Klingon TGB: Needs base hull to be TG(T6) instead of just TG

Klingon TGA: Needs base hull to be TG(T7) instead of just TG

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, October 07, 2010 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Klingon CVT: add note "Counts as Medium CV build"

Klingon CVT+: add note "Counts as Medium CV build"

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 07, 2010 - 02:43 pm: Edit

FEDS concurs with FEAR above.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, October 15, 2010 - 11:13 am: Edit

ROMULAN GENERAL QUESTION: Is there such a ship as a standard Queen Eagle? I see the QPE, QFE, QCE etc. but is there a standard version? Something that like the KE that can be converted from a smaller hull?

The above mentioned have a defense factor of 8...could such a ship be a 8 AF or at least a 7-8 AF/DF?

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, October 15, 2010 - 08:15 pm: Edit

Lar:

"Queen Eagle" is the designation used for any War Eagle variant upgraded with the King Eagle engine nacelles. i.e., a "base" Queen Eagle would be a KE minus the flag bridge and the enhanced shields. AFAIK, no "base" Queen Eagle SSD has ever been published, but it probably would rate as an 8 or maybe even a 9-8. Question is, why would the Roms not just go the little extra distance when upgrading a combat hull? It's worth noting that the CL in which the various Queen Eagles were published had a KEV (fully refitted), but not a QEV (engine refit only).

Cheers,
Jason

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, October 15, 2010 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Thanks for the info.

"Question is, why would the Roms not just go the little extra distance when upgrading a combat hull?"

Funds or speed of conversion (speed of conversion is subsumed into the game dynamic).

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 - 08:53 am: Edit

Kzinti CVH: Is the YIS correct? SIT shows Y176, Rule 530.223 gives Kzinti Heavy Fighter introduction as Y178, Turn 20. L. Bergen 3 Nov, 2010

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 02:25 pm: Edit

Mike
where does the ruling that counts a cvt build as a medium carrier build come from? I raised the cvt quirks over in Q&A and dispite a lot of player views never saw any ruling saying that they consume a carrier build slot

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 07:21 pm: Edit

Jason, that is due to no ruling necessary, but a SIT adjustment would fix. I posted that here so Ryan could adjust the SIT to do so.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 - 06:11 pm: Edit

Jason,

I apologize I was the one in General saying the CVT/CVT+ creation did not consume a CV build.. I was wrong. I hang my head in shame! I almost hesitate to say it here in fear of being wrong yet again.. I think there is a ruling that the upgrade of VP2 to VP3 pods, and the conversion of CVT to CVT+ do not take up a CV build... I think that is what was in my head.. although I admit I could be wrong on those also.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Is there a copy of the 2010 SIT on line or are we waiting for the next full update to integrate the new 2010 information into the Master SIT tables?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 02, 2010 - 09:48 am: Edit

Yeah, that.

And I gotta do R11, X1R, and R12.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 11, 2010 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Neo-Tholian NSCS: One NDN (TDFS Vortex) was converted to an SCS in Y186 per G2 and R7.65; also see R7.66. No F&E counter exist but one is need for ISC War. Suggested compot 12-14WP(6)/6-7WP(3). Will substitute a # counter for use in ISC War. STRONG 4 May 2009

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 11:28 am: Edit

Federation LHV A21 4-6(9H) Sc Symbol/2-3(4.5H) CL32/Future 6 Y177 CL(3) from CL 5+F-111s for NCL 11+F111s 1.5 F111 Carrier, Scout, EW=2 Conjectural Thomas Mathews 20 Dec 2010 All data copied from the CL32 SIT except the crippled fighter factors as 4.5H here instead of 4H. This is for inclussion of the triangle factor in the base 2010 rules.

By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Sunday, January 02, 2011 - 10:18 pm: Edit

Question: Has there been any inclination to developing the F&E SITs for Y1, Y2 and Y3 to date?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 12:55 am: Edit

Mike:

Unless ADB wants to make that a priority, our F&E focus right now is the ISC War module.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 07:54 am: Edit

Lyran DNLP 63A? 11PF/6P Unknown 9 Y178 DNL (2) From CA/CC 8+PFs (2 Step Conversion), From DNL 3+PFs NA 4 Fast Dreadnaught (525.1), conjectural, True PF Tender Thomas Mathews 3 Jan 2011 The Lyran SSD shows 6 mech link and repair facilities to support a full PF Flotilla typical to other Lyran DN and BCH hulls. The DNL SFB reference number is 63.

By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 12:27 pm: Edit

No worries, Chuck. I was just curious, since a few guys here want to do a hybrid campaign here set in Y71. We won't touch SFB unless ESSC is invoked.

Guess we'll have to try and reverse-engineer factors for the units.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 01:46 pm: Edit

You really don't have to reverse engineer anything -- just use the current base hulls as printed since their relative strength for most of these units remains the same in the EY era. Then use the movement rules from the 4PW but reduce the supply and movemnt range by one point each. Then use the current econ rules.

By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 03:00 pm: Edit

we were thinking of doing something similar, but we were decided to be following the YIS dates for the newer hulls, starting with the W series, and progressing through to M, and if we keep it going long enough, going through to GW and X, so just using the hulls from the GW wouldn't quite cut it.

I think that the mastermind of our group is going to be using a system similar to Orion Option Mounts box adjustments to determine the relative strength of heavy weapons, and calculating the new offensive ComPots from those. He claims to have figured out a relatively easy way to count Phasers in, and Defensive is more of a touchy-feely process.

The only thing that has him stumped at the moment is YDKs and early base stations.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, January 03, 2011 - 11:53 pm: Edit

We did some Y-rules and ships for The Hydran Liberation in CL#18 if that helps at all.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, January 15, 2011 - 02:38 pm: Edit

With ISC Wars coming out for Origins, that will be two products released without an update to the On-Line SIT. Will the SIT be updated before Origins to account for F&E2KX and ISC Wars Material or is there just not enough time?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 15, 2011 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Unless ADB directs otherwise I would like to have the on-line SIT updated before Origins; we should, in theory, have the SIT updated prior to the counters going to press. However, since SVC is the only who updates the SITs, I cannot speak to his availability to do so.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 07, 2011 - 02:37 pm: Edit

F&E Community:

I am currently compiling SIT reports for the ISC War SIT.

I need some assistance. While the product will contain all the needed counters for the module I want the SIT to include line item references for future units to include auxiliary units.

What I am currently missing is references to all the heavy auxiliary units. I need someone to look through the SFB R-section, module G3 and Captains' Logs and make an informal report here with the following info:

Unit Designation, rule reference #, SSD location/product, command rating

Please list all Heavy Auxes even if they would not normally be found/played in F&E so that we can account for their existence (but not necessarily for inclusion on the SIT) . Any takers?

Thanks & Cheers,
Chuck

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, February 07, 2011 - 02:54 pm: Edit

i've got module G3 and Jury Duty tomorrow. So I will take module G3 with me and work on that.