Archive through June 09, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Rules Questions:
SFB Rules Q&A:
Archive through June 09, 2022
Look at the following posting dated sept 18, 2020 which was deemed ok by Steve Cole:
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
Steve Cole answer:
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.
Interesting. Using that logic/rule, a fleet of two ships can both be leaders since one of them would be the flagship.
It does appear to be allowed by S8.363, but the flagship exemption seems to undermine the purpose of S8.36.
It is a bit abusing but allowed by the rules.
Does anyone have information that R1.F7 assault fighters gain additional PL-K rails?
While (FP13.31) states "A few fighters (see racial sections) were designed to carry plasma-Ks on light rails, including the Gorn copy of the Shenyang F-7 (R6.F11)." but this would be for the standard fighter and not the EW fighter.
(R1.F7) Electronic Fighters
ASSAULT fighters (armed with fusion beams, hellbores, disruptors, photons, plasma F, etc.): Delete all non-phaser weapons (except type VI drones) and add two EW pods.
Hi Wayne,
No problem with what is in (R1.F7), I was wondering if anyone has an update that the assault fighters also received 2xPL-K rails.
Question re WS for a Carrier.
A carrier at WS 3 has only 4 fighters available of the 12 it can carry. Eight were destroyed in a previous battle and it has not been supplied as yet.
Can this carrier have supplies for the 4 fighters as well as supplies for the missing 8 fighters in the stasis boxes for the 4 fighters to draw on during the battle.
Can this carrier also prepare weapons for the 4 fighters but place them in the missing 8 fighter stasis boxes for the 4 fighters to draw on again ?
Basically, at the start of the scenario, can all stasis boxes be prepared at WS 3 even though 8 fighters are missing ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
Well I am pretty sure that fighter supplies are limited to the fighters you have on board. (S8.312) If the number of fighters is voluntarily reduced, remove a
pro-rata portion of the stored supplies (drones, chaff, deck crews,
etc.). Reduction of fighters is limited to 25% of the original fighter
group, i.e., a carrier with twelve fighters could reduce this by three.
Round fractions 0.4 down, round fractions of 0.5 up, thus a ship a
ship with ten fighters could reduce its total by three, but a ship with
nine fighters could only reduce its total by two. A casual carrier with
two fighters could drop one.
so there is that in S8
Not sure about the extra fighter boxes being fully loaded however.
Frank - is this a continuation battle from a previous scenario?
I had a few questions regarding the interactions between passive fire control, Tactical Intelligence, and the use of probes.
My understanding is that the Tactical Intelligence chart in (D17.3) refers to the effective direct-fire range between the observer and the target. And thus, if the observing ship is under passive fire control, this range is double the true range as it would be for any other direct-fire weapon.
So, for example, a non-scout observing ship with active fire control and a lock-on gathers Tactical Intelligence level J at a true range of 8 hexes from the target ship, assuming no other adjustments are in effect. But if the observing ship is under passive fire control, it only acquires Tactical Intelligence level J at a true range of 4 hexes (as the effective range is doubled), again assuming no other adjustments are in effect. Is this correct?
As for probes: do they require active fire control and a lock-on to be launched, or can they be launched under passive fire control?
If the latter is the case, is the effective range at which the probe can be launched itself double the true range under passive fire control? (As in, can a ship under passive fire control place a probe no more than three hexes away from itself?)
And also, if the probe is launched in order to gain tactical intelligence under (D17.15), does the probe itself act as if it has active fire control and a lock-on at the instant it is "expended", even if the launching ship remains under the effects of passive fire control?
Ken,
Not quite, the Admiral in my campaign is thinking of not supplying the carrier of its lost fighters which brought up this question as I truly do not know the answer.
Follow up question about fighters again.
Hydran RN has initial build of 7 ST2 and 2 STH, can the RN exchange 2 ST2 for 2 STE during resupply of just before the battle starts using CO's thus having 5 ST2, 2 STE, 2 STH.
I think it is 1 scout fighter per 12 allowed ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
A follow-on Tactical Intelligence question:
If a scout ship (or base) uses one of its sensor channels to gather Tactical Intelligence under (D17.121) and (G24.29), does this only apply to a single target at a time, or to all units within a given range bracket?
In other words, does a scout ship (or base) have to assign separate sensor channels to observe each target it wants to place in the "scout" column of the information chart in (D17.3), as opposed to the "ship" column? Or is one channel enough for this purpose?
(D17.18) Observing unit:
(D17.181) Note that every unit on the board will simultaneously be a target and an observer.
(D17.184) Normally, all units on one side will have all data available to any of their units
(D17.2) Procedure
(D17.24) Required Response
I found the answer to my question re EWF fighters.
It is 1 EWF per 12 fighters as per J4.463.
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
So the rules in S8.0 limiting fighter count reduction applies to patrol scenarios, not campaign ones. In a campaign you can theoretically end up with all sorts of nonsense.
Totally reasonable to have a carrier with only 4 fighters on board. As for arming status:
(J4.886) Unless otherwise specified [e.g., (D18.0) or (D17.75)], it is
assumed that all freezers, storage facilities, capacitors, and ready
racks (in shuttle boxes) are fully loaded at the start of a scenario but
the fighters are not. Any fighters armed at the start of a scenario are
presumed to have drawn from these freezers, which cannot be
recharged before the scenario begins.
So all your ready racks will be loaded _minus_ the items loaded onto the 4 fighters, if any. Also note, if the battle begins at WS-II your fighters can be loaded with 2 turns worth of deck crew activity, and the carrier will have 12 deck crews (minus any losses from previous battles), but since only 2 deck crews can operate on a single fighter at once you would be limited to four "deck crew turns" on each fighter occupying 8 of your deck crews pre-battle.
Thanks Greg/Jamey.
I think the best way to deal with this is simply enforce the carrier to top up every time fighters are lost !
Thanks again.
Cheers
Frank
Looking for this rule:
The rule where a Fed ship arming photons is not limited to some slower top speed even though using warp to charge photons.
I am pretty sure there is a rule - can't find it. Thanks
Nevermind found it.
(C12.383) This rule covers movement-related expenditures. Warp
engine energy used for non-movement purposes (e.g., photons) is
considered as a separate function. For example, a Federation ship
could move part of the turn at Speed 30 (and part at a lower speed)
and still arm photon torpedoes.
Question re MRS.
Can the Federation strike cruiser CS carry one ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
It's not expressly prohibited in (J8.51) (which sets out war cruisers and light cruisers as non-applicable ships for an MRS except in extremely rare cases in published scenarios or by way of an outstanding crew) but also not expressly permitted (as they're not, strictly speaking, heavy cruisers). The CS is decidedly *not* a war cruiser, nor is it a light cruiser; it's close to, but not quite, a heavy cruiser. If I have to make a judgement call, I'd say yes (with the usual caveats that they're rare and (J8.512) applies).
Frank, while I'm no judge, it looks to me like it normally can't.
In its ship description, it starts, "After the Four Powers War, the Federation studied several designs for new cruisers that might be produced moe quickly should a wartime emergency require this."
To me, that reads as the CS is a CW and would be prohibited by (J8.51), "... War Cruisers (excepting leader and carrier variants) and light cruisers would never carry an MRS except in extremely rare cases noted in published scenarios..."
HOWEVER, the exception for "Leader Variants" gives me pause. According to my copy of Module G3, the CS has an F&E Command Rating of 8 where even the CLC only has an F&E Command Rating of 7 (standard NCL is 6, but that's not important). This suggests (at least to me) that there may have been a desire to use the CS as a command ship for light squadrons, thus enabling it to be authorized for an MRS shuttle.
(SIGH!! Thank GOODness SPP is back to put me in my place! 
)
I'd have to disagree with that assessment, Jeff. If you read further, the CS uses a standard CA saucer and standard CA warp nacelles, attached to a smaller (but not miniscule) secondary hull. It also notes that it's a variant of the CA, albeit with enough changes to be deemed a new class.
That in no way sounds like a war cruiser.
Thanks Jessica and Jeff.
I agree with Jessica.
The CS is basically a CA with a .83 MC instead of a MC of 1.
So glad to hear SPP is back !
Hope your recovery SPP is complete !
Cheers
Frank
Question re Deck Crews on a HBM.
I am looking at module J where the HBM is supposed to be but cannot see it for the life of me !
Does any one know how many Deck Crews a HBM attached to a BS have ?
Thanks.
Cheers
Frank
1 deck crew per fighter is standard on all ships. As for as i can tell any way