OBSERVAtION AND OPINION

The stated difference in phaser-1 and Phaser-2 is essentially maintenance. The Klingons have problems with phaser maintenance, and this is reflected In the larger number of poor quality phasers. Add in PF crew casualties and you cannot keep the high maintenance that other empires have. (Klingon crews being largely composed of subject peoples who are not politically reliable to start with). So phaser-1s from other empires are hurt if the Klingon empire gets them because of slight differences in how they are maintained (Klingon Phaser-1s versus Gorn Phaser-1s, or if you prefer, Kzinti phaser-1s). PFs having a lower priority of repair maintenance overall would see their phasers downgraded, essentially a game function not really representing the replacement of the phaser-1s with phaser-2s.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 02, 2023 - 12:39 pm: Edit

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1S - There should be a note on the SSD that the special sensors are destroyed on drone hits.

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1Q - R1.PF8-R4 (CEN-Q) states survey fast patrol ships operated by civilian agencies will downgrade any phaser-1s to phaser-2s, reduce the BPV of the fast patrol ship by one point. Should not this unit's BPV be reduced by 1 BPV as the phaser-1s were replaced with phaser-2s? Note this unit also adds one phaser-2 that the Centrian-Q did not have.

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1Q - The probe track is missing from the SSD sheet.

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1Q - There should be a note on what destroys the special sensors are they destroyed on torpedo hits or should it be drone hits?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1C - Should not the rule be R1.PF1?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1S - Should not the rule be R1.PF2?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1G - Should not the rule be R1.PF3?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1M - Should not the rule be R1.PF4?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1F - Should not the rule be R1.PF5?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1L - Should not the rule be R1.PF6?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1 Workboat - What is the designation for the Klingon R1 workboat, the Romulan Plebian workboat is PLB? Should this be R1WB or just WB?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1 Workboat - Should not the rule be R1.PF7?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1Q - Should not the rule be R1.PF8?

(R3.PF90) Klingon R1R - Should there be a listing for the recovery variant of the Centurion Recovery Fast Patrol Ship?

Also, still looking for the answers to:

What is the year in service? I am thinking Y184 which is two years after the Centurian's were introduced. Note the workboat was introduced in Y183.

What is the War Ship Status? I am assuming it would be Purchase. For the R1Q there would also be a LPW note.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, April 02, 2023 - 02:08 pm: Edit

R1S: Note that these SSDs were modeled on the older style of SSD, and as such they may not have all of the same details of modern SSDs. That information was not given on the older ones. Rule (K5.2) has it covered.

Also, with the simplified PF damage control chart, what to hit is much simpler anyway. It isn't the ADD or the Phasers, so that means it likely is the drones. Follow the Klingon, not Romulan, charts.

R1Q: From what I can tell, the BPVs for any PFL, PFS, PFQ, and literally every non-combat variant, is proscribed*. PFLs are 40/50. PFS are 100/50. PFQ are 110/20. That's what was used.

The probe ammo track is not missing.

Non-combat variants: Again, the older SSDs were a bit fast and loose on ascribing the variant rule numbers. As such, they aren't explicitly listed on this SSD, either.

Workboat: Honestly, there probably where no workboats ever built/converted. Besides, it is literally identical to a Centurian workboat, so once in that configuration, there is no difference. I'd assume it'd be called the "R1 workboat" if operated by the Klingons and the "Plebian" if operated by the Romulans.

R1R: There are only six slots on the SSD, and there are seven non-combat variants. The variant chosen to be dropped was the recovery variant. Others might make different choices. (If there were eight variants, then the charts would probably have been removed instead.)

Finally, note that the R1 is literally identical to the G1. The systems are the same. The only difference is that the R1 non-combat variants (other than the R1Q) trade a phaser for a hull box. (Everyone always forgets the "cheat" the G1 variants make.)

Also, these were done for the freebie as a freebie. If these were to ever be official published, the SSDs would be completely redone by Petrick to the modern standards. So, there's that, too.

* Note that there are two sets of BPVs given for the non-combat variants (C, T, M, F). One set was used originally, then another set was used, then the original set was adopted again. This has never been corrected. Fortunately, the G1 and CEN use the same set, so these use those values.

EDIT:
The YIS would have to be determined by the Steves.

The War Ship Status is RPW with a note of PUR. Just like the RKL and the main Kestrels.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 02, 2023 - 02:49 pm: Edit

Thanks Mike. Updated the annex information.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, April 02, 2023 - 04:58 pm: Edit

For the record, the inspiration for the R1 was a mistake made with the FC gunboats Centurian ship card. I figured why not make something fun out of that mistake. Granted the R1 doesn't have five disruptors (or drones), but it's still a Klingon conversion of the Centurian.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Monday, April 03, 2023 - 09:04 am: Edit

Wait, what's the R1?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, April 03, 2023 - 09:33 am: Edit

It's the Klingon version of a Centurion PF found in the March Hailing Frequencies.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Monday, April 03, 2023 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Dang, I signed up to get email alerts for those, it must have gone to spam.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, April 08, 2023 - 11:26 am: Edit

I am sure this has been covered before but is the D7W SSD in error showing 4 B-racks? Or, is there really supposed to be 4 racks on the ship?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, April 08, 2023 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Dennis, errata posted 8/30/1998 "D7W SSD: The ship has only two drone racks; the extra two tracks are "ghosts" from an earlier playtest version."

The Starletter 75 SSD shows four racks, but the R5 SSD (pg 15) shows only two.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, April 08, 2023 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Thanks Ken, very helpful. We just finished a game and that was the assumption I made; that it only has 2 racks.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, April 08, 2023 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Ken, I guess I should clarify more the reason for the confusion. The R5 SSD still shows 4 B racks for reloads, while only two drone racks and two ADD racks are shown on the ship.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 09, 2023 - 11:03 am: Edit

I don't have a copy of the 1992 R5, but the 1994 R5 shows two drone rack and ammunition tracks.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, April 09, 2023 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Deleted - found the answer.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Sunday, April 09, 2023 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Well there it is....my R5 SSD book is from 1992.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, April 10, 2023 - 09:18 am: Edit

It was double-accounting by a Klingon supply clerk. Simply put, he noted that the original draft of plans for the D7W included four racks, but that the production design included only two. So he retained the four-rack supply notes in the logistics documentation, shipped two-racks worth to the ships, and sold the rest to the Hamilcar Cartel for a tidy profit. This went on for a decade, until -- despite his protests -- he was promoted; by this time, production of D7Ws was largely shifting to the DX and DXD, so on his way out the door, he changed the records to show the "extra" drones allocated to DXDs. He eventually retired to a little palace in K'netti'kut.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, April 10, 2023 - 10:37 am: Edit

Where he eventually had to declare bankruptcy.

K’netti’kut was the original “Tax the Rich” policy governing entity, that balanced their budget short fall by confiscatory collection practices.

Happy ending though, he is now supplementing his retirement pension by working part time in the fast food industry.

By Shawn Gordon (Avrolancaster) on Tuesday, May 16, 2023 - 08:28 am: Edit

The Gorn warp-refitted ships all have a non-standard shield cost. This isn't that unusual, the early Romulan ships do as well. It's obvious why, the "W" series ships are power-starved and so they have a shield energy discount here and there where appropriate.

There is some weirdness with the Gorns though. All of their warp-refitted ships have a single number for shield cost. The size class 3 ships have a shield cost of "1" instead of "1 + 1," and the size class 4 ships have "1/2." The "Y" era ships have the "1 + 1" for size class 3, or "1/2 + 1/2" for size class 4 ships, and this is the pattern across modules Y1, Y2, and Y3, so we know the single number "W" ship shield cost is intentional. I take the single number to mean the ship has an all-or-nothing shield configuration, where there is no possibility of running minimum shields, the shields are either on or off.

There is a single anomaly. In module Y3 the WFF (and its upgraded variants) has "1/2 + 1/2" shield cost, making it the only Gorn "W" series ship with this shield cost. All other size class 4 Gorn ships have "1/2" including the destroyer. My assumption is that the WFF's shield cost is a mistake, and that it should be "1/2."

My question is this, is this correct? Was the WFF published with an incorrect shield cost? Can we get an official ruling?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, May 16, 2023 - 11:21 am: Edit

I was hoping Steve P. would publish a (YD3.32) COST OF OPERATION so the shield cost would be consistent across all the units.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, May 31, 2023 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

I have looked at this, and I have to admit I have no idea what you are asking for.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, May 31, 2023 - 03:01 pm: Edit

The rule seems clear enough. You pay all of the energy and you have all of the shields. If you pay for reduced shields, in the early years you will not have your flanking shields

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Wednesday, May 31, 2023 - 04:48 pm: Edit

@SPP if I may ask my own version of his question - feels like three questions:

1) Take the Gorn WCA from Module Y1. It's shield cost is just "1". Not "1 + 1" or "anything + anything" - just "1". IE., there is no 'reduced shields' cost cited. It's just a single value. So the first question is - what does that mean? There is no 'reduced shield' option for those ships? Or something else? As this is the same for (nearly) all Gorn W-type ships, it seems intentional, but what IS the intent?

1b) Notably, this means the Y-era SSDs often disagree with the numbers in (D3.32)...often enough that it appears intentional. However there is no (YD3.32), so...?

2) In Module Y3, there is an exception - the Gorn WFF. It has the standard "value + value" format. Why? Is the Gorn WFF unique among all Gorn W-type ships and it DOES have two shield settings? Or is this an error on the WFF SSD?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, June 01, 2023 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Do note that this question must be asked. If this is not a typo, there is no rule justifying and explaining it. And we can't just assume it is a typo, because of other situations where that type of assumption is wrong (like the Vulcan's ridiculous availablity of Ph-1s in Y1).

It is a completely reasonable question that has to be asked because of prior answers.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, June 02, 2023 - 04:15 pm: Edit

Shields in the Early Years for most (but not all) empires pretty much work the way we learned when we played the main era ships.A Federation warp refitted destroyer could up up a point of power and have shields all around. Or it could put up a 1/2 point of power and have shields of 4 points (#1), 2 points (#2 And #6), 0 points (#3, #4, and #5). In this latter case the ship would depend on its armor (three points) to provide protection to those shield arcs, but of course it would be vulnerable to boarding (provided the enemy maneuvered such that it became possible), but since minimal shields were raised, it could use its batteries to repel such a boarding attempt (one time).

The Gorns in the warp-refitted period did not have minimum shields, none at all. There shields were all or nothing (nothing being their amor belts).

The Gorn warp-refitted frigate is, indeed, an error for which I take full responsibility. I am sorry about that. Are there any other issues with regards shields in the Early Years?

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Friday, June 02, 2023 - 04:23 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Or it could put up a 1/2 point of power and have shields of 4 points (#1), 2 points (#2 And #6), 0 points (#3, #4, and #5)

---

---

Quote:

Minimum shields are five boxes in each direction. Full strength shields mean that all of the boxes printed on the SSD are active and available to absorb damage

---