I'll probably get C6 and do a few more runs with them. I'm not sure where that is on my wants list, though. Having more for the "real" alpha quadrant might be more palatable to the rest of my group.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Wednesday, January 01, 2020 - 10:55 am: Edit

On the plus side, it's one of the books available in pdf form. On the negative, it's actually cheaper to buy in a physical copy except or the massive shipping costs.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, January 01, 2020 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Well I bought it and am glad I did.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, January 02, 2020 - 01:10 pm: Edit

I just had a mental image flashing through my head of an Orion PFT landing on a planet with its gunboats under its wings. The image triggered what may be a dumb question, but I still have to ask.

While I find it easy to assume that PFTs that are capable of landing on a planet (the aforementioned Orion PFT and Romulan Chickenhawk come immediately to mind) would be set up in such a way as to be able to land safely with the gunboats attached, what about casual gunboats on ships able to land on planets?

Would, for instance, an ancient Orion LR have the same ground clearance under its wings as the larger Salvage Cruiser based PFT? Are the tractor beam locations on a KE such that the casual gunboats attached to it be in locations where THEY could comfortably land?

(Mind you, not once in any game of SFB that I've played has there been a time when I've landed a ship on a planet, but it's one of those little things that y'all might have run in to...)

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, January 02, 2020 - 05:21 pm: Edit

I know I could not land my Commando eagle hauling a pod. Are a Paravian tug with a pod that can land on planets.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, January 02, 2020 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Jeff Anderson:

If you were adding PFs to a ship able to land on planets, you would either take the landing into account (add them above the maximum depression of the landing legs when the ship lands), or make sure the captains and other officers know to launch the PFs/Interceptors before landing. in most cases, casual PFs can be assumed to dock "topside" so they are not in the way of the ship landing.

By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Friday, January 10, 2020 - 08:54 am: Edit

A question with regards to Carnivon Pods (battle pods mainly). Can they operate independantly if not attached to a TUG as they have no information with regards to this in their Pod data table! The troop transport has but non of the others. With no impulse they can not move but can they use weapons etc? are shield and life support free if they can operate by themselves? usual questions

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, January 10, 2020 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Majead Farsi:

To be capable of independent operations a pod of any empire requires three things:

1.) a control space (many Carnivon pods meet this requirement).

2.) Impulse engines (only the Carnivon troop pod has these).

3.) Its own Sensor, Scanner, and damage control tracks, an excess damage track is not an absolute requirement. (The Carnivon Troop Pod has these).

If the pod lacks the above, then generally when separated it simply floats in space, and cannot operate any systems while doing so. Emergency Life Support to sustain any personnel remaining on the pod after separation will keep them alive until the pod can be recovered, whether by a friendly ship or an unfriendly ship.

By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Friday, January 10, 2020 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Thank you Steve. I had assumed as much when looking at the SSD.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, February 14, 2020 - 01:10 pm: Edit

A while back, SPP advised me that through a combination of (J10.111) and (G33.111), a Federation heavy war destroyer or advanced technology heavy war destroyer may be equipped with a "short squadron" of 4 F-111s, plus a pair of special sensors in the OPT boxes, to deploy as a medium scout carrier. These have provisionally, though not yet formally, been marked on the Federation SIT over in Federation and Empire as the "HDWZ" and "HWXZ" configurations respectively.

However, as recently noted over on the F&E side of the BBS, certain SFB rules such as (G33.42) state that any HDW (or HDWX) marked as a "true" carrier must have an escort assigned.

Might an exception to this rule be granted to a Fed HDW (or HDWX) operating in this particular configuration?

I should note that part of the motivation behind asking for this "-Z" configuration was to allow Star Fleet to use HDWs and HDWXs so equipped to hunt nodes of the Andromedan Rapid Transit Network. (Other Alpha Octant empires would use their PF tender configurations in this role.) By way of comparison, the Federation GVX was designed to operate as a single-ship carrier: as noted in the background article on page 30 of the SFB Module X1R rulebook, this proved necessary as an RTN-hunting ship needs to be virtually alone while in search mode, so as not to have nearby energy signatures interfere with the process.

With that in mind, would (or should) the Federation be permitted to deploy the "-Z" configurations of the HDW and HDWX as single-ship carriers, so as to enable them to join the hunt for Andromedan RTN nodes?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, February 14, 2020 - 03:43 pm: Edit

There are a number of heavy fighter carriers that have an option of going unescorted. A good example is the Federation Heavy Fighter Transport (R2.56), which states, "... Beginning in Y180 those carrying F-111s or F-101s often operated without escorts (S8.331)."

As such, Gary, I think you've stumbled onto something easily justified.

By Daniel Eastland (Democratus) on Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 10:40 am: Edit

Is there anywhere I can get an SSD for the Gorn CA?

By this I mean an SSD that is purely the CA, without all the extra shaded stuff that makes up the BC.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 10:43 am: Edit

Can't you cover the shaded stuff in pen so you know it doesn't exist?

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Scan the SSD to a jpg (or screenshot the pdf if you have it), open in MS Paint and delete the extra bits.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, March 05, 2020 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Splitting pre- and post-refit iterations of a given hull type into separate documents is more of a Federation Commander thing: for example, there is a "Main Era" Ship Card for the Gorn BC in FC: Romulan Border, as well as a "Middle Years" Ship Card for the Gorn CA in FC: Briefing #2.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, March 07, 2020 - 10:32 am: Edit

In digging into the Hydrans, I've noted a pair of BPV assignments that seem...odd.

The Hunter Frigate, 48 BPV. Two fusions FA, a ph-2-FA, ph-G-360, and two flank ph-2s in split arcs. 12 warp, two impulse, an APR, two batteries. Nine hull. 17-12-10-11 shields. Move cost 1/3.

The Local Defense Frigate, 58 BPV. Two fusions in split arcs, two ph-2-FA, ph-G-360. 8 warp, two impulse, two batteries. Six hull. 12-10-7-7 shields. Move cost 1/3.

Checked errata, updated G3 master annexes, etc., and confirmed the BPV for both.

For the life of me, I can't figure how the LFF is rated ten points higher than the Hunter.

By Steven Zamboni (Szamboni) on Saturday, March 07, 2020 - 04:29 pm: Edit

The Guild-owned Local Defense Frigate is insured for 58 bpv. It's a collectible, you see. Just look at that patina!

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 - 12:44 pm: Edit

My Module R3 (2017 edition) doesn't have the E4J that is listed in this table of contents:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/TOC%20Files/SFB_TOC_R3.0_Klingons.pdf

It's neither in the R section of the manual, nor is it in the SSD book. Online elsewhere R3 is listed as the place to find the E4J.

I have D3, and so I have the E4J boom. No E4J to go with it though.

Was the E4J ever in R3? Where can I find the E4J? I have all of the R modules except R9, and none of them contain the E4J either.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 - 01:44 pm: Edit

The E4J SSD should be on page 6 of the 2012 R3 SSD Book, and the E4J (R3.39) ship description should be on page 4 of the 2017 R3 Rulebook.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Wednesday, March 25, 2020 - 01:56 pm: Edit

Yep, it's there. This is embarrassing.

The "escort" name was throwing me off.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Sunday, April 12, 2020 - 09:05 pm: Edit

Where would one find the rules for the Seltorian version of the regular (R1.22) monitor?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 12:35 am: Edit

Ya know, Shawn, as much as I love Monitors, I've never thought to look! Looking now, I see Q-ships (R15.14) and FRDs (R15.17) discussed, but no Monitors.

Were I to take a guess (like I'm doing now?), I'd say that, most likely, the Seltorians didn't use Monitors; after all, their strategic and tactical immobility isn't conducive to the all-important mission of killing Tholians.

If they did use them, I'd use the information presented in how Seltorians used modified Tholian Q-ships as THEIR Q-ships. Whether this is any good (or, more likely not ), their Monitor would have six Particle Cannons (FA) as Weapon "A," a massive bank of six omnidirectional Phaser Ones as Weapon "B," and Web Breakers as Weapons "C" and "D."

The big problem I have with the placement of the Web Breakers would be with their firing arcs. Again, going with what the rules (R15.14) say about the Seltorian Q-ship, the side sponson Webs on the Tholian were replaced with FA arc Web Breakers on the Seltorian version, but that does run contrary to the normal firing arcs for weapons on the Monitors "C" and "D" mounts; by that tradition, the best the Seltorians ought to hope for would be either the standard LS/RS or, because the standard Web Breakers are normally limited to 120 degree arcs, LF+L/RF+R.

As an alternative (and one that DEFNITELY belongs in The Looney Bin) would be to suggest that, because there are a VERY few Seltorian units with Particle Cannon firing arcs outside of the FA, what about having LS/RS Particle Cannons as Weapons "C" and "D," and have a battery of six (FA) Web Breakers as Weapon "A?"

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 12:55 am: Edit

In the home galaxy there would be no monitors per the rule in C3 (at least for the Tholian's).

Per (R15.1B) in Module C3, Seltorians do not have or use the common auxiliary ships (... monitors ...)

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 12:26 pm: Edit

The Seltorians have an entry in the Light Monitor section of R11. I could accept that due to some arcane set of circumstances the Seltorians didn't use regular monitors alongside their light ones if it were written somewhere that this was the case, but I think the much likelier scenario is either that I simply can't find where it has been published, it hasn't been published, or it has been omitted in error.

I like your suggestion Jeff of using the Q-ships as a guide.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, April 13, 2020 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Shawn Gordon:

As Ken Kazinski pointed out, (R15.1B) says the Seltorians did not use Monitors. That was published in 1993 long before the publication of Module R11 (2007) where the light monitor was published. A decision was made at that time that the Seltorian Tribunal force that operated in the Alpha Octant of the Milky Way Galaxy may have deployed a light monitor (or two) to defend other planets they were pulling resources from (no real reason for the Seltorians to have used freighters at all in the Milky Way if they were only mining a single planet where the Burning Torch of Vengeance was in orbit). Note that the service date for the Seltorian Light Monitor (in the table found in the ship description) is given as Y184 to differentiate it from the general service date for light monitors of Y130. (It is also two years after the Seltorians arrived.)

So, literally as of this time there is no data on Monitors for the Seltorians because neither the Seltorians or the Tholians in the M81 Galaxy/Tholian Home Galaxy used them. (Also they did not allow any of the various subjugated species to use such ships.)

Conjectural data for such a ship might be published at a later time, but it would be conjectural.