Further reading confirms that John is correct. Commander's Rulebook Update #2 says in R13.73: "Plasma Rack Refit: On many ships, some of the rear-firing plasma-F launchers were replaced with plasma D racks. This was always done evenly (two on each side for the DNs, one on each side for others). Note that all of these weapons (F-launchers and D-racks) are under the restrictions of R13.1C. Cost = 2 points per rack. Note that plasma racks on ships with PPDs are still hit on "torpedo" hits."

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, December 28, 2022 - 12:39 pm: Edit

For the sake of comparison, the Carnivon disruptor cannon - which, like the Paravian quantum wave torpedo, requires warp power to overload - has the APRs on its ground base (R1.14-19) swapped out with AWRs for no additional cost in BPV.

By that standard, I might agree with the argument that the "lost empire" Paravians ought to get a similar setup for their QWT ground bases - as a potential errata note for Module C6, perhaps?

-----

The most recent reference to the ISC CAT - in the revised R-section data for the ISC CA in the 2016 edition of Module C2 - gives it a YIS date of Y168: the same year that most "CA-" hulls had their centerline PPDs installed.

But in fairness, one might argue that it's only with the publication of Module C6 (and Module R4J) that there would be a need to account for a "Middle Years" ISC fleet in the kind of detail shown for their "Mapsheet P" Paravian (and "Shadow of the Eagle" Romulan) enemies.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, December 28, 2022 - 07:38 pm: Edit

ISC with Plasma Ds - this warrants some experimentation.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, December 28, 2022 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Note that my request for ISC Pl-Ds is not for a combo of rear-firing Pl-F and Pl-D. It is for all rear-firing Pl-F to be eliminated and their function (though likely not numbers) replaced by some number of Pl-D. This might require the inclusion of normal Pl-F on some ships for fire-power purposes. It might not. Regardless, I think it would be an interesting hypothetical.

But the key point is that the rear-firing Pl-F are eliminated entirely. No combos.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Thursday, December 29, 2022 - 09:25 am: Edit

Even so, it is worth experimenting with. I can visualize drone defense. In my opinion, the ISC is vulnerable to the drone races.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 13, 2023 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Elsewhere on the BBS, it was noted by SPP that Orion Pirate ships (of Size Class 4 and above) in "Mapsheet P" timeines from SFB Module C6 are permitted to install quantum wave torpedoes in their "wing" mounts with either FA or LF+L/RF=R arcs respectively.

But for "Mapsheet P" Orion Interceptors and PFs: were they to install QWTs in their respective option mounts under (R8.PF1A), I'm guessing that a lone QWT would be under similar restrictions to those for a lone plasma-F torpedo launcher: as in, it must be in mount A on an Orion INT, or in mount B on an Orion PF, with FA tracking arcs in each instance. Is this correct?

Also, if two QWTs are being installed on an Orion PF, must they be in mounts A and C, in the same manner as plasma-F mounts? And if so, must they use LF+L and RF+R tracking arcs respectively (akin to the LP and RP arcs which plasma-Fs must be set to here), or does the Orion player have the option of setting one or both QWTs to FA tracking arcs instead?

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Saturday, January 14, 2023 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Hello! I was working on building a database of all my Star Fleet Battles ships, and I noticed that the ships from Star Fleet Times don't have entries in the Master Ship Index in Module G3.

While the Star Fleet Times magazines contain the information to use the ships, they seem to lack explicit confirmation of the Warship Status of various ships, although many can be inferred from the ship descriptions, with many appearing to be CNJ or UNV.

One ship that I am particularly interested in knowing the exact status of is the Romulan Snipe-R Ambush Frigate (R4.J3) from Star Fleet Times Vol. 2 #33. I am also interested in the status of the various Romulan "Ancient Wings" from Star Fleet Times Vol. II issue #34.

Thanks for the help!

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, January 14, 2023 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Gary,

I would do as you suggest and just use modified Pl-F rules.

You can argue that there is no real reason that all of the QWTs should be able to use the FA arc, but honestly, that applies to the Pl-F, too. Really, there is no reason the Pl-F shouldn't be able to use FP arcs in any position. But, for whatever reason, that isn't the case. So, if Pl-Fs in the side mounts have to point to the side, it is reasonable to require QWTs to do the same.

Orion PF option mounts are just super-restricted. I recommend just mimicking the Pl-F rules.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Saturday, January 14, 2023 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Guillaume,

I would assume that any ship from SFT that has not been eventually published is either Conjectural or Impossible.

SFT was done long enough ago that if they were going to be formally added to the game, they would have been by now. That they haven't been heavily implies they don't fit for some reason or another. In that case, you are looking at either Conjectural or Impossible.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, January 14, 2023 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Re: Mike West's comment about SFT ships.

If there is an SFT ship you would particularly like to see brought into "official" SFU history, why not propose it for includion in CL55? That would be a preliminary first step for getting it included in a regular module.

Your suggestion might not do any good. There might be some reason that SVC and SPP decided the ship didn't really "work". But you don't have anything to use by making the suggestion.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 09:03 am: Edit

In rule (R7.81) for the Neo-Tholian Command Module, it says that if a new CoM is made, "the WC would have to be replaced by two disruptors".

However, no where else in the rules is the web caster noted as being a two-box weapon. Also, the one direct example we have, with the Milky Way version of the NDD shows that a single disruptor should be the replacement for a WC.

So, is that rule in error, and a WC is replaced with a single disruptor? Or is a WC on a CoM really and truly replaced with a pair of disruptors?

(Due note that the rule I quote is from an original-issue first gen C2 description that is actually from 1991. If it has been updated anywhere, I am not aware of it.)

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 09:37 am: Edit

R7.61 (Neo-Tholian Command Module) in the recently released Tholian MSSB also says that if the web caster is destroyed, it is replaced by two disrupters (until web casters can be produced). So it appears that rule has been carried forward in the 2021 update/consolidation.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Regarding Mike West's 9:03 AM post about the size of the web caster, there is at least one other example of web casters replacing disruptors on a 1-for2 basis; the Tholian monitor. Their standard monitor has 6 disruptors for heavy weapons. But the Monitor-W (a ship, I, as a Tholian player, would never buld in a campaign settting, but that's another topic) has 2 disruptors and 2 web casters; suggesing a web caster is as big as two disruptors. But there are plenty of other examples that seem to indicate a 1-for-1 swap; the CCH versus CCW for example, or their X-tech counterparts, the CAX versus CCX.

So web caster size seems a little... variable. But it's probably best to let the matter lie. If you start digging deeply you'll find other such anomalies in the SFB system. And they also occur in "real life" weapon systems (including the weapon system I have the most "hands on" familiarity with, the F-111).

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 01:54 pm: Edit

The problem is that I'm trying to do something with the CoM and if it does get 2-fer-1, the idea breaks a little. If so, so be it. I'll figure it out.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 04:39 pm: Edit

The Home Galaxy NDD has one Web Caster and two Particle Cannons.

IIRC, one survived the arrival of the Archaeo-Tholian Dyson Sphere into the Milky Way.

Once the Tholians acquired Disruptor technology, replacing the Web Caster on that ship (if it still existed) with two Disruptors and each Particle Cannon with one would result in a destroyer in the early years that was armed with four Disruptors.

I don't think that's something any of us want, even in the GW era.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 05:05 pm: Edit

I don't think the ratio of disruptors substituted for webcasters has to be the same for every class of ship. The dimensions occupied by the webcaster might not be the only limiting factor on what (or how much) you can put in that space.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Three things:

1) There were two NDDs (and four NFFs) that made it to the Milky Way with the Dyson Sphere. They were all destroyed well before the Middle Years started. The Tholian filled that gap with the disruptor armed DD.

2) The formal Milky Way versions of the NDD and NFF were published in CL45. The particle cannons were replaced with disruptors. The single web caster was replaced by a single disruptor until they could make web casters again. (A 1-fer-1 exchange.)

3) My issue with the 2-fer-1 exchange is specifically with the CoM. Having that messes up something I am trying to do. That said, I can deal with it, so if that really is what it is, I'll just deal.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Mike I suspect that Web Caster are larger than 1 box but smaller than 2 boxes.

When it came time to replace a destroyed Web Caster. The Tholians said, since we are add bulk housing to the COM, see the DPC and C classes, they figured why not just shoe horn in a second Disruptor Bank. As the would be done during the age of DNHs it seems fair at that point.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 09, 2023 - 08:18 pm: Edit

I think you are overthinking it. Sometimes it takes one space, sometimes two, according to the opinion of the powers that be at ADB.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Sunday, February 26, 2023 - 12:56 pm: Edit

Is there a ship with Turn Mode G published anywhere? Or is there a way to determine what Turn Mode G would be?

I know the Seltorians have Turn Mode H ships, but I'm looking specifically for either a published G, or a way to derive G (or I, J, K, etc).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, February 26, 2023 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Given the sluggish Turn Modes of Worb Technocracy warships over in the Omega Octant, I could picture a would-be Worb battleship being given a Turn Mode of G...

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Sunday, February 26, 2023 - 03:05 pm: Edit

The Nicozian CL is Turn Mode G:

1 (speed 2), 2 (3-4), 3 (5-8), 4 (9-12), 5 (13-16), 6 (17-21), 7 (22-25), 8 (26-29), 9 (30+)


The Nicozian CA is Turn Mode H:

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Sunday, February 26, 2023 - 05:39 pm: Edit

Nice, thank you.

Out of curiosity, do we have charts other rare turn modes beyond H?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, February 27, 2023 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Here is a list of units with turn modes that are not A to F.

Turn Mode	Empire Name Unit Type
H	Seltorian HVS Hive Ship (R15.13)
H	Seltorian NST Nest Ship (R15.26)
H	Seltorian BW Battlewagon (R15.44)
H	Seltorian HHH Hive Cargo Hauler (R15.A6)
H	Seltorian NHH Nest Cargo Hauler (R15.A7)
H	Seltorian AW Assault Wagon (R15.A10)
H	Nicozian CA Heavy Cruiser (R107.2)
G	Nicozian CL Light Cruiser (R107.3)
4	Deltan CWS Hellhound War Cruiser Scout (R57.0)
3	Deltan POL Heeler Police Ship (R57.0)
4	Deltan CA B-58 Hustler Heavy Cruiser (R57.2)
4	Deltan CW Hellhound War Cruiser (R57.3)
4	Deltan DW Demonhound War Destroyer (R57.4)
4	Deltan DWM War Destroyer Minesweeper (R57.5)
4	Deltan DWS War Destroyer Scout (R57.6)
4	Deltan DWD Drone War Destroyer (R57.7)
4	Deltan DWG Commando War Destroyer (R57.8)
4	Deltan DN Dreadnought (R57.9)
4	Deltan FF Bloodhound Frigate (R57.10)
4	Deltan YCA Early Heavy Cruiser (YR57.2)

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Monday, February 27, 2023 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Oh wow, thank you. So H is the most terrible turn mode.

Do we know of the formula to derive hypothetical worse ones?

The first G and H are playtest pack submissions. The author of the Nicozians would have to have gotten those turn modes from somewhere.