CA to CVS is a conversion.

CA to CAR is a refit.

By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Friday, September 18, 2020 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Thank you very much to SVC, SPP and Jack!

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Friday, September 18, 2020 - 05:53 pm: Edit

So,

A Federation GSC to CVL, is it a refit or a conversion?

Just following on the CA/CVS being a conversion and CA/CAR being a refit

Marcel

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, September 18, 2020 - 06:19 pm: Edit

General rule of thumb - if it changes the type (or class), it's a conversion, otherwise it's a refit.

But, the SR/SRV/SRG is a minor exception as the resulting ship could still do the SR mission but isn't generally used that way once 'converted' ...

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, September 18, 2020 - 06:42 pm: Edit

In F&E it's a conversion.

By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Friday, September 18, 2020 - 07:02 pm: Edit

Another ? Guys as I'm not sure! Is the following fleet legal?
Klingon fleet
BT
D5C
D5C
D5C
D5
D5
D5S

Must the largest command rated ship be the flagship or can the D5C act as the flagship thereby allowing 3xD5C in the fleet?
Not really sure!

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, September 18, 2020 - 07:41 pm: Edit

The D5C is meant as a "Leader" ship. While I agree that it's a magnificent duellist, the Empire doesn't have enough of them going around to deploy them in such a manner.

Legal? TBH, I don't know, but between us, I'd be kind of surprised if it is; my understanding (a word that should be taken with a grain of salt ) is that each leader must be accompanied by at least two "Led" ships before another leader type can be with the fleet. HOWEVER, I don't know where (or even IF) that's codified in the rules.

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Friday, September 18, 2020 - 07:41 pm: Edit

To answer Majead

D5C #1 (Flagship) (excluded form S8.361 as per S8.363) (Command Rating is high enough for the following fleet)
D5C #2 (1st Leader)
D5 #1 (consort 1 of the D5C #2)
D5 #2 (consort 2 of the D5C #2)
D5C #3 (2nd Leader) (allowed since first leader has 2 consorts)
BT (Not a leader nor a consort, and under TUG limit)
D5S (not a consort because not a combat variant)

So the fleet is legal

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 18, 2020 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Legal, but the D5C is rare and putting them all here means some are no anywhere else. That is a price you pay and why you can do that in F&E but sometimes not in SFB.

By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 04:06 am: Edit

Kk Ty SVP!. There is going to be a lot of CWL running around in our campaign then

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 10:41 am: Edit

Hi Steve,

What is the BPV values of freighters when you remove the cargo pod(s)?

Do you substract 14/10 per cargo pod (Master Ship Chart value) to the freighter BPV?

Marcel

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Marcel Trahan:

The values given for freighters are the combined value for the Pods and the Freighter component. HOWEVER they are not additive. See for example the Large Freigter (61/18) which would have a nominal value of 28/-2 if you simply subtracted the value of the pods. (A freighter Large Ore Carrier would have a perceived value of 44/-15 if you simply subtracted the pods).

Pods by themselves have a combat value (/10) simply because of the inherent "padding" they provide, and the economic value (14/) is more representative of their potential (pods, can carry all sorts of cargo with varying values from liquids, bulk, beak bulk, etc.). We do not define what any given pod left someplace might have (that cluster of pods near Annox V in the "disaster at Annox V" scenario for example), nor do we define the contents of the cargo pods in a convoy (three large freighters with an aggregate of 3,000 spaces of cargo which might be anything from the "dilithium crystals of cannon to 300 shuttles being ships somewhere, to 3,000 spaces of eggs being sent for processing).

We tried one time to separate the drive and bridge from pods, and that got us into the territory of players abusing them as defense boats.

So while the freighters are acknowledged as being able to drop the pods, we have settled on that as "background" and you do not find them operating without a pod (or pods) as appropriate.

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 09:06 pm: Edit

Thanks Steve,

My question relates to R11 section R1.68 where it is said:

A standard small freighter could operate with a pod and
one skid; a large freighter could operate with two pods and
two skids; a heavy freighter could operate with four pods and
two skids. A small freighter could operate with up to three
skids if it had no pod, and a large freighter or huge freighter
could operate with up to six if they had no pods (a huge
freighter cannot operate with two pods and six skids).

In the case that you replace cargo pods with skids, do you deduct the pod value from the cost of adding 2 skids in its place or they are just forgotten?

Marcel

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Sunday, September 20, 2020 - 11:34 am: Edit

A question regarding the MSC.

Federation + refit becomes available in Y165 and as per the refit description in the R section, it specifies that 20% of the ships had it by Y171 while the MSC list the + refit as Y165.

On the other hand, the Klingon K refit becomes available in Y169 and is common by Y175 but the MSC list the K refit as available in Y175.

Should the K refit be listed as available in Y169 instead of Y175 to follow the Fed incorporation date or should the Fed + refit be available post Y171 where it becomes common to follow the Klingon incorporation date (in Y171, only 20% of the Feds had their + refit).

There seems to be a lack on consistency in the MSC regarding refits.

So, what should be the Fed + refit date and the K refit date on the MSC to make them consistent?

Y165 or post Y171 for the Fed + refit?
Y169 or Y175 for the K refit?

Marcel

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Saturday, September 26, 2020 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Question re delayed tractor movement on turn break.

CA [TM of D] is tractored on 1.32 by friendly CA and has declared a delayed turn on 2.1. Pseudo speeds are 8 for each ship as both were moving speed 16.
The CA has moved forward 2 hexes so its TM is satisfied while being tractored.
Lets say the CA plots speed 24 at start of turn 2 bumping up its pseudo speed to 12 now, a TM of 3 effectively.

On 2.1, the CA is committed to the turn as declared but now at speed 12 as tractor is maintained, its TM is not satisfied.
What happens now ?
Does the CA need to do a HET to satisfy the declared turn?
If it does not have a HET plotted or enough bttys to do the HET, does it break down now since the turn cannot be done ?

Thanks.

Cheers
Frank

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, September 26, 2020 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Well, I can tell you there is no rule forcing it to do an HET.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 01:24 am: Edit

Frank,

you do the delayed move at Pseudo speed 8 TM 2

By Frank Lemay (Princeton) on Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 09:50 am: Edit

Yep, Marcel told me last night the proper procedure.

Thanks.

Cheers
rank

By Peter DiMitri (Pdimitri) on Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 01:44 pm: Edit

According to (S8.283), the Federation can play 2 carriers into a CVGB, as long as only one is size class 2.

But my question is, can the CVGB contain both a CVA and an NDS, which is size class 3 but is a Division control ship? It wouldn't be possible in F&E, but I don't see anything in S8.283 that disallows it.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Yes, the Feds can, but one of the carriers would be forced to keep one flight squadron onboard (302.334) to maintain the three attrition unit limit (unless the 3rd way is being used). This would most likely be the F18s of the NDS leaving the F11s (NDS), A10s (CVA), and F14s (CVA) flying ...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 08:24 pm: Edit

CVBGs are a part of the Third Way. Therefore the fourth fighter squadron can be used. See (S8.327).

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Marcel,

The date in the MSC is when the refit was effective in Squadron service.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, September 27, 2020 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Marcel,

You would probably not deduct the Pod value from the cost of adding the two Skids in its place.

R11 (R1.68) Most skids were not used by common freighters on normal cargo runs, but by government-owned or chartered ships on special missions. (Players should think of using these skids to build special ships for civilian missions, not to bulk up their convoys against pirates.)

(S2.1) All ships are assigned a basic point value, as shown on the Master Ship Chart.
BPVs exist as a device to estimate the relative value of different units. It is not an exact science, and some unusual combinations of units that have equal BPVs will not be balanced.

By Marcel Trahan (Devilish6996) on Monday, September 28, 2020 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Hi Steve

A question regarding the MSC.

Federation + refit becomes available in Y165 and as per the refit description in the R section, it specifies that 20% of the ships had it by Y171 while the MSC list the + refit as Y165.

On the other hand, the Klingon K refit becomes available in Y169 and is common by Y175 but the MSC list the K refit as available in Y175.

Should the K refit be listed as available in Y169 instead of Y175 to follow the Fed incorporation date or should the Fed + refit be available post Y171 where it becomes common to follow the Klingon incorporation date (in Y171, only 20% of the Feds had their + refit).

There seems to be a lack on consistency in the MSC regarding refits.

So, what should be the Fed + refit date and the K refit date on the MSC to make them consistent?

Y165 or post Y171 for the Fed + refit?
Y169 or Y175 for the K refit?

Marcel

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, September 28, 2020 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Marcel,

If you have a Master Starship Book there are paragraphs about each refit as it pertains to each unit. From the Federation CA, "The rear phaser refit was available in Y160 but was rare prior to Y170 when it was accelerated, becoming
common in Y173 and universal by Y175."

This information is available per ship and refit.

Hope that can help clear things up.