Jamey Johnston:

At some point after Module J2 was released there was errata for it issued. This errata was incorporated into the Federation Master Starship Book which notes for the ship: "MRS and SWAC shuttles are not included within the ship’s BPV. This carrier cannot use an E3A heavy SWAC shuttle (R2.F3A)."

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Monday, August 12, 2019 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Steve:

Oh thanks! I'm glad I asked, might have gone the other direction on that one.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, August 14, 2019 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Question on Tholian Collars. Do the collars have a excess damage box? SFBOL shows the collar to have a box but when you add the rear hull and command modules excess damage boxes they equal what is on the SSD. Just confirming if there should be another excess damage box on the SSD for the collar.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 15, 2019 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

The ship description for the Neo-Tholian Battleship in Module R5 specifically noted that the collar has one (1) excess damage box. The SSD for the Battleship in Module R5 shows a total of 10 excess damage boxes. The SSDs for the Flag Command Module, Space Control Module, and Command Module in Module C2 all have three (3) excess damage boxes. The SSD of the Neo-Tholian Battleship rear hull in Module D3 shows seven (7) excess damage boxes, however, the Neo-Tholian Battleship Rear Hull in Module D3 has retained the Collar, and one of the seven excess damage boxes is shaded to represent that it belongs to the collar, and a note to that effect is specifically included on the SSD.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, August 15, 2019 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Steve,

I want to verify should there be 11 or 10 excess damage boxes for the Neo-Tholian Battleship in Module R5. My copy of R5 (1994) does not have any shaded boxes.

3 - Command Modules
1 - Collar
7 - Rear Hull
---
11 - Total

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

The "shaded box" is on the SSD for the Separated Rear Hull (retainng the collar) for the Neo-Tholian Battleship in Module D3.

The SSD in Module R5 shows the Neo-Tholian Battleship (space control command module, collar, rear hull) all combined and has 10 excess damage boxes. I have never said it had any shaded excess damage boxes.

The SSD for the separated Neo-Tholian space control command module in Module C2 shows it with three excess damage boxes.

The SSD for the Neo-Tholian Battleship in Module D3 (collar still attached to the rear hull) shows seven excess damage boxes, one of which is shaded. On the left side of the SSD in Module D3 is a copy of the shaded box with text saying the shaded box belongs to the collar. Note that in my earlier reply I also referred to THIS SSD having the shaded box, not the SSD in Module R5, and specifically noted to THIS SSD having the text explaining the shaded box.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 03:05 pm: Edit

If I may be so bold, the math appears to be:
3 - Command Module
1 - Collar
6 - Rear Hull
----
10 - Total

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Mike West:

Ken Kazinski was taking the TEXT which notes that the Neo-Tholian battleship collar has an excess damage box and suggesting that the Neo-Tholian battleship has just 10 boxes, and that a separated command module (which has a separated SSD in Module C2) shows three excess damage boxes. He was asking if the excess damage box for the collar had been missed, so that the combined ship should have had 11 boxes (three for command module, leaving seven for the rear hull, and thus the collar would add one for 11).

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, August 16, 2019 - 10:13 pm: Edit

The monitors that were posted have duplicate rule numbers and they all start with R3. Is there a "A" rule for these units?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

Hunh?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Hi Steve,

The topic Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: New Product Development: Module R14: Ships not published earlier : ALL Redesigning the Classic Monitor showed it was new, I did not look at the dates of the posts (2011).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 17, 2019 - 11:35 pm: Edit

SPP,

I know what the original question was. However I was responding to his second question of your answer, which I thought was pretty clear. While the rules he was asking about are potentially ambiguous, I thought your initial answer was not. Thus my comment.

I do apologize for commenting, though. I should not have.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - 10:46 pm: Edit

In my copy of R6, the SSD for the Lyran Police Flagship (FLG) on pg 69 has 6 total shuttle boxes, two of which are a dotted pair to hold the HTS shows in the Shuttle block. The shuttle block also shows 3x Admin, 1x MSS, and 1x GAS shuttles, but that would require another box. Should it have another Shuttle box on the SSD? Or if the SSD is correct, should one of the Admin shuttles be deleted, or something else?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Jamey Johnston (Totino);
According to the Lyran Master Starshipbook, 2 Admin, not 3.

By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - 01:16 am: Edit

Thanks David!

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, August 29, 2019 - 11:35 am: Edit

I noticed that the Fed CX is not in my PDF version (2014) of Advanced Missions, but it is in my hard-copy version (1991). Was that ship ever reprinted elsewhere??


Garth L. Getgen

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 29, 2019 - 12:06 pm: Edit

I believe the CX is reprinted in Module X1.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, August 29, 2019 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Thanks, Ted. Found it. That's the version (1994) I wanted, unless there's a newer one out there.


Garth L. Getgen

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, August 29, 2019 - 07:12 pm: Edit

Question on the Kzinti Needle: Is it really the case that the only combat variants of the base Needle are the drone version (that replaces the disruptor with a drone) and the fi-con version (which can barely be called a "combat" version)? Obviously, the non-combat variants are there (C, G, M, WB, R, Q), but there is no disruptor version, no phaser version, no escort version, nothing? Or were they published somewhere else and I just missed them?

(Note that I am outright ignoring the MRN. The MRN is so limited in its deployment, it and its vast number of options are completely irrelevant. I am only talking about the non-module Needle.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 30, 2019 - 01:16 pm: Edit

Mike West:

Those are all there are.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, August 30, 2019 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Ok. Thanks!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 30, 2019 - 06:48 pm: Edit

For what it is worth, you cannot really do a "disruptor" version because you cannot put disruptors in the boom arms (otherwise the Kzintis would be adding disruptors there on their ships), and there is no "real" way to add more disruptors to the main hull of a Needle (it is just too narrow and crowded and short of a massive redesign of the entire interior, it is what it is).

I am not sure replacing the one disruptor with one phaser-1 is a good design, and I do not think an "all phaser" variant (replace the disruptor with one phaser-1 and replace the drone rack and phaser-3 in each pod with a single phaser-1 in each pod) is really any better, or that a ship with one drone rack and three phaser-1s is really cool. I suppose one of these could be done.

I suppose you could replace the drone racks with anti-drones (but given the need to supply PFs to both fight the drone-armed Klingons and the non-drone-armed Lyrans ... except for their carrier groups ... seems too restricted a use. Type-E drone racks could be used mimicing the Klingon G1K, but type-Es are of limited use against the Lyrans once again, so it does not seem a good idea.

Multi-Role Needles being able to adapt to the enemy they are facing (not that hard for deck crews to replace the pallets even under fire) makes sense for them to have the options. But Needles being produced for the fighting fronts need to be effective against either Lyrans or Klingons, and later against either Inter-Stellar Concordium intruders, or Andromedan Invaders. Which pretty much leaves a narrow window of the "Return of the Usurper" when the main enemy was another drone empire, and that window seems to be too brief.

My thoughts.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, August 30, 2019 - 08:38 pm: Edit

I wouldn't even suggest a version with an extra disruptor because, as you state, there is no where to put it.

That said, swapping the disruptor out for a Ph-1 would be at least theoretically interesting, and a Drone-E or ADD version would be useful. (The escort version would be used like everyone else's: as casual gunboats on carriers and escorts.)

If they can't exist, so be it. But they aren't any more useless than everyone else's gunboats with ADDs or Drone-E racks. (Their targets are fighters and other gunboats, as much as drones. And Lyran fighters use drones.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 30, 2019 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Mike West:

Well, again, i think you run into the issue that G1Ks are useful against Kzintis, Feds, and Hydrans, but just are not that useful against the Lyrans, and ADDs are even less useful against the Lyrans, and I, at least do not think it is a good idea to divert any of the Hegemony's slender economic resources on such. I could be wrong.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 31, 2019 - 01:02 am: Edit

Eh, you're the boss. Thanks for the explanation.