Quote:
==========
Look closer at the SSDs and you will see the bigger change is from the DN to the CVA/SCS than it is from the CVA/CVAH to the SCS.
==========
And it is also a much bigger change going from a CNV to a PHX than it is going from a CON to a ROC.

Essentially, you are trying to ignore that converting a CVA to an SCS means that you need to partially _unconvert_ the CVA, usually by gutting out and reconfiguring part or all of the hanger bay(s).

On the CVA to CVA(H) conversion: Converting a carrier to use heavy fighters under the terms of J10.1 involves _nothing_ other than changing out the ready racks. Replacing a squadron of Kzinti TAAS with LAS is, in terms of what happens to the carrier, _exactly_ the same as what happens when replacing a squadron of TAAS with a squadron of TADS. It is below the threshold of things that would normally entail any expenditure of EP in F&E. That conversion is not relevant to the discussion of appropriate conversion cost for DN to SCS vs CVA to SCS vs DN to DNP.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Romulan PHX (SCS):

---

Quote:

Conversion from CNV is correct as is (5 EP): All CVA to SCS conversions (except Fed) have an established cost of 5 EP. Jason E. Schaff 03/27/2011

---

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Lyran SCS: Conversion cost for CV to SCS should be 8‡. The CV has all ready been converted to carry 12 fighters (6 fighter factors) in the exact same manner as the SCS. The change to the center hull area that allows a full PF flotilla is the same as that of a DNP which is listed as 8‡ to convert from a CA. Daniel G. Knipfer 03/27.2011

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Lyran SCS: Conversion from DNP is missing. This should be 2+12. This is equal to the CA to CV conversion as it adds the same fighter capability. The total cost of the DNP and CV conversions is equal to the SCS conversion and in line with similar conversions. Daniel G. Knipfer 03/27/2011

By Chris LaRusso (Soulcatcher) on Wednesday, March 30, 2011 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Thanks all.

I think I got it now.
The key word is 3 pts taken individually which means:

example 1: Lyran SC->CWS 4(minor). can be done at a starbase since each costs 3+3
example 2: Lyran DD->STJ 6. Must be done at the shipyard as it takes 4+3. Which is why you don't see a lot of those conversions.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 31, 2011 - 11:13 am: Edit

Chris,

You are correct. But a MUCH easier way to look at it is this. If the ++ conversion costs 3 or less or has (minor) after it in the Empire SITS then you can do it at any old SB (or minor conversion facility) if the ++ costs 4+ without being denoted as Minor then it requires someplace that can do a Major Conversion (such as the capital or a Major conversion Facility or Remus as a special rule).

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, April 04, 2011 - 07:08 pm: Edit

<Already done>

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 09:31 am: Edit

Mike C,

The 22 July 2008 Kzinti SITS I have has both of those dates for the DW/DWE already fyi

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, April 05, 2011 - 11:14 am: Edit

Thanks, I was just reviewing the topic and noticed that SVC had posted that they had not been done due to not being in proper format.

Since they are done, I have deleted the post.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 12:26 am: Edit

Hydran CHY: Notes Section. Rule reference is incorrect it should instead read "...Base Hull; unique ship (525.317), Limit one in service." L. Bergen 25 May 2011

By Mike Dowd (Duellist_69) on Sunday, June 05, 2011 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Not sure if anyone caught this.... (and I hope that the formatting is correct - never submitted one before.)

Gorn BATS: MB -> BATS cost listed as 7 + FTRS, should be 9 + FTRS to match all other empires. Mike Dowd, 05 June 2011

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Lyran DCS and NPF availability date listed as 178 (spring), PF production not available until 178B (502.22), and PFT production likewise not available until 178B (432.422).

At face value, this means the Lyrans can build one (or both?) of these PFTs spring 178, but can't put PFs on them due to (502.22).

Is this correct? And if so, what limit would the PFT(s) count against in Spring 178 before the 2/turn(432.422) limit kicks in?

Otherwise, do these need to be changed or a note added to avoid confusion?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Technically, they could and they would field intercepters instead of PFs although the NPF would start in Y178(Fall) as that is PF2 for the Lyrans and the DCS is Y179 (PF3) as it's an Control Ship (though prototyping could keep in Y178F).

As for which limit, the heavy fighter limit of course [which is technically also the PFT limit - see (530.223) in FO]

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Thanks Stewart.

Do I understand correctly?

Lyrans can build them under the heavy carrier limit (except they don't have a heavy fighter limit until turn 21, so 1/year), but they initially field interceptors. By interceptors you mean 1 normal 1 heavy fighter squadron?

Then they can exchange ftrs for PFs in 178B and 179A respectively?

Do I have it right?

Oh, and if I prefer to not exchange the fighters for PFs, then I keep a Lyran carrier with two squadrons?

Or are you saying they can't be built spring 178? If so, why not change the SIT?

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Interceptors are prototype PF's. They cost (I think) the same as PF's, but a squadron of six of them are only valued at 9 compot.

So no, you don't want them in place of PF's.

(Plus, I don't think Interceptors are officially in the game, and as such I don't think the DCS and NPF should be available until Fall 178.)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Interceptors are not officially in the game are it is unlikely they ever will be given how much better PFs are.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 01:13 am: Edit

Since I can't put PFs on them and interceptors aren't in the game yet, I guess I wont build them. I was just wondering why the availability date was 178 instead of 178B.

By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 09:07 pm: Edit

I'd build them just to get more of them into play sooner.

I'll bet it's an error, however.

By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Have the on-line SITS been updated to match counter changes in F&E 2010?

By John de Michele (Jdemichele) on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Greg,

Unlikely, given the push to get ISC Wars out.

John.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Greg, John is correct. With input from players and staff the decision was made to publish ISC War first before updating the other modules to the 2010 standard. Combined Operations is first in line to be updated to the 2010 rules. The factors on teh SIT and counters won't change. However it is my thinking that the SITs atleast as far as those units with a product listing of F&E and CO and possibly FO will need to have the SITs updated to the point where we can move forward from there.

Note that the above is my opinion and not any official word from ADB. ADB has the final say in how things will be done and in what order.

By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 05:33 pm: Edit

OK. Is there an SIT for F&E 2010 in the F&E 2010 rulebook?

By John de Michele (Jdemichele) on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Yes.

John.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 05:54 pm: Edit

Greg, there is a SIT in the 2010 rulebook for the base game units only.

By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 12:46 pm: Edit

That's what I hoped for and expected.