First, thank you for K2.115. This was needed. My only concern is that it feels a little awkward, since it says: no F-111s; if you use them anyway; no F-111s. It just seems a little redundant and contradictory at the same time.

On R2.56, as I am reading it, it implies that there was one NVH that used A-20s, one that used F-111s, and all others used F-101s. However, I thought that the current history shows that (probably) only one used A-20s, but many used F-111s, not just one. Obviously many also used F-101s; that's not the point. There should be many that used F-111s, however.

I will work to generate that list this weekend.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, March 21, 2026 - 08:55 pm: Edit

The Feds could just use the A20s in place of the F111s (their SCS does) …

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, March 22, 2026 - 03:58 pm: Edit

I think the F111 carriers need cargo boxes and different ready racks.

The A20 carriers need additional AWR instead of cargo.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, March 22, 2026 - 04:02 pm: Edit

I can't remember; do Fed BCVs eventually get F111 links? Any chance of getting A20 links?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, March 22, 2026 - 10:49 pm: Edit

K Update is not going to include new ships. Put such ideas in K2 topic.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 23, 2026 - 03:38 pm: Edit

(K2.115) In a conjectural universe where the Federation built PFs, they do not use F-111s. Even in a situation in which players agree the Federation can use PFs and F-111s, no ship carrying F-111s can use (R1.1) to add PFs to tractors. If the Federation is allowed to use their conjectural fast patrol ships in a campaign, they forfeit the ability to use F-111s (R2.F11) [to include FB-111s (R2.16)], and the Gorns cannot use GB-111s (R6.F01-2). Further the Federation cannot use the “Third Way” (S8.327) battle formations. SWAC shuttles (J9.0) are never developed as the engineering expertise was diverted into developing PFs. Further, if playing an alternate campaign set after Y198 in which the Andromedans are conquering the galaxy (see “The Andromedan Universe Timeline” in Module C3A) the Federation can begin production of PFs, leading to full deployment in Y200. In this case F-111s, SWACs shuttles, and the Federation “Third Way” all remain in use and the Gorns can use GB-111s.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 23, 2026 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Mike West:

I am not sure what you want. It says that if you agree to let the Federation use their PFs. and F-111s that you canNOt add the Mech Link refit to an F-111 carrier, I see no conflict in this. It is essentially the same as a heavy fighter carrier of other empires not being able to use PFs and Heavy Fighters. It goes on to add in the basic version of the game that if you use the PFs, you give up the F-111S unless it is agreed to allow their use. I have in the latest update included the "Dark Andromedan Future" and allowed all the Federation goodies in it, for all the good it will do you.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, March 23, 2026 - 04:15 pm: Edit

(K5.0) PF DAMAGE ALLOCATION

This special chart is used for PFs (K2.0), Interceptors (K3.0) and Skiffs (R1.52-53) [including modular cutters (R1.54), Stryker landing boats (R1.87), Smasher large security skiffs (R1.A36) and the sublight versions thereof] rather than the standard Damage Allocation Chart. This chart is NOT optional.

(K5.1) FAST PATROL SHIP DAMAGE CHART

DIE DAMAGE
ROLL A B C D E F
1 HULL C WRP L WRP R WRP ANY EX DAM
2 HULL L WRP C WRP IMP ANY EX DAM
3 HULL R WRP C WRP IMP ANY EX DAM
4 HULL BTTY APR BRDG ANY EX DAM
5 HULL WPN-A WPN-B WPN-C ANY EX DAM
6 HULL WPN-B WPN-A WPN-C ANY EX DAM
Definition of Terms:
C WRP = Center WRP Engine BTTY = Battery
L WRP = Left WRP Engine WPN-A = Weapon-A
R WRP = Right WRP Engine WPN-B = Weapon-B
IMP = Impulse Engine WPN-C = Weapon-C
APR = Auxiliary Power Reactor EX DAM = Excess Damage
ANY = Any hit including Sensor, Scanner, or Damage Control, but not Bridge or Excess Damage. The Bridge may be hit if it is the only undestroyed box left except for Excess Damage.

(K5.2) WEAPON SPECIFICATION CHART

EMPIRE/PF A B C
FEDERATION Phot/Ph-3 Drone Phaser-1
GORN Plasma Phaser-3 Phaser-1
HYDRAN Fus/HB Phaser-2 Phaser-G
ISC Plasma Phaser-3 Phaser-1
JINDARIAN LRG n/a Phaser-1
KLINGON Disr/ADD Drone Phaser-2
KZINTI Drone Ph-3/Disr Phaser-1
LYRAN/LDR Disr Phaser-3 Phaser-2
ORION* Option Phaser-3 Phaser-1
ROM-CEN Plasma n/a Phaser-1
ROM-StH Plasma Phaser-3 Phaser-1
SELTORIAN PC Phaser-3 Phaser-1
THOLIAN Disr Ph-3/Web Phaser-1
VUDAR Ion Phaser-3 Phaser-1
WYN Disr Ph-3/Drone Phaser-1
LEADER (K4.4) Trans Tractor Shuttle
` Variants: Special sensors, cargo, barracks, mine racks, tractors, mech-links are destroyed by hits on the systems that they replaced. If they did not replace any system on the basic PF, they are destroyed on “any weapon” This includes workboats, and recovery PFs. Survey PFs are damaged as PFLs with their special sensors being destroyed on the systems they replaced, i.e., the same as PFSs and PFs. Damage on Skiffs/Modular Cutters resolve as PFLs for purposes of their transporters and shuttles. Sublight versions do not take damage from warp engine hits, but skip to the next column and treat lasers as phasers.
An n/a result from this chart, when scored on the DAC, is treated as “no more of that system” hit and you proceed to the next column on the DAC. Weapons still on the PF are still destroyed when the DAC indicates they are damaged.
EXAMPLE: The Federation PFS will lose its special sensors on
“drone” damage points (Weapon B) and will lose its drone rack on a “photon” damage point (weapon A), but may choose to lose its phaser-3 on such a damage point.
* Tractor beams on standard Orion Buccaneer PFs are destroyed by “any” damage points.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 01:44 am: Edit

SPP,

Your revised K2.115 works for me. Again, thank you for including that!

Stewart,

No, A-20s and F-111s are not interchangeable. In either direction.

F-111s cannot replace A-20s. If A-20s are used in internal hangars, then F-111s cannot replace them because they cannot be used in internal hangars. If A-20s are on mech links, F-111s may only replace them if there is a specific version of that same ship showing they can. So, for example, the NVH has an A-20 version and an F-111 version, therefore it can carry either one. However, the SCS only has an A-20 version, so it specifically cannot swap them out for F-111s.

Instead, in all cases, if it is desired to replace A-20s with drone fighters, you must replace them with F-101s, not F-111s.

In general, A-20s may only be used in very, very specific places. Fundamentally, A-20s may only be used in two cases:
1) On carriers that specifically show them being carried. E.g. NVH and SCS.
2) Replacing a squadron of A-10s. E.g. a CVA.
That's it. Those are the only times and places an A-20 may be deployed on carriers.

In general, F-111s may only be used in one specific case: on a carrier that is published showing its use. That's it. If the SSD doesn't show the F-111, then that carrier may not use F-111s at all.

Instead of the above, the "general use" Federation heavy fighter is the F-101. It may be used on any carrier that is allowed to use heavy fighters. It may replace pairs of F-18s on eligible carriers. It may replace A-20s. It may even replace F-111s if someone wants to for some reason. So, in effect, the "real" Federation heavy fighter is the F-101. The A-20 and F-111 are extremely special use and may only be used in specific situations that are well-defined.

And, SPP, if any of that isn't already in Module K it really needs to be. Also, the above is all from cumulatively understanding this over the years from over a dozen different sources. If I have misstated anything please correct me and I want to make sure I understand this correctly. And if this isn't correct, the corrected version needs to be included in Module K.

Finally, given the statement above about the "real" Federation heavy fighter being the F-101, it is a terrible shame that the only place the F-101 appears is in a very old Captain's Log and it doesn't seem to exist in any sort of "official" product formally defining and describing it.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 02:04 am: Edit

Mike,

F-101 is covered in Module G3, on page 123. It's also in the Federation Master Starship Book, on pages 99 and 100.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 09:58 am: Edit

While the F-101 is in the MSSB, it does merit publication in a formal module (beyond a few lines on the Master Fighter Chart in G3). I do advocate for its inclusion in K-2026 as it provides a lot of context for the F-111 and the Federation’s use of heavy fighter platforms in lieu of gunboats. Though if that’s still too far in the realm of “no new material for a revision” (totally reasonable!) then it should be top of the pile for K2. Either way, the article in CL35 and squadron SSD in CL39 would be a good starting point (notably adjusting to account for the ADW and its background).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 11:09 am: Edit

Steve P, it's your call, but I will approve you including the F101 if that is what you decide.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Mike,

The NVH Heavy Fighter Transport (R2.56) lists the A-20, F-111 and F-101 as possible fighter loadouts.

Ryan
F&E Staff

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 03:52 pm: Edit

(K2.115) In a conjectural universe where the Federation built PFs, they do not use F-111s. Even in a situation in which players agree the Federation can use PFs and F-111s, no ship carrying F-111s can use (R1.1) to add PFs to tractors. If the Federation is allowed to use their conjectural fast patrol ships in a campaign, they forfeit the ability to use F-111s (R2.F11) [to include FB-111s (R2.16)], and the Gorns cannot use GB-111s (R6.F01-2). Further the Federation cannot use the “Third Way” (S8.327) battle formations. SWAC shuttles (J9.0) are never developed as the engineering expertise was diverted into developing PFs. This causes no delay in the Federation developing F-101 (R2.FA14) or A-20 (R2.F9) or medium or heavy bombers (e.g., R2.F17) fighters. Further, if playing an alternate campaign set after Y198 in which the Andromedans are conquering the galaxy (see “The Andromedan Universe Timeline” in Module C3A) the Federation can begin production of PFs, leading to full deployment in Y200. In this case F-111s, SWACs shuttles, and the Federation “Third Way” all remain in use and the Gorns can use GB-111s.

I have added the F-101 to the Module K Rulebook, may the good Lord Jehovah have mercy on my poor benighted existence.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 05:29 pm: Edit

In a conjectural world where both PFs and F-111s exist, can there be two ships, one designed to carry PFs (only) and the other designed to carry F-111s (only)???


Garth L. Getgen

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 05:49 pm: Edit

Steve he is now rolling on the floor in laughter saying you poor humans, you havent seen the next page of MY rule book yet.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Mike West, I did not use the term 'interchangeable' - I said 'in place of' …

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 - 08:08 pm: Edit

I'm glad to see that the revised Module K rules are set to cover both the "dark future" and "Reflection Universe" iterations of a "Fed" faction making use of fast patrol ships here.

And that the F-101 is being given its due here as well!

-----

On another topic: should the proposed (K5.2) revision also include listings for the "lost empire" Paravian and Carnivon PF weapons as seen in Module C6; the playtest Borak PF weapons from Module E3, and/or the playtest Peladine PF weapons in Module E4? Or, should any or all of these empires be left aside for the time being?

Of those, I might at least suggest covering the Paravian and Carnivon iterations here, since they are in a formally published module, and thus are more "real" (in a manner of speaking) than the Borak and Peladine are at the present time. But of course, I defer to ADB's wisdom in this regard.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, March 25, 2026 - 10:45 am: Edit

SPP - Your work (here and, as always, in general) is appreciated!

Garth - I mean, that would be the obvious case. The Dark Future Feds would be operating, for example, both NVH and NPF variants of the NCL. ADB has generally been providing conjectural tender versions of heavy fighter platforms at the same time as those platforms (e.g. Module R5 has the BCP alongside the BCS) and any missed cases would be obvious includes for Module K2.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, March 26, 2026 - 12:09 am: Edit

It could just be my misinterpretation of a theory, but there's a theory in Quantum Mechanics that says every history exists.

I'm not going to even try to write any stories (not that I'm any good at it) in anything other than the basic, classical SFU history that's been crafted over the past... FORTY plus years, now? Almost fifty, since SVC, you came up with the SSDs for the Fed CA and D7, back in college?

(Whoa!)

Anyhow, we have a ton of "Conjecturals" for those of you... US... Who love the non-traditional ships.

Aw, heck, one friend of mine (who's no longer with us) loved Monitors as much as I do, so we had a SFU variant universe where the empires had nothing but Monitors and Police Ships. It was insane, and we both got a kick out of "Monitor vs. Monitor" battles!

And isn't having fun what the games are supposed to be about?

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Thursday, March 26, 2026 - 12:47 pm: Edit

One factor involved in the F111 vs the PF is that , ships can use the Mech link refit to allow PFs to be attached to a normal warship, the Federation does not have the option, they can only bring it with a carrier and is associated escorts So in fleet construction, and you have 40 points left, buy the Mech link and get the PF, the feds dont have that option.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 27, 2026 - 07:46 am: Edit

Eddie, we have talked a lot over the years various ship proposals, some fighters and a few times even PFs

We have had the advantage in the BPV system, and once again (in my opinion) keeping scenarios “in balance” BPV wise, by definition allows for equal force pools.

The “No Fed PFs” has become part of the federation background, and equal BPVs ensures the flatheads remain competitive.

Besides, photons and phasers are still very effective at eliminating any pesky PFs that wander into thw wrong firing arcs!

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, March 27, 2026 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Too late to fix typo… PV should have been PF.

(FIXED IT)

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, March 29, 2026 - 02:52 am: Edit

Ryan,

Yes, the NVH can use any of the three fighters. But that is only because that particular ship is described as being able to do so. It is basically an exception to all of the other carriers.

Stewart,

My point still stands.

You cannot use F-111s in place of A-20s. Or any other fighter, for that matter. They may only be carried by units explicitly and expressly stated as being able to do so.

You cannot use A-20s in place of F-111s. They may only be carried by units explicitly and expressly stated to being able to do so with ONE exception. The exception being that you may use A-20s in place of A-10s. (I.e, on CVAs and presumably SBs.)

On the other hand, F-101s may be use in place of many fighters. They may be used in place of A-20s. They may be used in place of F-111s. They may even be used in place of F-18s in the vast majority of situations, though there are restrictions on this.

Just like F-14s, F-15s, and A-10s, F-111s and A-20s have very specific and proscribed places and ships they can be used on and with. In all cases, the "general" heavy fighter is actually the F-101, just as the "general" standard fighter is the F-18.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, March 29, 2026 - 09:18 am: Edit

As I cannot find this in the rules (G25.0), the rate of cargo transfer between PF and the ground is undefined. For example a PFC can carry 5 GCV (20 cargo spaces each), how long (turns/impulses) to unload them? Requesting this info be added to PFC rule.