And the problem with (S3.3) overall was that players could go crazy with it and make some really abusive designs that made no historical sense, and were flatly not fun to play against.

Used in moderation, it worked fine. But, then, relying on people to reasonably moderate themselves...

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 05:41 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If I had a 'pie in the sky' wishlist request for it - I'd pick Y133?

---

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 06:09 pm: Edit

What that would look like:

Proposed D6 edit
Proposed E4 edit

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Deleted, dup

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 06:14 pm: Edit

There are a few other Klingon ships from this time period to consider.

The T6 (Tug-B) has a YIS date of Y124: it started out with two type-A drone racks (on the base hull, not in the deckhouse) and a single type-E rack (which became an ADD rack in Y140).

The E3 had a type-E drone rack when it first entered service in Y120: this was replaced with an ADD in Y140.

Its ISF counterpart, the G2, first appeared in Y127: it swapped out the E3's disruptors for type-A racks, and had the same type-E rack (prior to Y140) as the E3.

The LD5 - the Klingons' earliest attempt at a "modern" light cruiser, akin to the Lyran Panther CL - has a YIS date of Y120. Curiously, the LD5 had type-A racks from the outset. (Historically, this ship was referred to as the "D5" at the time; the "LD5" re-designation was applied when the KDB-1104 - the "true" D5 war cruiser - made its own appearance.)

Also, there were a series of "L-era" refits applied to such units as the D4 and F4: the resulting LD4 and LF4 emerged in Y121. These hulls never had their jump racks upgraded to type-A or later types.

Plus, there would be the various drone racks on Klingon base stations (YIS 120), ground bases, auxiliary units, and so on and so forth.

-----

SSDs aside, there is the matter of logistics to consider.

Since the introduction of type-I drones in Y65, the Empire would have invested significantly in the factories needed to build them; the transports (both civilian and military) needed to deploy them; the ongoing research needed to improve them (or, perhaps, to keep up with Kzinti drone innovations as and when they emerge); and the spare parts needed to keep the different types of racks to be found across the Empire in a position to launch them.

This is quite the "sunk cost", built up over several decades, to get things to the point they would be as of Y120.

That said, there are cases of technologies which do, in fact, fall out of favour (and/or regain said favour over time), regardless of the logistical elements involved. Consider how the Federation abandoned the concept of drones, once the Andorians stopped using their own own distinct drone types (YFD19.0) on their National Guard ships; only to revisit the concept decades later, in the run-up to the General War.

Still, given how deeply embedded the use of drones had been across the Empire by the time the first "modern" ships were entering service, and how "conservative" (in military terms) the Klingons can be in terms of tactical and operational doctrine, it would be more than a little surprising for any government to impose, however briefly, such a strong pivot away from "how things are done", not least in the absence of concrete evidence from the Kzinti or Federation borders that drones have somehow stopped being in any way useful by that point in time.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 06:27 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

There are a few other Klingon ships from this time period to consider.

---

---

Quote:

The “F” drone rack (known as the “jump rack”) was a Klingon invention used to add drones to ships not originally designed for them. The drone racks seen on the B10, C9, C8, D7, D6, F5, and E4 are actually type-F racks replacing shuttles.

---

---

Quote:

This is quite the "sunk cost", built up over several decades, to get things to the point they would be as of Y120.

---

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 06:28 pm: Edit

My thought is that the warp refitted D3/ D4/ F4 class ships got the f-rack refit because it was needed vs the kzinti who could close at full speed & anchor. They couldn't dodge drones AND fire disruptors at combat ranges. The drones were mostly to counter the incoming ones and/ or discourage the anchor.

THEN the F5/ D6 classes came out. They were so much faster (note he Kzinti CS & CL are slower than the Klinks) So they decided that more shuttles are the way to go. Saber dance. Then they decided that the drones were what hey wanted and refitted the "new' hulls with F racks. Which explains the wonky YIS issue... Not least because with the drones they could use Scatter packs

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 06:31 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

THEN the F5/ D6 classes came out. They were so much faster (note he Kzinti CS & CL are slower than the Klinks) So they decided that more shuttles are the way to go. Saber dance. Then they decided that the drones were what hey wanted and refitted the "new' hulls with F racks. Which explains the wonky YIS issue... Not least because with the drones they could use Scatter packs

---

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 07:26 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

And, yet, (FD3.6) says that's exactly what they did

---

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Saturday, August 08, 2026 - 07:41 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Which might be a surprise for anyone used to me being the one to cause headaches in other people's topics in years past, but still...

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 09, 2026 - 06:15 am: Edit

Xander, nope, I don’t.

And you are just flat wrong to assume that the Klingons ever decided to be done with drones. Just wrong.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 09, 2026 - 06:37 am: Edit

A few comments, and it is difficult to type on this stupid pad.

1. Half of the time when someone asks a question, they are fishing for a rules change. Excuse me if a battered old man gets really gun shy about detecting which half. You guys can be diabolically clever and sometimes it’s more like running a casino full of professional double dealers and sneaky shufflers. All part of the fun. Guys who win are guys who found cracks — or created them.

2. I don’t have a set of rule books at home. Leanna won’t allow it or she would never get any hubby time. When I am home I am off duty and just drop by checking for flame wars. I sometimes spot an easy question or a dead horse.

3. I don’t remember every rule in the game.

4. My casual answers on the board never change published rules. If I contradict a rule, see 2 and 3 and sometimes 1. Then politely cite the rule number.

5. As I noted before, do not assume if the guy who insists no rule answers XYZ that there isn’t such a rule he just missed.

6. There are a lot of things people remember that are no longer in the game and more than a few that never were. If you cannot cite a rule number, do not bring up the subject. I can remember a famous Kzinti admiral who remembered the sudden impact rule that was never there. I can remember a judge who invented his own edge of the map rule despite black letter rules to the contrary, and worse insisted that his rule was right and the published rules were wrong because he knew the rules better than anyone else. Then he ran tournaments with his imaginary rule even when told by me he was wrong.

At this point I would have to consider that if a Klingon SSD has a rack then the ship always had it in operational service and any ship briefly without a rack was a historical footnote during builder’s trials within sight of the shipyard or the shakedown cruise that was nowhere near any enemy.

Unless someone finds a published rule to the contrary and cites a number, that is, and so far, no one has. Historical context explains rules, it doesn’t change rules.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Sunday, August 09, 2026 - 11:39 am: Edit

Appreciate the detailed thought process. As to your question:

---

Quote:

Unless someone finds a published rule to the contrary and cites a number, that is, and so far, no one has.

---

---

Quote:

The “F” drone rack (known as the “jump rack”) was a Klingon invention used to add drones to ships not originally designed for them. The drone racks seen on the B10, C9, C8, D7, D6, F5, and E4 are actually type-F racks replacing shuttles.

---

---

Quote:

At this point I would have to consider that if a Klingon SSD has a rack then the ship always had it in operational service and any ship briefly without a rack was a historical footnote during builder’s trials within sight of the shipyard or the shakedown cruise that was nowhere near any enemy.

---

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, August 09, 2026 - 12:18 pm: Edit

The bit of (FD3.6) you are hanging up on is purely *background*, not anything actually game relevant. Background, as noted, that predates the Early Years material being designed and written. Treating it as somehow inviolate is…nonsensical, especially in the context of how often background for the game has been tweaked and adjusted as it has grown, been explored, and expanded.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Sunday, August 09, 2026 - 12:26 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The bit of (FD3.6) you are hanging up on is purely *background*, not anything actually game relevant.

---

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Sunday, August 09, 2026 - 12:44 pm: Edit

So what? The background is constantly evolving, expanding, and being refined.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 09, 2026 - 03:28 pm: Edit

Alex is right.

Xander, chill, I will have Petrick fix it.

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, August 10, 2026 - 01:53 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Xander, chill, I will have Petrick fix it.

---

---

Quote:

The term "D-7" remained the speculated designation for the Klingon battle cruiser for many years, at the time simply referred to as the "Klingon Battle Cruiser" in production sources, with origins rooting to an incident Gene Roddenberry recalls in The Making of Star Trek, which is linked to how he likened the cast's relationship to that of a family:

I went to the stage one day, and they were all ready and waiting for me, because they knew I was really exhausted from some long rewrite sessions. As soon as I walked up to the set, Bill and Leonard blew a scene, but they blew it on purpose and began arguing very violently. Bill was shouting at the top of his voice, "Leonard! What do you mean saying this is a D-7 Klingon ship! It's a D-6!" Leonard shouted back, "No, you idiot, the D-6 has four doors over here and the D-7 only has two!" Bill immediately shouted back, "No, no, no – it's the other way around. You've got it all wrong."

While all of this is going on, I'm standing there, beginning to get frustrated, watching the minutes tick by and mentally counting the money we're losing in expensive crew time, because the cameras aren't rolling. And as the argument continued, I'm thinking to myself, "What are they talking about? They've gone too far!" Then I remembered thinking that I should remember which is the D-6 or the D-7. Finally I couldn't stand it any more, and so I walked in between them and said, "Come on, fellows, it really doesn't matter. Let's get on with the scene." Then the whole crew broke up laughing. This was their way of saying to me, "Hey, time is not that serious. Relax a little."

---

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, August 10, 2026 - 11:40 pm: Edit

I don't think anything needs to be fixed. If you are flying Klingon without the B-Refit you would need the information for the F-Rack.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, August 14, 2026 - 11:41 am: Edit

With a discussion elsewhere on the BBS in mind, I was thinking of a possible errata version to the text in (FD3.6).

-----

It hasn't been formally stated as of yet: but it's possible that, prior to the onset of Tactical Warp, "sublight" Klingon cruisers - those built to the "manta ray" configuration of their own design, rather than the Old King leftovers which the Klingons started off with - were armed with lasers and atomic missiles.

In which case, the missile racks were possibly installed in the nacelle caps.

Also, one could presume that the "sublight" cruisers had four shuttle boxes in their respective deckhouses.

-----

Once the warp-refitted D3 is being developed, the nacelle cap mounts were used for disruptor bolts instead.

With no "spare" heavy weapon mounts to make use of, this would have led the Klingons to invent the jump rack, and to swap out two of the shuttle boxes in the deckhouse for type-F racks.

Thus, once the D3s entered service in the Deep Space Fleet, they had what would become the "traditional" mix of phasers, disruptor bolts, and drones ready to go.

-----

So, how about replacing the first sentence of the rule with something like this?

---

Quote:

(FD3.6) TYPE-F

The “F” drone rack (known as the “jump rack”) was invented by the Klingons in the mid-Y60s. It was used to add drones to warp refit conversions of "sublight" ships not originally designed for them. For an example of such a ship, see the D3 warp-refitted cruiser (YR3.2) in Module Y1.

This type of rack was used for two subsequent generations of Tactical Warp-powered starships - to include the D4 early cruiser (YR3.4) and the D6 heavy cruiser - until it was largely phased out with the onset of the B-refit.

---

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis) on Saturday, August 15, 2026 - 11:08 pm: Edit

In the first edition of the game, F racks could be placed in several races ships. In Expansion 2 it even noted that the Feds were sold about 200 of the racks. Mike Thompson wrote the rules for "improved drone racks" noting that they were invented by the Kzintis, and copied by the Klingons and Orions. We all saw Captains Edition as having put the genie back in the bottle by stating only the Klingons EVER USED THEM. Players were starting to get very carefree about throwing drone racks onto any and every ship they played. What was next, replacing shuttle boxes with Plasma F launchers? I see nothing needing to be fixed in the game system regarding F racks, frankly. Doesn't it make sense if the Klingons really like a bit of legacy tech and decided keep some of the tactical flexibility handy on their later ship designs?

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Are there Vulcan ships? I don't remember there being any and wonder why that would be if they don't exist.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Jack Taylor:

Such Vulcan ships as there are were published in Modules Y1, Y2, and Y3.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 - 04:56 pm: Edit

The ships referred to above by SPP are Early Years hulls of the Vulcans' own design.

Prior to the emergence of the United Star Fleet, these hulls served in the Vulcan planetary navy. They were quite unique by UFP standards, as befitting their status as the "elder" space-faring Federation member species. (For example; they had ship-mounted phaser-1s long before any of the other planetary fleets.)

In the Y-era, the various major planets collaborated to field the first generation of Y-era "saucer-and-nacelle" ships, such as the Republic-class YCA.

The Vulcans kept some ships of their own design for use in "training squadrons": these forces would later be formalized as the various National Guards.

Several of these ships would be deployed to the Kzinti front during the First Federation-Kzinti War, where they were of particular use both as command ships and as electronic warfare platforms. Indeed, one of these Vulcan ships would help facilitate the peace treaty which ended the war.

By the Y120s, Star Fleet began to adopt Middle Years starship designs, such as the Constitution-class CA. At this point, some of the Y-era hulls were refitted to the G-series standards seen in Module R8, and transferred to take the place of the old "planetary" hulls in the various National Guards.

Thus, in the "modern" era, "Vulcan" ships are, for the most part, "saucer-and-nacelle" hulls of the G-series, operated with all-Vulcan crews.

Even so, that same "treaty ship" is maintained to the present day as a museum ship. The Vulcans themselves consider this to be an "illogical" use of the hull, yet the Council insisted nonetheless!

By Jack Taylor (Jtaylor) on Tuesday, August 18, 2026 - 07:37 pm: Edit

It's too bad they were not made into something bigger. I know it's one big, happy Federation, but it would be cool to have a full set of Vulcan ships with something not photons. I'd be even happier if the Vulcans had a tournament ship (without photons). Romulans have plasma torpedoes but how did they come up with them? Maybe completely separately from Vulcan's? Maybe Vulcan's never had plasma torpedoes?

If the canon is correct the Vulcans were flying around space for a long time before there ever were dreams of a Federation. Couldn't they have a better weapon too? I think this is a good product idea myself. I'd buy it and I'd buy Vulcan mini's.

Also, thinking about the thousands of players out there -- I would think they would get energized around a full-on Vulcan race. I don't know how well Omega caught on - I never got into it myself, but I bet a lot of player might really like an expansion to the Alpha quadrant -it's like when your old favorite band puts out a new album. People line up.