Heavy Hawk Discussion
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E Master SITs:
04-Romulan SIT Updates:
Processed Romulan reports:
Heavy Hawk Discussion
I moved all this stuff here because while I see a lot of things being discussed I have yet to see any line items for action.
I have been doing some in-depth research on Romulan two-step conversions (437.0) as part of our SIT update project. After reviewing all of the four-engine (Heavy-Hawks) SSDs I can see that we may have some corrections ahead based upon the data.
As we all know, (437.1) ALLOWABLE CONVERSIONS states:
Quote:This is only possible when the first conversion is to a larger ship class and the second is to a variant of that larger class.
| ORIGINAL | INTERIM | FINAL |
| SP | FH | NH |
| FH | NH | KH, NHB, SUP, SUB, TH |
| FHB | NHB | SUB |
|
Since the above rule is definative, logic then says that the following conversions would NOT be allowed as they would be in effect "three-step" conversions:
| SP | FH | NH | KH, NHB, SUP, SUB, TH |
| SPB | FHB | NHB | SUB |
Here is the data and sorting I have gathered on the Heavy-Hawk series of ships:
| HEAVY CRUISERS | |
| . | | |
| Designation | FIREHAWKS (Cruiser Chassis - Sub-Class) | SFB Analog - Not needed in F&E |
| FH | FireHawk-A/K, Heavy Cruiser - BASE HULL | RegalHawk-K |
| FHB | FireHawk-B, Heavy Cruiser Medium Carrier | RegalHawk-B |
| FHC | FireHawk-C, Heavy Cruiser Survey/Scout Ship | RegalHawk-C |
| FHE | FireHawk-E, Heavy Cruiser PFT | RegalHawk-E |
| FHF | FireHawk-F, Heavy Cruiser Mauler (Dual Cannon) | |
| FHM | FireHawk-M, Heavy Cruiser Escort | |
| FHP | FireHawk-P, Heavy Cruiser Mauler (Single Cannon) (K-Modules) | |
| FHT | FireHawk-T, Heavy Cruiser Tug | |
| VHK | ViperHawk, Heavy Cruiser Interdiction Carrier (Slightly Modifided FH Chassis) (B-Modules) | |
| FFH | FastHawk-A/K, Heavy Cruiser Fast Ship | |
| . | | |
| FHX | FireHawk-KX, Heavy Cruiser X-Ship (X-Modified FH Chassis) - BASE X-HULL? | |
| FHEX | FireHawk-EX, Heavy Cruiser PFT X-Ship (X-Modified FH Chassis) | |
| FHFX | FireHawk-FX, Heavy Cruiser Mauler X-Ship (X-Modified FH Chassis) | |
| . | | |
| . | | |
| FARHAWKS (Cruiser-Carrier Chassis - Sub-Class) | |
| FAK | FarHawk-K, Heavy Cruiser Medium Carrier (Single Ship Carrier) | |
| FAB | FarHawk-B, Heavy Cruiser Heavy Carrier | |
| FHU | FarHawk-U, Heavy Cruiser Area Control Ship (U-Modules) | |
| . | | |
| . | | |
| SUPER-HEAVY CRUISERS | |
| . | | |
| NOVAHAWKS (Command Cruiser Chassis - Sub-Class) | |
| NH | NovaHawk-K, Command Cruiser - BASE HULL | RoyalHawk-K |
| NHB | NovaHawk-B, Command Cruiser Medium Carrier | |
| . | | |
| NHX | NovaHawk-X, Command Cruiser X-Ship (X-Modified NH Chassis) - BASE X-HULL? | |
| . | | |
| . | | |
| SUPER-HEAVY CRUISERS (Command Cruiser-Carrier Chassis - Sub-Class) | |
| SUP | SuperHawk-A/K, Super-Heavy Hull, Command Cruiser-Carrier; Single Ship Carrier | |
| SUB | SuperHawk-B, Super-Heavy Hull, Heavy Carrier | |
| SUN | SuperHawk-N, Super-Heavy Hull, Battle Carrier (BCV) | |
| TH | ThunderHawk, Super-Heavy Hull, Battle Control Ship (BCS) (E-Modules) | |
| SUU | SuperHawk-U, Super-Heavy Hull, Division Control Ship (Slightly Modified SUP Chassis) (B-Modules) | |
| KH | KillerHawk, Super-Heavy Hull, Command Cruiser (Slightly Modified SUP Chassis) | |
| |
|
Conclusion:
Since the rules already illustrate that Heavy-Hawks are a "larger class" than the SparrowHawks, the same rules also show that Super-Heavy Cruisers are a "larger class" than the Heavy-Hawks.
Bottomline:
Unless proven wrong via data, I can see no way that ANY SparrowHawk based hull can be converted via the (437.0) to ANY Super-Heavy Hawk without it being a "three-step" conversion and thus not permitted by rule.
DISCUSSION IS OPEN ON THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC.
Chuck, the FH->NH/SUP is the same amount of converting at the SB/yard.
There are what like an extra 8x ftr boxes and some power (IIRC), so we have decided in the past, that it is still a single step to go from a FH to either the NH or SUP.
Now the KH would probably be the exception.
Scott:
I'm quoting the rule (437.1) that specfically says FH to SUP is two-step; go check it out.
Currently the FHT, FHEX, and FHFX are not in F&E.
Scott:
I been thinking about your statement "...the same amount of converting..." and "There are what like an extra 8x ftr boxes and some power...".
We really don't want to start doing that sort of thing where we go count goes on SSDs. Witness the Lyran NCA and NCC conversions from a CW; one is a one-step and the other is a two-step but the NCC literally only adds two shuttle and two impulse boxes over the NCA. We don't want to have subjective arguments over which box count and types of boxes makes a conversion a one-step vs two-step.
Turtle:
The FHT, FHEX, and FHFX are included for completeness and to show a pattern (same for the royal/regals).
Chuck, the problem is that there is a legacy conversions involved (CvW = SP-NH-SUP/SUB/TH or FH-NH-SUP/SUB/TH). One possible way out is to declare the NH/SUP 'sister ships' which would allow the SP to be converted into either the NHx/SUx as a double conversion [SP-FH-NH/SUP].
The main difference between the two is the shuttle/hull (SUP - 4 shuttle / NH - 4 hull + 2 lab)...
OK, going over the records -
NH-SUP - F&E(86)
FH-SUP and FH-NH - F&Er2(90)
SP-FH - Carrier War (93)
(437) SP-FH-NH and FH-NH-SUB (CvW).
AO SIT (03) SPB-SUB (not listed as double conversion though FH-SUB was) and SP-SUP (also not listed as double conversion)
F&Er3 does not list SP-FH but r4 SIT does...
Stew:
The rule is quite specific -- please reread it and explain how you cannot conclude otherwise.
SparrowHawks are defense base 7 CW/CLs with typical CR6
FireHawks are defense base 9 CA/NCAs with typical CR8
NovaHawks are defense base 10 CC/NCCs with typical CR9
Super-Heavy Hawk Cruisers are defense base 10 BCHs with typical CR9
Here is an exercise --- go print out EVERY four engine hawk and sort them all like I did above. Look at the base hull CHASSIS of each (without modules) and you will see what I'm talking about.
Chuck,
Now this is my looking at R4 and R11 only, the Sup-A and NH-K/RH-K are the same, the outlines are the same (for the base-hull, ignoreabout the modules), so I don't follow your reasoning.
To me, the SUP and NH are BOTH Command Cruisers, the SUP is not an upgraded NH. So going from a FH->NH/SUP is still one conversion, there is no intermediate step between NH->SUP, it is the same amount of work to go to either from the FH.
I would agree with you that the modules mounted on the base hull should not matter, as that's the freaky bonus the Hawk-series gets for the Roms, lucky them.
In your 941pm post, I don't follow why you are considering the Superhawk Heavy Cruisers as a "BCH", while they might fill that role, they have the exact same amount of internals and shielding as the NH. From my count the SUP has **2** more internals than the NH. This would then affect the SUB, SUN, SUU, and TH on your chart because they made by just changing modules on the SUP-A/K. (The SUU changes the internal 12xSHUTTLE w/ 8xREPAIR+4xTRAC, not a significant change).
I don't disagree with the KH stuff, it's the SUP stuff I have I have concerns about.
Scott:
The NH and SUP chassis are NOT the same:
| NH | SUP |
| Rear Hull | 14 | 10 |
| Lab | 4 | 2 |
| Fighters | 0 | 8 |
| . | | |
| Deck Crews | 0 | 8 |
Adding eight fighters bays IS significant -- this also makes the SUP a TRUE carrier (not a casual carrier) in F&E.
It's also more than just an SSD box count. One is a command cruiser and the other is a command cruiser-CARRIER. The SUP in SFB has ready racks/loading bays and can loan EW to its fighters. In F&E the SUP has the command & control ability (i.e. software) to use and be protected by up to three escorts as a MEDIUM Carrier; it can also send its fighters forward from the rear echelon.
Again reading the chart after (437.1); it SPECIFICALLY shows the conversion from the FH to NH to SUP as a TWO-STEP conversion.
What that chart conveys is that the NH is the LARGER version of the FH and that the ALL SuperHawks (A/B/E/N/U) are CARRIER VARIANTS of that larger (NH) class based upon the WORDING OF THE RULE:
"(437.1) ALLOWABLE CONVERSIONS: This is only possible when the first conversion is to a larger ship class and the second is to a variant of that larger class."
I find this discussion very interesting. After examining the SSDs within reach and pouring over some rules and the Romulan SIT I have some questions and observations. Perhaps some of questions should be posted in the "Why" topic because what would be helpful is the original intention of the designers with regards to the 3rd Gen Romulan modular ships and their progression trees of conversions in the SFU, versus sacrifices made in the real world to get these units into a boxed wargame.
1) According to the the latest revised version of the Romulan SIT, the "Super-Heavy Cruisers" are a FH "Base Hull Size". Should this have any bearing on this debate? They are not considered BCHs, but CCs. Although, their capabilities dovetail nicely vis-a-vis BCHs of other empires which lends itself to balanced playability without necessarily creating a new Class of ship for the Roms.
2)FE2K (433.43) states that SP & SK are modular and does not include FHs. This wasn't a problem then as there were no variants at the time other than the FH-A in the basic game. Has this rule changed in FE2010? (I'm ordering my new rules and ISC War now!)
3) Some Hawk-series ships lose their ability to perform modular conversions. FE2K(433.434) mentions SPJ and SPM are permanent. I get the mauler. That makes sense (just like the SPH). But what is the rationale for the escort? Was it because of a counter shortage (as they were aleady included on the CV group counters) in the production of the game? Was this a sacrifice to bridge a gap somewhat like the creation of the CEDS rule? Has this changed in the FE2010 rules? I know CEDS is gone. Or is it becuase of the "hightened targeting electronics" escorts employ? Would a FHM be a permanent conversion since it uses the M-modules from a SP? A DMH with M-modules? Seems wonky.
4) Other modular ship variants that become permanent: the FH-class, the SIT states that the FHB is not modular. Why? Doesn't it just use B-modules? Also, FarHawks FHU (shouldn't that read "FAU" to avoid confusion?) isn't modular but the FAB is and the FAK does not say it isn't but maybe shouldn't be.
I'm of the opinion that switching out modules should have an EP cost but should *not* be counted as a step in the 2-Step Conversion process. SP->FH? don't generally give a savings in the first place. SUP/NH are the command variants of the FH, to my understanding. The Romulan OOB states that one can convert a SP->SUP/NH once per turn, and few few months back I asked why there was no SP->SUP conversion cost in the SIT. The modules are a commodity that are paid for, in and of themselves. Modularity and an extended(?) conversion tree should be a perk for the Romulans (who were late to the race) but are in essence building a fleet with the newest shipbuilding philosophy. This philosophy ended up being mimicked to an extent by other empires later in the form of HDWs.
I know there is much more to the debate...
Cheers for now and thanks! 
Andy
(squeeking from the back of the peanut gallery)
I recommend you get the F&E 2010 rules.
All four engine hawks MUST hard-weld all their modules...
(R4.N3) Notes on Heavy Hawk Series states that: “...Due to the different dynamic balance of these larger ships, the use of easily changeable modules became impossible. The modules had to be "hard-welded" to the hull, requiring a major shipyard overhaul for conversion rather than the relatively simple plug-in system used in the SparrowHawk.”
Hm. Food for thought... thanks Chuck! New rules are on the way!
Chuck,
The numbers you have for the difference between the NH and SUP is what I see too.
But what I am saying, is that when going from a FH to either the NH or SUP, it is the same amount of work, for the conversion crew.
Like this:
| Class | Hull | Lab | Shut | other ints |
| FH | 16 | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| NH | 20 | 4 | 4 | 7 |
| SUP | 16 | 2 | 12 | 7 |
* "Other Ints" in this case being TRANS/TRAC as I believe everything else is the same.
So when the Shipyard converts a FH->NH, it adds 8 of these internals (besides power). When the Shipyard converts a FH->SUP, it adds 10 of these internals (again besides power).
So how can their "have" to be a step from FH->NH->SUP, when it is (practically) the same amount of work going from FH->SUP?
Regarding the NH/SUP being the same, then we will have to agree to disagree because to me they ARE the same. Number of hull boxes does not define a ship, its the volume. So the SUP is a little more cramped then the NH, oh well.
There are other ships which loose hull to FTR boxes to make carrier conversions. The simpliest ones I see are the Hydran COSSACK/SENTINEL (CW-hull) which has 4 less hull than the MONGOL (base hull). They have less hull than the NVL (CL-hull), but when you upgrade the NVL->COM (name change in F+E), it's still a different class.
I think you might be putting too much weight on the number of hull boxes present.
No - because in F&E the rule (437.1) says so.
Additional proof that the NH is the "base hull" of the super-heavy series and that all of super-heavies are variants of that series: salvage.
The NH cost 10 to build with a salvage value of 2.5; NH base hull value 10 x 25% = 2.5.
The SUP cost 11 to build with a salvage value of 2.5; NH base hull value 10 x 25% = 2.5.
The SUP cost 12 to build with a salvage value of 2.5; NH base hull value 10 x 25% = 2.5.
The NHB cost 12 to build with a salvage value of 2.5; NH base hull value 10 x 25% = 2.5.
The SUN cost 12 to build with a salvage value of 2.5; NH base hull value 10 x 25% = 2.5.
The TH cost 15 to build with a salvage value of 2.5; NH base hull value 10 x 25% = 2.5.
The KH cost 12 to build with a salvage value of 2.5; NH base hull value 10 x 25% = 2.5.
If the SUP was the base hull then it would have a salvage value of 2.75.
Con't...
The reason: the NH is the larger CC/BCH base hull and all others are CC/BCH cruiser-CARRIER variants of that base hull (except the KH - it's the shock variant).
Aahhh, I see, another retcon, looks like the SUP cost was increased with AO from 10 to 11...of course AO also allows the SP-NH/SUP (once per turn) in (704.4)/SIT but it was not carried over to 2KX.
That said, I disagree that the NH and SUP are NOT the same chassis...just the same hull finished in different direction, the SUP as a carrier and the NH as a cruiser.
Now that extra point of construction for the SUP could be considered a 'carrier surcharge' that isn't used in figuring the salvage cost...
However, the question is now - does AO still 'overrule' the basic ruleset in this regard (as THAT is what's allowing the SP/SUP, SPB/SUB conversions)??
Stew:
Are you ignoring the specific FO rule (437.1) and the chart that follows? FO was published after AO. Without FO and its two-step conversion rule players cannot perform any two-step conversions. (437.0) is the specific rule on two-steps and your argument is not supported by it.
Can you or anyone else show me in the F&E RULES that (437.0) is NOT definative and that FH > NH > SUP is NOT a two-step conversion?
Stewart I see the conversion cost of 3+8 as 2 (conversion to Command Cruiser (NH)) + 2 (conversion to Carrier (SUP)) - 1 (2 step conversion discount) under the 2010 SIT in the 2KX rulebook.
This makes the conversion a 2 step conversion without the actual designation of such under the 2010 rules.
(437.0) spells out in detail this and other conversions that require 2 steps regardless of empire. The Romulan Hawk series with their modules make this task much more difficult and details must be examined more closely for units that qualify for the 2 step conversion discount.
I see nothing in (437.0) or the (R4.x) SFB Rules that indicate otherwise.
Sure.
(437.0)
Quote:"In some cases,..."
(437.1)
Quote:... Some examples include:
The examples of (FO437.X) shows some specific examples chosen for illustration. The table of (437.1) does not define every possibility and is not wholely definitive.
I always thought that the SUP and NH were sister command cruiser variants (somewhat like the slew of Hydran CA command variants). You could go either way especially since the SUP seemed a bit more sophisticated than the NH and entered service 3 years prior and was much more expensive. It never seemed like that much of a stretch regarding the conversion cost of the base hull (2 vs. 3) of FH-> NH or SUP. It was if I could afford the cool option of having the fighters. The option of the NH in Y173 seemed like an option of convenience since Romulan economic exhuastion was right around the corner. Also as an aside, even though I always felt that the Rom super-heavies were the Rom the best answer to other empires' intro of BCHs, without actually designing and producing that larger class of ship, they were ultimately a second best solution with the resources at hand. Although the SUP/NH enter service at a relatively early date and have the combat capabilities comparible to a BCH of other empires that come online around Y180, the super-heavy class Rom ships only have a command rating of 9 as intrinsically they are only command cruisers, as opposed the a BCH command rating of 10 that other empires enjoy.
Missed a post while I was writing...
I suppose, in a nut shell, this debate is coming down to is the SUP command cruiser a variant of the NH command cruiser, or are they sister ship command variants. They are both based on a FH hull. Si or No?
Quote:All four engine hawks MUST hard-weld all their modules...
(R4.N3) Notes on Heavy Hawk Series states that: “...Due to the different dynamic balance of these larger ships, the use of easily changeable modules became impossible. The modules had to be "hard-welded" to the hull, requiring a major shipyard overhaul for conversion rather than the relatively simple plug-in system used in the SparrowHawk.”
Um, wasn't this changed in Module R10? I don't have R10 handy so I am not certain. I thought firehawks and regalhawks were retconned to be modular like the sparrowhawk.
Because (437.0/1) states some examples, I appreciate that Chuck opened this topic to debate. Ultimately I believe the end result will be a bit of a stretch either way. I like the fact that we can hash it out though and it gives us all a proud opportunity to a sense of ownership of this awesome game. Thanks Chuck!
Andy
I can find nowhere in R10 that made four engine hawks modular.
Quote:I suppose, in a nut shell, this debate is coming down to is the SUP command cruiser a variant of the NH command cruiser, or are they sister ship command variants. They are both based on a FH hull. Si or No?
No. According to rule (437.1) and the chart that accompanies it, the NH is a LARGER command variant conversion of the FH; the SUP is a command-carrier VARIANT of the NH.
There are various opinions being expressed but I am not seeing any rules that support these opinions.
Advanced Operations 2003 through SFU:BBS 2006 (reformatted in 2008): SIT
| NH | Base Hull FH(3) (see Annex 755.0 Ship class chart) Base Hull = Heavy Cruiser | Notes: Command Cruiser (variant of CA implied) |
| |
| SUP | Base Hull FH(3) (see Annex 755.0 Ship class chart) Base Hull = Heavy Cruiser | Notes: Medium Carrier; Command Cruiser (variant of CA implied) |
Annex 751.0 Conversion Costs (AO-2003) "...Most of the data from this annex was transferred to the new Ship Information Tables. Some items are too complicated to include in the SITs and are listed here."
Annex 751.0 Conversion Costs (AO-2003) Romulans: Last Line "SUP/NH can be converted into anything an FH can be converted into." I read this as: A SUP command cruiser or NH command cruiser (both CC variants of the CA) can be converted into anything a FH heavy cruiser can be converted into. NH or SUP can be converted into ANY of the super-heavies and all of the FH variants (excepting the FAK, FAB) listed on the 2008 SITs.
Based on the information on the SITs of 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 and two Annexes (751, 755) a case could be made that it is in fact 437.1 chart (published 2004) that was done in error. In addition the 2008 SIT reformatted title block of Super Heavy Cruiser is a mistake in the sense that ALL of the ships are listed as base hull FH(3) and thus are no different than the FH(3) variants listed under Firehawk Heavy Cruiser title block. There are only two ships that do not list FH as a conversion source the NHB & TH and thus could warrant each of these being added to the list of 2-step conversions (but maybe they are just over sites themselves that should also have a FH cost added to their SIT listing). More confusion was added when the double cross tag was added to the conversions listed from 437.1 which incorrectly (based upon annex 751) shows the NH as an interim step. The fix could be to remove these tags and the listings on the 437.1 chart. The Fed CC is not represented as an interim step of the Fed CA variant ships. The Klingon D7C is not represented as an interim step of the D7 class ships. The NH should not be represented as an interim step of the FH class ships.
Aside: Based upon annex 751.0 all of the ships listed on the SIT under these two title blocks should show a SUP conversion cost where they do not. Example: SUP > NHB
Since FO has not been updated to the 2010 format chart 437.1 can be changed/published when that product is updated.
The only retcon in R10 was that the heavy hawks used more module types than were originally published, but they still must be treated as regular conversions, they are not modular.
Chuck, Thomas - one thing, I've given my opinion on the NH/SUP as sister ships and have given what's in the ruleset (under the (751) and SIT).
Even if it is rules that it's SP-FH-NH-SUP, you still have AO (704.4) with 'Maximum of one SP to NH/SUP conversion per turn with the cost listed in the AO sit (not marked as a double conversion).
(437.1) - 'The list above, extensive as it is, is not complete. Many allowable two-step conversion are noted on the SIT. Anything not listed should be considered impossible unless noted on another officially published list.'
I think that AO (704.4)/AO SIT is an officially published listing...
So either the NH/SUP are sister ships and the SP/SUP is a double conversion or the SP-SUP (includes SPB/SUB and SUE/TH) conversion is something special to/for the Romulans (unless overruled at a later date)...
FYI: A TH is a SUE (SuperHawk-E).
Hmmm, that was supposed to be 'SPE/TH' or maybe 'SPE/SUE', but...
If memory serves, "SU-E" is actually a Tellarite battle cry to rally their warriors...
ROMULAN 000: NOTE ON UNUSUAL CONVERSION COSTS: In cases where one step of a two-step conversion is only 1 EP and we have historically not applied the double conversion discount (-1 EP) double conversion cost; reference the Kzinti FF to FKE double conversion as the precedent. We will add this note to (437.0) Two-Step Conversions errata for update of FO and the Warbook. STRONG - 24 JAN 2012 ## SVC: Ok, go with that.
ROMULAN 000: RECOMMENDATION: Search and replace in ALL conversion columns for the term "minor" and replace with the new minor conversion designator. STRONG - 24 JAN 2012 ## SVC: I so desperately wish I could, but the search system cannot seem to grasp fonts so it turns it into the appropriate letter in helvetica font, which has to be manually converted to zapf dingbats, so there’s really nothing gained and in fact that makes them harder to find. Those searches can only be done manually. EVEN WORSE, the only way to change fonts to scroll all the way down the font menu which has over 400 fonts on it. Please do not repeat this report line item in future files as it’s pointless.
Romulan SUPER-HEAVY CRUISERS: Romulan KH: Conversion cost from FH should have "(minor)" added since both sub-steps of the two-step conversion each cost 3 EPs or less (437.21). FH>NH>KH=2+3-1=4 (minor). Jeff Coutu 19 January 09 STRONG: CONCURS – ADD "minor" designator. ## SVC: done
Romulan SUPER-HEAVY CRUISERS: NH: Conversion cost from SP should have "(minor)" added since both sub-steps of the two-step conversion each cost 3 EPs or less (437.21). SP>FH>NH=3+2=5 (minor); [no -1 discount since SIT has "confirmed"]. Jeff Coutu 19 January 09 STRONG: CONCURS – ADD "minor" designator; MOVE "confirmed" notation from conversion section to notes section: "Unusual conversion costs confirmed." ## SVC: added mark, nothing to be gained by moving "confirmed" and in fact that would cause confusion as t WHAT was confirmed so it was not moved. Please do not make such recommendations in future.
Romulan SUPER-HEAVY CRUISERS: TH: Add to conversions "From FH‡: 7+8". FH>NH>TH=2+[6+8]-1=7+8. This two-step conversion is listed in (437.1) but is not on the SIT. Jeff Coutu 19 January 09 STRONG: CONCURS – ADD conversion: From FH‡: 7+8 ## SVC: added.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FHB: Conversion cost from SP should have "(minor)" added since both sub-steps of the two-step conversion each cost 3 EPs or less (437.21). SP>FH>FHB=3+[1+16]=4+16 (minor); [no -1 discount per SIT ruling posted on 14 Aug 08]. Jeff Coutu 19 January 09 STRONG: CONCURS – ADD "minor" designator; ADD to notes section: "Unusual conversion costs confirmed." ## SVC: done.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FHC: The SIT and counters are mis-designated as survey ships; the "FHC" is a FH with scout "C" modules added (like the SPC); in F&E we use the "S" suffix (such as the FHS) on Romulan modular SP/FH ships to designate that a ship carries the "C" modules but has ALSO been modified to conduct survey operations; the ship is also given a colored diamond to designate it as a fully qualified survey ship. See (542.1) on survey ship conversion costs; this conversion cost is NOT to be confused for the infrastructure supports costs listed under (542.26). TEMPORARY REMEDY RECOMMENDATION: Continue to use FHC counters as a (FHS) survey unit; players wishing to produce a true FHC can color-in the scout diamond with a black marker designating it a scout-only unit. REMOVE "Survey Ship" from FHC notes section. ADD note: "Counter mis-designated; color-in diamond to use as scout only ship". A separate line item report for the FHS is filed. STRONG - 24 JAN 2012 ## SVC: Not done. I need to further review this and may in the end leave it alone. It takes a board of directors vote to change an F&E counter and you may just have to live with the entry as is.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FHS: Ship was not properly designated in SO and needs to be added. RECOMMENDATION: COPY FHC line and create new FHS line with the following CHANGES: From SP: 7‡ [calc 3+5 (-1)]; From SPS: 3; From FH: 5; For FH: 13 [calc 8+5; reference is (542.1)]. STRONG - 24 JAN 2012 ## SVC: not done, see above.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FHC Build Cost: 13 The FH costs 8 and Survey Ships add 5 across the board per empire. Thomas Mathews 6 Dec 2011 STRONG: NON-CONCURS; Ship was not properly designated in SO as FHS; a separate line item report is filed. No change required if FHS line is added. ## SVC: nothing done, see above.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FHC: Conversion cost from FH should be 5, not 4. Survey ship conversions (including modular SP to SPS) consistently cost 5 EP. - Jason E. Schaff 12/6/2011 ## SVC: nothing done, as there is no staff endorsement. If this is part of the survey ship thing, see above.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FHC Build Cost: 13 The FH costs 8 and Survey Ships add 5 across the board per empire. Thomas Mathews 6 Dec 2011 STRONG: NON-CONCURS; Ship was not properly designated in SO as FHS; a separate line item report is filed. No change required if FHS line is added. ## SVC: Nothing done, see above.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FHC: Conversion from SP should be a 7 (not 6) point 2-step conversion. Cost is 3 EP for SP to FH + 5 EP for FH to FHC -1 EP for 2-step. - Jason E. Schaff 12/6/2011 ## SVC: no action taken as there is no staff endorsement.
Romulan FireHawk Heavy Cruisers: FHC Build Cost: 13 The FH costs 8 and Survey Ships add 5 across the board per empire. Thomas Mathews 6 Dec 2011 STRONG: NON-CONCURS; Ship was not properly designated in SO as FHS; a separate line item report is filed. No change required if FHS line is added. ## SVC: nothing done, see above. Do not include this survey item in any future SIT report. Make it a separate staff memo if you want it reviewed, but you’re probably going to have to live with it as printed (99% probable).
Romulan SUPER-HEAVY CRUISERS: VHK: MOVE VHK to "FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISER" section; this ship is a modified FH and not a NH based hull. STRONG - 24 JAN 2012 ## SVC: done.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FHU: SIT entry and counter are mis-designated as a FireHawk-U (FHU); this unit is properly designated as FAU (FarHawk-U). RECOMMENDATION: Not much we can do now but add a place-holder line for a future, true FireHawk-U but with a special F&E designation of "FHUS" (FireHawk Heavy Fighter Carrier-Scout) and a compot of 7-9(8H)*/3-5(4H). STRONG - 24 JAN 2012 ## SVC: no action taken. We will fix the counter in the future but not now.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FAK: Proper base hull size is FH(3) not FarH(3). FarHawks are cruiser-carriers variants of the FH cruisers. STRONG - 24 JAN 2012 ## SVC: Not done. FarH(3) is correct as I see it. If you want to resubmit with further justification, include a note that I previously rejected the change and insisted that FarH(3) was correct.
Romulan FIREHAWK HEAVY CRUISERS: FAB: Proper base hull size is FH(3) not FarH(3). FarHawks are cruiser-carriers variants of the FH cruisers. STRONG - 24 JAN 2012 ## SVC: no, see above.
Romulan SEAHAWK FRIGATES: 2SEB: No ship breakdown for group - Eric S. Smith 1 Jan 2009 STRONG: Two-step carrier group designation is SEB+SEE. ## SVC: added
Romulan KDR LIGHT CRUISER: KDS: Conversion cost from D5 should have "(minor)" added since both sub-steps of the two-step conversion each cost 3 EPs or less (437.21). D5>KDR>KDS=2+3-1=4 (minor). Jeff Coutu 19 January 09 STRONG: CONCURS – ADD "minor" designator. ## SVC: done.
Romulan REPAIR DOCKS: FRD+: Conversion cost is "From FRD: 1+6" but all others except Lyran specify "From FRD: 2+6" - Eric S. Smith 1 Jan 2009 STRONG: CONCURS with 2+6 cost; see (441.411) and (441.433). ## SVC: done.
Romulan BASES: Ftr-Depot See (443.0). Romulan Ftr-Depot See (445.0). Rule number change for Fighter Depot from (443.0) to (445.0). Thomas Mathews 29 March 09 STRONG: CONCURS. ## SVC: changed both places even though you only reported one of them.
Romulan PLANETARY UNITS: Colony: Cost stated (446.13) 2+2+2 should read (446.13) 1+1+1 Cost changed in Captain's Log 37 Thomas Mathews 26 Aug 2009 STRONG: CONCURS. ## SVC: done.
ROM SIT: NHB: Conversion From NH 1+16 Should be 2+16. The NH to NHB conversion is a simple and straight conversion from a CC to a CV. Thomas Mathews 21 Oct 2012
ROM SIT:
Do not concur with 08:41 suggestion by T. Matthews. All the following are currently listed as 1 EP + fighters. All, in SFB terms, represent a simple change of pre-existing modules for B modules, without any change to the core hull, strongly suggesting deliberate intent that B modules should cost 1 EP (+ fighters) for each set.
SP-SPB, FAB-FAK, FH-FHB, NH-NHB
The only B-module addition conversion that is currently listed as 2EP + fighters is SUP-SUB.
ROM SIT SUB:
Conversion cost from SUP listed as 2+16. Should be 1+16. All other B-module-only conversions currently on on the SIT (SP-SPB, FH-FHB, NH-NHB, FAK-FAB) are 1+16.
Jason E. Schaff, 10/21/2012
Jason,
The NH like the FH requires that "modules" be "hard welded" into place. See (R4.102) and (R4.N3) in SFB.
Thomas:
Understood: but I would argue all this means is that the FH/NH/SUP hulls cannot use the SP's 433.432 ability to do conversions during operational movement. The same modules are being used in both cases, it just takes longer to switch them out on the heavy hulls. See particularly the preamble to the Romulan section in module R10 (p. 13).
EDIT: Probably being oblivious, but I can't find R4.N3. Module & page? Thanks.
2nd EDIT: OK, found it right after I posted the edit. Would've bit me were it a snake! Much of R4.N3 is superceded by the Romulan preamble in R10, specifically the statement, "...the firehawk could (previous data being incomplete) carry most of the sparrowhawks modules. This allowed quick conversion to some of the more useful variants."
Jason, I think we agree that the Heavy Hawks can carry the Sparrow Hawk modules. Indeed I think that there is a variant of a Heavy Hawk carrying all of the Sparrow Hawk modules that I'm aware of except for the G (Troop Transport) modules.
However, all carriers carrying between 4.5 (Kzinti CVL) and 10 (Federation CAV) fighter factors cost 2 or more points for the conversion from the base hull (Kzinti BC to CVL, Federation CA to CAV). The Romulan Heavy Hawks should not get a discount because they have the ability to use Sparrow Hawk modules. The modules only make it easier to provide some key type units via the modular change ability under (433.43). This flexibility is not extended to the Heavy Hawks because the modules are required by "game physics" to be hard-welded into place along with additional supporting structures to hold them in place. Thus the requirement that any such conversion is permanent.
Edit: The Modular DNs are not included in the above statements because of they are different from the Heavy Hawks in a number of ways.
quote:
==========
Thus the requirement that any such conversion is permanent.
==========
That is the critical point changed in module R10. Most FH/NH/SUP conversions are not permanent. The usual exceptions for maulers still applies, of course.
Yes, all medium carriers from other empires still cost 2 EP to convert, as do the Romulan medium carriers based on Klingon hulls. In all of those cases, however, the conversions involve major changes to the structure of the ship (gutting out space for a hanger bay, adding an additional level to the Klingon "deckhouse", etc). For the Romulan Hawks, there are no changes to the ship's structure, just a swap of modules. The only difference between the module swaps for a SP and for a FH are that the FH requires actual shipyard facilities (can't be done during operational movement, and uses actual conversion capacity, which the SP switches do not).
EDIT - Ignore above DOH!! comment about SP module switches not using conversion capacity. Misread the rule: the comment about not using conversion capacity applies only to conversions using pre-existing modules.
Jason, just because a ship is modular, doesn't mean that it gets a discount if new modules are built for that particular variant.
the B modules should cost 2+16
the C modules should cost 3
In either case you still pay the base cost of the hull
FH 8
NH 10