Annex 6A Weapons, Fire Control, Misc. Items - "A shuttle" in "Replace A shuttle with seeking weapons drogue" should be "A-shuttle" - Ken Kazinski, 10 Jan 2021

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, December 09, 2021 - 01:14 am: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 18 - M-PAL (F111) - Should not the YIS be N-HF for heavy fighters? Otherwise, this pallet would have YIS of Y169 and not a YIS of Y177 for the F-111's. - Ken Kazinski, 9 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 12, 2021 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 19 - YCBS - The BPV should be 71 and not varies. The CL23 SSD (pg 50) shows there is a BPV for the general unit. - Ken Kazinski, 12 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 19, 2021 - 12:54 pm: Edit

R17.33 - Module G3 - Annex 3 - Page 19 - ISS - The Vudar Small Ion Storm Station is missing from the General Bases listing. The ISS is from module F2, page 5. Ken Kazinski, 19 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 19, 2021 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 22 - For the YGBDGG Y71 and Y104 listings, should there be an "R" note? - Ken Kazinski, 19 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, December 21, 2021 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 22 - The SDS has a N2 note. The N2 note states the ship could have been built in Y182, which is after the arbitrary date of Y180. Should not the N2 note be "Spare shuttles on SCS include 2 admin, 2 F-14, 2 F-18, 1 A-20. SCS could have been built in Y182."? - Ken Kazinski, 21 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, December 21, 2021 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 24 - (R2.64) Federation BCJ - The unit has both the Y1 and Y2 notes. Should this unit only have the Y2 note as I have a note that this ship could have been built Y175. - Ken Kazinski, 21 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, December 21, 2021 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 24 - Federation BCP - The second listing of the BCP, rule A31, should be BC1 per the Federation MSSB. - Ken Kazinski, 21 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, December 22, 2021 - 10:26 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 25 - Federation GSX - Captain's Log #39 Supplement, page 10, has errata "The Federation GSX BPV was not updated, it should be 270/ 200." The SSD shows the BPV to be 250/180. Should not the BPV be 250/180? - Ken Kazinski, 21 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, December 22, 2021 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 26 - Federation NAX - There a scout symbol listed but this unit does not have any special sensors and the Federation MSSB does not state this is a scout. - Ken Kazinski, 22 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, December 23, 2021 - 08:26 am: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 26 - Federation NCF - There is a note from R10 dated 3/16/2011 - "(R2.108): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track. We did the countersheet before I did the NCF hull outline and nobody thought of it. We did those counters MONTHS ago so we would not have any problems with the Origins deadline. R-section says first example in Y178, MSC says Y175. MSC should probably say Y178 with Y2 note. SVC decided to go with the first year the ships could have been built on the MSC for some reason that he has forgotten." This unit's YIS should be Y175 and include the Y2 note. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Dec 2021

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, December 23, 2021 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 26 - Federation NHS - Per the R10 errata this unit should have a Y2 note. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 24, 2021 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 26 - Federation NSRV (NRV) - There are 42 crew units on the SSD. Annex 3 should be updated to reflect the value on the SSD. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 26 - Federation NSRV (NRV) - There is a rule in R10, but the SSD is in CL48. Should not the Product Where Published be R10/CL48? - Ken Kazinski, 24 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 26 - Federation CLX - Per MSSB R2 this unit was conjectural and should have the "CNJ " note. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 24, 2021 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 26 - Federation CMC+ - To match the MSSB-R2 the YIS for this unit should be Y165. Note there is also a post dated 2/13/2010 at 19:32:00 that stated the year should be 170. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 24, 2021 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 27 - Federation CL-A - Is missing from the Annex. This unit is found in CL19, page 102, rule R2.18A. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 27 - Federation MCL - By convention when a unit has no spare shuttles the display value is a dash "-". - Ken Kazinski, 24 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, December 25, 2021 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 27 - Federation HWX - This ship was published in CL34 and should have been included in the annex. The War Ship Status is listed as unknown, which is not a status listed on page 111 of the annexes. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 27 - Federation DWA - The explosion strength listed is 12 but the 2012 version of the R2 SSD shows the explosion strength to be 11. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation DHD - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation DHT - The rule should A24B see the SSD on page 117. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation DHT - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation DHV - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation HDD - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation HDV - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation HDT - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation HDV - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation HDM - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation HDC - Should not there be a CNJ note? The MSSB-R2 states this unit is conjectural. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, December 25, 2021 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation DDL - Should not this unit have a Y2 note, as it could have been built after the Treaty of Algeron (Y157)? - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation DD - The explosion strength should be 10, to match the SSD on page 108 of CL33. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation FBV - The unit was published in R12 and should reflect the R12 information, rule number is R2.149. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation FBS - The unit was published in R12 and should reflect the R12 information, rule number is R2.150. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation FBE - The unit was published in R12 and should reflect the R12 information, rule number is R2.148. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 28 - Federation FBD - The unit was published in R12 and should reflect the R12 information, rule number is R2.147. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, December 25, 2021 - 09:57 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Pag 29 - Federation FCR - By convention when a ship has not spare shuttles a dash "-" is used instead of a 0. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Pag 29 - Federation GDD - By convention when a ship has not spare shuttles a dash "-" is used instead of a 0. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Pag 29 - Federation GFF - By convention when a ship has not spare shuttles a dash "-" is used instead of a 0. - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, December 26, 2021 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.121) Federation PFF - The YIS for this unit should be Y177 and not Y175 per CL24 page 78 (R2.A4). - Ken Kazinski, 25 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.127) Federation POV - By convention when a ship has not spare shuttles a dash "-" is used instead of a 0. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.78) Federation BTV - Should not this unit have a Y2 note as this configuration could be available in Y167 when the (R2.57) P-CVL Federation Light Carrier Pod became available? - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - R2.8 + R2.22 + R2.57 Federation CVTC - Should not the crew units be 62 (Tug/22 + P-CVA/24 + P-CVL/16). The convention is the crew units are additive. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.8 + R2.22 + R2.57) Federation CVTC - Verifying the BPV is not the sum of the tug and pods. Tug, 88/60 + P-CVA, 74/34 + P-CVL, 36 for a total of 198/130. Note the Combat BPV is the sum of the tug and pods. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.8 + R2.22 + R2.57) Federation CVTC - The tugs unit's turn mode E does not match the combined unit's turn mode of F. The P-CVA is a double weight pod and the P-CVL is a single weight pod. The tug's turn mode chart shows a turn mode of F when carrying 3 pod weights. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - R2.8 + R2.22 + R2.57 Federation CVTC - The unit has an entry in Annex 7G of R1, but there is no entry in R2 for this unit. Product Where found should be R1. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - Federation P-AVP - There should be a degree symbol for "when detached" in the size class column. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2,101) Federation P-FCF- There should be a degree symbol for "when detached" in the size class column. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.101) Federation P-FCF Pod - Should not there be an "F-111" note for this unit. The FCF note is "The FCF is a fast carrier resupply ship carrying F-111 heavy fighters." - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.73) Federation BB Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.2) Federation DN Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.17) Federation DN+ Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.61) Federation DNG Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.13) Federation CVA Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.32) Federation SCS Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 30 - (R2.91) Federation DNL Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.124) Federation DNM Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.125) Federation DLX Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.33) Federation BC Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.33) Federation BC ScrS - The explosion strength of the sub-light saucer is the same as the warp capable version, most of the sub-light saucers have their explosion strength reduced. Verifying this is the correct explosion strength. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.76) Federation CB Scr - Should not there be an "N4" note, lower ratings for docking points, explosion strength, and command rating are used if the warp engine is dropped, for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.3) Federation CC Scr - The Federation CC was published in the Basic Set and not Advanced Missions. The unit where published should be BS/D3. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.97) Federation CVD Scr - Should not this unit have the D% note? The saucer and rear hull combination has D% note. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.201) Federation CX Scr and CX ScrS - When the CX seperates the saucer does not have warp engines. The CX ScrS should be the only listing for a seperated saucer CX. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.133) Federation DCS Scr - The DCS was published in R11 and the information in the annex should reflect the R11 information. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.133) Federation DCS Scr - The DCS has a D% note, should the separated saucer have the same name? - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - Should there be a listing for the Fast Cruiser Saucer, R2.82 CF Saucer? - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.145) Federation CFS Scr - The CFS was published in R13 and the information in the annex should reflect the R12 information. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.131) Federation CS Scr - The rule number should be 131 and not 82. See SSD in module R9 page 12. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 31 - (R2.207) Federation CSX Scr - This unit is missing from Annex 3. - Ken Kazinski, 26 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, December 27, 2021 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 32 - (R2.120) Federation GDE Scr - When you drop the warp engines there are no shuttle boxes in the warp engine area. The GDE's spare shuttles is "1+2", should not the GDE Saucer have the same spare shuttles as the GDE? - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 32 - (R2.138) Federation GSR Scr - This unit is missing from the National Guard Saucer group. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 32 - There are "A20" and "A-20" notes listed. What is the correct version of the note? - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 32 - (YR2.4) Federation YCA - The BPV listed on the Y1 and CL12 SSD is 84 and not 82 - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 32 - (YR2.4) Federation YCA - The SSD's in Y1 and CL12 show the rule to be YR2.4. The rule number should be Y4. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 32 - (YR2.9) Federation YTD - The convention for docking points for Federation Tug is "7+4" and not "7-11." Should not the docking points be "7+4"? - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex #3 - Page 32 - (YR2.6) Federation YDN Scr - On page 61 of module Y1, the DN Scr has a BPV of 50, but the YDN Scr in G3 has a BPV of 52. Is the G3 BPV correct or the Y1 BPV? - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex #3 - Page 32 - (YR2.6) Federation YDN Scr - This unit should have a N4 note. The N4 note was in the Y1 Annex 3. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex #3 - Page 32 - (YR2.4) Federation YCA Scr - the rule should be Y4 and not Y3. See the SSD in Y1 page 5. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 33 - In module Y2 the Warp-Refited National ships were in their own groups. In module G3 they are all put under a single group per empire (Vulcan, Terran, etc.). Should these still be broken between up between the warp-refitted ships versus the national guard ships? - Ken Kazinski, 27 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, December 28, 2021 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.17) Klingon B10 - The warship status is listed as UNV, but the B10 Invincible was completed in Y195. I have a note that is unit should be LPU. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.17A) Klingon B10A - The warship status is listed as UNV, should this unit be LPU as shown in the B10K's WSS? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.17) Klingon B10B - The warship status is listed as UNV, should this unit be LPU as shown in the B10K's WSS? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.17) Klingon B10B - Should not this unit have a "R" note for the B-Refit? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.17) Klingon B10K - Should not this unit have a "R" note for the K-Refit? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.150) Klingon B10T - As the unit rule in MSSB-R3 states this unit could have been built as early as Y172, should not this unit have the Y2 note? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.150) Klingon B10TA - As the unit rule in MSSB-R3 states this unit could have been built as early as Y172, should not this unit have the Y2 note? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.147) Klingon MB10 - The MSSB-R3 rule states "While the master ship chart says Y184‡, in point of fact if B10s had been built in Y171 (or any other year), this ship could have been built a year later." Should the YIS listed be Y196 with a Y2 note? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.147A) Klingon MB10A - The MSSB-R3 rule states "All other data is identical to the non-stasis field generator MB10 (R3.147)." As the MB10 rule states "While the master ship chart says Y184‡, in point of fact if B10s had been built in Y171 (or any other year), this ship could have been built a year later." Should the YIS be Y196 with a Y2 note? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.82A) Klingon B11A - The B11A is missing from annex. The convention is to include the SFG refitted entries. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.103) Klingon C10 - Should these C10 and variants be listed in their own group "Klingon Heavy Dreadnoughts And Variants"? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.103A) Klingon C10A - Should not the product where published be R7/CL46? The rule was published in R7, the SSD was published in CL46. The C10 with no SFG refit SSD was published in R7. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.A21) Klingon C10V - This carrier should have a "V" note also. It carries non-heavy fighters along with heavy fighters. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 34 - (R3.963) Klingon C4B - The Klingon C4 is in group "Klingon Early Years Ships" should the C4B be in the same group? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.148) Klingon MC8 - MSSB-R3 states "it could have been built in Y168". Should not this unit have a Y2 note? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.104A) Klingon C5A - Should not the product where published be R7/CL46? The rule was published in R7, the SSD was published in CL46. The C5 with no SFG refit SSD was published in R7. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.104A) Klingon C5A - MSSB-R3 shows the rule to be R3.104A and not R3.104. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.145) Klingon C5X - MSSB-R3 states that this is a fast unit and should have an "F" note. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.A12) Klingon DC7 - The movement cost is listed as "1/00" and should be "1.00". - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.A12) Klingon DC7 - The original listing had a note of "Failed Design." Should this unit still have this note? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.31) Klingon D7C - The BPV of 139 is the SSD configuration. The BPV should be 131 as this would be the base unit with the -3 without the mech-links and -5 for the UIM. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, December 29, 2021 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.31) Klingon D7L - The BPV of 141 is the SSD configuration. The BPV should be 138 as this would be the base unit (139 - 3 without the mech-links and +2 for the K-Refit). - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 35 - (R3.109) Klingon D7U - This unit should have a "V" note in addition to the VH note. This unit has both single space and heavy fighters. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 36 - (R3.166) Klingon E7D - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 36 - (R3.167) Klingon E7J - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 36 - (R3.164) Klingon D6C - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 36 - (R3.5) Klingon D6K - The BPV should be 131 and not 130. The D6 BPV is 113 + the B-Refit 10 + the UIM refit 5 + the K-refit 3 is 131. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 36 - (R3.164A) Klingon D6L - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 36 - (R3.165) Klingon D6N - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 36 - (R3.165) Klingon D6N - The original SSD shows a BPV of 141/106 and the current SSD in R12 shows a BPV of 141/111, is the updated BPV the new correct BPV? - Ken Kazinski, 28 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 37 - (R3.152) Klingon ADW - As this is a carrier escort version of the D5W new heavy cruiser (R3.89), which is available in Y175. Should this unit have a Y2 note and be available in Y175? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 201.

Annex 3 - Page 37 - (R3.125) Klingon DWN - The SSD specifically states that this unit is a casual carrier. Should not this unit have the "CC" note? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 37 - (R3.A13) Klingon DC5 - The original listing had a note of "Failed Design." Should this unit still have this note? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 37 - (R3.208) Klingon D5JX - The warship status should be "RPU" and not "RUP" as there is not a "RUP" status. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 37 - (R3.158) Klingon FD5 - This was reported for R11. The YIS for the unit should be Y175 with a Y2 note as the unit could have been built in Y170. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 38 - (R3.168) Klingon F6B - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 38 - (R3.170) Klingon F6J - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 38 - (R3.171) Klingon F6S - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 38 - (R3.168) Klingon F6E - This unit was published in R12 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 38 - (R3.6) Klingon F5K - The F5K's BPV should be 78 and not 81. The F5 BPV is 71 + the B-refit, 5 + the K-refit 2 = 78. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 38 - (R3.34) Klingon F5C - The BPV should be 89 as this would be the BPV prior to the UIM refit (94 - 5). - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 38 - (R3.34A) Klingon F5L - The rule number was updated in MSSB-R3 to 34A. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 38 - (R3.34A) Klingon F5L - The SSD and MSSB-R3 state the K-Refit (F5L) is in Y169.
The YIS for this unit should be Y169. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.155) Klingon F5T - The rule number and year in service are switched. The rule number should be 155 and the YIS should be 145. The SSD shows a YS of 145. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.155) Klingon F5T - The docking points should be "4+2" to match the SSD (R11, pg 30). - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.65) Klingon E5K - MSSB-R3 states the K-refit was available from Y172, and it is unclear when it was installed on the ships. Should the YIS for this be 172 or stay with the Y175? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.A19) Klingon E5E - The BPV in the ship data table, CL35, page 104, and the SSD (CL35, pg 118) show the BPV to be 91 and not 117. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.139) Klingon E4C - As this entry would be for the E4C as used by the DSF and there is an entry for the E4C in the ISF section, should the ISF note be removed from this entry? This is not a ISF unit. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.96) Klingon G4 and G4B - As this unit is only used by the ISF, should it only be listed once in the ISF group? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.96) Klingon G4B - MSSB-R3 states this refit is available starting in Y165 but the G4B has a YIS of Y169. Should it be adjusted to match MSSB-R3? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.18) Klingon E3 - As this unit was used by the DSF and there is a E3 listing in the ISF section, should this unit have a ISF note? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.141) Klingon E3C - This unit was published in module R8 and should be updated to reflect the current publishing information. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.141) Klingon E3C - As this unit began as a DSF asset, and there is a E3C listing in the ISF section, should this unit have a ISF note? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 39 - (R3.100) Klingon SBA - The BPV should be 600, see module R6, page 20. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 40 - (R3.151) Klingon LD4J - Per the CL30 errata for R8, Docking should be 7, Explosion should be 15. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 40 - (R3.146) Klingon LD4P - Per the CL30 errata for R8, Docking should be 7, Explosion should be 12. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 40 - (R3.134) Klingon LD5B - MSSB-R3 states the B-refit is available in Y165, should the YIS for this refit reflect MSSB-R3? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 40 - Klingon Ships of the Internal Security Forces Group - Should the ships listed here be the unique ISF ships. So that we don't have to keep two listing up-to-date, I would propose only those ships that are unique to ISF or have a different configuration or other information would be listed here. The D6I, D5I, E3D, E4I, F5I, would all be listed with their respective classes group. Units in this group would be the E3, E3C, E4C, G2, G2C, G4 (ISF), G4V and the G6. My goal here is have only one entry to keep up to date. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 40 - (R3.55) Klingon D5I - The D5I listed in the D5 war cruisers section has a N4 note and the SSD states there is limited aegis for the P-3s and ADDs. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 40 - (R3.141) Klingon E3C, the YIS listed here is Y127, but the listing on page 39 shows Y120. If this is correct, then it would show when the ISF started receiving the E3Cs but should probably be Y130 to match the text in MSSB-R3. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 40 - (R3.96) Klingon G4 - This unit should have a "T" note and it is a troop transport. Note the G4 listing on page 39 should also have this note. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 40 - (R3.9) Klingon TGA - The BPV should be 119/104 to reflect the unit without the drone refit. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 31, 2021 - 11:19 am: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 41 - Klingon B-10 Booms - Should not the booms reflect the same year in service as the B10's (Y195)? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 41 - Klingon B8 and B8A booms - There is not a note or a section for the B8 booms. Should they be included with the B10 booms or as a separate listed? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 41 - Klingon B9 Booms - The product where published should be CL31 and not CL21. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 41 - Klingon C10 Booms - Should not the C10 booms have their own listing? The data seems incorrect to be the same as C8/9 boom. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 31, 2021 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - Page 41 - (R3.72) Klingon C7A-Bm - The D-boom in module D3 does not show SFG's. Should the product where found only be "AM" and not "AM/D3"? - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 41 - (R3.205) Klingon D5X-Bm - Should not the rule listed be 205? - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 41 - (R3.205) Klingon D5X-Bm - This unit should have an "X" note. - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 42 - (R3.39) Klingon E4J-Bm - The product where published should be R3/D3. The E4J SSD located in module R3 and there is a SSD in module D3. - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 42 - (R3.134) Klingon LD5-Bm - The note should come after the T-Bm section. - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 42 - (R3.963) Klingon C4B - This boom is missing from the annex. The information can be found in CL20. - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 43 - (YR3.8) Klingon B-Bm - There is only on early years battle ship boom the B4. Should not the listings be B4-Bm and B4-BS? - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 43 - (YR3.8) Klingon B-BS - To follow convention should not the B-BS be B-BmS? - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

Annex 3 - Page 43 - (YR3.8) Klingon B-Bm/B-BS - The B4's war ship status is CNJ, should not these booms also be CNJ? - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, December 31, 2021 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Annex 3 - All pages - I have noticed for the units with the tug symbol, sometimes there is just the symbol, sometimes the movement cost/turn mode and the symbol. What should the standard convention be? My preference would be to have the base movement cost & turn mode followed by the tug symbol. - Ken Kazinski, 31 Dec 2021.