Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through January 26, 2008	27		04/07 04:47pm

PART ONE OF A PAINFULLY LONG HYDRAN REPORT
Hydran BTX: 0, -Date Available shows Y182. According to (709.0), the Hydrans don't begin production of X points until SY183(30). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y183. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran BTX: Agreed. Also need to check the BSX, STX and SBX to Y183. Ryan Opel
Hydran BTX: Concur with changing date. Frazier.
Hydran BTX: Concur, agreement with (709). The BTX should have a Date Available to Y183. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Hydran BTX: Confirmed - SWFrazier
Hydran BTX: The OOB (709) does say Y183 for the start of Hydran X-points. However, the dates for the LNX and RNX are Y182, the same as in module X1 and G2. The Hydrans are the only race with an F&E X-ship intro later than the SFB intro. I would recommend changing (709) rather than changing SFB. Laikind 3 Jan 08.
Hydran BTX: Z SVC: I must accept the wiser council. Jeff is right. This is wrong in 709, not in the SIT. Wrote this for CL37: The Hydran X-ship introduction date in Annex (709.0) is wrong. The annex lists Spring Y183 (Turn #30) but Star Fleet Battles Module G2 and Star Fleet Battles Module X1 both list the RNX and LNX as in service in Y182. Change the Hydran X-ship date to Spring Y182 (Turn #28).
======================
Hydran Commercial Convoy: In the Factors On Counter column, the word "none" should be capitalized. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. THIS HAS BEEN DONE
======================
Hydran conversion costs for their CV/CVAs should be cheaper than everyone else's, they're really only adding a medium carriers worth of fighters (6) to what is already there. Of course the IC is a slightly different case. By Michael Lui 6 March 06 {SVC is seriously dubious about this change.}
Hydran conversion costs: No comment. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Hydran conversion costs: The Hydran hybrids don't pay the 2 point surcharge that CVs have, so there shouldn't be a discount. Laikind 3 Jan 08.
Hydran conversion: Disagree with Mischael Lui. The Hydran CV adds 9-10 fighters 50% more than a medium carriers worth. Plus you still have to gut parts of the hull in order to make room for the extra fighters. Ryan Opel
Hydran conversion: Z SVC: Concur. No change made.
======================
Hydran CV-1 0 Does this properly account for the carrier conversion cost? Chuck Strong 6 March 06 [How the hell would SVC know?]
Hydran CV-1: Heavy Carrier conversions are 4 for all other races. The Hydran CV by having 11 factors is a Heavy Carrier and should have a conversion cost of 4 also. MCurtis 26 December 07
Hydran CV-1: The conversion cost for the CV is shown as 2. Other CVDs cost 3 from a CA. Change to 3. Laikind 3 Jan 08.
Hydran CV-1: Z SVC: Changed to 3.
======================
Hydran CV-2 0 should be reclassified as an interdiction carrier not a CVA. I admit that it was a CVA when there was no such thing as a CVD but now should be changed to reflect the new designations. It isn't even a good CVD since it only has 11 fighters. What it really is is a medium carrier of 6 fighters with 5 factors of hybrid fighters (rounded up) but unlike the later Heavy fighters carriers with hybrid factors (8H3) the hybrids are lumped in to one factor with the true fighter factors. I do realise that this was done because the counters would otherwise be looking very strange/cramped (6/5) or rounded down as (6/4). Michael Lui 6 March 06 {SVC didn’t we do this already?]
Hydran CV-2: According to the Hydran MSSB the CV is counted as a CVD (Medium Carrier ) as of Y176. The errata file (440.6) The Hydran CV counts as a medium carrier (instead of a heavy carrier) starting in Y176. This should be reflected in the notes section of the SIT. Ryan Opel
Hydran CV-2: Changing the factors on a counter is not an answer. If we make the Hydran CV a CVD, then we could make its conversion cost remain a 3 in Hydran CV-1 above. The differentiation between the Hybrid Fighters and the Carrier Fighters is changed in the conversion cost, charging an additional 1 ep for each Hybrid factor in the base ship. MCurtis 26 December 07
Hydran CV-2: heavy carrier until Y176, then can be used as a medium carrier (CL33) - SWFrazier
Hydran CV-2: Yes, it was done, but I don't recall which CL. Laikind 3 Jan 08.
Hydran CV-2: Z SVC: Marked as CVD from Y176.
======================
Hydran DGX 0 -Date Available shows Y183. To be consistent with the above changes and to maintain the spacing of the introduction dates, suggest changing the Date Available to Y184. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran DGX Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran DGX: G2 shows Y183 as the Year in Service for the DGX. Ryan Opel
Hydran DGX: G2 shows Y183 for the DGX. Recommend changing (709) to match SFB.The OOB (709) does say Y183 for the start of Hydran X-points. However, the dates for the LNX and RNX are Y182, the same as in module X1 and G2. Laikind 3 Jan 08.
Hydran DGX: Other racial CA/CC X ships have at least one available on the same year as X-ship introduction. Some, like the Romulans, have another CA/CC X ship available the following year, but it is the older KE hull. The RN/DG hulls are very similar with just swapping some weapons and energy for fighters and weapons. With very little difference I say leave the intro date alone. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Hydran DGX: Z SVC: No change made (except to 709).
======================
Hydran FCX 0 -Date Available shows Y181. According to (709.0), the Hydrans don't begin production of X points until SY183(30). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y183. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran FCX Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran FCX: Agree, change available date to Y183 to match X tech development. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Hydran FCX: The STX is available in Y182 (Module G2). Change (709) to Y182 to match SFB. Change FCX to Y182 to match SFB. Laikind 3 Jan 08.
Hydran FCX: Well Y181 is the YIS of the FCX in G2. The earliest YIS for a Hydran X-ship is the LNX and RNX is Y182. Maybe the X-Ship intro date for the Hydrans might be mistaken. Ryan Opel
Hydran FCX: Z SVC: Changed to Y182.
======================
Hydran FF to DW Conversions: 0 Hydran FF>DWE, DWF, DWG, DWH, DWS, and DWV conversions should cost an additional EP, consistent with previous rules for Hydran and Lyran FF>DW conversions, especially since their FFs already became cheaper. Every conversion which increases a ship's COMPOT by 2, costs at leats 3 EPs, including the Lyran FF>DW (and Kzinti BC>BCH, Romulan SP>FH, Gorn CL>BC, Gorn BC>BCH, Gorn HD>CM, and Lyran DD>CW). Actually, the Hydran HN>DW conversion increases the attack factor by 3 (3-4 to 6-6), which makes it an even bigger increase in effectiveness. A Hydran FF>DW conversion should certainly cost more than a FF>CR conversion. The first expansion which had Hydran DWs actually listed the FF>DW cost as being 3 and not 2 EPs. It looks like the error occured when every ship cost was compiled into one table. Combining the reduced cost of Hydran FF>DW conversions with cheaper Hydran FF construction costs, now makes it more cost-effective to build Hydran DW variants through building FFs and converting them into the desired variant. While there are some cases of it being cheaper to produce a ship through building a different one and then converting it, they are limited to a few cases such as the Hydran UH (caused by the interaction of hybrid and true carrier rules), and the Lyran DN (the Lyrans are quite happy to use both methods for building DNs). Adding the Hydran DWs to the list expands the problem from just a few ships, to DW hulls. I do not believe this was an intentional play balance change. There are easier ways to do that than making one race's conversions more effective than others'. Also, if this was an intentional play balance change, it would have been annouced as such when it was done, especially whenever arguments were raised about play balance. Michael C. Mikulis [SVC cannot even follow the conversation on this one.]
Hydran FF to DW Conversions: Confirm FF>DW =3 cost - SWFrazier
Hydran FF to DW Conversions: F5 to F5L is 2 EP, same as F5 to F5W, so it isn't unlikely for the FF to CR cost to be the same as the FF to DW. Laikind 3 Jan 08.
Hydran FF to DW Conversions: Long. I don’t know how to explain this one but I’d stick with a 2pt conversion and use some handwavium as to why it’s less expansive. It’s a good inexpensive for the Hydrans to have a measurable improvement to the fleet while off-map when money is REALLY tight. Ryan Opel
Hydran FF to DW Conversions: The author is incorrect in his calculations for the DW. He used a common factor for the DW of 6/6 for all conversions. But the actual factors for a DWF is 5-6(1)/3 which is a 2+1 conversion for a 2.5 ep HN, this makes a converted DWF worth 5.5 eps, while a built one is 5 eps. For the CU->DWH conversion it is a 2 ep cost for a ship that costs 4.5 in conversion and a built one costs 4. No change needed. MCurtis 26 December 2007
Hydran FF to DW Conversions: Z SVC: No change made. This is why I have a staff.
======================
Hydran Ftr-Module 0 SIT shows YIS of Ftr-Module as Y165. Should be Y133. A.Palmer 20-Sep-2005 Per (607.11) {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran Ftr-Module Module G2 shows the YIS for fighter modules for bases and FRDs to be the YIS for the racial fighters for that race. The master fighter chart in G2 shows the earliest date of availability for the Stinger-1 to be Y134. I recommend that date. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran Ftr-Module. The Ranger (RN) is introducing in Y133 as is the Lancer (LN), so I would have to agree with him. The Hydrans would start equipping Base Stations w/ Stinger-1s just like the ships. S.Tenhoff 1-21-08
Hydran Ftr-Module: According to G2 Hanger Bay Modules are avail upon the intro of fighters (w/note that avail in 133 for use with Admin/GAS etc. shuttles). Since the Hydran fighter introduction date for the Stinger-1 in Y134 I could see the YIS being changed to reflect that. Ryan Opel
Hydran Ftr-Module: The Four Powers War does have Hydran bases with fighters in Y157 (607.11), despite G3 indicating that they don't get the HBM until Y166. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran Ftr-Module: Unless there is an earlier version of the Ftr-Module I’d say that the YIS must be Y157 or earlier. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran Ftr-Module: Z SVC: Y134 it shall be.
======================

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 08:50 pm: Edit

PART TWO OF THE HIDEOUS REPORT ON THE HORRIBLE HYDRANS.
=====
Hydran HDW(H) 0 Can this be put on their SIT to show their fighter factors of (8H2)? And maybe a counter for them in the next product? Michael Lui 7 July 06 [SVC will not make change without senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran HDW(H) M.Lui is quoting (525.23H) which says 1 hybrid factor is removed for the Hvy Ftr squadron. So he is correct, as the H-HDW has 3 hybrid factors (6 fighters in SFB). S.Tenhoff 1-21-08
Hydran HDW(H) There is already a PDF of HDW variants made that have the factors of 5-7 (8H) at http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/HDW.pdf , but this may even be in error. The HDW SSD, with all option boxes converted to shuttle boxes give it 16 shuttle boxes. 12 of these boxes will hold the Heavy fighters, 2 will hold Admin shuttles, leaving 2 for regular stingers with a fighter factor of 1. Recommend if counter is made that it be 5-7 (8H1) to reflect this. I question the need for a counter since the provided HDW mission counters are sufficient to signify this mission and this would open the door for all kinds of requests for HDW counters. Maybe an update to the existing PDF and letting players make their own counters would be sufficient. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran HDW(H) Update to 8H2 due to Hydran doctrine - SWFrazier
Hydran HDW(H): I don't recall if this was decided during the AO development. I suggest leaving it as an 8H, and explaining that the 4 power options remain as APR to charge the fighter wing. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran HDW(H): I don't see how that is possible; I recommend leaving it as is. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran HDW(H): Z SVC: Taking the advice of the two senior F&E staffers, I must concur and leave the factors unchanged and assume APRs are used to power the fighter reloads.
====================
Hydran HDW: 0 Question on the Hydran HDW+HOG and (525.23H). When configuring an HDW to use a HOG the hybrid fighter factor is given up to allow the full 8H fighter factors of a heavy fighter squadron. (525.23H) states that an HDW does not have its one hybrid factor because their deck space is taken up by the heavy fighters. The Hydran HDW and LNH have 3 hybrid fighters. Should these ships give up all three hybrid factors when configured to use a HOG or should they only give up one hybrid factor like other HDWs? If it’s the former then there is no great reason for the Hydrans to build a HOG as the COG is also a single squadron of 8 fighter factors. If it’s the latter then the Hydran HDW & LNH would have 8H2 fighter factors. The PDF download on the web site shows it having only the 8H heavy fighter factors and I want to confirm that as correct because I’m making counters for all of the HDW variant. Daniel G. Knipfer [SVC awaits staff input.]
Hydran HDW: D.Knipfer is quoting (525.23H) which says 1 hybrid factor is removed for the Hvy Ftr squadron. So he is correct, as the H-HDW has 3 hybrid factors (6 fighters in SFB). But he's wrong stating that a H-COG=1squadron it's 8 fighter factors, 1 1/3 sqds, the H-COG doesn't get an Oversized Squadron bonus. S.Tenhoff 1-21-08
Hydran HDW: Good question. The Hydran HDW has 6 fighters in its normal mode so should have the room to keep 4 of those fighter in a Hvy Fighter configuration. Ryan Opel
Hydran HDW: I don't recall if this was decided during the AO development. I suggest leaving it as an 8H, and explaining that the 4 power options remain as APR to charge the fighter wing. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran HDW: See my comments in the Hydran HDW(H) entry above. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran HDW: Update to 8H2 due to Hydran doctrine - SWFrazier
Hydran HDW: Z SVC: Taking the advice of the two senior F&E staffers, I must concur and leave the factors unchanged and assume APRs are used to power the fighter reloads.
====================
Hydran IC 0 Does this properly account for the carrier conversion cost? Chuck Strong 6 March 06 {How the hell would SVC know?]
Hydran IC All other Heavy Carriers are a 4 pt conversion cost. The conversion cost for this should be 4+34, the construction cost is correct. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran IC. It should be 4 EPs to convert a PAL->CVA(IC). So 4+36 w/ ftrs. S.Tenhoff 1-21-08
Hydran IC: If all CVA conversions now cost 4EP from a base dreadnought hull then the conversion cost should be 4+32 and not 6+32. Also, if CVA substitution costs remain at 2EP more than the base hull of the dreadnought then substitution cost should be 18+40 not 20+40. I cannot find any references for these higher costs, thus my confusion. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran IC: Seems a fair number. They’re gutting a lot of the ship in order to put all those fighters so should cost more than the ID conversion. Ryan Opel
Hydran IC: The conversion and construction costs look OK. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran IC: Z SVC: No change made. Note added to confirm the unusual cost so we don’t have to go through this again.
====================
Hydran ID 0 Does this properly account for the carrier conversion cost? Chuck Strong 6 March 06 [How the hell would SVC know?]
Hydran ID All other Heavy Carriers are a 4 pt conversion cost. The conversion cost for this is correct at 4+24, the construction cost is not correct it, should be 20+24. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran ID. It should be 4 EPs to convert a PAL->CVA(ID). So it should be 4+18 for the conversion. S.Tenhoff 1-21-08
Hydran ID: Is in line with other races DN>CVA conversions. Ryan Opel
Hydran ID: On the SIT the 4ID (Group) lists a conversion cost of 5EPs (CVA 2 EP + 3 Escorts 3EP = 5EP) but the PAL>ID on the SIT list a cost of 4EPs. If all CVA conversions now cost 4EP from a base dreadnought hull then the conversion cost is correct (we then need to change the 4ID conversion costs). If a memo was send back in 2005 formally changing conversion costs for CVAs then I must have missed it. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran ID: The construction cost is shown as +2, and the conversion cost at +4. Previous reports have recommended leaving the construction surcharge at 2. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran ID: Z SVC: No change made.
====================
Hydran IRF: 0 In the Conversion Cost column, should "IR" be "IRQ"? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC says this sounds logical.]
Hydran IRF: Confirm - SWFrazier
Hydran IRF: Conversion source IR should be IRQ. Ryan Opel
Hydran IRF: I concur. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran IRF: IRQ is correct. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran IRF: Yes, it should be IRQ. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran IRF: Z SVC: Simple and obvious type.
====================
Hydran IRQ factors are wrong. Since it has the EXACT same weapons suite of the Dragoon, it should be 9-8 not a straight 8. Michael Lui 7 July 06 This would also mean a cost increase for the IRQ. Ever since 2K, any NCA or DN with better factors costs more than the others. Michael C. Mikulis SVC: I checked with Petrick who says that the IRQ should be a 9-8. However, it's on a sheet from Combined Operations (former Special Operations) which is in absolutely no danger of being reprinted anytime soon, and it’s rare if we change the factors on a printed counter. You may just have to live with it.
Hydran IRQ Since the counter is already printed and not going to be printed anytime soon we should just leave this as one of those things that just slipped by. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran IRQ Unfortuante, but then so many Hydrans need their half fighter factor added in FO (RN!) - SWFrazier
Hydran IRQ. It's DOCTRINE why the IRQ is an 8/4 unit and not an 9-8 unit like the Dragoon. :D S.Tenhoff 1-21-08
Hydran IRQ: Since we don’t normally change printed factors on the counters I guess we’re stuck with it. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran IRQ: Them's the breaks, no change. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran IRQ: We’ll just have to deal with it.
Hydran IRQ: Z SVC: Pity, that.
====================
Hydran KNX 0, -Date Available shows Y184. To be consistent with the above changes and to maintain the spacing of the introduction dates, suggest changing the Date Available to Y185. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran KNX Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran KNX: G2 avail date for the KNX is Y184. No change recommended. Ryan Opel
Hydran KNX: I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran X-ship intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note. The SFB MSC list Y182 for some Hydran ships including the KNX. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran KNX: LNX intro date is one year too early, see my notes on the LNX, it needs to be pushed back one year. To keep the same separation over time the KNX would also be moved back one year to Y185 as Greg E suggests. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran KNX: Module X1 and G2 say Y182 for the LNX and RNX. Recommend changing X intro, as the Hydrans are the only race with X points AFTER the X1 module says. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran KNX: Z SVC: No change, Y183 is correct, 709 should say Y182, not Y183.
====================
Hydran LAH 0: The SFB Ref # column should be R1.75. There should be a colon after the reference to (513.112) in the Build Cost column. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Hydran LAH: Agreed. Ryan Opel
Hydran LAH: Concur with Brooks. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran LAH: Confirm Ref # - SWFrazier
Hydran LAH: I concur, formatting issue in the build column. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran LAH: OK Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran LAH: Z SVC: done.
====================

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 08:55 pm: Edit

THIRD PART OF HYDRAN REPORT
Hydran LBX: 0-Date Available shows Y184. To be consistent with the above changes and to maintain the spacing of the introduction dates, suggest changing the Date Available to Y185. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran LBX: Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran LBX: G2 YIS for the LBX is Y184. No change recommended. Ryan Opel
Hydran LBX: I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran X-ship intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note. The SFB MSC list Y182 for some Hydran ships. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran LBX: Module X1 and G2 say Y182 for the LNX and RNX. Recommend changing X intro, as the Hydrans are the only race with X points AFTER the X1 module says. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran LBX: See notes for the KNX and LNX, this seems logical. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran LBX: Z SVC: Since no changes were made above, no changes are needed here.
==========================
Hydran LE: 0 - Date Available shows Y177. use Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Hydrans until SY178(20) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178. -Greg E. 5/31/06 (FO-530.223), which reads, in part: Certain carriers (such as CSVs and ACSs) [...] have earlier dates on the SIT and can be produced from those dates. Dave Butler {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran LE: G2 YIS for the LE is Y177. G2 YIS for the STS in Y177. Maybe the Hvy fighter intro date for the Hydrans needs to be adjusted? Ryan Opel
Hydran LE: Greg's answer seems right on, an exception to the general rule. S.Tenhoff 1-21-08
Hydran LE: Heavy fighter carriers such as the Klingon D5H have earlier operational dates than the full introduction of Heavy fighters for the race. I recommend no change to go along with this precedence. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran LE: The SFB MSC confirms Y177 for the LE. I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran Heavy Fighter intro note intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note to Y177. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran LE: This ship is the Hydran ACS, leave Date as is - SWFrazier
Hydran LE: Z SVC: The SIT is correct and the heavy fighter date is correct. No change to either or anything. Some heavy fighter carriers are available early. Deal with it.
==========================
Hydran LNH(H): 0 Can this be put on their SIT to show their fighter factors of (8H2)? And maybe a counter for them in the next product? Michael Lui 7 July 06 {SVC, unfortunately and perhaps unfairly, becomes instantly suspicious when the Hydrans want something.]
Hydran LNH(H): Add entry due to Hydran doctrine of having 'extra' fighters - SWFrazier
Hydran LNH(H): I don't recall if this was decided during the AO development. I suggest leaving it as an 8H, and explaining that the 4 power options remain as APR to charge the fighter wing. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran LNH(H): I don't see how that is possible; I recommend leaving the SIT factors as is. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran LNH(H): Using all 8 NWO boxes on the SSD for this ship as shuttle boxes with the existing 9 shuttle boxes makes 17 shuttle boxes, six Heavy fighters will use 12 boxes, 3 boxes will be used for admin shuttles, leaving 2 boxes for stingers. So, factors for this variant would be (8H1) just like the HDW. No counter is needed since only two of these can be in play at any one time and there is sufficient HDW mission counters to stack with the LNH counter. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran LNH(H): Would reflect the same factors as the HDW(H). Ryan Opel
Hydran LNH(H): M.Lui is quoting (525.23H) which says 1 hybrid factor is removed for the Hvy Ftr squadron. So he is correct, as the H-LNH has 3 hybrid factors (6 fighters in SFB). S.Tenhoff 1-21-08
Hydran LNH(H): Z SVC: Jeff is correct. No Hybrid factors. APRs instead.
==========================
Hydran LNX: 0 -Date Available shows Y182. According to (709.0), the Hydrans don't begin production of X points until SY183(30). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y183. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran LNX: Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran LNX: I concur, change date to Y183 for reasons stated by Greg E. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran LNX: I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran X-ship intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note. The SFB MSC list Y182 for some Hydran ships. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran LNX: LNX YIS in G2 is Y182. Recommend the changing of the X-Ship intro date since they have the LNX and RNX avail in Y182. Possible change X-Ship intro to F182 Ryan Opel.
Hydran LNX: Module X1 and G2 say Y182 for the LNX and RNX. Recommend changing X intro, as the Hydrans are the only race with X points AFTER the X1 module says. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran LNX: Z SVC: no change, date Y182 is correct, 709 is wrong when it says Y183.
==========================

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 09:05 pm: Edit

FINAL REPORT ON HYDRANS
===========
Hydran MNR I can’t find information on the MNR in my records. All other races have BB factors. There is a MNR counter on Sheet R+S, alas ALL my counters are at a friends house with our current campaign.
Hydran MNR Monarch BB 0 -- Is this ship a hybrid or true carrier? I think we figured that out and said so in Captain’s Log but we need to lock it into the SIT.
Hydran MNR Monarch BB According to Captain’s Log 34 page 88 they are Hybrid factors
Hydran MNR Monarch BB: Hybrid. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran MNR Monarch BB: It is a Hybrid. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran MNR: 0 needs to be added (even though conjectural) from CLog -- Lawrence Bergen [SVC notes that there is a blank line in the SIT and wonders if all other races have their BBs?]
Hydran MNR: 0 This unit is missing all of its info. The SFB Ref # should be 55. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. Monarch BB is not on the SIT. Michael Lui, 31 July 06
Hydran MNR: All others are listed, even the B11. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran MNR: All others are listed. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran MNR: Decided ship is hybrid llike the PAL (CL?) - SWFrazier
Hydran MNR: Don’t know what the factors would be or where if they’ve been published. Ryan Opel
Hydran MNR: Email from SVC (8-12-07) with ruling from SPP during the Hydran MSSB project says the MNR is a Hybrid carrier. Ryan Opel.
Hydran MNR: factors I can’t find information on the MNR in my records. All other races have BB factors. There is a MNR counter on Sheet R+S, alas ALL my counters are at a friends house with our current campaign.
Hydran MNR: The note say the info should be published in CL36. (which I bet it isn’t) Ryan Opel
Hydran MNR: Yes the Hydrans got a MNR counter; printed factors are 20(9)/10(4^). Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran MNR: Z SVC: Data added, as best I could, anyway.
==========================
Hydran PFP 0 -Date Available shows Y179. (600.2) lists Hydran PF1 is FY179(23), so the Hydrans should not be able to produce the PFP until SY180(24). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y180. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran PFP Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran PFP G2 YIS for PFP is Y180, I concur. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran PFP: (709) in F&E2K says Y180 and later. (709) in AO shows turn 24 (S180) for PFT production. Change to Y180. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran PFP: Change date to Y180 per MSC YIS. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran PFP: G2 YIS is Y180. Change to Y180. Ryan Opel
Hydran PFP: Z SVC: Y180 it shall be.
==========================
Hydran RNX 0, -Date Available shows Y182. According to (709.0), the Hydrans don't begin production of X points until SY183(30). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y183. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran RNX Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran RNX I concur. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran RNX: I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran X-ship intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note. The SFB MSC list Y182 for some Hydran ships. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran RNX: Module X1 and G2 say Y182 for the LNX and RNX. Recommend changing X intro, as the Hydrans are the only race with X points AFTER the X1 module says. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran RNX: RNX YIS in G2 is Y182. Recommend the changing of the X-Ship intro date since they have the LNX and RNX avail in Y182. Possible change X-Ship intro to F182 Ryan Opel.
Hydran RNX: Z SVC: 709 changed to Y182.
==========================
Hydran SBX 0 -Date Available shows Y182. According to (709.0), the Hydrans don't begin production of X points until SY183(30). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y183. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran SBX Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran SBX Other races have two years between introduction of X points and the SBX being available. Recommend changing to Y185. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran SBX: I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran X-ship intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note. The SFB MSC list Y182 for some Hydran ships. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran SBX: Module X1 and G2 say Y182 for the LNX and RNX. Recommend changing X intro, as the Hydrans are the only race with X points AFTER the X1 module says. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran SBX: Recommend the changing of the X-Ship intro date since they have the LNX and RNX avail in Y182. Possible change X-Ship intro to F182 Ryan Opel
Hydran SBX: Z SVC: Date is correct at Y182. Rule 709 is wrong.
==========================
Hydran SCX 0-Date Available shows Y184. To be consistent with the above changes and to maintain the spacing of the introduction dates, suggest changing the Date Available to Y185. -Greg E. 5/31/06 {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran SCX Confirm Date change - SWFrazier
Hydran SCX Just like the other X class ships in this section of SIT review, the date should be changed for the above reasons for the LNX. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran SCX: G2 YIS is Y184. Recommend no change. Ryan Opel
Hydran SCX: I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran X-ship intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note. The SFB MSC list Y182 for some Hydran ships. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran SCX: Module X1 and G2 say Y182 for the LNX and RNX. Recommend changing X intro, as the Hydrans are the only race with X points AFTER the X1 module says. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran SCX: Z SVC: No change made.
==========================
Hydran SEN 0, - Date Available shows Y177. use Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Hydrans until SY178(20) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178. -Greg E. 5/31/06 (FO-530.223), which reads, in part: Certain carriers (such as CSVs and ACSs) [...] have earlier dates on the SIT and can be produced from those dates. Dave Butler {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran SEN Heavy fighter carriers such as the Klingon D5H have earlier operational dates than the full introduction of Heavy fighters for the race. I recommend no change to go along with this precedence. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran SEN this is the Hydran CSV so leave the Date as is. - SWFrazier
Hydran SEN: G2 YIS for the SEN is Y177. G2 YIS for the STS in Y177. Maybe the Hvy fighter intro date for the Hydrans needs to be adjusted? Ryan Opel
Hydran SEN: The date shown "defines the date pods are available, the deployment of heavy fighters on bases, etc." The Klingon D5B is available in Y176, but their heavy fighter date is Y178. The Kzinti CSV is Y175, vs a Heavy Fighter date of Y178, too. Leave the SEN alone as it is a CSV class. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran SEN: The SFB MSC confirms Y177 for the SEN. I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran Heavy Fighter intro note intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note to Y177. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran SEN: Z SVC: Some carriers have heavy fighters before the "pod" date. Deal with it. No change made.
==========================
Hydran UH: 0 I propose that the construction cost for the UH in the SIT to be changed from a base hull cost of eight EPs to six EPs. This would make building an UH the same cost as building a LN and then converting it into an UH. Michael C. Mikulis {SVC, unfortunately and perhaps unfairly, becomes instantly suspicious when the Hydrans want something.]
Hydran UH: Disagree. 2pts seems to be the standard difference between base hull and carrier version. Ryan Opel
Hydran UH: Don't change it. The Hydrans have unusual results, so what. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran UH: Leave as is - SWFrazier
Hydran UH: The LN costs 4 EPs (+2 for the hybrids); the KN costs 6 EPs. With the 2EP carrier conversion surcharge I could see Mikulis’ point that 8EP is too high, however 6 EPs is too low; recommend spliting the difference and setting 7+16 as the construction cost. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran UH: This is a medium carrier with 8 factors. The CVM also costs the additional 2 eps above base hull cost. Other Medium carriers are 2 eps above base hull cost. I do not recommend this change as it is different from all other Medium carriers. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran UH: Z SVC: No change made. 8 is correct.
==========================
Hydran VED 0 - Date Available shows Y177. use Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Hydrans until SY178(20) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178. -Greg E. 5/31/06 (FO-530.223), which reads, in part: Certain carriers (such as CSVs and ACSs) [...] have earlier dates on the SIT and can be produced from those dates. Dave Butler {SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Hydran VED Confirm, change Date to Y178 - SWFrazier
Hydran VED: G2 YIS for the VED is Y177. G2 YIS for the STS in Y177. Maybe the Hvy fighter intro date for the Hydrans needs to be adjusted? Ryan Opel
Hydran VED: Heavy fighter carriers such as the Klingon D5H have earlier operational dates than the full introduction of Heavy fighters for the race. I recommend no change to go along with this precedence. MCurtis 18 January 2008
Hydran VED: The date shown "defines the date pods are available, the deployment of heavy fighters on bases, etc." The Klingon D5B is available in Y176, but their heavy fighter date is Y178. The Kzinti CSV is Y175, vs a Heavy Fighter date of Y178, too. Leave the VED alone as it is a CSV class. Laikind 22-Jan-08
Hydran VED: The SFB MSC confirms Y177 for the VED. I think the SIT is correct and the Hydran Heavy Fighter intro note intro note in (709.3) is wrong; recommend changing note to Y177. Strong 24 Jan 2008
Hydran SEN: Z SVC: Some carriers have heavy fighters before the "pod" date. Deal with it. No change made.
==========================

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 04:43 pm: Edit

REPORT ON KLINGON B10, B10 MINUS, B10S, B10V
===============
Klingon B10 Build: 0 Does the direct build cost of 36EP reflect 35EP for base hull + 1 EP for Light Carrier cost? Chuck Strong. [SVC: No. Battleships do not pay for "light carrier status". It’s part of the package deal.]
Klingon B10 Build: Base hull stays 36EPs to build, I agree. S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 SVC: so be it.
Klingon B10 Build: Concur with SVC 4 Feb 2008 ruling that all generic BBs hulls cost 36 EPs. "Special Rules: 36+8". STRONG 4 Feb 2008 SVC: so be it.
Klingon B10 Build: Current [assumed/optional] base cost is 36EP. It has been suggested that the 4 fighter factors make it a light carrier (as defined in 515.23), either changing the base cost or the total cost (and presumably making it a single ship carrier). Or, it could be ruled as a "hybrid carrier", which would in turn reduce the fighter cost from 8 to 4. Or, battleships could get a ‘special exception’ (which, the SIT already gives them by overriding the normal calculation rules), which should be noted for mention in the Warbook. *I* favor special exception (carries fighters—is not a carrier in any way for production/escort purposes) or possibly hybrid status (it seems it should loose fighters at about the same rate as Hydran non-carriers). James Lowry. SVC: There is no cost for "light carrier status" so the cost is not to be changed, up or down.
Klingon B10 Build: I don’t recall anything that suggests that the B10 doesn’t include fighter facilities automatically. Direct build doesn’t separate a light carrier cost. Laikind 2-Feb-08. SVC: so be it.
Klingon B10 Build: OK, if using the regular D6 production (436.2), the carrier cost should be subsumed during that process. If one is using the fast‚ (436.26), then the carrier surcharge‚ could be added when the fighters are paid for or considered part of it -- either could work, though I would consider it part of the base cost as it doesn’t count for salvage anyway. Besides, the fighters are paid for at the carrier rate rather then the hybrid rate. -- SWFrazier 080129 SVC: Thank you. The ruling stands.
Klingon B10 Build: Z: SVC DECISION: The direct build cost is a flat fee. The cost of "escort carrier facilities" is just ignored for all purposes.
Klingon B10 Minus Build: 0 Should the direct build cost be 35EP (35EP for base hull + 0 EP for non-carrier). Chuck Strong. [SVC: No, it should still be 36.]
Klingon B10 Minus Build: This should still cost 36EPs to build I think. While the B10- doesn't have an SSD, I would presume that it's a B10 w/o fighters (but still the huge honking shuttle bay w/ +8 shuttles in it). So it should stay 36EPs to build. S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: Concur, it should still be 36.]
Klingon B10 Minus Build: Concur with SVC 4 Feb 2008 ruling that all generic BBs hulls cost 36 EPs. "Special Rules: 36". STRONG 4 Feb 2008 [SVC: Concur, it should still be 36.]
Klingon B10 Minus Build: I don’t recall anything that suggests that the B10 doesn’t include fighter facilities automatically. Direct build doesn’t separate a light carrier cost. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: Concur, it should still be 36.]
Klingon B10 Minus Build: In line with B10 recommendation, keep base cost at current value (36EP), and clarify non-carrier status of B10. James Lowry. [SVC: Concur, it should still be 36.]
Klingon B10 Minus Build: Leave it at 36 for (436.26) fast production (or use the regular D6 method). -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: Concur, it should still be 36.]
Klingon B10 Minus Build: SVC decision is that 36 is what it costs. No add or delete for "carrier facilities".
Klingon B10 Minus Salvage: 0 salvage appears to be incorrect; escape boom Klingons are salvaged at 30% of base hull cost (7.2EP is too low at 20% -- 30% of 35EP = 10.5EP) Chuck Strong. [SVC: I dunno. Staff?]
Klingon B10 Minus Salvage: 10.8 it is. Final decision by SVC. [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Minus Salvage: Based on a direct purchase cost of 36 (special rule cited in SIT gives a direct purchase of BBs of 36; 9ep over 4 turns), the salvage should be 10.8, which is 30% of 36 ep. Joe Stevenson [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Minus Salvage: I don’t remember where the 7.2 comes from, that is 30% of 24. It may have been an arbitrary decision to reduce the amount of salvage from the 10.8 it would be as 30% of 36. The B10 (minus) should have the same salvage as the B10 with fighters. Increasing to 10.8 is OK with me. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Minus Salvage: Salvage should be changed to 10.8 EP. Rational: Klingon ships with separable booms are salvaged at 30% of their base hull cost of 36EP. STRONG 26 Jan 2008 [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Minus Salvage: The B10 was given a base cost of 24 [CL #21] while the salvage percentages were changing (which gives the current 7.2 figure). Leave it as is. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Minus Salvage: With an assumed base cost of 36, salvage for a B10 should be 30% x 36 = 10.8 EP, not the currently listed 7.2. ("I have never understood how you guys figure salvage." Salvage is based off a percentage of the base hull’s *build cost* (not factors). Percentages are not given in the current rules, but one can observe that the C7 costs 10 and salvages for 3, for an easy example giving 30% cost. The C8 salvages for 4.8 EP, showing that it is based off of production cost, not factors as 4.8 is 30% of 16, not 12. The B10’s salvage is currently 7.2EP, or 30% of 24—the total factors on the hull, including fighters. The argument here is that it should be based off the optional direct build cost of (436.26), which would generate 10.8EP.) James Lowry. [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Salvage: 0 salvage appears to be incorrect; escape boom Klingons are salvaged at 30% of base hull cost (7.2EP is too low at 20%). (Note: I assumed that since this is the original Klingon B10 from the old F&E that 36EPs included the 1EP for the light carrier cost). Chuck Strong. [SVC: I can’t tell. Staff?]
Klingon B10 Salvage: 10.8 it is. Final decision by SVC.
Klingon B10 Salvage: Based on a direct purchase cost of 36 (special rule cited in SIT gives a direct purchase of BBs of 36; 9ep over 4 turns), the salvage should be 10.8, which is 30% of 36 ep. Joe Stevenson [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Salvage: I don’t remember where the 7.2 comes from, that is 30% of 24. It may have been an arbitrary decision to reduce the amount of salvage from the 10.8 it would be as 30% of 36. Increasing to 10.8 is OK with me. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Salvage: In line with the B10(-) salvage note, the salvage cost needs to be brought in line with 30% of base cost (10.8EP). James Lowry. [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Salvage: Salvage should be changed to 10.8 EP. Rational: Klingon ships with separable booms are salvaged at 30% of their base hull cost of 36EP. STRONG 26 Jan 2008 [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10 Salvage: See above. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Build: 41EP for the hull, +12 for the fighters, +PFs (41+12+PFs). S.Tenhoff 2-4-08
Klingon B10S Build: 0 Should the direct build cost be listed as 40EP (35EP for base hull + 5 EP for SCS cost)? Chuck Strong. [SVC: I can’t tell as there is no justification/basis given. Staff?]
Klingon B10S Build: B10S is currently listed as 36 (normal B10 cost) direct build cost + cost of fighters and PFs. Like all other SCS-type ships, it should cost 5EP *more* than the non-carrier base hull (=41EP, possibly adjust if B10 direct cost is adjusted per Chuck Strong’s B10 suggestion). James Lowry. [SVC: 41+12 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Build: Cost should be 36 (BB special rule) + 5 ep for PFT/SCS for a total of 41 EP. Joe Stevenson [SVC: 41+12 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Build: Leave it as part of the 36 needed, one still has to pay for the fighters and PFs. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: 41+12 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Build: The cost of the SCS conversion should be added to the base cost, for 41 EP. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: 41+12 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Build: With the SCS surcharge of 5EP added, build cost is 41+12+PFs. STRONG 4 Feb 2008 [SVC: 41+12 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Salvage: 0 salvage appears to be incorrect; escape boom Klingons are salvaged at 30% of base hull cost (7.2EP is too low at 20%). Chuck Strong. [SVC: I have never understood how you guys figure salvage. Staff?]
Klingon B10S Salvage: 10.8 it is. Final decision by SVC. [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Salvage: Based on a direct purchase cost of 36 (special rule cited in SIT gives a direct purchase of BBs of 36; 9ep over 4 turns), the salvage should be 10.8, which is 30% of 36 ep; PFT/SCS surcharge is not included in price when calculating salvage (see 439.22). Joe Stevenson [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Salvage: I don’t remember where the 7.2 comes from, that is 30% of 24. It may have been an arbitrary decision to reduce the amount of salvage from the 10.8 it would be as 30% of 36. Increasing to 10.8 is OK with me. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Salvage: Salvage should be changed to 10.8 EP. Rational: Klingon ships with separable booms are salvaged at 30% of their base hull cost of 36EP. STRONG 26 Jan 2008 [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Salvage: Salvage should be kept in-line with base hull salvage: currently 7.2EP and being recommended as 10.8EP. James Lowry. [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10S Salvage: See B10- salvage above. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: 10.8 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10V Build: 0 Should the direct build cost be listed as 39EP (35EP for base hull + 4 EP for Heavy Carrier cost)? Chuck Strong. [SVC: I can’t tell as there is no justification/basis given. I thought the direct cost was 36, not 35. Staff?]
Klingon B10V Build: 38EPs for the hull, +24 for the fighters (38+24). S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: 38+24 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10V Build: B10V is currently listed as 36 (normal B10 cost) direct build cost + cost of fighters. Like all other heavy carriers, it should cost 2EP *more* than the non-carrier base hull (=38EP). [Not sure where +4EP cost comes from, if heavy carriers indeed are +4EP now, then should be 40EP.] James Lowry. [SVC: 38+24 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10V Build: Leave it as part of the 36 needed, one still has to pay for the fighters. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: 38+24 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10V Build: The build cost should include the carrier surcharge of 2 EP. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: 38+24 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10V Build: With the CVA surcharge of 2EP added, build cost is 38+16. STRONG 4 Feb 2008 [SVC: 38+24 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]
Klingon B10V Build: Cost should be 36 (BB special rule) + 2 ep for CV/CVA for a total of 38 EP. Joe Stevenson [SVC: 38+24 is the answer. Let it be Excel; let it be SIT.]

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 03:23 pm: Edit

THE REST OF THE KLINGONS
======
Klingon B11 Build: SVC DECISION: The direct build cost is a flat fee. The cost of "escort carrier facilities" is just ignored for all purposes. [SVC: 40 is correct. No cost for carrier status.]
Klingon B11: Build: 0 Does the direct build cost of 40EP reflect 39EP for base hull + 1 EP for Light Carrier cost? Chuck Strong. [No, it reflects 40 for the ship and 0 for carrier cost.]
Klingon B11: Build: Ah, technically, there is no B11 rule, just the info on the Klingon SIT (which is base on the fast [36] method). Recommend the D6 total be increase to 45 -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: 40 is correct. No cost for carrier status.]
Klingon B11: Build: For B10: 40. From B10: 6 STRONG 4 Feb 2008 [SVC: 40 is correct. No cost for carrier status.]
Klingon B11: Build: In line with the B10 recommendation, keep base cost at current value (40EP), and clarify non-carrier status of B11. James Lowry. [SVC: 40 is correct. No cost for carrier status.]
Klingon B11: Build: There is no light carrier surcharge, it’s part of the build cost. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: 40 is correct. No cost for carrier status.]
Klingon B11: salvage: 0 salvage appears to be incorrect; escape boom Klingons are salvaged at 30% of base hull cost (7.6EP is too low at 20%). Chuck Strong. [SVC: 12 is the correct salvage number.]
Klingon B11: Salvage: Based on a direct purchase cost of 40 (special rule cited in SIT gives a direct purchase of B11 of 40; 10ep over 4 turns), the salvage should be 12ep, which is 30% of 40 ep. Joe Stevenson [SVC: 12 is the correct salvage number.]
Klingon B11: Salvage: Given a direct build cost of 40, and a Klingon salvage percentage of 30% (matching the rest of the Klingon SIT), the salvage value should be 12EP. James Lowry. [SVC: 12 is the correct salvage number.]
Klingon B11: Salvage: Increase salvage to 7.8 (base cost of 26) [2 AF increase, parallels C8/C10 costs and salvage] -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: 12 is the correct salvage number.]
Klingon B11: Salvage: It appears to have been based on a build cost of 28. Increasing to 12 is OK. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: 12 is the correct salvage number.]
Klingon B11: Salvage: Salvage should be changed to 12 EP. Rational: Klingon ships with separable booms are salvaged at 30% of then base hull cost of 40EP. Heavy variants are there own base hull type. STRONG 26 Jan 2008 [SVC: 12 is the correct salvage number.]
Klingon B11: Savage changed to 12.--SVC [SVC: 12 is the correct salvage number.]
Klingon B11A: We should add this ship if it is legal conversion of the B11; From B11: 3 . STRONG 4 Feb 2008 [SVC: I added in what I could, but the data is not complete.]
Klingon B8: My SIT already has it in it. MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: already on SIT.]
Klingon B8: 0 this ship should be added. David Walend 7 March 07
Klingon B8: Concur -- add ship. Ref 106; compot 16/8; Product AO; CR=10; Y175; size B8(2); conv = Special: (525.324); Build = Special: (525.324); Salvage TBD by senior staff; Note = Unique Ship (525.324) STRONG 26 Jan 2008 [SVC: already on SIT.]
Klingon B8: I think that this ship should be a solid 16/8 ship. It has +2xDisruptors, and -2xDrones than a C10 (which is a 14/7 ship) The B-10 boom is significantly stronger than a C8 Boom, so I think it is solidly 2 better than a C10. S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: already on SIT at 16/8.]
Klingon B8: It normally takes 40 Œproduction‚ points (436.21) to build a B10. In order to produce a B8 a player must use a partially built B10 with at least 20 Œproduction‚ points (half those needed for a B10) plus 6 EPs per (525.324). Since a B10 direct coat is 36 points, half of that would be 18EPs plus 6EPs for a total NOTIONAL base hull cost of 24EPs. Since Klingon ships with separable booms are salvaged at 30%, suggest salvage value should be 7.2. STRONG 26 Jan 2008 [SVC: already on SIT.]
Klingon B8: On Klingon SIT -- 16/8. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: already on SIT.]
Klingon B8: Ship added in AO (and in it’s SIT), not in current on-line SIT. Line (comma separated): B8,106,16/8,AO,10,175,B8(2),Special: (525.324),Special: (525.324),4.8,Unique Ship (525.324). [Salvage given is equal to a C8, since that *is* the bulk of the ship, and there is no known direct-build cost, it may do. Then again, it could be assumed as half a B10 (20/40 cumulative die-roll points needed) +6 (the cost needed upon subbing the C8 with the B8) for a presumed direct-build of 26, and a salvage of 7.8.] James Lowry. [SVC: already on SIT.]
Klingon B8: Ship already on SIT, changed salvage to 7.8. [SVC: already on SIT.]
Klingon B8: This is already on the SIT. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: already on SIT.]
Klingon B8A: We should add this ship if it is legal conversion of the B8. From B8: 3‰ STRONG 4 Feb 2008 [SVC: already on SIT.]
Klingon B9: 0 this ship should be added. David Walend 7 March 07
Klingon B9: Added.--SVC [SVC: added to SIT.]
Klingon B9: CL #31 --16F/8F. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: added to SIT.]
Klingon B9: Concur -- add ship. Factors from CL31 are: Ref A11; compot 16F/8F; Product CL31; CR=9; Y175; size B9(2); conv None; Build For B10: 30; Salvage should be 9 EP. (Rational: Klingon ships with separable booms are salvaged at 30% of there base hull cost of 30EP.); Note = Fast Raiding Battleship STRONG 26 Jan 2008 [SVC: added to SIT.]
Klingon B9: I think that this ship should be a solid 17F/9 (or 18F/9) ship (this is the Fast Battleship). It has -2xDisruptors, and -3xDrones compared to the B10. Cost should be the same as the B10 (DNLs have a cost=full size DN, but count as an F-ship), so 36EP. I think that if this would be made it should count as your F-ship production for the year (since the limit is 1/turn). It has gross density for a F-ship. S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: added to SIT.]
Klingon B9: In CL31, 16F/8, CR=9, YIS Y175, Base Hull: B9(2), no conversion, Substitute for B10 at 30, Salvage should be 30*.3(Klingon ships with detachable booms) = 9, Notes: Fast Battleship MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: added to SIT.]
Klingon B9: Salvage should be 9 EP. Rational: Klingon ships with separable booms are salvaged at 30% of then base hull cost of 30EP. STRONG 26 Jan 2008 [SVC: added to SIT.]
Klingon B9: What’s a B9, I don’t find it on the MSC in G3. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: added to SIT.]
Klingon B9A: We should add this ship if it is legal conversion of the B9; „From B9: 3‰ STRONG 4 Feb 2008 [SVC: added to SIT, but data is not complete.]
Klingon C8V: 0 Should the build cost be 20EP (16EP for the DN base hull + 4 EP for Heavy Carrier cost); the SIT currently lists 18EP. Chuck Strong [SVC: Confirm it currently says 18. This report is inadequate for me to tell as it includes no basis for the question or justification for the change. Am I supposed to guess that this refers to the general CVA cost adjustment?] [Staff is invited to comment.]
Klingon C8V: Build cost should be 18EP (16 EP for the DN hull +2EP for the hvy CV cost when building it outright (instead of conversion). S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: 18 it is.]
Klingon C8V: Current build cost of 18ep is correct. MOST CVAs cost 2 more than the base DN (Fed CVA, C8V, KZinti CVA, Lyran CVA, SUB); there are some exceptions, noteably Gorn and Hydran CVAs. Joe Stevenson [SVC: 18 it is.]
Klingon C8V: Currently 18, which is 2 higher than base C8 cost of 16. If CVA surcharge has been increased to +4, then the C8V needs to be 20EP. (I am unaware of/forgot such a change.) James Lowry. [SVC: 18 it is.]
Klingon C8V: I like the idea that it‚s cheaper to substitute than convert, leave the build cost at 18 and the conversion cost at 4. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: 18 it is.]
Klingon C8V: Recent decisions (Fed CVA), set the carrier surcharge at +2, build cost is correct at 18EP. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: 18 it is.]
Klingon C8V: Since it has been determined by ADB that all CVA substitutions cost 2 EP more than the base hull then this ship should cost 16EP + 2EP = 18EP. Please pardon my earlier confusion. STRONG 3 Feb 2008 [SVC: 18 it is.]
Klingon C8V: Standard is +2 to base hull cost for substitution and +4 for conversion. No Change needed. MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: 18 it is.]
Klingon D5B: Some heavy fighter carriers are available before the fighters are generally available. MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: so it is.]
Klingon D5B: We just dealt with this with the Hydrans. So the Klingons are allowed to make 1 Scout Carrier (totally) before the Heavy Fighter introduction date, correct? S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D5B: 0 - Date Available shows Y176. These units use Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Klingons until SY178(20) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178. -Greg E. 5/31/06 (FO-530.223), which reads, in part: Certain carriers (such as CSVs and ACSs) [...] have earlier dates on the SIT and can be produced from those dates. Dave Butler [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D5B: Agreed, leave as is. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D5B: OK. STRONG 27 Jan 2008 [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D5B: This was handled recently. All CSVs are available as stated, the date in (530.223) applies to pods, bases, and general deployment on other carriers. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D6S: Phasers haven't traditionally 'blinded' scout channels and counted in F+E (see Kzinti Scouts), it's when the ship has other blinding weapons (Lyrans=ESGs, Roms/Gorns=Plasma) does it have split factors. So tell my brother 'Nyet', it's fine. S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D6S: 0 4-8 4EW, no split rating. Ship has Drones and P-1s & P-2s. Should have split EW rating. Craig Tenhoff July 06 [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D6S: 4-8 4EW, no split rating. Compare with D6D, 7-8 2EW, no split rating. Weapons are the same, except: D6S has sensors on the engines in place of standard disruptors; D6D has drones on the engines and sensors in the "wing" slots. Relative ratings seem fine. Compare with D5S, 3-7 3EW, no split rating – similar pattern to D6S; sensors replace disruptors, and phaser armament is left intact (2xph-1, 2xph-2k, 4xph-3). Lack of split rating on D5S and D6D indicate that phasers are not a sufficient reason for split EW rating. James Lowry. [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D6S: Drones and phasers don’t give a split rating. Powered heavy weapons do. The 4 EW is correct as is. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D6S: Leave as is. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D6S: Recommend no change (BTW ship does NOT have Ph-1s). STRONG 27 Jan 2008 [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D6S: SSD shows 3 nose phaser 2, 4 waist phaser 2, and 2 drone racks. These are mostly defensive weapons. The phasers can be used as phaser 3 without any effect on the sensor channels. No change needed. Note: Mr. Tenhoff is incorrect in stating the D6S has phaser 1s. MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: sit is correct.]
Klingon D6U: Add conversion from D6Y: 2+19. Mark Ermenc notes: There seems to be an error with the D6Y ... specifically, there's no way to up-convert it to a "real" carrier later." STRONG 27 Jan 2008 [SVC: added.]
Klingon D6V: Add conversion from D6Y: 1+5. Mark Ermenc notes: "There seems to be an error with the D6Y ... specifically, there's no way to up-convert it to a "real" carrier later." STRONG 27 Jan 2008 [SVC: added.]
Klingon D6V: Conversion: Add From D6Y: 1+5. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: added.]
Klingon D6Y: 0 There seems to be an error with the D6Y ... specifically, there's no way to up-convert it to a "real" carrier later. I would reccomend (if nothing else) adding the line "D6Y:1+5" to the D6V's allowed conversions. This would break nothing, as adding fighters in this way would count against the carrier build limit, and including a surcharge makes it more expensive to use this "obsolete" hull than to simply build the D6V outright. Even CDR could only reduce it to the same price. Mark Ermenc 10 May 07 [SVC: added.]
Klingon D6Y: Agree, add D6Y to D6V conversion. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: added.]
Klingon D6Y: CL13 (do not have J2) indicates that the one D6Y was converted back to a normal D6 ("before Y175"). This could indicate that it could not be upgraded to a normal D6V (for whatever reason), or simply that they were unwilling to use an allowed carrier build to do so. If an F&E player is allowed to make the conversion to D6V (and from there to D6U), he will probably eventually do so, to get a bigger carrier when money is short. While it can be built/converted outside the normal carrier limit, the fact that the conversion *is* under the limit should be enough—but if allowed, probably only one D6Y should be allowed outside normal carrier limits (440.7 currently gives no limit). James Lowry. [SVC: uh... .]
Klingon D6Y: Concur with Ermenc. I’ll post new line items for D6V and D6U. STRONG 27 Jan 2008 [SVC: uh.....]
Klingon D6Y: I agree, the D6V should have a 'conversion from D6Y' line (Marc's numbers sound good). S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: added.]
Klingon D6Y: I suggest allowing this conversion, as long as it counts against CV limits. Suggested cost 2 EP + cost of fighters 3 @2ep (same as most medium carrier conversions); I suggest making conversion to CVD an allowable 2-step conversion D6Y->D6V->D6U for 3 EP (2 + 2 -1) plus fighters 9 @ 2ep. Joe Stevenson [SVC: added.]
Klingon D6Y: Sure, allow it to be converted to a D6V. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: added.]
Klingon D6Y:The D6V has only minor changes to the SSD from the D6Y. A conversion cost of 1 would be reasonable. Add "From D6Y: 1+5" to the D6V conversion box. Also, add to the D6U conversion box "From D6Y: 2+19". MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: added.]
Klingon D7U: : Some heavy fighter carriers are available before the fighters are generally available. MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: sit is correct as is.]
Klingon D7U: 0 - Date Available shows Y176. These units use Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Klingons until SY178(20) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178. -Greg E. 5/31/06 (FO-530.223), which reads, in part: Certain carriers (such as CSVs and ACSs) [...] have earlier dates on the SIT and can be produced from those dates. Dave Butler [SVC: sit is correct as is.]
Klingon D7U: Leave as is. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: sit is correct as is.]
Klingon D7U: OK. STRONG 27 Jan 2008 [SVC: sit is correct as is.]
Klingon D7U: This was handled recently. All ACSs are available as stated, the date in (530.223) applies to pods, bases, and general deployment on other carriers. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: sit is correct as is.]
Klingon D7U: We just dealt with this with the Hydrans. So the Klingons are allowed to make 1ACS (totally) before the Heavy Fighter introduction date, correct? S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: sit is correct as is.]
Klingon Megafighter: [Asked for SENIOR staff confirmation; am not even staff--please delete if not wanting further comments.] F&E rules currently allow Heavy Fighter Megafighters at Spring Y177, but general availability isn’t until Spring Y178. However, there *are* HF carriers available as early as Spring Y176, so there is a reason for them. It may still be an idea to restrict them to the general availability date (but not the turn *after* as was proposed). No J2 to check what it says about date. James Lowry. [SVC: sit is correct as is.]
Klingon Megafighter: 0 -Heavy counter says availability is SY177, 711 says Turn #20 for Heavy Fighter availability (Spring 178), so the date needs to be updated. Probably FY178, so it takes 6 months to field Heavy Megafighters after their introduction (ie building the production facilities to keep up with demand). S.Tenhoff 11-06-06 [SVC: sit is correct as is.]
Klingon Megafighter: Change Date to Y178. Prototyping would allow use on earlier HFCs. -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: Not sure.]
Klingon Megafighter: I don’t understand the question - what "heavy counter" is here referring to? STRONG 3 Feb 2008 [SVC: Not sure.]
Klingon Megafighter: Megafighters are introduced when Interceptors are, Y177. As Heavy fighters are already deployed on ACSs and CSVs, leave at SY177. Laikind 2-Feb-08. [SVC: ok, I think.]
Klingon Megafighter: Rule (535.1) states that the Klingons built them in Y177; SIT is correct as is. Joe Stevenson [SVC: ok, then.]
Klingon Megafighter: Some heavy fighter carriers are available before the fighters are generally available. I would also make sense that some of these heavy fighter carriers would also field Megafighter versions of their fighters if they had the tech available. MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: ok, then.]
Klingon PPF: 0 Should the SFB Ref # column be R5? There doesn't appear to be a P2. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC: ok, then.]
Klingon PPF: Agree, Ref # should be ŒR5‚ (Penal refit) [P2 was X-ship prototype/playtest preview] -- SWFrazier 080129 [SVC: ok, then.]
Klingon PPF: OK. STRONG 27 Jan 2008 [SVC: ok, then.]
Klingon PPF: The CPF rule in the SITS says "R1.R1", so should this, or it should refer to the Penal PF rule # (528.28) S.Tenhoff 2-4-08 [SVC: I am lost here. Try again with more clarity and less assumption about what I know.]
Klingon PPF: The Klingons don’t have a G1J. R3.R5 is the Penal ship rule. R3.PF2 is the G1K. Laikind 2 [SVC: ibid.]
Klingon PPF:Concur MCurtis 3 February 2008 [SVC: ok, then.]
Klingon SB: 0 there should be a "From STB:" conversion listed on the SIT. Dave Butler. [SVC: and it would be what?]
Klingon SBX: 0 There should be a From STX conversion listed. Dave Butler. [SVC: and it would be what?]
Klingon: 0 Prime Rule number for prime team should be G32 not G31. Frank Brooks. [SVC: Fixed.]

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 07:47 pm: Edit

First of the Kzintis....
=====
(I forgot how much fun SITs are)
=====
Kzinti ACS and DCS: 0 Is there any difference between the two? They both have the same factors (compot, fighter, and EW) and convert for the same ships for the same EP. [SVC vaguely remembers there was something done about this but not what. Isn’t one of these with PFs and listed with HFs only because of the Kzinti PF date issue? I think this one is resolved because it’s on the SIT both ways.]
Kzinti ACS and DCS: In SFB these are slightly different ships, that work out to being identical in F&E. The main difference, not accounted for in F&E, is that in Heavy Fighter mode, the DCS converts repair to cargo for extra fighter storage. The ACS has 2 fighters and 1 heavy fighter in storage, while the DCS(H) has 6 fighters and 2 heavy fighters. The similarity suggests that the ACS should be converted to a DCS(P) for a nominal cost (2 EP or so), and the DCS(H) could possibly add FCR fighter storage of [2]. Laikind 12-Apr-08
Kzinti ACS and DCS: The difference between the two is doctrine and in service date. The ACS YIS is 175, the DCS YIS for the heavy fighter version is 178. The ACS is one of those ships that allow a race to get heavy fighters in action before their general in service date. MCurtis 16 April 2008
Kzinti ACS and DCS: SVC DECISION: no change made.
Kzinti BATS: Conversion, add From BS: 4 (444.31). Laikind 12-Apr-08 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BATS: Add to SIT [BATS - From BS: 4] SWFrazier 080407 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BATS: 0 There should be a conversion cost "From BS: 4." (Specified in (444.31).) Dave Butler. [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.] SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BATS: Concur. Add to conversion Cost "From BS: 4 (444.31)" MCurtis 16 April 2008 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BATS: Yes, add From BS: 4. Add (444.31) to notes. Unfortunately, this was not caught for the Feds and probably not caught for the Klingons. Laikind 12-Apr-08 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BB: BB Salvage = 9.0 [25% of 36]. SWFrazier 080407 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BB: 0 The salvage appears to be incorrect; Kzinti are salvaged at 25% of base hull cost (5.0EP is too low at 13.89%). Chuck Strong. SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BB: 25% of 36 is 9. Laikind 12-Apr-08. SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BB: Salvage should be 9.0. MCurtis 16 April 2008 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-1: 0 BC>BCH>BCS=4+5-1=8 Missing Conversion Michael C. Mikulis [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.] SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-1: Add "From BC: 8 + 6, (double)" , if you want to document every last double conversion. Joe Stevenson is of the opinion that if it’s not listed, it’s not legal. Laikind 12-Apr-08 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-1: Add as double conversion [BC>BCH and BCH>BCS allowed]. SWFrazier 080407 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-1: Concur, this is a base hull change with a conversion which qualifies for the two step conversion rule. Add to BCS conversion "BC>BCS 8+6 with double conversion symbol" MCurtis 16 April 2008 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-2: The 15 is build cost, follows Klingon C7S (15+6) cost, increase cost to 15+6. SWFrazier 080407 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-2: The construction cost of the BCS appears to be less than it should be, recommend change construction cost to 15+6. MCurtis 16 April 2008 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-2: 0 BCS=15 Michael C. Mikulis [SVC isn’t sure what this 15 is? Construction cost? Very bad and sloppy report format.]
Kzinti BCS-2: Change construction cost from 13 to 15, to match conversion cost of 5. This matches Feds, Gorns, Hydrans. Laikind 12-Apr-08 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-3: 0 CVL>CV>BCS=4+5-1=8 Missing Conversion Michael C. Mikulis [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Kzinti BCS-3: Add as double conversion [CVL>CV and CV>BCV allowed]. SWFrazier 080407 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-3: Concur, this is a base hull change with a conversion which qualifies for the two step conversion rule. Add to BCS conversion "CVL> BCS 8+6 with double conversion symbol" MCurtis 16 April 2008 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCS-3: I’m not sure about this one. While CVL to CV or BCV is legal, the BCS is a variant of the BCH, not the BCV/CV, which is required for the conversion. DCS to BCS would be legal, as they are both PFT/CVs. Laikind 12-Apr-08 SVC NOTES: done.
Kzinti BCV: 0 BC>BCH>BCV=4+2-1=5 Missing Conversion Michael C. Mikulis [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Kzinti BCV: Add "From BC: 5 + 6, (double)" , if you want to document every last double conversion. Joe Stevenson is of the opinion that if it’s not listed, it’s not legal. Laikind 12-Apr-08 SVC NOTES: done, but plus 12 not plus 6, right guys?
Kzinti BCV: Add as double conversion [BC>BCH and BCH>BCV allowed]. SWFrazier 080407 SVC NOTES: done, but plus 12 not plus 6, right guys?
Kzinti BCV: Concur, this is a base hull change with a conversion which qualifies for the two step conversion rule. Add to BCS conversion "BC>BCV 5+12 with double conversion symbol" MCurtis 16 April 2008 SVC NOTES: done

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 05:01 pm: Edit

This is the "no brainer" part of the Kzinti reports. The ones that actually make me think will wait for next week.
=============
Kzinti ACS and DCS: Yeah, their not much difference between the SFB SSDs, cargo->repair, hvy ftr mech links->pf mech links. But they are different ships, and their should be a cost to convert the ACS->DCS (you are adding PFs no matter what). S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: Already resolved.]
Kzinti BATS: Yeah the conversion from BS->BATS should be included on the SITS, it's 4EP per (444.31, CO). S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: Already resolved.]
Kzinti BCS-1: That would appear to be correct. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: Already resolved.]
Kzinti BCS-2: That should be the substitution cost should be "For DN/BCH=15" S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: Already resolved.]
Kzinti BCS-3: That really should be "from CVL->BCS=8(double dagger)", but yeah his math is right. S.Tenohff 5-10-08 [SVC: Already resolved.]
Kzinti BCV: Yeah, but I think he's doing it wrong, it should be "From BC->CVS->BCV=5+12" S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: Already resolved.]
Kzinti BSX: 0 Is the conversion cost from MB correct? The cost for the MB->BS->BSX conversion path is 17+6, more than double (ignoring fighers) the direct MB->BSX conversion cost of 8+6. Dave Butler [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Kzinti BSX: Confirm MB>BSX cost as 17+6 (constant costs) [MB>BS=5+6 / BS>BSX=12]. SWFrazier 080407
Kzinti BSX: The costs for conversion appear to be reversed. From MB should be 12+6, From BS should be 8. MCurtis 16 April 2008
Kzinti BSX: This seems wrong. MB to BS = 6. BS to BSX = 12. MB to BSX should be around 18. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC: Looks like it was supposed to be 18+6 and we lost a digit.]
Kzinti CVH: Some heavy carriers become available before the general heavy fighters availability date. This is one of them. MCurtis 16 April 2008
Kzinti CVH: 0 In service date shows Y176 (turn #16), but rule (530.223) indicates H-ftr carriers available on turn #20 (Y178). Ken S. Towery 11 March 06 [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.] [SVC decision: no change made. It is correct as given.]
Kzinti CVH: Already noted that some specific heavy fighter carriers appeared before heavy fighter intro date (usually ACS). SWFrazier 080407
Kzinti CVH: As was ruled before, the SITS date for individual carriers is correct. The (530.223) date is when ancillary units are available. Laikind 12-Apr-08
Kzinti CVH: YIS date of (530.223) clearly states SY178, this should be an exception like the ACS, as it is just a CVS w/ Hvy Fighters. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08.
Kzinti FDX: It seems to make sense, I'll agree. Staff 5-10-08 [SVC notes that this kind of report isn’t useful as he has no idea what the staffer agreed to.
Kzinti FDX: 0 Can you please check the conversion costs for the Kzinti FDX. The SIT says you can convert a FFK to an FDX for only 5 EP as a two step conversion. FFK to FKX is 5 EP and FKX to FDX is 3. I think that the cost as a two step should be 7. Thanks for checking this out for me. Daniel G. Knipfer Fed NHS: 0 The entry "variant of NCA" in the notes column is redundant, and can be removed. Dave Butler [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Kzinti FDX: Concur, change cost in notes "From FK: 5" to "From FFK: 7". MCurtis 16 April 2008
Kzinti FDX: Confirm, FFK>FDX=7 as double conversion. SWFrazier 080407
Kzinti FDX: Conversion from an FF is 8, so from an FFK should be 7. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC concurs and changed to 7 double dagger.]
Kzinti FKE: OK, remove the double-dagger, and it seems to be fine, if someone can promise that everyone won't try to get a discount for it. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC decision is to make FFK a hull type so double conversion is legal.]
Kzinti FKE: 0 The double conversion cost on the Kzinti FF to FKE appears to be wrong. The FF to FFK is 1 and the FFK to FKE is 1. Therefore the double conversion from FF to FKE should be 1 point not 2. Michael Lui 27 March 06 {}Remember though that the FFK is still a frigate, not a larger new hull design. The FFK is still un upgrade of the FF, so the 2 EP is correct. C Fant That's right, it is still an upgrade of the FF, so why list it with a double conversion ship mark? That mark usually means it's cheaper by one point. Michael Liu [When we were playtesting/advising on AO we advised that the FF->FKE conversion be a 2-pt conversion because who-the-heii-wouldn't take the FF-FKE conversion at 1EP or a FFK->FKE conversion at 1EP. Well duh, no FFK would ever be used to make a FKE, they would always be FFs. So should the 2-step conversion symbol be there? My opinion, yes, because if it wasn't someone, sometime will try to use the (437) rule to argue that it deserves the discount, when clearly it is a 2-step conversion that shouldn't get the -1EP discount because of a balance issue between using a FF->FKE or FFK->FKE. Scott Tenhoff ][FF to FFK is one point, FFK to FKE is one point, FF to FKE is two points, and it shouldn't show the double dagger "two step conversion" symbol as there is no discount. The double dagger should be deleted. Nick Blank] [SVC wants the staff to fix this mess.] [SVC decision is to make FFK a hull type so double conversion is legal.]
Kzinti FKE: Confirm FF>FKE=2, single conversion. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC decision is to make FFK a hull type so double conversion is legal.]
Kzinti FKE: Delete the double dagger and make it a standard conversion. The base hull of the FFK and FKE is the FF. So, it does not qualify for the two step conversion discount due to the base hull change. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC decision is to make FFK a hull type so double conversion is legal.]
Kzinti FKE: It does show the double dagger to indicate that the double conversion cost is correct as printed, and not to use the calculated amount. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC decision is to make FFK a hull type so double conversion is legal.]
Kzinti FRD+: 2 Product column lists F&E, but FRDs with fighter modules were introduced in AO. Dave Butler. [SVC concurs.]
Kzinti FRD+2: F&E/AO may be the best way to list this. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC concurs.]
Kzinti FRD+2: FRD+ introduced in AO. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC concurs.]
Kzinti FRD+2: The FRD+ counter was published on Sheet T+U in combined operations, so a CO should be in the product field. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC concurs.]
Kzinti FRD+2: The rule should be (441.433). S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC fixed this.]
Kzinti general: Doctrine dictated the CVS be used in mainline use. The CVLs were used for the specialty carriers. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC: no changes made.]
Kzinti general: Note that the CVL is the Kzinti CA based carrier, the other carriers in question are also CA based, therefore they are based off the CA/CVL. Also there was not enough time to pull a CVS off the fighting line to convert (needed for the defense of the Hegemony) or simpler to build as CA rather than take exctra time to 'stretch' into BCH framework. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC: no changes made.]
Kzinti general: This is really an SFB question. Technically, it gets more carriers out of a larger number of hull types. There is a CCV (?) variant somewhere, plus the BCS and BCV already available. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC: no changes made.]
Kzinti MSC: 0 5-7 3EW, no split rating. Ship has Drones, P-1s & P-3s. Should have split EW rating. Craig Tenhoff July 06 [SVC: no changes made.]
Kzinti MSC: No, we haven't forced other scouts w/ P-1s to have a split rating. The Kzinti luck out since they have drones which don't blind special sensors. S.Tehoff 5-10-08 [SVC: no changes made.]
Kzinti MSC: Drone armed scouts have single ratings, leave at 3 EW. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC: no changes made.]
Kzinti MSC: None of the CWSs are split except for the Lyran (due to the ESGs). SWFrazier 080407 [SVC: no changes made.]
Kzinti MSC: The Drones and Phasers that can be downgraded to P3s without blinding channels are sufficient to allow the 5 offense rating with the 3 EW rating. This ship has no heavy weapons, which typically are what are used to determine what channels are used or blinded. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC: no changes made.]
Kzinti NCG: 0 Owing to being the alliance in a GW ftf game starting this weekend I added the Kzinti to my spreadsheet of conversions and came up with the following issues. The SIT shows the following conversion for the Kzinti CMG + 3EP -> NCG However this is no CMG unit, I am near positive it should read MCG instead. Michael Parker [SVC: change made.]
Kzinti NCG: Yes the Kzinti Commando CW is called MCG, not CMG, per COmbined Ops SITs. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: change made.]
Kzinti NCG: A MCG conversion for the NCG is logical. Change in Conversion "From CMG" to "From MCG". MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC: change made.]
Kzinti NCG: Confirm, CMG should be MCG. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC: change made.]
Kzinti NCG: From CMG should say From MCG. (Crazy Kzinti designations, I understand Fed Commander fixes them.) Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC: change made.]
Kzinti NCG: There is a conversion from a CMG. CMG + 3ep -> NCG. There is no Kzinti CMG I am almost positive it is the MCG and this is merely a typo. Michael Parker 14 December 07
Kzinti NRV: 0 - StratOps SIT - Missing the conversion from a NSR (Cost = 0+4) - Wyszynski 18 December 2006 [SVC added NSR->NRV 0+4.]
Kzinti NRV: Add conversion for NRV "From NSR 2+4" MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC added NSR->NRV 0+4.]
Kzinti NRV: Confirm, no NSR>NRV conversion entry, add to SIT. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC added NSR->NRV 0+4.]
Kzinti NRV: From NSR: 0+4 looks correct. Note that the Fed NSRV doesn’t have this conversion, either. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC added NSR->NRV 0+4.]
Kzinti NRV: That'd be correct, it's the Survey Carrier conversion. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC added NSR->NRV 0+4.]
Kzinti Prime: 0 Rule number for prime team should be G32 not G31. Frank Brooks. [SVC changed to G32.]
Kzinti Prime: (G32.0), (G31.0) = Andromedan Temporal Elevator. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC changed to G32.]
Kzinti Prime: G32 is correct. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC changed to G32.]
Kzinti Prime: Rule reference for prime teams is G32. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC changed to G32.]
Kzinti REPR: 0 The salvage cost is probably wrong. While this unit can not currently be destroyed under the rules as currently written, these units are built on the LAux hull, and should thus have a salvage value of 1.0, like all the other LAux variants. Dave Butler. [SVC: left at Zero. When the time comes to do this, we’ll have to do it to every SIT, not just this one.]
Kzinti REPR: Actually we have never defined a REPR counter, it could be 10xSmall Repair Freighters. Leave it at 0 for now. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: left at Zero.]
Kzinti REPR: All of the SITS say 0, leave it at 0. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC: left at Zero.]
Kzinti REPR: Include salvage of 1.0 for player campaigns. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC: left at Zero.]
Kzinti REPR: Since this unit cannot be lost, salvage is not necessary. If, at some time in the future, there is a way to lose one of these then salvage would need to be addressed. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC: left at Zero.]
Kzinti SB: 0 there should be a "From STB:" conversion listed on the SIT. Dave Butler. [SVC added 18+6.]
Kzinti SB: (452.22) STB to SB is 18. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC added 18+6.]
Kzinti SB: A STB->SB conversion is 18EP per (452.22, SO). S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC added 18+6.]
Kzinti SB: Add to conversion "From STB 18+6" MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC added 18+6.]
Kzinti SB: If BATS>SB=30+6 and BATS>STB=12 then STB>SB=18+6 (constant costs). SWFrazier 080407 [SVC added 18+6.]
Kzinti STB: 0 Inclusion of "+ftrs" in conversion costs is not necessary and should be deleted, since neither conversion adds fighters. Dave Butler. [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STB: If the BS or the BATS is BS(0) or BATS(0) and you want a STB(6) you will need to add the cost of fighters. No change necessary. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STB: Technically needed in case of upgrading from BATS(0), but cleaner if not included. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STB: The BATS may have been built without fighters, leave it alone. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STB: Yeah it is needed, as the original BATS might not have fighters. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STX-1: 0 Can one convert a BTX into an STX? (It's permitted to upgrade a BTX into an SBX.) How about converting a BSX into an STX? (A BS may be upgraded to an STB.) Dave Butler [SVC added BTX 9+9 and BSX 12+12.]
Kzinti STX-1: The BATS->STB=12EP, 1EP per COMPOT gained. The BTX is 18 Compot, the STX is 36 Compot. So the conversion cost should be 18, 9EP+9XTP. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC added BTX 9+9 and BSX 12+12.]
Kzinti STX-1: Add BSX>STX: 25+ftrs and BTX>STX: 20+ftrs. This is calculated from the ratio of the STB>STX of the cost of the upgrade divided by the difference in defense factors multiplied by the cost to upgrade the respective base to a STB. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC added BTX 9+9 and BSX 12+12.]
Kzinti STX-1: Chuck suggests 9EP + 9 XP for BTX to STX. BSX to STX should be 12EP + 12 XP. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC added BTX 9+9 and BSX 12+12.]
Kzinti STX-1: MB>BTX=27+6, BTX>SBX=45+6 / MB>BSX=17+6, BSX>BTX=10, BTX>STX=23, STXSTX=33. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC added BTX 9+9 and BSX 12+12.]
Kzinti STX-2: 0 Inclusion of "+ftrs/PFs" in conversion cost is not necessary and should be removed, since the conversion doesn't add fighters. Dave Butler. [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STX-2: Yeah, because the original BATS/BTX/STB might not have fighters. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08 [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STX-2: Dependent on year and income, cleaner if not included. SWFrazier 080407 [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STX-2: If the STB is STB(0) and you want a STX(6) you will need to add the cost of fighters. No change necessary. MCurtis 16 April 2008 [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]
Kzinti STX-2: The BATS may have been built without fighters, leave it alone. Laikind 12-Apr-08 [SVC: notation is needed. Not deleted.]

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 05:03 pm: Edit

oops,lost this little bit of the thing....

Kzinti general: 0 One small note. It's a little odd that there are all these late war Kzinti scout carriers that the CVL can be converted to when the mainstay of the Kzinti fleet is the CVS. Was there ever any explanation over why the CVS was never converted to an area control / division control ship / oversized squadron variant? Missing the CVS out of one of these is OK, but all three is surprising given that early war Kzinti would convert those CVLs to the CVS, and then presumably reconvert the CVS to later variants. Even if the CVS could not offer any more firepower than the CVL varaint of these later carriers, one would have thought that the Zin would attempt the conversions because the BCH hull has more survivability.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Kzintis finished.

Kzinti BTX-2: 0 is the conversion cost from an MB correct as it seems it should be 27 not 17. Dave Butler. [SVC Fixed this in every SIT on 22 July 08.]
Kzinti BTX-2: 17 is fine, it's actually 7.5EP+7.5XTP, which is a ton of money for an upgrade. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08
Kzinti BTX-2: Concur, change cost to 27, 17 is too cheap. MCurtis 16 April 2008
Kzinti BTX-2: Confirm MB>BTX=27+6. SWFrazier 080407
Kzinti BTX-2: MB to BATS = 9, BATS to BTX = 18. 9 + 18 = 27. Unless it is somehow cheaper to build an X base directly from a MB than from a non-X base. Note that the Fed, Gorn, Hydran SITS are also wrong. Laikind 12-Apr-08
Kzinti C-BASE-1: 0 Is this unit's command rating of 0 correct? (446.51) says it functions as a mobile base, which has a command rating of 6. Dave Butler. [SVC reviewed staff comments on 22 July 08 and decided that 0 is correct. This is a colony, not a military base, and it has no command ability.]
Kzinti C-BASE-1: Given 0 rating in PO SIT, not rated for military C&C? SWFrazier 080407
Kzinti C-BASE-1: I would defer to the SIT made when PO was written, and leave it at 0. It functions similar to a MB. Laikind 12-Apr-08
Kzinti C-BASE-1: It's supposed to be a Civilian Base of some sort, that hasn't been defined in SFB yet. So leave it as CR=0. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08
Kzinti C-BASE-1: rule (446.5) gives specific limitations of where a C-Base is not like a MB and the command rating is not limited. Recommend change to 6. MCurtis 16 April 2008
Kzinti C-BASE-2: 0 Is this unit's EW rating of 0 correct? (446.51) says it functions as a mobile base, which provides EW=1. Dave Butler. [SVC reviewed staff comments on 22 July 08 and decided that 0 is correct. This is a colony, not a military base, and it has no command ability.]
Kzinti C-BASE-2: I would defer to the SIT made when PO was written, and leave it at 0. It functions similar to a MB. Laikind 12-Apr-08
Kzinti C-BASE-2: Leave as 0 EW. SWFrazier 080407
Kzinti C-BASE-2: rule (446.5) gives specific limitations of where a C-Base is not like a MB and the EW rating is not limited. Recommend change to 6. MCurtis 16 April 2008
Kzinti C-BASE-2: rule (446.51) says it functions as a MB, not is one. This is mostly, to my understanding to allow a colony to be a SMN, that's all. S.TEnhoff 5-10-08.
Kzinti CVA: 0 Does this properly account for the carrier conversion cost? Chuck Strong 6 March 06 [SVC accepts the word of Jeff Laikind that CVAs cost 2 surcharge to build and 4 surcharge to convert, so this one is right to begin with, and it’s how the others are done.]
Kzinti CVA: Assume DN cost plus DN>CVA conversion cost, old - all >CV = +2, new - CVA +4, new CVA = 16 (DN) +4 (>CVA) = 20 (+fighters). SWFrazier 080407
Kzinti CVA: I tried writing this up for you. I’m under the impression that DN->CVA conversions cost 4. CVA substitutions for a DN=+2. S.Tehoff 5-10-08
Kzinti CVA: It has been decided (see Feds) that the construction cost includes a 2 point surcharge, but not the 4 point CVA conversion cost. Laikind 12-Apr-08
Kzinti Ftr-Module: 0 shows YIS of Ftr-Module as Y165. Should be Y161. A.Palmer 20-Sep-2005 Per (607.11) [SVC notes that the staff wants Y161.]
Kzinti Ftr-Module: Listed in G2 as Y165 for Kzinti [N-F note}. SWFrazier 080407
Kzinti Ftr-Module: Per G2, the YIS date of the AS=161, the AAS=164. I don't think the AS should count (its hardly better than a shuttle). Keep the Y165 date. S.Tenhoff 5-10-08
Kzinti Ftr-Module: The reference to S161 is correct in the Four Powers War Scenario. A check of G2 for YIS for Kzinti Fighters shows confirmation of Y161. Change YIS of Ftr Modules to Y161. MCurtis 16 April 2008
Kzinti Ftr-Module: Use Y161, as they are available during the 4-Powers War (607.11). Laikind 12-Apr-08

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Lyran reports, all of them....
=======
Lyran 4CVA: 0 listed as 18(6) crippled with CWE+2DWE escorts. Actual crippled factors are 6+4+3+3 = 16 (same as 4SCS, which is correct). Physical counter (on sheet I) also says 18(6). -James L. 6/7/06 [SVC requires staff input.]
Lyran 4CVA: Confirm, crippled value is 16(6). SWFrazier 080723
Lyran 4CVA: Crippled side should be 18(6) counter is a typo. Ryan J Opel 28 Jul 2008
Lyran 4CVA: The factors of 16(6) on the back of the 4CVA counter for the crippled group is correct. The 18(6) is wrong and should be listed in the counter errata. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran 4CVA: The multi-ship counter has a misprint – the crippled side should be 18(6) not 16(6). STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran 4CVA: Well it's an error on the multi-ship counter, not much you can do about it. We can't change the SITS to make the counter work. So add a note about it in the errata page for F+E. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran 4CVA: zDECISION BY SVC: Counter says 18, which is wrong, should be 16. SIT changed to 16 and note added that counter is wrong. Not a big issue since most don’t use the group counters anyway.
Lyran BB-1: 0 Salvage appears to be incorrect; Lyrans are salvaged at 25% of base hull cost (7.2EP is too low at 20%). Chuck Strong. [SVC does not understand how to the staff calculates salvage.]
Lyran BB-1: Salvage should be at 25% of cost. List salvage as 9ep. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran BB-1: Salvage=9.0 (25% of 36). SWFrazier 080723
Lyran BB-1: The base cost of all BBs is now 36 EP so the salvage should be 25%. List salvage as 9 EP. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran BB-1: The salvage of this ship should be 25% of cost, which is 9. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran BB-1: zDECISION BY SVC: Changed to 9.0.
Lyran BCH variants: 0 CL>BCH>BCV=7+2-1=8 CL>BCH>BCP=6+3-1=8 CL>BCH>BCS=6+5-1=10 The CL>BCH part of these conversions is not always treated as having the same cost in the SIT. As of Carrier War, the Lyran CL>BCH conversion could be completed as either a 7 point single conversion or a 6 point double conversion. However, the SIT lists it as a 6 point single conversion instead. If the Lyran CL>BCH conversion has been changed to a 6 pt single conversion, then the Lyran CL>BCV conversion actually costs 7 pts (6+2-1). Otherwise, the CL>BCH conversion listed in the SIT is actually a double conversion, and the CL>BCP conversion costs 9 pts and the CL>BCS conversion costs 11 pts. Michael C. Mikulis [SVC is baffled by this gibbersish.]
Lyran BCH variants: Confirm the CL>BCH is a 7 point single conversion when converting to a BCH variant (it was originally a 6 point double conversion but then it couldn't continue to a variants in the same turn) as this allowed the Lyrans to get ONE discount for either the BCH or the BCH variants but not both. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran BCH variants: Seems the CL>BCV is wrong of the group. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran BCH variants: The CL to BCV conversion cost is wrong. Should be: CL to BCH for 6, then BCH to BCV for 2+12, then subtract one for the double conversion for 7+12. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran BCH variants: The conversion factor of the BCV from a CL is wrong. I will note it on a separate line item for a Lyran BCV. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran BCH variants: What M.Milakis is getting at, FE2K has the conversion from CL->BCH=7, AdOps has the conversion from CL->BCH=6. Which is correct? If Advanced Ops is correct at 6ep. The BCV conversion should be 7EPs (double-dagger) (6+2-1). The CL->BCP cost at 9EPs would be correct as 6EPs to convert to a BCH, then +3EP to add PFs (their should be no double-conversion discount for this, as this is the PF infrastructure to support the ship). The CL->BCS conversion should cost 11EPs (6+5-1). If the FE2K cost of 7EPs is correct instead of 6EPs as in AO, all of those costs should go up by 1. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran BCH variants: zDECISION BY SVC: No change made to BCH entry. BCV entry changed to 7 for direct conversion from CL to BCV.
Lyran BCS: 0 cost =16 Michael C. Mikulis [SVC requires senior staff confirmation and does not really understand if 16 is a production cost or a rule number.]
Lyran BCS: Cost to build is wrong. BCH (11) + space control (5). For BC/DN 16+6 Ryan J Opel 28 Jul 2008
Lyran BCS: Substitution cost should be: "For DN/BC: 16+6". You can't really sub it for a CVA/SCS as a CVA/SCS isn't on the production schedule, only a BC or DN is. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran BCS: The construction cost listed in the SIT is incorrect at 14+6. The BCH cost is 11 plus the 5 Space Control Ship surcharge of 5 = 16. Change construction cost of BCS to 16+6. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran BCS: The cost to build is wrong. A BCH cost 11EP and the space control substitution cost 5 EP; total cost this 16 EP. Change to "For BC/DN: 16+6". STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran BCS: This is the production cost (11+5) but some ships were given 'discounts' when being built straight as the variant to make it cheaper to build than convert (Fed, Kzinti BCS follos the same pattern, being 2 EP cheaper building than converting) SWFrazier 080723
Lyran BCS: zDECISION BY SVC: 16+6 it is.
Lyran BCV: 0 new item that turned up as a result of other items.
Lyran BCV: CL>BCH (6) BCH>BCV (2) cost should be 7+12. Recommend From CL: 7+12 double conversion. Ryan J Opel 28 Jul 2008
Lyran BCV: The CL double conversion is wrong. The correct cost is: CL to BCH (6 EP); BCH to BCV (2 EP); -1 EP discount. List double conversion: From CL 6+12. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran BCV: zDECISION BY SVC: 7+12 it is.
Lyran BP+: 0 Build cost should be 8, same as Federation and Gorn Heavy battle pods (752.6). Jeff Laikind, 21 Nov 06 [SVC would be happy if other staffers confirmed this.]
Lyran BP+: Agree with Chuck. This pod is not as strong as the Gorn/Fed pods but gets put on a stronger tug. With a cost of 6ep the Lyran/Fed/Gorn all field 12-12 Battle Tugs. Recommend cost change to 6ep. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran BP+: Confirm, from CL#14. SWFrazier 080723 SVC has no clue what this means.
Lyran BP+: Per Jeff's advice/reasoning on the KBP below, make it 8. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran BP+: The Federation BP+ is a 10-4 unit, the Gorn HBP+ is also a 10-4, this BP+ is a 4-4 unit. As such, the 4 point cost is sufficient. The Federation BT is 14 eps in cost the Lyran BT is 12 eps in cost. Maybe raise the BP+ to 6 eps to make it the same as the others. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran BP+: While I see Jeff’s point, I see 8 EP as too high for the 4-4 pallet. The Gorns/Feds tugs are 2-8 units (costing 6 EP each); their pods (8 EP each) are 10-4 to make a 12-12 Battle Tug. The Lyran TGC is 8-8 (costing 8 EP); their pallet is 4-4 to make a 12-12 Battle Tug. Propose the Lyran battle pallet cost 6 EP. The means all three can field a 12-12 Battle Tug for 14 total EPs. Recommend build cost at 6 EP. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran BP+: zDECISION BY SVC: 6 it is.
Lyran BSX: 0 Is the conversion cost from MB correct? The cost for the MB->BS->BSX conversion path is 17+6, more than double (ignoring fighers) the direct MB->BSX conversion cost of 8+6. Dave Butler [SVC Fixed this in every SIT on 22 July 08.]
Lyran BTX-1: 0 Convert from BSX should be allowed. Dave Butler. [SVC requires senior staff input on the cost.]
Lyran BTX-1: No data exists for BSX to STX (yet to be defined); staff project. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran BTX-1: Per Combined Ops, BSXs aren't available, and I can't find them in StratOps, or PlanetOps, or AdvOps. Is this one of those "future" deals only on the SITS? Going from a guess, the BS->BATS upgrade is 4ep (444.31, CO), so I think the BS->BTX upgrade should cost at least 3ep+3xtp. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran BTX-1: The staff is currently working the issue for all bases for all empires. Ryan J Opel 27 July 2008
Lyran BTX-1: There is no empirical data for this at this time. Staff is reviewing for all races at this time. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran BTX-1: Will send diagram later, think I have everything listed and most connections shown. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran BTX-1: zDECISION BY SVC: I left an empty spot or the staff to fill in later.
Lyran BTX-2: 0 is the conversion cost from an MB correct as it seems it should be 27 not 17. Dave Butler. [SVC Fixed this in every SIT on 22 July 08.]
Lyran C-BASE-1: 0 Is this unit's command rating of 0 correct? (446.51) says it functions as a mobile base, which has a command rating of 6. Dave Butler. [SVC reviewed staff comments on 22 July 08 and decided that 0 is correct. This is a colony, not a military base, and it has no command ability.]
Lyran C-BASE-2: 0 Is this unit's EW rating of 0 correct? (446.51) says it functions as a mobile base, which provides EW=1. Dave Butler. [SVC reviewed staff comments on 22 July 08 and decided that 0 is correct. This is a colony, not a military base, and it has no command ability.]
Lyran CSV: 0 - Date Available shows Y176. This unit uses Heavy Fighters, which are not available to the Lyrans until FY178(21) according to (530.223). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178(F). -Greg E. 5/31/06 (FO-530.223), which reads, in part: Certain carriers (such as CSVs and ACSs) [...] have earlier dates on the SIT and can be produced from those dates. Dave Butler [SVC This is just one of those many cases where the general date controls pods and such and the ship data controls the ship and might be earlier.]
Lyran CVA: 0 Does this properly account for the carrier conversion cost? Chuck Strong 6 March 06 [SVC data is correct. Building a CVA costs a 2 point surcharge but converting it costs 4.]
Lyran DCS-1: 0 - Date Available shows Y177. According to (600.2) Lyran PF1 is SY178(20) so the Lyrans should not be able to produce this unit until FY178(21). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178(F). -Greg E. 5/31/06 [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Lyran DCS-1: Confirm, G2 shows Y180, SIT shows Y177, change to Y178F. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran DCS-1: Confirm, Lyran PF2 is Y178F (T#21). SWFrazier 080723
Lyran DCS-1: Module G2 correct, list YIS as Y180. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran DCS-1: Module G2 correct, list YIS as Y180. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran DCS-1: Module G2 gives a date of Y180, SIT shows Y177. Jeff Laikind 11 March 06
Lyran DCS-1: Module G2 has YIS of 180, recommend change to Y180. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran DCS-1: Module G2 has YIS of 180, recommend change to Y180. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran DCS-1: Module G2 is correct Y180 avail date. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran DCS-1: Module G2 is correct Y180 avail date. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran DCS-1: What GregE is trying to say is the L-DCS should have a YIS date equal to PF1(178) not BEFORE PFs were introduced (177), so the YIS date needs to be the same as the NDS, which is Y178. What Jeff is responding to, Module G2 has a L-DCS YIS date of Y180. Y180 should be the L-DCS's YIS date. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran DCS-1: zDECISION BY SVC: Y180 is the date the only example was built but the design was available in Y178. Used that date and entered a historical note that while the design was available in Y178 the only example was historically built in Y180. Players (like the Lyrans) could choose to build it earlier.
Lyran DCS-2: 0 Conversion listed in Y177 Turn 18 two turns before PFs. Robert Padilla [SVC asks staff: Should this be fixed, or is it right? ]
Lyran DCS-2: Change to Y178F (T#21). SWFrazier 080723
Lyran DCS-2: Jeff answered this in DCS-1 above. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran DCS-2: Module G2 correct, list YIS as Y180. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran DCS-2: Module G2 has YIS of 180, recommend change to Y180. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran DCS-2: Module G2 is correct Y180 avail date. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran DCS-2: zDECISION BY SVC: Y178 as above.
Lyran FRD+1: 0 Cost is listed as 10+6, but rules (441.433) and (441.41) indicate that the fighter modules should be paid for; correct cost should therefore be 12+6. Dave Butler. [SVC asks for staff input.]
Lyran FRD+1: Agree with Mike and Chuck. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran FRD+1: Confirm, cost is 12 [10+2] +6 for adding HBMs. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran FRD+1: I concur with Mike Curtis’ earlier research – "There is no extra cost for the actual fighter module. A FRDs fighters are considered base fighters per (441.433) and as such should receive the same discount during construction as other bases. If a module was added later, yes, it would cost 1+6 for the module and fighters." STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran FRD+1: There is no extra cost for the actual fighter module. A FRDs fighters are considered base fighters per (441.433) and as such should receive the same discount during construction as other bases. If a module was added later, yes, it would cost 1+6 for the module and fighters. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran FRD+1: Yes this cost is correct, but it really should be 11+3 or 12+6 as you can make an FRD w/ only 1 ftr module, 2 ftr modules are the limit by (441.433) S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran FRD+1: zDECISION BY SVC: Left it 10+6 to build and changed to 1+6 to convert.
Lyran FRD+2: 0 Product column lists F&E, but FRDs with fighter modules were introduced in AO. Dave Butler. [SVC fixed this for every SIT on 22 July 08.]
Lyran JGP(V): 0 I think this should have fighter factors of (3[2]) since the Lyrans still have to pay for all 5 factors but can only use the other 2 as replacements. Michael Lui 7 July 06 [requires senior staff confirmation]
Lyran JGP(V): I have been under the impression since the development of AdvOps that the Lyrans got shortchanged on it, and everyone was FINE with it during development. They got to build COGs early, and when HDWs came around they could transfer them over without a problem (yeah 24 turns later...) So keep the JPG-COG as costing 10EP w/ 3 ftrs (no spare). Or make a rule for a JOG (JGP Operations Group) which has 3 ftrs and costs 6EPs. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran JGP(V): NWO boxes adds 4 shuttle boxes. Keep cost at 10. Recommend factors (3)[2]. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran JGP(V): This is a weird situation. The SSD only has room for six actual fighters, which is three fighter factors in F&E. There is no room for the extra four fighters in storage on the SSD. Factors should be 7(3). The COG for this is 6 ep to represent the smaller squadron organization. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran JGP(V): This is an enigma, and I could see the JGP with COG being 3[2]. Requires review of SSD and designer’s intent. I could be agreeable either way. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran JGP(V): zDECISION BY SVC: What the heck, lets gowith factors (3)[2] and let the Lyrans have some fun.
Lyran JGP(V): Agree for the SIT as the rule allows this. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran JGP: 0 The Rule for the Jadgpanther says that the Lyrans must pay the full cost of the COG, which would be 10 EPs, however, the SIT shows the cost as 6 EPs. I assumed that the SIT came later, so that it was correct, but several people posted that the 10 EP amount is correct. So, which is the correct cost to give fighters to the Jadgpanther? ANSWER: The rule is correct 10 EPs for a regular COG that the JGP cannot fully utilize. The extra fighters are considred spare FCR-like fighter factors. The SIT entry was later, and if it was intended to change the rule should have been accompanied by errata stating such. It was not, which leads me to belive it was mistakenly added. However, I will send this up the chain to Jeff/staff/SVC, to determine which interpretation is correct.
Lyran JGP: NWO boxes adds 4 shuttle boxes. Keep cost at 10. Recommend factors (3)[2]. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran JGP: See above. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran JGP: This is a weird situation. The SSD only has room for six actual fighters, which is three fighter factors in F&E. There is no room for the extra four fighters in storage on the SSD. Factors should be 7(3). The COG for this is 6 ep to represent the smaller squadron organization. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran JGP: This is an enigma, and I could see the JGP with COG being 3[2]. Requires review of SSD and designer’s intent. I could be agreeable either way. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran JPG counter: 0 has an error. There's a T-variant crippled side, but the non-crip side doesn't have the "T". Garth L. Getgen [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Lyran JPG counter: No T for the crippled side. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran JPG counter: None of my copies (PQ) does not show this... SWFrazier 080723
Lyran JPG counter: The T should not be there. Add to counter errata that the T is wrong. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran JPG counter: There should not be a ‘T" on the crippled side. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran JPG counter: zDECISION BY SVC: Countersheet errata doesn’t below in the SIT topic.
Lyran KBP: 0 Build cost should be 4, same as Klingon BP. (752.6) defines a pair of Klingon/Kzinti BPs costing 8. 21 Jeff Laikind, 21 Nov 06 [SVC trusts Jeff and will do this, unless somebody shows Jeff is wrong.]
Lyran KBP: Agree /w Jeff. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran KBP: Build cost should be the same as Klingon/Kzinti for this 2-2 pod. Recommend build cost of 4 EP. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran KBP: Concur, build cost for KBP should be 4. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran KBP: Confirm, from CL#14. SWFrazier 080723 -- SVC asks: What does this mean? Confirm what? Am I supposed to go find a CL14? Is this a report or a treasure map?
Lyran KBP: Should be the same as the Klingon cost. Recommend build cost 4ep. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran KBP: zDECISION BY SVC: 4 it is.
Lyran KVH: 0 Build cost should be 1 + 6, same as Klingon VP+ (this is the 3 fighter factor hangar pod). Jeff Laikind, 21 Nov 06 [SVC trusts Jeff and will do this, unless somebody shows Jeff is wrong.]
Lyran KVH: Agree /w Jeff. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran KVH: Build cost should be 1 + 6, same as Klingon VP+. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran KVH: Concur, build cost for KVH should be 1+6. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran KVH: Confirm. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran KVH: Should be the same as the Klingon cost. Recommend build cost 1+6ep. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran KVH: zDECISION BY SVC: 1+6 it is.
Lyran Megafighter: 0-Heavy counter says availability is SY178, 711 says Turn #21 for Heavy Fighter introduction overall (FY178), so the date needs to be updated. Probably to SY179, so it takes 6 months to field Heavy Megafighters after their introduction (ie building the production facilities to keep up with demand). S.Tenhoff 11-06-06 [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Lyran Megafighter: Concur, build date for Heavy Megafighter should be Y179. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran Megafighter: I sent this in. No further comment by me. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran Megafighter: Is this the "Heavy Fighter Enigma" issue? I can live with a YIS of Y179. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran Megafighter: Lyran CSV allowed from Y176 (pre-Heavy intro ship), so early mega-package can be used for that ship. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran Megafighter: Y179 (A) sounds good. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran Megafighter: zDECISION BY SVC: Y179, fine.
Lyran NDS: 0 - Date Available shows Y178. According to (600.2) Lyran PF1 is SY178(20) so the Lyrans should not be able to produce this unit until FY178(21). Suggest changing the Date Available to Y178(F). -Greg E. 5/31/06 [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Lyran NDS: Agree to change it to FY178. We get the YIS from SFB, which doesn't really care about Spring/Fall like F+E does. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran NDS: Concur, change build date to fall of Y178 MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran NDS: Confirm, change date to Y178F. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran NDS: Recommend YIS Y178F. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran NDS: Recommend YIS Y178F. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran NDS: zDECISION BY SVC: Fall Y178. Fine.
Lyran NMC: 0 There are currently no substitution limits on this ship. This should be clarified. Four options: 1. Count against the single STT substution allowed per year. 2. Count against the single STJ substution allwed per year. 3. Create a new limit for NMC of 1 substution per year in addition to the STT and STJ limit. 4. Status quo, which allows the Lyrans to produce one/turn by substution in addition to the single STT and STJ per year. I find option four to go against the Lyran flavor of limited mauler substitutions, and discourage it. Adam Hickey 12/22/07
Lyran NMC: Allow as replacement to either the STT or STJ, max one per year. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran NMC: Count against the single STT substitution allowed per year. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran NMC: Count against the STT conversion limit of 1/yr. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran NMC: Make the NMC count against STT substitution limits. (711.0) allows the Lyrans to convert/sub 2 maulers by any means each turn. It also limits them to 1 STJ and 1 STT substituted each year. So you can sub a STJ+STT in spring, and convert both in the fall for example. DON'T add a "may substitute 1 NMC per year", that gives them more Mauler substitution and aren't forced to convert them (which costs more). S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran NMC: Since this is a New Heavy Cruiser, count against STT substitution limits per year. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran NMC: zDECISION BY SVC: Count against STT limit.
Lyran NSR: 0 is shown on the SIT as not being a tug, but R10 indicates that it carried pods. Should the NSR be a tug? [SVC: the StratOps SIT lists it as a tug. SVC regards this item as resolved.]
Lyran POL: 0 Should the Cmnd column be "0"? F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Lyran POL: Cmnd Rating 3. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran POL: Command rating should be 3. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran POL: CR=3. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran POL: It should have a rating of 2 to lead other POL (reactions). SWFrazier 080723
Lyran POL: The Police Ships should have the CR=3 as they can now be used defensively in a hex (ie not just summoned up for a raid). If the Kzintis leave 3xPols in a hex, they should be able to engage the attacking Klingon/Lyran force. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran POL: zDECISION BY SVC: 3 it is. Better look at all the other POLs. Curious, they all say 3. Why did the Lyran ever say anything else.
Lyran REPR: 0 The salvage cost is probably wrong. While this unit can not currently be destroyed under the rules as currently written, these units are built on the LAux hull, and should thus have a salvage value of 1.0, like all the other LAux variants. Dave Butler. [SVC notes that the staff said to leave it alone.]
Lyran SB: 0 there should be a "From STB:" conversion listed on the SIT. Dave Butler. [SVC requires that the staff give him the numbers.]
Lyran SB: add From STB (452.22): 18 plus fighters. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran SB: Per (452.22) list From STB: 18EP. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran SB: The staff is currently working the issue for all bases for all empires. Ryan J Opel 27 Jul 08
Lyran SB: Yes, doing diagram for all base conversion paths. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran SB: Conversion from STB: 18, per (452.22) in StratOps. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran SB: zDECISION BY SVC: 18 plus fighters.
Lyran SBX: 0 There should be a From STX conversion listed. Dave Butler. [SVC requires that the staff give him the numbers.]
Lyran SBX: He wants the STX->SBX conversion cost. The upgrade from STB->SB=18. The upgrade from a BATS->SB=30 (so the STB is at 60% of the BATS->SB conversion(18/30=60%)). So the conversion of a STX->SBX should cost 40% of the BTX->SBX cost. The BTX->SBX cost is 22.5ep+22.5xtp, so the STX->SBX cost should be 40% of those. So I propose "Conversion from STX-SBX: 9ep+9xtp+ftrs" S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran SBX: Per SO Pg29 list From STX: 18EP. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran SBX: See above. SWFrazier 080723 SVC has no clue which of the 317 above items you refer to.
Lyran SBX: The staff is currently working the issue for all bases for all empires. Ryan J Opel 27 Jul 08
Lyran SBX: zDECISION BY SVC: 18 plus 6.
Lyran SCS-1: 0 CA>DN>SCS=6+5-1=10 Michael C. Mikulis [SVC requires senior staff confirmation, assuming we can figure out what he wants. Is this correcting an existing entry, adding a new one? I cannot tell.]]
Lyran SCS-1: AO gives conversion cost of 9 [plus fighters plus PFs (in notes)]. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran SCS-1: CA conversion into DN is 6, DN conversion into SCS is 5, this involves a change in hull type and can receive the double conversion discount of -1. 6+5-1=10. Change Notes to 10+12 for the CA conversion. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran SCS-1: He wants added the double conversion of "From CA/CC: 10+12". (CA-DN=6, DN->SCS=5, double conversion discout=-1, 6+5-1=10). S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran SCS-1: The CA double conversion in the notes section of the SIT is wrong. The correct cost is: CA to DN (6 EP); DN to SCS (5 EP); -1 EP discount. List double conversion: From CA 10+12. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran SCS-1: The double conversion note in the SIT is wrong for the CA. CA>DN (6) DN>SCS (5) -1 for double conversion. From CA: 10+12 double conversion. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran SCS-1: zDECISION BY SVC: changed from 9 to 10.
Lyran SCS-2: 0 CV>CVA>SCS=6+5-1=10 Michael C. Mikulis [requires senior staff confirmation, assuming we can figure out what he wants. Is this correcting an existing entry, adding a new one? I cannot tell.]
Lyran SCS-2: AO gives conversion cost of 8 [plus PFs (in notes)]. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran SCS-2: CV conversion into CVA is 8, CVA conversion into SCS is 5, this involves a change in hull type and can receive the double conversion discount of -1. 8+5-1=12. Change Notes to 12 for the CV conversion. MCurtis 28 July 2008
Lyran SCS-2: same as SCS-1 above. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran SCS-2: The CV double conversion in the notes section of the SIT is wrong. The correct cost is: CV to CVA (8 EP); CVA to SCS (5 EP); -1 EP discount. List double conversion: From CV 12+12. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran SCS-2: The double conversion note in the SIT is wrong for the CV. CV>CVA (8) CVA>SCS (5) -1 for double conversion. From CV: 12 double conversion. Ryan J Opel 28 July 2008
Lyran SCS-2: zDECISION BY SVC: ok, 12 is right, but plus PFs.
Lyran STX-1: 0 Can one convert a BTX into an STX? (It's permitted to upgrade a BTX into an SBX.) How about converting a BSX into an STX? (A BS may be upgraded to an STB.) Dave Butler [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Lyran STX-1: Per SO Pg29 list From BTX: 18EP. No data exists for BSX to STX (yet to be defined); staff project. STRONG - 27 Jul 2008
Lyran STX-1: See SB/SBX. SWFrazier 080723
Lyran STX-1: The staff is currently working the issue for all bases for all empires. Ryan J Opel 27 Jul 08
Lyran STX-1: The upgrade from BATS->STB=12ep, the upgrade from STB->STX=10ep+10xtp. So I think the upgrade from BTX-STX should be 16ep+16xtp. The upgrade for BS->STB=15EP, so I think the upgrade for a BSX->STX should be 17.5ep+17.5xtp. S.Tenhoff 7-23-08
Lyran STX-1: zDECISION BY SVC: I left it blank for the staff to figure out later.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 07, 2008 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Orion BCS: 0 BC>BCH>BCS=2+5-1=6 Michael C. Mikulis [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Orion BCS: From BC: 6+6. MCurtis 4 August 2008
Orion BCS: STRONG: Confirms. Change conversion cost: "From BC: 6+6"; add double conversion notation.
Orion BCS: Agreed. Cost should be 6+6 Ryan J Opel 31 Jul 08
Orion BCS: Confirm, double conversion, BCS From BC = 6+6. SWFrazier 080730
Orion BCS: that would be the correct conversion costs. S.Tenhoff 8-4-08
Orion BCS: SVC ANSWER: Changed to 6+6. All other Orion line items had to do with the base upgrade path issue.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 07, 2008 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Easy Romulan Reports
=
Romulan BTX: 0 is the conversion cost from an MB correct as it seems it should be 27 not 17. Dave Butler. [SVC Fixed this in every SIT on 22 July 08.]
=
Romulan REPR: 0 The salvage cost is probably wrong. While this unit can not currently be destroyed under the rules as currently written, these units are built on the LAux hull, and should thus have a salvage value of 1.0, like all the other LAux variants. Dave Butler. [SVC notes that the staff said to leave it alone.]
Romulan FRD+: 0 Product column lists F&E, but FRDs with fighter modules were introduced in AO. Dave Butler. [SVC fixed this for every SIT on 22 July 08.]

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 11:12 am: Edit

Romulan reports processed.
========
Romulan FHB: 0 Is the following a legal conversion: SP->FH->FHB It is not covered by the latest Romulan SIT. -- Robert Padilla.
Romulan FHB: I would say yes. 4+16 (double conversion). Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan FHB: It is a legal double conversion; add notation. >From SP: 4+16. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan FHB: Legal, equivalent to CW/NCA/NCV. SWFrazier
Romulan FHB: Sure it should be legal. But I don't think you'd get a double-conversion bonus, as you are just changing A-Modules to B-Modules (like SP->SPB) per (433.43) and not changing innards like the D7->D7V. So the cost should be 4+16. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan FHB: The conversion to the FH from the SP is allowed and it is a hull change, the FH to FHB is a valid conversion, so the SP to FHB should be a "double dagger" double conversion of 4+16, the discount does not apply here since one of the conversions is only 1 ep and historically the double conversion discount does not apply to the double conversion. I reference the Kzinti FF to FKE double conversion as the precedent. MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan FHB: z DECISION BY SVC: Many paths lead to 4+16.
Romulan FRD+: 0 Cost is listed as 10+6, but rules (441.433) and (441.41) indicate that the fighter modules should be paid for; correct cost should therefore be 12+6. Dave Butler. DECISION BY SVC: Left it 10+6 to build and changed to 1+6 to convert.
Romulan KCN: 0 The salvage appears to be incorrect; Romulans are salvaged at 25% of base hull cost (5.0EP is too low at 13.89%). Chuck Strong.
Romulan KCN: Base costs for all BBs is now 36 EP. 25% of 36 EP = 9 EP for salvage. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KCN: Salvage is 9.0 (25% of default 36 cost). SWFrazier 080807
Romulan KCN: Salvage of 9. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KCN: Salvage should be 9 eps, 25% of 36 ep construction cost. MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan KCN: z DECISION BY SVC: 9 it is.
Romulan KDA-B: (431.6) is correct [no (431.16)]. SWFrazier 080807.
Romulan KDA-B: 0 In the Build Cost column, should the reference to (431.16) be to (431.6), since that is what the other converted Klingon ships reference? (I don't have either rule, so I can't look it up.) F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Romulan KDA-B: Appears to be a typo, should be (431.6) MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan KDA-B: Reference is (431.6). STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KDA-B: Should be 431.6. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KDA-B: There is no rule (431.16), the Romulan production of KR hull rule number is (431.6, FE2K) S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KDA-B: z DECISION BY SVC: 431.6 is its. Renumbering the rulebook (the other choice) would be messier.
Romulan KDA-S: 0 The Salvage column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Romulan KDA-S: Salvage either 1.25 (Rom 25%) or 1.5 (Klingon 30% since it’s originally Klingon and has a boom to salvage). I’d go with 1.25 since the Romulans are less likely to have a rear hull to attach a salvaged boom to. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KDA-S: Salvage for all KD hulls should be 5*0.25=1.25. MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan KDA-S: Salvage for Romulans is 25% for all ships (since Kestrals do not boom separate). Salvage is 1.25 EP based on a hull cost of 5 EP. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KDA-S: Salvage is 1.25 (25% of 5, base cost of KDR). SWFrazier 080807
Romulan KDA-S: should be same as KDR. Which should be 25% of 5EPs=1.25. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KDA-S: z DECISION BY SVC: 1.25 it shall be.
Romulan KDR-B: (431.6) is correct [no (431.16)]. SWFrazier 080807.
Romulan KDR-B: 0 In the Build Cost column, should the reference to (431.16) be to (431.6), since that is what the other converted Klingon ships reference? (I don't have either rule, so I can't look it up.) F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Romulan KDR-B: Appears to be a typo, should be (431.6) MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan KDR-B: Reference is (431.6). STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KDR-B: Should be 431.6. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KDR-B: z DECISION BY SVC:
Romulan KDR-B:There is no rule (431.16), the Romulan production of KR hull rule number is (431.6, FE2K) S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KDR-S: 0 The Salvage column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Romulan KDR-S: Salvage either 1.25 (Rom 25%) or 1.5 (Klingon 30% since it’s originally Klingon and has a boom to salvage). I’d go with 1.25 since the Romulans are less likely to have a rear hull to attach a salvaged boom to. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KDR-S: Salvage for all KD hulls should be 5*0.25=1.25. MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan KDR-S: Salvage for Romulans is 25% for all ships (since Kestrals do not boom separate). Salvage is 1.25 EP based on a hull cost of 5 EP. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KDR-S: Salvage is 1.25 (25% of 5, base cost of KDR). SWFrazier 080807
Romulan KDR-S: Should be 25% of 5EPs=1.25 S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KDR-S: z DECISION BY SVC: 1.25
Romulan KDV: 0 D5V + 2EP -> KDV Either The conversions should both be 3 + 10EP and 2 + 12EP or both 3EP and 2EP. It seems odd that they are opposite. Michael Parker
Romulan KDV: D5: 3+12; add double conversion notation. D5V: 2+12. In both cases the Romulans pay for their fighters. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KDV: Roms should pay for the fighters. D5>KDV 3+12 (double conversion). D5V>KDV 2+12. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KDV: The D5 to KDV conversion should have the "double dagger" mark for a double conversion discount which is correct at 3+12. The D5V to KDV conversion should remain as is at 2. It should also be noted that all Klingon conversion to Romulan Kestral class ships that are carriers need to pay for the Romulan fighters, so the D5V to KDV conversion should be 2+12. MCurtis 13 August 2008
Romulan KDV: Think MP's arguments is that the D5V fighters need to be replaced (not converted) as there is no fighter replacement line available. Increase conversin cost to 2+12. SWFrazier 080807
Romulan KDV: This should probably be a 3EP conversion, as all other SC-3 Klingon-Romjulan conversions are 3EPs (ie D6->KR, D7->K7R). The fighters should have to be rebought too (are the klingons are going to ship fighter factories to the Romulans?), so the total cost should be 3+12. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KDV: z DECISION BY SVC: Fixed.
Romulan KDV-B: (431.6) is correct [no (431.16)]. SWFrazier 080807
Romulan KDV-B: 0 In the Build Cost column, should the reference to (431.16) be to (431.6), since that is what the other converted Klingon ships reference? (I don't have either rule, so I can't look it up.) F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Romulan KDV-B: Appears to be a typo, should be (431.6) MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan KDV-B: Reference is (431.6). STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KDV-B: Should be 431.6. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KDV-B: There is no rule (431.16), the Romulan production of KR hull rule number is (431.6, FE2K) S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KDV-B: z DECISION BY SVC: yeah, yeah, fixed it the first time.
Romulan KDV-S: 0 The Salvage column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Romulan KDV-S: Salvage either 1.25 (Rom 25%) or 1.5 (Klingon 30% since it’s originally Klingon and has a boom to salvage). I’d go with 1.25 since the Romulans are less likely to have a rear hull to attach a salvaged boom to. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KDV-S: Salvage for all KD hulls should be 5*0.25=1.25. MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan KDV-S: Salvage for Romulans is 25% for all ships (since Kestrals do not boom separate). Salvage is 1.25 EP based on a hull cost of 5 EP. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KDV-S: Salvage is 1.25 (25% of 5, base cost of KDR). SWFrazier 080807
Romulan KDV-S: should be same as KDR. Which should be 25% of 5EPs=1.25. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KDV-S: z DECISION BY SVC: yeah, yeah, did it the first time.
Romulan KRG: 0 The Salvage column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Romulan KRG: Salvage either 1.25 (Rom 25%) or 1.5 (Klingon 30% since it’s originally Klingon and has a boom to salvage). I’d go with 1.25 since the Romulans are less likely to have a rear hull to attach a salvaged boom to. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KRG: Salvage for all KD hulls should be 5*0.25=1.25. MCurtis 11 August 2008
Romulan KRG: Salvage for Romulans is 25% for all ships (since Kestrals do not boom separate). Salvage is 2 EP based on a hull cost of 8 EP. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KRG: Salvage is 2.0 (25% of 5, base cost of KR). SWFrazier 080807
Romulan KRG: SHould be the same as the KR, which=2EP. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KRG: z DECISION BY SVC: yeah, yeah, did it the first time.
Romulan KRV: 0 D6V + 3+10EP -> KRV D6V is a 6-8(5)-> KRV is a 8(5) I thought perhaps there was a rule that Kestral conversions required the Rom to 'rebuy' the fighters but then there is this converion on the SIT Michael Parker There is a conversion from the D6V that is listed as 3+10. They both have 5 fighter factors. At first I thought perhaps there was a general rule that all Kestral CV conversions required the ROM to buy the fighters, but then there is a D5V + 2ep -> KDV that doesn’t require a fighter charge. Either both should charge for the fighters or neither should. Michael Parker 14 December 07
Romulan KRV: All Klingon conversion to Romulan Kestral class ships that are carriers need to pay for the Romulan fighters, so the D6V to KRV conversion should be 3+10. MCurtis 13 August 2008
Romulan KRV: From D6V: 3+10 is correct. The Romulans must pay for their fighters. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan KRV: Leave conversion as is (3+10). SWFraxier 080807
Romulan KRV: Romulans should rebuy for the fighters, since they don’t use Klingon fighters. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan KRV: The fighters should have to be rebought too (are the klingons are going to ship fighter factories to the Romulans?), so the total cost should be 3+10. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan KRV: z DECISION BY SVC:It already is 3+10.
Romulan SEH: 0 Ezekiel must be confused as (303.5) clearly allow a leader (no counter is required). STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan SEH: 0 No, already falls under the leader rule. 303.5. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan SEH: 0 Not necessary, (303.5) handles this without the need for extra counters. MCurtis 13 August 2008
Romulan SEH: 0 Should there be a counter for a leader version since SFB says the leader is a permanent conversion? Ezekiel Price Carpenter-Hyland
Romulan SEH: No counter is needed, rule (303.5) in FE2K covers this specifically in the 2nd paragraph. "included in this rule are all shpis designated DW, G-DDs, Z-FFs, and R-SKs and R-SHs". S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan SEH: No need (at present) as SEH uses (303.5) for leader 'bonus'. SWFrazier 080807
Romulan SEH: z DECISION BY SVC: 303.5
Romulan SKH: 0 Should there be a counter for a leader version since SFB says the leader is a permanent conversion? Ezekiel Price Carpenter-Hyland
Romulan SKH: 1 Not necessary, (303.5) handles this without the need for extra counters. MCurtis 13 August 2008
Romulan SKH: No need (at present) as SKH uses (303.5) for leader 'bonus'. SWFrazier 080807
Romulan SKH: No, already falls under the leader rule. 303.5. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan SKH: The SKH is a Theater Transport. Ezekiel must be confused as (303.5) clearly allow a leader (no counter is required). STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan SKH: z DECISION BY SVC: 303.5
Romulan SKH:No counter is needed, rule (303.5) in FE2K covers this specifically in the 2nd paragraph. "included in this rule are all shpis designated DW, G-DDs, Z-FFs, and R-SKs and R-SHs". S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan SUB-1: 0 NH->SUB cost should be 4+24 (4EP for the Heavy Carrier) Chuck Strong 6 March 06
Romulan SUB-1: Agree with Chuck. SWFrazier 080807
Romulan SUB-1: Concur. MCurtis 13 August 2008
Romulan SUB-1: Trust the Chuck. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan SUB-1: We now charge 4 EP for Heavy Carrier conversions from a base hull. List as From NH: 4+24. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan SUB-1: Yeah, I'll agree with it. The NH->SUP conversion is a 2EP conversion (there is no disputing that). Hard-welding B-Modules on the heavy hawk series (NH, FH) is 2EP, no double conversion discount as you are just swapping modules, not redoing the guts of the ship ala D5->D5V. So NH->SUB=4EP+24. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan SUB-1: z DECISION BY SVC: 4+24.
Romulan SUB-2: 0 Does this properly account for the carrier conversion cost? Chuck Strong 6 March 06 [SVC notes that if there were actually any written rules he might be able to check this.]
Romulan SUB-2: A FH to SUB is a double conversion, FH > NH = 2, NH > SUB = 4+24, Double conversion FH > SUB = (2+4-1) = 5+24 with a double dagger. MCurtis 13 August 2008
Romulan SUB-2: addressed in #3 below.
Romulan SUB-2: Romulan conversion is non-standard as the modules contain the fighters and associated equipment, not the ship being modified for the same. SWFrazier 080807
Romulan SUB-2: The old 757.2 had the cost of conversions listed I believe but was changed when we started using the SITS. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan SUB-2: We now charge 4 EP for Heavy Carrier conversions from a base hull. A FH to NH to SUB is a double conversion: 2 + 4 -1 = 5. List as From FH: 5+24. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan SUB-2: z DECISION BY SVC: 5+24
Romulan SUB-3: 0 SUP->SUB should cost 2+16 (2EP from light to heavy carrier) Chuck Strong 6 March 06 [SVC requires senior staff confirmation, seems like light to medium is one, light to heavy is three?.]
Romulan SUB-3: 515.23) defines a light carrier with a group of 4 or fewer fighters. Converting a light carrier to heavy now costs 3 EP. List as 3+16 and change the note "Light Carrier (Single Ship)". STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan SUB-3: A SUP is classified as a light carrier with four factors per (515.23). A light to heave conversion should cost 3, so SUP > SUB 3+16. MCurtis 13 August 2008
Romulan SUB-3: Different reasoning than Chuck's. Bolting on modules to heavy hawks=2EPs (per the FH->FHB or NH->NHB conversions. So SUP->SUB=2+16. Since we included the NHB in Fighter Ops we should also include the conversion for NHB->SUB=2+8. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan SUB-3: Original cost reflected SP/SPB modular cost, but the SUP/SUB should reflect the other heavy Hawk cost (FH/FHB & NH/NHB) which is 2+16. SWFrazier 080807
Romulan SUB-3: Well it’s a medium to heavy conversion actually. 2+16 sounds good. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan SUB-3: z DECISION BY SVC: Majority (not consensus) seems to be 2+16.
Romulan TH: 0 There no option to sub a TH for a NH on the SIT? Other races seem to be able to build a Battle Control Ship for their BCH slot or is there some intent I am missing? Peter A. Kellerhall 19 March 06 [SVC requires senior staff confirmation.]
Romulan TH: I always considered the SUP to be the Rom BCH analog as the BCS (TH) and BCV (SUN) are converted from it (just by changing the modules) rather then the NH. AO allowed this conversion (6+8[+PF]). SWFrazier 080807
Romulan TH: If we allow NH->SUB, then we'll have to allow this, as they are just using E-Modules instead of B-Modules when going from SUP->TH (instead of SUP->SUB). So NH->SUP=2EP+8 conversion, added E-Modules is another 5EPs, so total=7+8 for the conversion. S.Tenhoff 8-9-08
Romulan TH: TH should be able to sub for the NH. It’s currently listed as a sub down for DN type hulls. No change in listed cost. Ryan J Opel 9 August 2008
Romulan TH: The NH to TH conversion is on the on the last update (Dec 06); this is a mute report. STRONG 9 AUG 2008
Romulan TH: This is already in the SIT, concur with current SIT. MCurtis 13 August 2008
Romulan TH: z DECISION BY SVC: No change made. TH (see SFB) subs for DN, not for BCH, as it is way way beyond BCH.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Tholian BTX: 0 is the conversion cost from an MB correct as it seems it should be 27 not 17. Dave Butler. [SVC Fixed this in every SIT on 22 July 08.]
Tholian BW: Change 2PC to 2xPC in conversion column. MCurtis 17 August 2008 SVC Done.
Tholian CA: Change 2PC to 2xPC in conversion column. MCurtis 17 August 2008 SVC Done.
Tholian CAN: 0 In the Conversion Cost column, the "x" should be removed from "From 2xPC" to be consistent with other rows that have multiple units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC will look into this.] [SVC did look into it and decided that 2xPC is the correct form.
Tholian C-BASE: 0 Is this unit's command rating of 0 correct? (446.51) says it functions as a mobile base, which has a command rating of 6. Dave Butler. SVC: yes, it is correct at zero.
Tholian C-BASE: 0 Is this unit's EW rating of 0 correct? (446.51) says it functions as a mobile base, which provides EW=1. Dave Butler. SVC: yes, it is correct at zero.
Tholian CPC: Change 3PC to 3xPC in conversion column. MCurtis 17 August 2008 SVC Fixed.
Tholian CVA: Change 2PC to 2xPC in conversion column. MCurtis 17 August 2008 SVC Fixed.
Tholian CVA-1: 0 Does this properly account for the carrier conversion cost? Chuck Strong 6 March 06
Tholian CVA-1: Consider the Tholian different than the usual CVAs as the Tholians added external mounts rather than redoing the interior, at worst, it should have a 3+24 convesion cost, could keep it 2+24. SWFrazier 080815
Tholian CVA-1: Seems to be yes it does. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian CVA-1: the cost from CA to CVA is correct at 3+24. An oversized (squadron) medium carrier cost 3 EP from the base hull. STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian CVA-1: z SVC Decision: No change, it’s still 3+24.
Tholian CVA-2: 0 is classified as a Medium Carrier why does its conversion from a CA cost 3 EP and not the standard 2 EP?. Trab Kadar 11 March 06
Tholian CVA-2: 2K/AO list the conversion as 2 not 3. SWFrazier 080815
Tholian CVA-2: It does cost 2ep. The cost to upgrade 2xPC>CA is 3ep. Add 2 for the CV conversion cost and you’ve got 5EP. 5+24 is correct. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian CVA-2: The 3 EP conversion from CA is correct. It is classed a medium carrier per (515.22) with and oversized squadron per (318.8). STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian CVA-2: z SVC Decision: same question, same answer. 3+24.
Tholian CVA-3: 0 In the Conversion Cost column, the "x" should be removed from "From 2xBW" to be consistent with other rows that have multiple units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Tholian CVA-3: No fix required based on SVC statement about the CWH conversion: "[SVC decided that 2xPC is correct and that 2 PC is wrong.]". STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian CVA-3: Should be 2xBW. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian CVA-3: z SVC Decision:[SVC decided that 2xBW is right and 2BW is wrong.]
Tholian CVA-3: Keep the 'x' SWFrazier 080815
Tholian CW: Change 2PC to 2xPC in conversion column. MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian CWH: 0 The SFB Ref # column should be 39. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007.
Tholian CWH: Reference is ‘39’ based on G2 index. STRONG 16 Sep 2008 SVC made it 39.
Tholian CWH-2: In the Conversion Cost column, the "x" should be removed from "From 2xPC" to be consistent with other rows that have multiple units. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC decided that 2xPC is correct and that 2 PC is wrong.]
Tholian DDV: 0 There should be a conversion BW->DDV cost 3. The following conversions already exist which suggest the DDV should be allowed an upgrade from a BW. PC->BW 1+8 PC->DDV 4+8 PC->DD 3 DD->DDV 3+8. The BW->DDV seems it would be much the same as the PC->DD conversion. Michael Parker
Tholian DDV: Agree, add BW>DDV =3. SWFrazier 080815
Tholian DDV: Allow the BW>DDV conversion. 3ep. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian DDV: List conversion from BW at 3 EP. STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian DDV: z SVC Decision: added BW to DDV for 3.
Tholian DH: Change 2PC to 2xPC in conversion column. MCurtis 17 August 2008 done.
Tholian DHW: Change 2PC to 2xPC in conversion column. MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian FCR: 0 - Update for StratOps. This ship is also a theater transport; it can carry a Federation type cargo pod. - Wyszynski 12 Aug 2006 [SVC requests staff input.]
Tholian FCR: Agreed 539.72 states that the Tholian FCR is a theater transport. Update the SIT. Update counter for whenever it gets reprinted. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian FCR: Confirm that the FCR is a TT (539.72). SWFrazier 080815
Tholian FCR: Per (539.72) it is a theater transport, add notation ‘Carry 3 EP’. Rational: the 3CPC collectively carries 10 EP; three separate FCRs should not be able to carrier more than the 3CPC. STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian FCR: z SVC Decision: so noted.
Tholian FRD+: 0 Cost is listed as 10+6, but rules (441.433) and (441.41) indicate that the fighter modules should be paid for; correct cost should therefore be 12+6. Dave Butler. [Decision for other races was that this should be 10+6 and conversion should be 1+6.]
Tholian FRD+: 0 Product column lists F&E, but FRDs with fighter modules were introduced in AO. Dave Butler. [SVC fixed this for every SIT on 22 July 08.]
Tholian NBB: 0 The salvage appears to be incorrect; detachable boom Neo-Tholians are salvaged at 30% of base hull cost (6.0EP is too low at 16.67%). Chuck Strong.
Tholian NBB: Concur with Chuck. Salvage should be 30% of 36, so 10.8 MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian NBB: List salvage at 10.8 EP. Detachable boom Neo-Tholians are salvaged at 30% of base hull cost of 36 EP. STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian NBB: Salvage = 10.8 (30% of 36). SWFrazier 080815
Tholian NBB: Salvage should be 10.8ep. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian NBB: z SVC Decision: made it 10.8. I’m not the guy who put the 6 there, I did that when the staff told me to put 6 there.
Tholian NDD: 0 The Product column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC requests staff input.]
Tholian NDD: List product as ‘NO?’ or ‘CW’(?). STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian NDD: NDD Not published in F&E yet. Possibly publish in Civil Wars or Early Years F&E, Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian NDD: Product is 'future' as the NDD has yet to be added (as a counter, factors given in CL#15, pg 76). SWFrazier 080815
Tholian NDD: This counter has not been made, so there is currently no product for it. Leave blank. MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian NDD: z SVC Decision: Could easily be TO or CW.
Tholian NDH: 0 The Product column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC requests staff input.]
Tholian NDH: List product as ‘NO?’ or ‘CW’(?). STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian NDH: Not published in F&E yet. Possibly publish in Civil Wars or Early Years F&E, Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian NDH: Product is 'future' as the NDH has yet to be added (SSD in CL#25, factors in CL#26). SWFrazier 080815
Tholian NDH: This counter has not been made, so there is currently no product for it. Leave blank. MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian NDH: z SVC Decision: TO or CW.
Tholian NDN: 0 a 12-14 DN should cost more than 16 EPs, even if it didn't have the W factor. Michael C. Mikulis
Tholian NDN: 16 EP is fine; the Tholians can’t produce them anyway. STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian NDN: A 16 point production cost appears to be fine. MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian NDN: Could be increased to 17 as this ship is between 16 (12-12 DN) and 18 (14-14 DNH) which would also argue for an increase of the cost of the NHD to 19. SWFrazier 080815
Tholian NDN: Seems a fair price when looked at compared to other DNs. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian NDN: z SVC Decision: Left it at 16.
Tholian NFH: 0 should cost 4 EPs instead of 6, since it is just a FF with a 1 EP upgrade. Michael C. Mikulis
Tholian NFH: Agree, Cost should be 4 instead of 6. SWFrazier 080815
Tholian NFH: Agreed should be 4ep. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian NFH: Build cost should be 4 EP; this is essentially a 6 compot DW. STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian NFH: It is a DW, build cost should be 4. MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian NFH: z SVC Decision: 4. I don’t care. I didn’t put the six there anyway, so I’m not married to it.
Tholian NHD: 0 The Product column is missing. F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC requests staff input.]
Tholian NHD: Counter was introduced in Advanced Operations, so AO in the product column. MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian NHD: List product as TO (?). STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian NHD: Not published in F&E yet. Possibly publish in Civil Wars or Early Years F&E, Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian NHD: Product is AO, (R7.74). SFrazier 080815
Tholian NHD: z SVC Decision: TO or CW.
Tholian T-PACK: 0 The Factors On Counter column should be "0GG/-". F Brooks, 4 December, 2007. [SVC requires senior staff confirmation]
Tholian T-PACK: Concur, factor column should be 0GG/- . MCurtis 17 August 2008
Tholian T-PACK: Agreed it’s just reversed on the SIT. Ryan J Opel 16 Aug 2008
Tholian T-PACK: Confirm, should have 2 G's, matches the Klingon D6G in BPs. SWFrazier 080815
Tholian T-PACK: Listing as 0GG/- would be more correct. STRONG 16 Sep 2008
Tholian T-PACK: z SVC Decision: Sure, it should be properly done. I think we changed all of the /- to /none so I did that here as well.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Every battleship in the game: Add a note that this is a single ship carrier. Rules references: (318.425) & (515.42) Adam Hickey 12/24/07

SVC REPLIES; No, it's a battleship, which has it's own unique rules and does not need any such note.