Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Federation SIT Files	2		05/28 04:39am
	Processed Federation SIT Reports	130		04/29 03:02pm
	Archive through June 27, 2020	25		07/29 09:48pm
	Archive through April 04, 2021	24		05/22 06:26pm
	Archive through September 16, 2023	25		01/19 06:57pm

Should not the HWXK's factors be "9-10(1)/5(0.5)" and not "10(1)/5(0.5)"? The base HDX's factors are "8-10(1)/4-5(0.5)".


FEDS: The above SIT report capture that...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 22, 2023 - 12:34 pm: Edit

HDW AOG: Recommend changing proposed Build cost from 0+18 to 0+20. Rationale: SIT line entries for units such as the NVA and NHA charge 20 EPs for their respective "full" squadrons of A-20s; as opposed to the 18 EPs charged for the "full" squadrons of F-111s on the likes of the NVH and NHV. Thus, should the HDW AOG be charged for this unique type of heavy fighter at the same rate? - Gary Carney, 22 September 2023
FEDS: NON-CONCURS. No change required. Rationale: The hybrid factor is "converted" and the mission configuration cost absorbs the cost of the last A-20.

HDW ZOG: Recommend not adjusting the Build cost from 2+12 to the proposed 2+11 listed above. Rationale: As noted in (527.13), F-111s cost 2 points per fighter factor. For "full" squadrons of 6 F-111s, this would be 18 EPs, as noted in the SIT line entries for units such as the NVH and NHV. Thus, for the "short" squadron of 4 F-111s in the HDW ZOG, should the same rate continue to result in a cost of 12 EPs? - Gary Carney, 22 September 2023}
FEDS: NON-CONCURS. No change required. Rationale: The hybrid factor is "converted" and the mission configuration cost absorbs the cost of the last F-111.

Precedent found in (525.23V):

---

Quote:

...There is no need to pay the cost of converting the one hybrid fighter on the HDW to “true” carrier status; this is assumed if the COG* is in use...

---

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 19, 2024 - 10:39 am: Edit

Federation FFT: Over in Star Fleet Battles, there is both the Federation theatre transport frigate (or FFT) and the Federation VIP transport frigate (or FFP). In SSD terms, the main difference is that the Cargo boxes on the base hull are swapped out for C Hull boxes. The resulting ship can be used as a passenger transport (though it retains the ability to carry a pod), but historically was often used by Star Fleet to transport diplomatic teams. Does the current SIT listing cover both the FFT and FFP? As in, would both SFB variants be considered as functionally equivalent to one another for the purposes of F&E? - Gary Carney, 19 January 2024

To clarify, the above is not intended to add a would-be FFP line entry if one is not warranted. I ask in light of a proposal being discussed over on the SFB side of the BBS for a different empire, and wished to clear up what - if any - precedent exists for this type of mission variant here.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Friday, January 19, 2024 - 12:33 pm: Edit

IIRC (rulebooks at home, while I'm at work right now):

Aside from designated Klingon diplomatic cruisers, any Empire's ships with an Attack Factor of 5 or less can be used as a diplomatic transport, and when doing so with a DIP aboard, it is assumed to not count against any Empire's strategic movement limits.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, January 19, 2024 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Gary,

We have the FFT not the FFP. Like you said, fuctionally the same.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, January 21, 2024 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Sounds good, thanks for the clarification.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, January 07, 2025 - 11:50 pm: Edit

All SIT notes cleared to this point.