here.

I had failed to stop and think of how a dedicated generic volume would still be valid in and of itself, and how the creation of such a volume would render my concern moot.

What I was trying to say is that, since such a generic MSSB volume may one day exist, and that, as you say, it would be a more fitting home for units like these two, my comments about them here can be safely withdrawn.

Once again, I apologise for not being more forthright about this withdrawal in my last post, and causing you to view it as continuing to press an issue I did not wish to further pursue.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 10:16 pm: Edit

I saw the mention that the Hydran MSSB is next on the [MSSB] release train. I am *very* excited about that one - To the point that you can just put me down for one right now and send it as soon as you start the first printing run.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, September 11, 2014 - 09:41 am: Edit

It is too soon to get a read on whether sales justify another book. (The hydrans were mostly done already.)

However the change of Klingon MSSB to be projected for next spring rather than this fall is just a matter of projects stacking up and does not reflect the sales data we don't have yet.

By Oliver Upshaw (Oliverupshaw) on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Got a question on the information presented in this book. Are the weapon load outs for the various ships listed? Based on the two preview pages that are up I am thinking not, but I thought I would ask.

I am just looking for information like:

FED CA – 4 Photons FA, 2 Ph-1s FH, 2 PH-1s LF-L, 2 PH-1s RF-R

FED CAR+ - 4 Photons FA, 2 Ph-1s FH, 2 PH-1s LF-L, 2 PH-1s RF-R, 2 PH-1s RH, 2 PH-3s 360, 1 G-Rack

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 01:19 pm: Edit

No, that's not how SFB rulebooks are done. You have an SSD for that. Nobody even thought of including that kind of information, and if somebody had, Petrick would have said no (too hard to check and verify) and I would have said no (too much extra work) and Jean would have said no (bad marketing direction).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Ah but the question remains, who would have said "NO!" the loudest?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Not really, it would be more like who added the hockey sticks...

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 02:57 am: Edit

That would be Leanna. ;-)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, September 17, 2014 - 01:58 pm: Edit

The other thing is that in some cases it does not end there. The Fed CA would look like:

FED CA – 4 Photons FA, 2 Ph-1s FH, 2 PH-1s LF-L, 2 PH-1s RF-R

FED CAR - 4 Photons FA, 2 Ph-1s FH, 2 PH-1s LF-L, 2 PH-1s RF-R, 2 PH-1s RH

FED CA+ - 4 Photons FA, 2 Ph-1s FH, 2 PH-1s LF-L, 2 PH-1s RF-R, 2 PH-3s 360, 1 G-Rack

FED CAR+ - 4 Photons FA, 2 Ph-1s FH, 2 PH-1s LF-L, 2 PH-1s RF-R, 2 PH-1s RH, 2 PH-3s 360, 1 G-Rack

At a minimum.

And some would want the other refits spelled out, i.e., the "APR" refit and the Y175 refit and the conjectural Mech-Link Refit, and the year "fast" speed drones appeared, and some notation about the "partial-X refits."

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 24, 2014 - 03:52 pm: Edit

(R1.24-2) This ship can control a number of seeking weapons equal to half its sensor rating (F3.211).

(R1.28C-2) This base is missing the "-2" in its rule number.

(R1.28C2-2) This base is missing the "-2" in its rule number.

(R1.41-2) This unit should have been numbered (R1.43-2).

(R1.42-2) This unit should have had the engine refit defined in (R1.67).

(R1.43-2) [Corrected number for the unit currently numbered (R1.41-2)] This unit should have had the engine refit defined in (R1.67).

(R1.55-2) CanNOT disengage by acceleration or use emergency deceleration.

(R1.56-2) CanNOT disengage by acceleration or use emergency deceleration.

(R1.57-2) CanNOT disengage by acceleration or use emergency deceleration.

(R1.60-2) CanNOT disengage by acceleration or use emergency deceleration.

(R1.74-2) CanNOT disengage by acceleration or use emergency deceleration.

(R1.89-2) Add that the unit can control seeking weapons equal to double its sensor rating (XF3.2).

(R1.88-2) This unit is not in service prior to Y160 and so does not need the Y140 transporter and tractor refits.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, December 22, 2014 - 12:36 am: Edit

Apologies if these have been caught already, but I was flicking through the X-ship section of my print copy and noticed a few things:

(R2.203), Page 106, first print edition. The graphic used for the Federation FFX seems to have the same 6-box warp nacelles as the "modern" FF and variants shown elsewhere. Yet the SSD shows a pair of 8-box nacelles. Should the FFX art be adjusted accordingly? - Gary Carney 22 December 2014

(R2.209), Page 108-109, first print edition. The graphic used for the Federation DWX seems to have the same 6-box warp nacelles as the "modern" DW and variants shown elsewhere. Yet the SSD shows a trio of 8-box nacelles. Should the DWX art be adjusted accordingly? - Gary Carney 22 December 2014

(R2.210), Page 109, first print edition. The graphic used for the Federation NAX seems to have the same 24-box port and starboard nacelles (and 6-box centre warp nacelle) as the "modern" NCA and variants shown elsewhere. Yet the SSD shows a pair of 15-box nacelles to port and starboard (akin to those shown elsewhere for the Fed NLF) and an 8-box centre warp nacelle. Should the NAX art be adjusted accordingly? - Gary Carney 22 December 2014

(R2.211), Page 109, first print edition. The graphic used for the Federation NASX seems to have the same 24-box port and starboard nacelles (and 6-box centre warp nacelle) as the "modern" NCA and variants shown elsewhere. Yet the SSD shows a pair of 15-box nacelles to port and starboard (akin to those shown elsewhere for the Fed NLF) and an 8-box centre warp nacelle. Should the NASX art be adjusted accordingly? - Gary Carney 22 December 2014

(R2.213), Page 110, first print edition. The graphic used for the Federation HDWX seems to have the same 6-box warp nacelles as the "modern" HDW. Yet the SSD shows a quartet of 8-box nacelles. Should the HDWX art be adjusted accordingly? - Gary Carney 22 December 2014

EDIT: I had put some LS/RS phaser mount items in when I first posted this, but then it occurred to me that they were probably just replacing the phaser-3 mounts that were already there on the non-X hulls (and thus needed no changes art-wise). Sigh...

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Monday, December 22, 2014 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Gary you realize that part of what makes X-Ships, X-Ships is the micronizing of components. Thus a "large" warp engine can be fitted into what appears to be a smaller nacelle. Or more power can be finessed out of previous generation designs.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - 01:20 pm: Edit

And yet a number of the X-ships elsewhere in the volume have larger nacelles [such as the DDX, DDX(2)*, and CLX].

While there are X-systems which are smaller than non-X counterparts according to Module X1R, most of those are internal systems (such as X-reactors) which would not show up on the hull surface.

That said, of the X-engines on the ships mentioned above are fine the way they are, well and good.

*Speaking of which, since that ship is shown to have a "wide" 20-box nacelle, should those also appear on the various X-cruisers which share the same engine? (Or on the DLX, for that matter?)

By Paul Brown (Akalabeth) on Monday, January 26, 2015 - 02:46 am: Edit

Despite being a Federation Commander player I picked this book up, it's pretty cool. I picked up the Hydran book too but haven't yet looked at it, I hope books for the other races I play come out sometime as well.

Though I do have to say regarding the Federation book that it's very disappointing to see that pretty much all of the Federation Fighters are named after American warplanes. The decision seems completely incongruous with the ethnically-diverse focus of Star Trek.

I realize that's ancient history as those names were probably laid out in Module J but still, rather baffling decision.

By Mark Steven Hoyle (Markshoyle) on Monday, January 26, 2015 - 09:13 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The decision seems completely incongruous with the ethnically-diverse focus of Star Trek.

---

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, January 26, 2015 - 09:21 am: Edit

There are a handful of fighters in the FMSSB named after Shenyang models built in the PRC.

But the topic of why most Fed fighters have American-inspired designations was in one of the Q&A sections of Captain's Log #49. It seems that, with only so many types of fighter craft to go around, it was easier to go with a single set of designations.

For what it's worth, I named one of the Federal Republic of Aurora's strike carriers Typhoon in an SFB scenario published in Captain's Log #41. (While the current set of FRA fighters are named after different breeds of Terran dog, I wanted to refer to both the Hawker and Eurofighter Typhoons when naming the carrier the scenario had them fly off of.)

By Paul Brown (Akalabeth) on Monday, January 26, 2015 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Hey Mark,

What I mean to say is that Star Trek's vision of humanity in the future is one of mutual co-operation and a world without borders. The bridge crew of the enterprise includes people from all over the world, asian, african, russian, scottish, etcetera.

That carries over into the ship names as well, with Constitution-class vessels named after British ships like the Intrepid and the Hood, or the Potemkin named for a Russian vessel. In TNG one of the Galaxy-class vessels in Season 1 is named Yamato after a Japanese admiral/battleship. And in the technical manual by Franz Joseph, some other constituion vessels are named for example Lafayette (name for French aircraft carrier/french general in the american revolution), Hiemdal (nordic god), etcetera.

But contrary to this the Federation fighters are almost exclusively named after american fighter planes with identical model numbers. Tomcat, Eagle, Phantom, Warthog, Hornet, Hawk-Eye, Crusader, Avenger, etcetera. Even those craft without names are given identical designations to famous american craft like B-1, B-2, B-17, B-25 bombers. Only exception I noticed was the shenyang that Nerroth mentions. The conjectural Gunboats have american-sourced names as well: Mustang and Thunderbolt.

So yeah, it seems very out of place for all of the craft to draw their namesakes from a single nation when there are a wealth of countries with strong aviation histories both in planes and men.

Whatever the case it's in the past so cannot really be changed now. If I ever come across CL#41 I'll look up the reasoning.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, March 13, 2015 - 01:08 am: Edit

(R2.141) DWR: Ship description says it can control drones equal to sensor rating; SSD says twice sensor rating. (Nick Samaras, March 13, 2015).

(R2.144) DDV: Ship description says it can control drones equal to its sensor rating; SSD says twice sensor rating. (Nick Samaras, March 13, 2015).

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Monday, March 23, 2015 - 02:32 pm: Edit

(RFA14) Federation F-101: The line about no SSD available is incorrect. Captain's Log 39 had SSDs for these fighters, and they look different then what is in this book. it was given reference number F20 in Captain's Log 35. (Nick Samaras, March 23, 2015)

(R202) Federation DDX: The hull numbers are incorrect as they were changed from 0700- to 0600-. (Nick Samaras, March 23, 2015)

(R1.2-2) Federation BATS: Should not have double drone control. (Nick Samaras, March 23, 2015).

Many fed carriers list DWA/FBE or DWR (Rom) and should have /FBR after the DWR for the Rom border. (Nick Samaras, March 23, 2015).

By Eddie Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Nick, the FBR may not be listed, because it has only been published in Captains Log, not in a normal R ship book.