Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 02, 2014	25		04/02 10:14am
	Archive through April 07, 2014	25		04/07 07:31am
	Archive through May 01, 2014	25		05/01 05:20am
	Archive through May 02, 2014	25		05/02 11:46pm
	Archive through October 17, 2018	25		03/17 11:55pm

Yes, but it IS an 'emergency' type ship (which led to the various 'Exx' ships) …

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 07:57 pm: Edit

The relevant part of Chuck's request:

'We are filling holes in the SITs...'.

I don't think the DND fills a hole if it's already there.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, July 21, 2019 - 10:48 am: Edit

The list of F&E counters found in the Master index is from 2010. Does a newer version exist? It is helpful as a quick reference for various reasons including ordering spare parts.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 17, 2020 - 11:02 pm: Edit

F&E STAFF, et al:

How many E4As counters are needed to set up the basic game scenario?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, March 17, 2020 - 11:55 pm: Edit

Nineteen, three in each fleet, except for the TBS which has one.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 05, 2020 - 08:22 pm: Edit

General Question:

1. What missions can a Romulan KRT perform that a 3xFE cannot?

2. What missions can a Romulan 3xFE perform that a KRT cannot?

In other words, how better is one over the other in overall mission performance.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 05, 2020 - 08:52 pm: Edit

A single KRT can perform missions (509.1) C, D, E, F, H, J, K, M, T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z without restrictions. Unlisted missions require pods that are currently not available to the Romulans.

NOTE: (R4.126) provides conjectural pods for the combat missions that would require such pods for the KRT, along with the conjectural FHT, and SPT.
These are found in Module R9.

Each of the above listed missions for the KRT requires 2 or 3 FE to perform the same task. See (509.2) and the sub rules under (509.2).

For certain missions repetitive missions like X, Y, and Z it may be more productive to pay for convoys to carry out those type of missions. They are generally performed in areas away from combat in "relatively" safe areas of the empire.

I think it is more effective to just build 2xSPH when needed to perform tasks where you can't have a KRT and don't have the ability to send or cash to build more FEs.

In combat, the single KRT can be given the Formation Bonus without penalty. It is still possible for the KRT to be killed in said combat but it takes 36 points over 1 or 2 turns to do so. The 3xFE can not use the Formation Bonus slot effectively. While 1 ship could, the others would be exposed to directed damage at the normal combat rate of 2 to 1 (1 to 1, if an alliance mauler or x-Mauler effect is present). The destruction of any one of the 3xFE group reduces the ability of the group to perform the mission in question.

For Strategic Movement it is easier and cheaper to move 1 KRT rather than 3xFE from one location to another when needed for rapid redeployment.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 05, 2020 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Note that SPH can do any mission as a single ship that a KRT can do unless specifically noted otherwise. I know, for instance, that the SPH cannot move an FRD as a tug can.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 05, 2020 - 10:05 pm: Edit

With the exception of towing an FRD, the SPH is still a better value than a FE. One SPH costs 5 EPs and does most missions at 1/2 of a tug. The FE costs 6 and does the same missions as the SPH at 1/3 of a tug.

If the Romulans have the opportunity to acquire more Klingon Tugs for conversion to KRTs I'd do that. I can't see any circumstance that would be beneficial to produce more FEs when SPHs do the same things faster and cheaper on a per unit cost.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 05, 2020 - 10:05 pm: Edit

Duplicate post, deleted by author.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 05, 2020 - 10:15 pm: Edit

The KRT cannot perform the repair ship mission (509.1-E). Note that the SPH is not an LTT and can do any mission a KRT can do, as well as the repair ship mission except that it cannot move an FRD as a tug can. It can move 10 EPs (the SPH). I do not know if a 3FE can do the repair ship mission.

A couple pertinent rules for the SPH:

(516.33) Romulans: SPH functions as a full-sized tug with
some limits provided in (509.21). The SPH does not use
pods, although it can use the "repair tug" marker. It cannot
move an FRD by itself as it is still just a war cruiser hull. If
the Romulans were to buy a Klingon D5H it would be under
all LTT and all KRT restrictions due to the lack of pods.

(516.14) The Romulan SparrowHawk-H, which fills the
place of an LTT in the historical framework of the game
Star Fleet Battles, is treated as a standard tug for all
purposes in F&E (although it is prohibited from performing
certain missions).

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, April 05, 2020 - 10:22 pm: Edit

The 3FE cannot perform the rescue mission, the SPH is treated as an LTT for the rescue mission.

Note that the KRT and 3FE have the tug symbol on the SIT, as does the SPH.

The FE (single) has the theater transport symbol.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 12:22 pm: Edit

I would like to point out that 516.33 appears to be in conflict with the more recent rule of 509.1F, which explicitly states that an LTT can move an FRD.

LTTs are based on a CW hull. I see no reason why the SPH should not be allowed to move an FRD "as it is still just a CW hull" in view of 509.1F.

Suggest that clarification be requested from ADB on 516.33 in view of 509.1F to see if doctrine requires that the SPH *not* be able to perform the "move FRD" mission by itself.

Thanks,
-T

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 12:24 pm: Edit

The 3*FE has one advantage over the KRT: Numbers.

1) So long as a sufficient CR value unit is also present in the hex, 3*FE will serve as 3*SEQ versus the KRT 1*SEQ.

2) The 3*FE is, partially, more resistant to raids than a KRT. On the initial battle 3*FE is extremely resistant to raids. If an "alternative attack" is performed on one of the FE, then unless a rule says otherwise, the mission is completed and the maximum loss is 1*FE rather than the more valuable KRT.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 01:36 pm: Edit

The SPH is explicitly stated as being unable to move an FRD, this is a specific rule overriding the general rule of LTTs being able to do so. Perhaps this is due to Romulans being weird, or doctrine.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 02:31 pm: Edit

@Richard: What you say could certainly be true, and as it, I agree 516.33 explicitly clear.

My sole suggestion is that ADB be consulted to be sure that 516.33 is ADB's intent in view of 509.1F. Also, the wording of 516.33 is inconsistent with 509.1F given that LTTs (including the SPH) are CW hulls, and clearly most CW hull transports (i.e. LTTs, but for the SPH) are now allowed to carry FRDs by themselves.

Thus, when one or both products are updated, one or both rules should be revised to ensure consistency and that ADB's intent is properly reflected.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 03:14 pm: Edit

The SPH from day 1 has not been able to tow an FRD. The SPH is a modular CW not an LTT. It can perform many noncombat missions like a LTT can, but not tow an FRD. This is a design issue with the SPH and is unique to the Romulans.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, April 06, 2020 - 03:30 pm: Edit

It is more accurate to say it can perform many noncombat missions like a tug can, but not tow an FRD.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 04, 2020 - 07:08 pm: Edit

Can someone research the various HISTORICAL stasis units produced by the Klingons?

I'd like to know the type, name, and year in service, and if and when it was destroyed. Any other info or details would be helpful also. Source material should include R-section, SFB, F&E, and other SFU scenarios, SFU fiction, MSC, and ship name indexes.

Post data details here especially conflicting data.

Thanks,
FEDS

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, June 04, 2020 - 08:12 pm: Edit

D7A Spellbinder appears Y175 in SH81

C7A Fear commissioned Y184 and destroyed Y185 per class history of the C7 in CL22

C9A Admiral Kruge appears Y175 in SH81

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, June 04, 2020 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Hope this helps:

Rule Empire Type Unit Name

R1.89-R3 Klingon STF Stellar Fortress (Y179)

R3.17A Klingon B10A-Bm Battleship Separated Boom (Y185)

R3.17A Klingon B10A-BS Battleship Sub-Light Boom (Y195)

R3.17A Klingon B10A Battleship (Y195)

R3.82 Klingon B11 Super Battleship (Y178)

R3.83 Klingon B10V Heavy Carrier (Y186)

R3.84 Klingon B10S Space Control Ship (Y189)

R3.100 Klingon SBA Starbase With Stasis Field Generators (Y169)

R3.106A Klingon B8A Combined Stasis Dreadnought (Y175)

R3.107A Klingon B11VA Heavy Stasis Carrier (Y179)

R3.108A Klingon B11SA Stasis Domination Ship (Y181)

R3.147A Klingon MB10A Stasis Mauler Battleship (Y184)

R3.150 Klingon B10TA Stasis Emergency Battleship (Y183)

R3.A11 Klingon B9 Fast Battleship (Y175)

Rule	Scenario Name	Scenario Year	Description
SG2.0	Fleet Action	168	D5A R3.24 Klingon Stasis Cruiser
SG2.0	Fleet Action	168	D7A R3.8 Klingon Stasis Cruiser
SL71.0	Radey to the Rescue	175	D7A R3.8 Klingon Stasis Cruiser
SH81.0	Radey to the Rescue	175	D7AK R3.8 Klingon Stasis Cruiser
SL95.0	Get the Invincible!	183	SBA R3.100 Klingon Starbase With Stasis Field Generators

YIS	Unit	Designation	Name	Product	Year In Service	Year Out Of Service	Notes
176	Klingon C5A Light Stasis Dreadnought (R3.104A)		Commander Kurlt	CL46 - Captian's Log #46	176		Refitted from C5 in Y176
165	Klingon D7A Stasis Cruiser (R3.8)	11	Enchanter	MO3 - Module MO3 Starship Registry
172 (179)	Klingon D5A Stasis Cruiser (R3.24)		Reamer	MO3 - Module MO3 Starship Registry
172 (179)	Klingon D5A Stasis Cruiser (R3.24)		Rectifier	MO3 - Module MO3 Starship Registry
172 (179)	Klingon D5A Stasis Cruiser (R3.24)		Regressor	MO3 - Module MO3 Starship Registry
172 (179)	Klingon D5A Stasis Cruiser (R3.24)		Retainer	MO3 - Module MO3 Starship Registry			Brotherhood Banquet.
165	Klingon D7A Stasis Cruiser (R3.8)	2	Spellbinder	MO3 - Module MO3 Starship Registry			Klingon D7AK #2; converted from a damaged famous D7. Froze Federation ships in Y175 SH81.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, June 04, 2020 - 10:28 pm: Edit

F&E starts with 1 D7A. The next SFG kit is 169S for the 2nd ship which would be another D7. Any surviving D5A were conveted into DWAs.

Name	# of SFG Kits	YIS	Notes
Spellbiner D7A-2	1	165	Prototype
Enchanter D7A-11	1	?
Invincible B-10		2	Andro War
Insatiable B-10	2	186 (Boom only)	Andro War
Reamer D-5	1	?	from MSSB
Rectifier D-5	1	?	from MSSB
Regressor D-5	1	?	from MSSB
Retainer D-5	1	?	from MSSB
Admiral Kruge C9A-5	1	175
Fear C7A-4	1	184
Kommander Kurlt C-5A	1	176
Necromancer D7AX	1	183	Lost during Andro War vs a DOM
Starbase 2014	2	181S NLT	Winds of Fire

SFG	destination
165	Spellbinder
169	Enchanter
170	?
171	?
172	?
173	?
174	?
175	Admiral Kruge
176	?
177	?
178	?
179	?
180/181	Starbase 2014
182	?
183	Necromancer
184
185/186	Insatiable
187	?
188	?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, June 04, 2020 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Is that scenario with a SB with SFGs non conjectural? Presumably a B10 being protected by such a starbase would be in the capital hex.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, June 04, 2020 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Richard,

The scenario SL95 is a Academy training scenario.