Shawn Hantke: the five Omega SSD Books have also not been updated.

SVC: The Omega SSD books have a problem in that Bruce Graw had the only electronic copies and they were accidentally destroyed. So the only way to update those would be to do them over from blank paper. Omega doesn't have the kind of updates Alpha does, and very little errata, so I don't know that updates would ever be needed.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 25, 2025 - 12:28 am: Edit

I might comment, Shawn, that if anyone around here would be qualified to do Omega over and update it at the same time, it would be you. That's high praise from Jean, Albert, Steve Petrick, and myself. If interested, we can discuss an arrangement to reward you for the effort.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 26, 2025 - 10:16 am: Edit

Gary Carney: As for the Omega modules:

As I was posting about elsewhere on the BBS of late, I'm not entirely convinced that they should be done over in the same way at all.

At present, the first four modules are "lost", due to Bruce Graw's fateful data crash. However, the fifth module, which was done "post-crash" by ADB themselves, should be on file - though it has a few errata items of its own to consider.

However, given the amount of work it would take to resurrect the first four modules, as well as to "tidy up" the fifth one, I might wonder if this energy ought to be better focused in another direction: namely, to incorporate the ships and rules from these modules into a series of more narrowly focused "Omega R-modules" for a smaller number of empires at a time. ABSOLUTELY NOT. DEAD HORSE. SVC SAYS "LET THIS MADNESS BE FORGOTTEN"

This would be a way to address several issues at once.

One - even after five published modules and various units offered in Captain's Log, not one Omega empire is close to "campaign compatible" status at this time of typing, the way that the three "Magellanic Powers" (Baduvai, Eneen, and Maghadim) are as of Module C5. This is due to how things were set up in the first Omega module, an issue which Bruce Graw himself acknowledged: it spread things far too thinly, by offering too few ships for too many Omega empires at once. Better, in hindsight, to concentrate on getting more ships done for a smaller number of empires at a time - and, I'd argue, to group these empires in more thematically matching sub-groups (Hiver-Alunda-Branthodon, Drex-Ymarian-Worb, and so on and so forth), akin to how the C-modules handle things over in the Alpha Octant.

Two - it might be worth deciding whether or not to keep the "Omega" SSD format as-is going forward - to include one day porting the playtest Zosman and Omega-Paravian SSDs over to this style - or instead to switch Omega over to the "traditional" format used for Alpha, LMC, M81, Triangulum, and other empires (in which case the Zosman and Omega-Paravian SSDs can stay mostly as they are, errata items notwithstanding).

Three - as noted in the Omega timeline, and as previewed in a number of recent SSDs in Captain's Log, a series of "speed-30" warp refits are due to show up historically, starting in the Y170s. Yet, these are not reflected in most of the current Omega SSDs - perhaps due to Bruce Graw wanting to encourage players to actually use the "Middle Years" Omega ships, rather than simply defaulting to their warp refit iterations. Rather than creating a range of SSDs which vary from the current ones only in the number of warp engine boxes they have (and how much this is paid for in BPV terms) - something which the limited amount of "real estate" afforded to Omega makes impractical at best - I'd argue that the revised SSDs, in whichever format they are to be drawn up, ought to have these warp refits factored in directly.

In order to address all three of these questions at once, I would sooner suggest creating the aforementioned "Omega R-modules", effectively superseding the present module setup in its entirety. ABSOLUTELY NOT. DEAD HORSE. THIS WAY LIES MADNESS. --SVC

As a test case for this, I have a provisional "OR-section" file written up for the Mæsron Alliance, aimed at bringing them up to full "campaign compatible" status. I'd suggest the first "OR-module" offer the Mæsrons along with the Federal Republic of Aurora. The second one could give the same treatment to the Trobrin and Probr; the third one to the Koligahr and Vari; and so on and so forth. NEW SHIPS FINE, REPRITING OLD SHIPS IS THE WAY TO MADNESS. DEAD HORSE. --SVC

In short: if there's going to be a lot of "design time" needed just to get Omega back to where it already is, better (in my view) to focus that energy in a new direction - one which has an actual chance of making at least some of these empires properly functional in campaign terms. SVC SUPPORTS A MODULE WITH NEW SHIPS NEEDED FOR CAMPAIGN COMPATIBILITY.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 26, 2025 - 09:47 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Gary, on your idea for the two-empire-at-time Omega reboot, I’d suggest moving the FRA out of the first one for one of the Maesrons’ enemies. Making these empires campaign capable means modules approaching the size of C6, and having them be paired enemies, at least at first, I think would be a better approach.

---

---

Quote:

Also I think a look needs to be taken at the current “everyone has their own bespoke bases and other generic units” approach of Omega. As a fan of Omega since it dropped, it’s an idea that I certainly like, but ultimately is impractical in terms of design and playability - especially if the goal is campaign capability. Some empires will need their own bases and other units because their technology is just that different, but by and large I believe having Omega empires use the existing array of units would be the better approach. It will require some extra notes on handling all the flavors of phasers, how to adjust fighter and PF carrying units to suit the various squadron/flotilla sizes in use, and so on - but that’s a far smaller ask then designing a whole suite of bases, monitors, etc for every empire.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 26, 2025 - 10:24 am: Edit

I moved the Omega stuff down here because it was very quickly going off the rails into a different kind of product.

Gary, stop immediately discussing any idea of reprinting existing omega ships/empires in recombined packages. That's a lunatic (omegatic?) idea! Here's why...

1. The counters would be horribly expensive.

2. People who bought the five modules would be outraged that they have to buy stuff they already have in order to get new stuff they want.

3. Creating two parallel, overlapping, but incompatible product lines would confuse everyone.

This whole project area is about UPDATING WHAT ALREADY EXISTS and is ABSOLUTELY NOT about creating new ships/modules/products. I think that a new Omega module or three adding whatever each empire needs to be campaign capable would be possible, but that is a new product, not an update project.

PLEASE QUIT HIJACKING EVERY TOPIC I OPEN and using it to discuss some entirely different kind of product.

I set up a topic for you to discuss "modules that might add new ships needed to make omega campaign capable" and you can discuss that idea there. But reprinting existing ships in new combinations is DEAD HORSE.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 26, 2025 - 11:09 am: Edit

Gary, do you understand now or do I have to slap yo around a little more to make the point? Do NOT make me use the F-Torp to get reality to sink in.--SVC

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, June 26, 2025 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Most of Omega 1-4 should be available in the Omega Master Rulebook. If that was done at ADB.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, June 27, 2025 - 10:42 am: Edit

SVC:

Fully understood.

And thank you for setting the Omega "campaign compatible" module elsewhere on the BBS!

-----

So far as the "original" SSDs go, there are a few details which might yet require folding in, even in the absence of warp refits.

For example: it's noted in the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook that, with the sole exception of the Drex, those Omega empires noted as acquiring the limited Aegis fire system do so in Y194. As a result, those non-Drex escort units currently in the five published modules each have errata notes specifying this, as well as how much of a BPV adjustment there should be for the "pre-Aegis" (or, in some cases, "post-Aegis") iteration of the ship.

Also, as Module Omega #5 introduced a range of "volatile warp" fast patrol ships, it also provided a range of empire-specific "casual" mech-link refits for the empires operating them. Unlike the case in the Alpha Octant, where such refits are applied commonly from one Alpha empire to the next, things are not quite so here in Omega. So, as each empire's SSDs are looked at here, it might be worth considering whether or not to factor in their respective mech-link refits, while taking care to follow each empire's guidelines on this topic.

Also, there are a few errata notes in the 2011 edition of the OMRB itself that are not in the older errata files posted to the ADB website. For example: the weapon chart for the subspace rockets used by the Worb PFs shown on Page 59 of the Module Omega 5 SSD book was adjusted to more closely match how that weapon is presented elsewhere in print.

-----

In case anyone happened to still have the "old" (2007) edition of the OMRB: that edition "only" includes material from the first four Omega modules, plus from older issues of Captain's Log magazine.

The 2011 edition, which is the one currently being sold both in print and on the likes of Warehouse 23, further integrates the material from the fifth Omega module, plus extends the range of Captain's Log issues covered as far as CL41 or thereabouts.

Question: once all five Omega modules are updated, should a third edition of the Omega Master Rulebook be provided, to include data from the most recent issues of Captain's Log? Or should it wait until at least one "new" Omega module is published?

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Monday, June 30, 2025 - 08:09 pm: Edit

Where does one submit SSDs at this time? I have been working on Omega bases for my own needs and wouldn't mind submitting them for evaluation.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 30, 2025 - 08:56 pm: Edit

You can send them to me and Gary Carney but don’t expect me to evaluate them anytime soon.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Monday, June 30, 2025 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Of course. I did a few of them for my own needs. Since they are done, I thought why not send them.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Monday, June 30, 2025 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Gary can you send me an email?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, July 01, 2025 - 10:28 am: Edit

Email sent.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 01, 2025 - 12:45 pm: Edit

I will relay messages for anyone who doesn’t want to make an email address public.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, July 04, 2025 - 10:00 am: Edit

It might be helpful here to consider taking the opportunity to "tidy up" certain aspects of the Omega timeline, as published in these five modules - and as consolidated in the Omega Master Rulebook.

To give a few examples of this:

-----

During the Second Great War, the Koligahr and Chlorophons are noted as both being part of the United Alliance (or Union) side, along with the Maesrons, Probr, FRA, and others.

However, there are certain other data points which appear to contradict this, by having the Koligahr and Chlorophons at war with one another in this same time period! (Indeed, there is a scenario in an issue of Captain's Log which sets these empires against one another.)

Some of these data points have been "cleaned up" already, but it might be an idea to clarify exactly what was going on here.

To be fair, there are such things as "uneasy coalitions". So it's not entirely impossible for these two empires to have run into some cross-border disputes, despite nominally being allied against the rival empires of the Imperial Bloc. But, I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't some sort of "revision of the data tapes" which might see the Trobrin, or some other Bloc faction, be involved here instead.

-----

Speaking of "revisions of the data tapes":

In the Seventh Cycle timeline as printed in Module Omega #5, a number of "wormhole" appearances begin to take place in the Y210s.

According to Bruce Graw in his Omega's Lost Futures article in Captain's Log #36, this was intended to be a side-effect of the attempts by the Scon, a yet-to-be-published faction, to manifest out of their native subspace realm into "normal" space. (The Scon were due to show up in force in the also-as-yet-unpublished Eighth Cycle of Omega history.)

However, SVC nixed the idea of wormholes at one point, stating that they were too post-1979-Franchise-ey for comfort. So, other ways were drawn up to account for key historical events in this era.

A key case in point was the story of the Federation GSX NCC-1821 USS Sakharov. In the "original" Omega timeline, this ship passed through a wormhole formed between Federation and Maesron space in Y214. Later on, Nick Samaras' Class History article in Captain's Log #41 offered an alternate explanation: the Sakharov had been in the LMC since Operation Unity, set out for Omega in Y212, and crossed the Galactic Barrier into the region in Y214. I later expanded upon Nick's version of events in a file published in Captain's Log #51.

So, it might be worth replacing the Sakharov-related timeline entries with ones more in keeping with the CL41 and CL51 data; as well as deciding whether or not to delete the other "wormhole" references entirely, or perhaps to re-interpret them as marking some sort of phenomenon that more closely fits the Star Fleet Universe - say, by adopting the "vortex" concept from the cover story in Captain's Log #38?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, July 04, 2025 - 10:25 am: Edit

Another thing to possibly consider is the crop of Omega carriers currently in print.

In Module Omega #5, a broader range of size-1 Omega fighters was presented, relative to those in the first four Omega modules. Further, the carriers and space control ships offered in the fifth module show the "final" size-1 fighters for the empires in question, which in most cases are more powerful than the ones that had been offered in the older modules.

In the case of the Hivers, some of their SSDs show the older Barb-1 fighters, while others - sometimes in the same SSD book! - show the more advanced Barb-2s instead.

Should this be something that is standardized across all five modules? As in, should the carrier SSDs in the older Omega modules be adjusted to match the fighter data printed in the fifth module?

It's worth noting that the OR-section data for these carriers has itself been updated in the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook, to account for the later adoption of newer and more powerful fighter types. So you can use the "final" size-1 fighters with (most of) the carriers in question.

Unlike, say, a warp refit for such-and-such a ship (which is "dead horse" territory here, but which has a separate design path courtesy of the campaign module project elsewhere), I'd think it would be more reasonable to take a second look at the consistency - or otherwise - of how the size-1 fighters are being presented in these five modules.

But, if ADB sees it differently, well and good...

By Matthew Lawson (Mglawson) on Wednesday, July 09, 2025 - 02:05 pm: Edit

I for one welcome our Omega Overlords!

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, July 10, 2025 - 04:51 pm: Edit

It’s super exciting seeing Omega getting traction again. The “one empire at a time” major expansion is probably the best approach. Yeah, it sucks for which ever empires end up being back of the line, but having empires go to full “functionality” in one go rather than being dribbled out over multiple modules is a lot more exciting and practical.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 10, 2025 - 06:10 pm: Edit

You eat an elephant one bite at a time, and not all on the same day.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, July 10, 2025 - 10:26 pm: Edit

For anyone reading this who would like to see a bit of where the "campaign compatibility" concept is going - to include seeing what SSD concepts I presently have in mind for the proposed Maesron module - I would advise taking a look over in this thread.

If you find yourself with any comments, feedback, or other thoughts to add on that topic, please post them there!

By David Finan (Bbanzai) on Friday, July 11, 2025 - 08:01 am: Edit

I am looking forward to Omega getting some love. I have been slowly working on some fiction and a mini campaign for the Paravian who escaped to the Omega sector. I have a lot of work left to do on it, but would love to see them fleshed out as well. I understand they would probably be one of the last empires done.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, July 11, 2025 - 08:57 am: Edit

Oh, I don't know about that...

I see no reason to blindly go by OR-section numberings, in terms of which Omega empire gets worked up to "campaign" status in which order.

In any case, as an "Omega's Lost Futures" faction - one which would (in my view) be able to lean heavily on the "lost empire" Paravian data already printed in Module C6 - I could well see the Omega-Paravians being placed along their own parallel development track, as and when ADB deems it fit to do so.

But, again, that is not a topic to focus on in this thread. Better, in my view, to re-direct it elsewhere.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 11, 2025 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Maybe we will run a poll, or put a ship of each empire on the wall and blindly throw a dart.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, July 11, 2025 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Actually, this is something I have put some thought into - both here in Star Fleet Battles, and over in the Omega project for Federation Commander.

-----

In the Alpha Octant, both SFB and FC have "themed" certain empires together, or indeed re-configured certain groupings in order to more readily suit such themes.

Back when SFB Module C1 was printed, the Lyran Empire was presented alongside the Hydrans and WYNs.

Later on, FC: Distant Kingdoms folded the LDR, as well as the WYN "fish ships", from SFB Module C3 into a shared theme.

Similarly, while the Neo-Tholians and Seltorians were provided for in SFB Module C2 and Module C3 respectively, FC: Tholian Attack seized the opportunity to place these mortal foes in the same product.

Indeed, more recently, it's no accident that the Lyran Master Starship Book was released so closely in time to the LDR Master Starship Book here in SFB.

-----

In the Omega Octant, I see similar themes in play: alas, not all of which are presently being fully leveraged, in terms of how such-and-such a group of Omega empires are offered alongside one another.

Thematically, I would argue that the Mæsrons, despite fighting a host of rival Omega empires, are largely defined by "fighting in a burning house": from the devastating Civil War and Collapse, through to the two waves of Vulpa insurgency, and on to the post-Invasions rivalry between the New Alliance and the Vulpa Confederacy. To include the somewhat outsized role which the Federal Republic of Aurora plays in all of this: first as Mæsron allies, and later as Orion-esque "special status" members of the New Alliance itself.

This is why, personally-speaking, I would strongly prefer to do the FRA, and the Omega's Lost Futures Vulpa, in the same "developmental window" as the Mæsrons themsevles - not least since, much as the LDR feeds off the Lyran Empire in many ways design-wise, the Mæsron tech template can be leaned on to a greater or lesser extent by both of these factions.

-----

But what about afterwards?

Both in Star Fleet Battles and in Federation Commander, it's no accident that the United Federation of Planets has its primary focus both on its "Klingon border" and on its "Romulan border" - to include the roles payed by the Kzintis and Gorns respectively.

Similarly, the Mæsrons are surrounded by the four "Superpowers": the Trobrin Empire and the Probr Revolution to the "west"; and the Koligahr Solidarity and Vari Combine to the "east".

Indeed, the current FC Omega playtest file takes an FC: Klingon Border-esque approach, by offering both the Trobrin and Probr together - whom, it should be noted, have waged no fewer than four major wars against one another by the end of the Seventh Cycle in Y221, My plan is for the first "new" batch of FC Omega empires after this to echo FC: Romulan Border, by turning the focus towards the Koligahr and Vari.

I would strongly suggest following this same template here. As in, once the Mæsrons (and their associated "burning house" factions) are locked in, I would prefer to do the Trobrin and Probr next, and then the Koligahr and Vari after that.

-----

Beyond this, it's perhaps far too soon to decide.

But, I will note that there are strong thematic sub-groupings of other Omega empires to lean into: Drex-Ymatrian-Worb; Hiver-Alunda-Branthodon; Loriyill-Singer-Souldra; Iridani-Bolosco-Zosman; and so on and so forth.

I would very much suggest keeping such thematic groupings in mind, in terms of how both current and (Omega's lost) future empires ought, in my view, be handled in the medium to longer term.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 12, 2025 - 12:37 am: Edit

We might consider that in the selection of OCCP2 and so forth. Or not.