Here are the heavy auxiliaries in a table format for ease of reading.

Heavy Auxiliaries

Unit	Product	Rule #	F&E Cmd Rating	In F&E	Notes
F-OL	Adv M	23	0	No
F-OP	F1	41	3	No
F-TH	R11	74	4	No
HAB	CL28	J2	6	No
HAC	R8	60	5	No
HAM	R12	96	3	No
HAM+L-WT	R12	96	3	No	Duplicate with something added
HAP	R8	56	6	No
HAV	R8	55	6	No
HSC	R8	57	6	No	ISC HSC has this designator
OAL	R7	45A	6	No
YF-H	Y3	YR1.23	0	No	Early Years Unit

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, February 08, 2011 - 08:31 pm: Edit

I still have some more pages in G3 to look through. I want to make sure I get them all. The above is from the R1.0 section and is a general notation that all empires use these units.

The Federation HAP would be a conjectural unit as the Federation never used PFs. They would have a similar unit that carried F-111s though.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 - 11:36 am: Edit

Prime Teams (All): Some of these appear on the SIT under heading Mobile Support and some appear under Markers and Special Units. Suggest a standard be set and all personnel groups (Prime, Dip, Adm, MMG) be located together under one standardized heading. L Bergen 9 Feb 2011

Cargo Pods aka CP (All): Some empires (Kzinti/Klingon) have listings for Cargo Pods (CP) listed on the SIT, many do not. While all races have them in some form (pod, pallet, module, or pack) and each could be included in the game for many missions. None have been printed as a counter (and nor will they like be). Suggest a standard be set and all empires receive a listing on the SIT with a similar (subsumed) note that there are no printed counters for these. If not then I suggest the line item be stricken altogether and included in footnote rule or description for transport missions. L Bergen 9 Feb 2011

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 - 11:39 am: Edit

Note to the above post By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, February 08, 2011 - 08:28 pm:

ISC HSC is the ISC Heavy Scout, and has the designation HSC in SFB. This has been noted in the ISC War SIT reports previously and is included here only for reference.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 - 12:40 pm: Edit

ISC HSC: I have already recommended this unit's F&E designation be changed to "CLS" since HSC is already in universal use by Heavy Aux Space Control Ship published in CL.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 - 10:38 pm: Edit

re: Heavy Aux Scout. The abbreviation should be HAS.

The Large Aux Scout=LAS
The Small Aux Scout=SAS
Hench, Heavy Aux Scout=HAS

I know, I know, that G3 shows it as HSC. Not that should matter, since we have not been 100% authentic to the abbreviations for Aux's.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Scott:

Previously Established:
HAS = Heavy Aux Scout
HSC = Heavy Aux Space Control Ship
(two different units)

Problem:
ISC HSC = ISC Heavy Scout (based upon the ISC CL)
(Notional designation)

Thus my recommendation:
ISC CLS = ISC Heavy Scout (based upon the ISC CL)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 01:54 pm: Edit

Kzinti FKE: FF->FFK->FKE, currently listed as a two-step conversion costing two points, individual conversions are one point each, so the two-step should be 1+1-1 cost, IMO. Richard Eitzen 16 FEB 11

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Is it the intention of the powers that be that late war units like the Gorn CLX be fleshed out for ISC War being that they are leading up to the same era. Or is there going to be a tighter cardboard restriction for the remaining empires because of having to introduce so many new ISC units? Just curious (I know you have not started to look at any other SIT yet).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 05:11 pm: Edit

ISC WAR has never been intended, scheduled, promised, or projected to include a single non-ISC counter. I cannot say that the concept ever crossed my mind, but I CAN say that there is no way in heck that it would be possible. (Having said that is impossible, a thought struck my mind that something else might be, on a different subject, which -- if it works out -- I may discuss with you all at another time).

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Richard, we did that on purpose when we did AO. Because it is just too awesome of a conversion for 1EP. It's an exception to the general rule.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, February 17, 2011 - 11:55 am: Edit

Okay Steve thanks for the response...I though that it was packed enough with those pesky ISC folks.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 05:34 am: Edit

Kzinti CVE: Conversion Cost 1+6 This cost should match other empires Escort Carrier Conversion costs which are 1 + fighters. Thomas Mathews 20 Feb 2011

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 06:05 am: Edit

Kzinti CVE: Construction Cost 7+6 This cost should match other empires Escort Carrier Construction costs which Base Hull + 1 + fighters. Thomas Mathews 20 Feb 2011

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 09:50 am: Edit

Kzinti CVE:
Disagree with the above analysis: Kzinti CVE build and conversion costs should remain as currently on the SIT. The problem with the analogy is that everyone else's CVEs are built on SC4 hulls, while the Kzinti CVE is SC3. The nearest analogy for the Kzinti CL to CVE conversion is the Romulan NH to SUP conversion (adds 4 fighter factors, no change in compot or CR), which is a 2 EP conversion.
Jason E. Schaff 02/20/2011

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 11:44 am: Edit

Hmmm... I thought that the conversion costs of carriers were based on the number of fighters, not the size of the hull.

Therefore, I agree with Thomas's interpretation.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 12:17 pm: Edit

The Kzinti CL to CVE is also analagous to the Klingon D6 to D6Y conversion, which adds 2.5 fighter factors at a cost of 2 EP.

On the other side of the equation, the Hydran DG to CV and TR to CVM conversions each add 9 fighter factors, but costs only 2 EP instead of the 3 that would normally be expected.

There are a few exceptions to the general correlation of the number of fighters added with cost of conversion, and there is not any particular reason why the Kzinti CVE should not be part of that group.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 09:18 am: Edit

Kzinti DWE: Add escort symbol to uncrippled and crippled factors. This unit is a qualfied carrier escort. Thomas Mathews 28 Feb 2011

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 09, 2011 - 12:47 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Q437.21. Is the conversion from Romulan FH->SUB a minor conversion?

A437.21 This is not a rule question but a SIT question and needs to be addressed there.

---

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, March 09, 2011 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Ted, even if that conversion is minor, it's still only allowable in the shipyard since the SUB is a heavy carrier (CVA). So really that's just semantics.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, March 09, 2011 - 09:36 pm: Edit

Note (433.45) which allows the Romulans to convert CVAs at Remus...

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 09:35 am: Edit

Stewart, that's because Remus can make a Major conversion. CVAs are still limited to 1/year and in a capital hex, which Remus still is.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 04:14 pm: Edit

There is only one capital/shipyard hex per empire -- Romulus is -- Remus is not.

Just because Remus has a starbase, in a "capital" hex, capable of doing major conversion may not mean it can do CVA conversions. If so, then if a Gorn player pays the extra cost can he convert a CVA at a lesser capital hex?

What is the exact wording of the rule?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Can someone post ALL the possible configuration combinations for FRDs? I want to see the complete list only to see how long the list would be...

Thanks.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, March 14, 2011 - 06:51 pm: Edit

The relevant wording from 433.45:

==========
...CVA and SCS ships can only be produced (including conversions) in a capital shipyard. (Exception: the Romulans can make their one allowed CVA/SCS at Remus if they wish. (433.15)...
==========