Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	The Reflection Universe Project	346		02/09 03:14pm
	Alternate Timelines: Romulans Without Smarba	72		08/25 12:02pm
	Archive through April 18, 2021	25		04/18 07:37pm
	Archive through April 20, 2021	25		04/21 09:50pm

I would consider R4J2 to be years away, if it happens at all. I do not see a need to discuss it, commit to it, plan for it, or promise it now. Obviously it is one of many paths that could be open someday.

Nobody knows yet now R4J is going to sell. If it doesn't sell great, the question of Mike West's R2J droneless Feds or your R4J2 is irrelevant and just wasted electrons.

You're back to your old habit, Gary. We just met the girl of our dreams and you're arguing about what to name our grandchildren's dog. I am not going to commit today to "Rex" or "Fido" or even to the idea that we may have grandchildren or that they might someday have a dog. We don't need to build "insert dog's name here, if there is a dog" into the current product.

X and F aren't relevant to this conversation. Once you get to the time you need them you can use the standard ships already in the game.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 - 02:46 pm: Edit

One of the central points of R4J is that it still results in the Romulans developing the Hawk-series exactly so that there doesn't have to be a hundred more Eagle-series SSDs on top of what was just added. Personally, the appeal of R4J for me isn't "All Eagle-series, all the time" but "Look, playing Romulans prior to Y160 isn't an exercise in Speed 1 frustration."

If some future Captain's Log has a Fast Eagle or other missing obvious variants for a full Eagle fleet that would be cool, but I see such things entirely as bonus material and not as anything "missing".

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 - 03:25 pm: Edit

I would consider a fast eagle as mainstream not alternate timeline so it doesn't need to be discussed here.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, April 20, 2021 - 04:46 pm: Edit

The primary purpose and point of R4J is exactly what Alex stated. Verbatim.

The main ships of the module are actually the W-series and Y-series ships. Everything else is gravy.

The rest was just to bring the existing Eagle ships up to King Eagle standards. So, King/Queen eagles, and B refits for BH and SN ships. It is not to make sure the Eagles have every possible variant. It is to make the existing ships more capable. So, no fast ships, no war cruisers, no CCH, no DNL, no DNH, no tug, no HDW, no whatever the other stuff is. Just improve the existing ships. All that other stuff is handled by the Hawks.

And it is certainly not to expand the X-ships. X-ships are not "missing" in the module. They were intentionally not included by design. By the point of the X-ships, these Romulans (of any of these timelines) should be pumping out X-Hawks and not need to waste time with X-Eagles. Sure, there will be some conversions of opportunity, but nothing by design or in regular production. That's what the Hawks are for.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Questions on the Warp-Powered Freighter:
- What is its movement rate without a pallet? Or is unchanged whether it has a pallet or not?
- Can it land with the pallet? (Actually, can any Romulan ship with a pallet land while still carrying the pallet?)
- Can it carry anything other than the pallet? Like an inert ground base?

Thanks!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, April 22, 2021 - 12:05 pm: Edit

Mike West:

What is the Movement rate of a Small Freighter without a cargo pod?

The Freight Eagle has been in the game, and the Commando Eagle Variant, and the Pioneer Eagle Scout Eagle variant (and sunlight versions) for over 30 years. To make the Romlan logistics work, they have to be able to land on planets with the cargo sled, and in fact take off with them (the Freight Eagle is noted as being able to do this in the Roman Master Starship Book). The Romuylan sublight freighter (which the warp powered freighter is based on) has been In the game at least for 25 years.

Carrying ground bases is under the same limits of doing such with freighters; (G14.742) and (G14,746),

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, April 22, 2021 - 12:19 pm: Edit

Steve;

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I believe that he may be referring to R4.J61, the FRTW, which isn't an Eagle hull despite its semblance, but is a civilian warp converted freighter.

It lists a movement cost of 1/3 on the SSD, and is pictured with a cargo pallet attached. No additional movement data is provided there for a state where the pallet is detached, including any improved turn mode. The same data is in the Master Ship Chart for the product.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, April 22, 2021 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Mike:

I believe that it had already been thought through - at least where it comes to minis. Looking at a FE mini I have from the Shapeways series, the bottom of the pallet has 4 landing pads and a ramp to offload vehicles and cargo.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, April 22, 2021 - 01:13 pm: Edit

SPP,

The movement rate of a small freighter with a pod is 1/3. The movement rate of a small freighter without a pod (aka in ballast) is 1/4.

The movement rate of a Romulan freighter with a pallet is 1/3. The movement rate with a pallet isn't explicitly stated anywhere, thus the question. I would assume 1/4, but I didn't know, so I ask.

The question doesn't really apply to the sublight Romulan Freighter, as its movement rate with a pod is 1, and its movement rate without a pod is 1. Which ... doesn't help.

Also, I don't have the MSBs, and I don't remember anything stating what a pallet allows to happen regarding landing on a planet. Thus the question.

So, from all of my experience from the game, I can easily guess the answers to my questions (1/4, yes, yes), but those are just assumptions, deductions, and guesses. None of it is actually stated. So, rather than just running on assumptions (which has gotten me into trouble before), I thought it best to just ask. I am not trying to be a pain in the rear. I am not saying the ship entry listing is wrong. I just want to make sure I am not just assuming and finding out later I was wrong.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 03, 2021 - 09:23 pm: Edit

From a Prime Directive perspective, it might be interesting to dig a little deeper into what makes both batches of "Vulcans" distinct in the "reflection" timeline from their "standard" timeline counterparts.

According to GURPS Romulans, the exiles on Romulus gradually diverged from their "logical" Vulcan counterparts both mentally (due to not suppressing their emotions) and biologically (due to adapting to life on a more verdant class-M world). So things like the seven-year fertility cycle and the attendant pon farr "madness" had become relics of the past within one millennium.

Although, given that Remus was itself a Vulcan-like class-K world even before its fateful encounter with the USS MacArthur, the Remans had been slower to adapt prior to the efforts by Romulus to "reintegrate" them. By the time of the Y181 calamity, much of Remus' population was descended from settlers shipped in from Romulus to bolster the planetary population.

In the "reflection" timeline, the "emotional" Vulcans would be the ones still living on a harsh class-K planet, whereas the "logical" exiles would be the ones adapting to life amidst the teeming forests and oceans of Romulus. How might this affect their respective development in Prime Directive terms?

It might be that the "logical" Remans would be the ones most similar to the "logical" Vulcans in the "standard" timeline. But even then, there might be a distinction between the "old Remans" (those descending from the ships which landed there during the exodus) and the "new Remans" (those descended from settlers shipped in from Romulus) - perhaps more so than in the "standard" timeline, where most traces of a distinctive Reman culture were buried in the wake of "reintegration".

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, May 04, 2021 - 01:09 pm: Edit

Gary,

As Steve has already said, until any kind of sales for R4J are recorded, doing *anything* with the ALT3 timeline is pure hope right now. Let's wait to see if it even gets off the ground before we figure out how to diversify it. It's a whole net setting; it can go in many different directions. But let's see if it even sprouts first.

In fact, right now, just be happy it exists at all! I threw that out as a possible alternative history and, quite honestly, expect both Steves to not touch it at all. (For obvious reasons.) That they were willing to do it, and that it is included in R4J is awesome and, really, we should just be happy it happened at all. Let's have fun with what it is right now.

Finally, on the difference between the Warlike-Vulcans and Romulans, see pg 9 in the "Death of Surak" entry. While it mistakenly refers to the Logic-Romulans instead of the Warlike-Vulcans, it has the explanation of how they are different right there. The foundation of the topic is already stated and explained fairly clearly (aside from the naming confusion).

Likewise, for the Logic-Romulans compared to the Vulcans, look at "Logic-Romulan Foundation" on the same page. Again, is explains how they differ from the historical Vulcans and what the result of that is.

So, yes, the foundation of what the differences between the swapped groups and their "original" counterparts is covered directly in R4J. It matters and the effects are explained directly.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, June 07, 2021 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Just want to make sure these items don't get lost. Note that the vast majority (outside the second one) are very minor issues:

(Z59.1) I think it should note that CL39, CL39 Supplemental, and CL51 are also needed to use all of the ships mentioned in this Module. - Mike West 07-06-21

ALT3: The New Timeline: -Y? Death of Surak, second and third paragraphs: Replace all occurrences of "Logic-Romulans" with "Warlike-Vulcans". (The first paragraph is fine as-is.) The two paragraphs should read as follows:
"These *Warlike-Vulcans* were not the same as the Romulans of the original history (or any of the ALT histories). The original Romulans were the true believers of their philosophy and were literally not capable of ever adjusting to a broader society. They were founded by true malcontents who were always looking over their shoulders in paranoia.
"These *Warlike-Vulcans*, however , included a broader range of philosophies. While the resultant society was broadly similar to the Romulans of the original history, they had to work in a more cosmopolitan environment and were therefore never isolationist or heavily prejudiced against other species. While just as arrogant, the *Warlike-Vulcans* were not paranoid and thus did not fear others. As a result, while they remained aloof, they were able to deal with other cultures." (Obviously delete the asterisks. They are just used to highlight where the changes are needed.) - Mike West 07-06-21

ALT3: Y154 Border War: Last Sentence: "... just on their side of that implied borde, ..." should be "... just on their side of that implied border, ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

ALT3: The Effects on the Other Empires: Gorns: Add the following sentence:
"They used unmodified purchased Romulan fighters."
(This will fit in the existing open space.) This is needed as they don't have access to Federation fighters in this alternative timeline, and Romulan fighters work perfectly in this case. Note that the question of who the pilots are is left open, as there is no space to address it, and that is fluff. It is important to note what fighters to use, though, as that does affect play. - Mike West 07-06-21

ALT5: Second paragraph; last sentence: "What their Eagle-series ships ..." should be "What their Hawk-series ships ..." The mystery is what they would have replaced their third-gen Hawk ships with; the Eagle-series ships are in this module. - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.JR6) Shuttles (Y125): There is an open parenthesis before "freighters", but no matching close parenthesis. - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.JR12) Plus Refit (Y170): This notes that some Queen Storm Eagles started with Pl-G, but that Regent Eagles always had Pl-S. However, but ships have a YIS of 169, and neither ship (the Queen Storm Eagle in this product, or the Regent Eagle in a CL) has any note about a "plus refit" or the possibility that the ship might have had Pl-G instead of the default Pl-S. It makes sense that all Regent Eagles were "early adopters", so they're probably OK, but there is still the inconsistency on the Queen Storm Eagle. Either the SSD needs to show the "without the plus refit this ship has Pl-G" note, or this specific entry should mention that both Queen Storm Eagles and Regent Eagles were "early adopters" who got the Pl-S a year early. (I assume the note should be added to the Queen Storm Eagle SSD.) - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.JR13) B Refit (Y170): The last sentence has "... refit should no be confused ..." and it should be "... refit should not be confused ...". I also recommend just deleting the last part of the sentence ("... as there are no Kestrels in this Alternative timeline") as, while ALT1 does not have Kestrels, other ALT histories do. (The first part of the sentence, about not confusing it with the Kestrel refit, is however completely valid!) - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J11) W-Kingbird: Refits: "... only bolt its Plasma-Rs ..." should be "... only bolt its Plasma-R ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J12) W-Royalbird: Refits: "... only bolt its Plasma-Rs ..." should be "... only bolt its Plasma-Gs ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J13) W-Warbird: Refits: "... only bolt its Plasma-Rs ..." should be "... only bolt its Plasma-R ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J14) W-Stormbird: Refits: "... only bolt its Plasma-Rs ..." should be "... only bolt its Plasma-Gs ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J18) W-Hawk: Refits: "... only bolt its Plasma-Rs ..." should be "... only bolt its Plasma-Gs ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J20) W-Hawk-B: Refits: "... only bolt its Plasma-Rs ..." should be "... only bolt its Plasma-Gs ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

(Interestingly, the W-Snipes don't have the above issue.)

(R4.J42) Queen Eagle PF Tender, second paragraph: In the second paragraph, only keep the first sentence (starting "Note that the ..."). Delete the rest of the paragraph (starting "The fast patrol ships docked ...") and replace it with a new sentence stating "Fast patrol ships can be repaired on any mech-link (K2.2)." (copied from (R4.J57)). This paragraph is apparently a cut-n-paste error and doesn't apply to this ship. All six PF docking positions are repair capable. - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J43) Queen Storm Eagle: If the Queen Storm Eagle does start with Pl-G and does get the Plus Refit (even if right after the first year of introduction), then it should be noted here. Or the mention in (R4.JR12) of some Queen Storm Eagles having Pl-G should be removed. - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J46) Warhawk-B Light Carrier: Question: Can this carry heavy fighters? The Fighters Table doesn't show any heavy fighters (unlike the Queen Battle Hawk), but doesn't explicitly state it can't carry them (unlike the Snipe-BV). Should one or the other be noted? - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J53) Snipe-EB Escort Frigate: The "Cloak:" line item is missing in the ship description (usually immediately above the "Nuclear Space Mine:" line item). The fact that it is explicitly stated as being based on the Police Snipe (instead of the standard Snipe) might cause questions as to whether it gets a cloak or not. It should get the same "Cloak:" line item entry as the Snipe-AB Escort Frigate. - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J58) Hawk-G: The phrase "... thought too older to upgrade fully ..." should be "... thought too old to upgrade fully ...". - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J59) Hawk-GE: The sentence "This ship is a variant of the BattleHawk destroyer (R4.46)" should say "This ship is a variant of the Hawk destroyer (YR4.4)". - Mike West 07-06-21

(R4.J60) Snipe-G: The very first sentence "A with the ..." should be "As with the ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, June 08, 2021 - 11:45 am: Edit

Mike West:

I do not understand what I am supposed to do with this. The correction is exactly the same as the reported error?

ALT3: Y154 Border War: Last Sentence: "... just on their side of that implied borde, ..." should be "... just on their side of that implied border, ..." - Mike West 07-06-21

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, June 08, 2021 - 12:00 pm: Edit

SPP: In the current version "border" is missing the final "r".

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, June 08, 2021 - 12:37 pm: Edit

SPP: Alex identified the issue correctly.

Two more that I missed somehow:

(R4.J39) Early Storm Eagle: The first sentence refers to this being the Middle Years variant of the Y-Storm Eagle. It is the Middle Years variant of the Y-Stormbird. (The Storm Eagle name starts with this ship.) - Mike West 08-06-21

(R4.J39) Early Storm Eagle: In fact, it should not be called the "Early Storm Eagle". Instead, should just be the "Storm Eagle". There is no "Early" version of the ship. This is just the "Storm Eagle". (It goes from W-Stormbird -> Y-Stormbird -> Storm Eagle -> Queen Storm Eagle.) The STE code still works just fine (as "E" stands for Eagle, not "Early", and SE is already taken by the Scout Eagle). But this ship is just the "Storm Eagle". This applies to both the ship entry in the rulebook and to the titles in the SSD book. - Mike West 08-06-21

As an additional point, I would like to point out that the Storm Eagle should be a "real" ship. In fact, it *is* a real ship. It has already been established in the lore that all of the Eagle variants (in the Middle Years) are actually variants of the Storm Eagle, not the War Eagle. Plus, we have the officially published W- and Y-Stormbirds out there as real ships (sublight-only, but still real ships).

So, the Storm Eagle is, as far as I can tell, an actual ship that just hasn't been published yet. This is not an "alternative history" ship. It is a real ship.

EDIT: One option is to ignore the second point above and leave the ship as the "Early Storm Eagle". Then, you can later publish the "Storm Eagle" as the "real" ship somewhere else. The actual ship itself would be identical, but the "surround" would have differences to fit into the "real" history. But the "Storm Eagle" is a real ship that should get published sometime.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, June 08, 2021 - 12:46 pm: Edit

Very Minor SSD formatting items:

R4.J14 W-SB: The black bar title is missing "Cruiser". It should say "Romulan W-Stormbird Cruiser". - Mike West 08-06-21

R4.J25 Y-RB: The SSD title shows "Y Royalbird" but should show "Y-Royalbird". - Mike West 08-06-21

R4.J27 Y-SB: The black bar title is missing "Y-". It should say "Romulan Y-Stormbird Cruiser". - Mike West 08-06-21

R4.J29 Y-CB: The black bar title shows "Y=Commando Bird" but should show "Y-Commando Bird". - Mike West 08-06-21

R4.J37 EKE: I want to say the black bar title is missing the "Command Cruiser" part, but I assume this one is absent due to lack of space. I recommend changing this to match the following R4.J38 and use "Early King Eagle Command Cruiser". Between the two, I figure the "Command Cruiser" part is more important than the "Romulan" part. - Mike West 08-06-21

R4.J38 ERE: If the R4.J37 black bar title is not changed, then the black bar title for this ship should be changed to read "Romulan Early Regent Eagle". Regardless, the formatting of R4.J37 and R4.J38 should match. Especially since they will be visible together when in print form. - Mike West 08-06-21

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 09, 2021 - 02:07 pm: Edit

(R4.J46) Warhawk-B Light Carrier: Question: Can this carry heavy fighters? The Fighters Table doesn't show any heavy fighters (unlike the Queen Battle Hawk), but doesn't explicitly state it can't carry them (unlike the Snipe-BV). Should one or the other be noted? - Mike West 07-06-21

Mike West:

In simple terms, is the WarHawk Carrier a size class 4 or size class 3 carrier? If size class 4, does it carry a full squadron of 12 size-1 fighters? If the answers to these questions are "size class 3" or "yes, it does carry a full squadron of 12 size-1 fighters" then, yes it should have had a listing for size-2 fighters. However, the WarHawk is a size class 4 carrier, so it can only operate size-2 fighters if it can carry a full squadron of 12 size-1 fighters, and even if you operate two WarHawks together, each WarHawk can only carry two size-2 fighters and the two together would only be able to operate four size-2 fighters. This is why, if you were to look in the Romulan Master Starship Book the WarHawks (R4.7) do not have size-2 fighters listed. Most size class 4 carriers of all empires do not, as they carry fewer than 12 size-1 fighters. An exception was made for heavy war destroyers which might have fewer than six size-2 fighters, but they are the only exception to the prohibition of size class 4 carriers requiring 12 size-1 fighters to be able to convert to carry size-2 fighters.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, June 09, 2021 - 02:23 pm: Edit

I apologize if the above seems heavy handed, it is not intended to be, but is intended to make the issue clear on size class 4 carriers. But see (J10.111) in 2012 edition of the Master Rulebook which includes these sentences:

"Carriers of Size Class-4 cannot operate heavy fighters unless they are able to carry a full squadron of six. Exception, HDWs (Module R6) might be configured to operate fewer than six heavy fighters."

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, June 09, 2021 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Fair enough. I only asked because the other ship listing I mentioned explicitly stated they could not be carried, but the WH-B did not. In that case, I should probably have an entry for the other ship to delete the sentence with the prohibition as it is redundant.

But, cool, at least I know for the future. Thanks!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, July 22, 2021 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Question: On page 12, in the section of ALT3 (the Reflections option), the Effect on Other Empires for the Federal Imperium says that the Feds deployed gunboats, but don't get the "Third Way", SWACS, or ph-G armed fighters/bombers.

I completely get the lack of the "Third Way", SWACS, and F-111s. That makes complete sense. However, why the removal of the fighter-based Ph-G?

Also, I assume that when the rule says "no Ph-G armed fighters and bombers" you mean that that entire fighter disappears, not that there is a Ph-3 version of it. Is that correct?

(What I mean is that one interpretation would say that the F-14, F-15, and F-16 still exist, but they have 2xPh-3 instead of the Ph-G. The other interpretation says that the F-14, F-15, and F-16 flat out don't even exist. They just get F-18s and F-20s. I am assuming the latter interpretation.)

Note that this isn't a challenge or complaint. I just want to understand the reasoning so that I can properly apply it in other cases.

Thanks!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, August 11, 2021 - 12:55 pm: Edit

OK, I think I figured out the fighter Ph-G thing ...

The Federation got fighter Ph-G technology from the Hydrans. In other histories, the Federation and the Hydrans, while not necessarily formal allies, did have infrequent relations and it was from that that they received fighter Ph-G technology. (The Federation developed ship Ph-Gs on their own.) But, with the Imperial Federation, the Hydrans were purely co-belligerents. There was no relationship between the empires, and so the fighter Ph-G technology was never received by the Imperium.

Thus, they still had all the same fighters (including the F-14 and F-15), but they didn't get Ph-Gs. They would simply be the obscure "p" variants that had 2xPh-3 instead of a Ph-G.

So ... problem solved.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, August 28, 2021 - 11:10 am: Edit

SPP,

Ignoring the questions you answered, please make sure the above items are addressed in R4J before printing.

Thanks!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, November 18, 2022 - 02:40 pm: Edit

OK, new headcanon for the Early Warp Romulans: they chose the Demonhawk instead of the Condor.

Really, the standard Demonhawk is pretty much blow-for-blow the same as the Condor. Not identical, but close enough for it them to be interchangeable.

But the Demonhawk is just way more fun.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, November 30, 2022 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Not least once the Andromedan War rolls in, when the "REDHawk" proves its worth when the need arises to chase down RTN nodes.

-----

Speaking of dreadnought-sized hulls in "early warp" timelines: one might wonder what the revised YIS date might be on the R4J SIT for this hull type.

It might not be quite as useful as a "lost empire" Paravian Raid Mothership, but it's interesting to see another Alpha Octant empire operate a dreadnought-sized transport variant.

Indeed, one could picture both hull types operating in tandem over in a "Mapsheet P" timeline - to include perhaps sending a "Pioneer" variant to explore the Romulans' leased territory in the "off-map" Farnest region.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Friday, December 16, 2022 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Minor note that should be obvious, but isn't stated: The Imperial Federation (in ALT3) doesn't get any of the plasma variants (DNF, BCF, NAL, NLL, DDL, DWL, FFL). The Pl-F technology was received from the Gorns and that doesn't happen with the Imperial Federation.

This probably isn't really needed to be overtly stated in the rulebook, but I did want to note it.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, February 04, 2025 - 01:45 pm: Edit

A couple of questions about the "pirate" use of veiling devices in the various "Shadow of the Eagle" timelines:

-----

On page 8 of the R4J rulebook, it's noted that the ALT1 Orion Pirates gain limited access to Romulan veiling devices, at least prior to the onset of cloaking devices.

To clarify, does this also apply to the other alternate timelines of R4J - to include by the Paravian "pirates" of the Reflection Universe?

-----

And, further, are there any recommendations as to what BPV costings there should be for the "pirate" use of such a device?

For example: an unrefitted Orion CR has a base BPV cost of 92; in the "standard" timeline, this is raised to 110 BPV with the installation of a cloak. Might there be an "interim" cost between these two values, in cases where a CR in one of these timelines has a veiling device installed?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, February 05, 2025 - 11:33 am: Edit

I will have to reread to see if it should apply. Without a further answer, the safe assumption is that it does not.

For the second question, that is purely for Petrick. I cannot answer that.