Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Staff endorsement required	6		04/22 12:28am

DONE TODAY
=====
ISC LTT PODS: VLP: Typo -- Proper designation is LVP.
STRONG: CONCURS.
SVC: done, took a while as I had to find it on the countersheet as there was no note that Chuck had checked that.
=======
ISC MON: The actual counter has the PPD circle symbol on both the front and back so the symbol should be added to the both the front and back factors on counter on the SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
STRONG: CONCURS.
SVC: done after checking other ships to see if counter was in error.
=======
ISC PS: The actual counter has the PPD circle symbol on the front so the symbol should be added to the front factors on counter on the SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
SVC: done
=======
ISC PSX: The actual counter has the PPD circle symbol on the front so the symbol should be added to the front factors on counter on the SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
SVC: done
=======
ISC PST: The actual counter has the PPD circle symbol on the front so the symbol should be added to the front factors on counter on the SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
SVC: done
=======
ISC PSTX: The actual counter has the PPD circle symbol on the front so the symbol should be added to the front factors on counter on the SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
SVC: done
=======
ISC PSB: The actual counter has the PPD circle symbol on both the front and back so the symbol should be added to the both the front and back factors on counter on the SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
SVC: done
=======
ISC PSBX: The actual counter has the PPD circle symbol on both the front and back so the symbol should be added to the both the front and back factors on counter on the SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
SVC: done
=======
ISC PSBX: The actual counter has only a singe "P" (PF flotilla) on the backside so reduce the "PP" to "P" for the back factor on the SIT. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
STRONG: CONCURS with all these bases above.
SVC: done
=======
ISC VAP: Factors on the four counters on countersheet Four are "0(6)" but SIT lists "0-1(6)". Not sure if counter or SIT is incorrect. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
STRONG: Correct SIT to read 0(6).
SVC: done
=======
ISC 2PFP: Combat factors on the four counters on countersheet Four are "0" but SIT lists "0-1". Not sure if counter or SIT is incorrect. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
STRONG: Correct SIT compot to read 0.
SVC: done
=======
ISC 2VP: Change command rating from +2 to +1. Per SFB Module G3, Annex #3, the ISC N1 note indicates that two carrier and/or battle pods will not increase the command rating any more than one will. Therefore 2VP's command rating should be equal to the VP's row, which is +1. Jeff Coutu - 26 Apr 2012
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done.
=======
ISC SIT: DNT: Cost 20 Should be 18. The ISC DN has a base cost of 17 + 0.5 per PPD. The DNT has 2 PPDs. Thomas Mathews 10 Oct 2012
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: 18
=======
ISC SIT: DNP: Build cost should be 17. This ISC DN has a base cost of 17 + 0.5 per PPD. The DNP has 0 PPDs. Thomas Mathews 10 Oct 2012
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: 17
=======
ISC SIT: PS: Cost: Reference to (5BI.11) should be (544.11). Change from playtest reference to actual rule reference. Thomas Mathews 16 Oct 2012
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC: Gunboat Flotillas: CPF: Cost (524.112) 3 The cost listed under (524.112) specifically states that a causual PF group costs 3 EPs. Thomas Mathews 12 Dec 2012
SVC: done
=======
ISC: Gunboat Flotillas: CPX: Cost (524.112) 3 The cost listed under (524.112) specifically states that a causual PF group costs 3 EPs. Thomas Mathews 12 Dec 2012
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC ADM: Base hull size and conversion cost columns just "NA" instead of "—NA—" like all other races - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC C-BASE: Change size to "—NA—" to match other races. Change substitution cost to "—NA—" to match other races. - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC Colony: Change size and conversion cost columns to "—NA—" to match other races. - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC LAS: Notes has reference to (317.1), which is already in build cost column. As no other empire has that rule reference for that unit, recommend removing the rule reference. - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: Left it, no harm done.
=======
ISC MEGA: Change SFB Ref # to "J16". Fix Year. Change Size/Conversion source to "—NA—" to match other races. - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC MEGA-H: Change SFB Ref # to "J16". Fix year. Change Size/Conversion source to "—NA—" to match other races. - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC REPR: Change notes to "Repair ship; See (422.0)". - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC SAP: Fix Year. Change conversion cost to "From SAS: 5" to match all other races. - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
ISC SAS: Date Avail is "Y181(B)" and should be Y140 like all the other races - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: Non-concurs. They had the technology but no reason to build it.
=======
ISC Shipyard: Chagne SFB Ref # to "Future" to match other races. Change size and conversion cost to "—NA—" to match other races. - Eric S. Smith 08 JAN 2013.
STRONG: Concurs.
SVC: done
=======
HDW-P lists an attack factor of 4 when using 2 EW. According to 525.23P, it should have an attack factor of 2 when using 2 EW.
SVC: done
=======
HDW-S lists an attack factor of 4 when using 2 EW. According to 525.23S, it should have an attack factor of 2 when using 2 EW.
STRONG: Concurs with both of these.
SVC: done.
=======
ISC: CL Light Cruiser: CSV: Notes: Scout (EW=3) should read Scout (EW=4). The CSV has 6 special sensors like the CLS (HSC) that it was derived from. The lower offensive compot of the CSV will not significantly effect the EW level of this unit. (440.6) states that all scout carriers have an EW of 3 if used in the free scout box, but slso limits them to being unable to use their fighters in the given battle force. The SSDs of the CSV and LSC both have 6 sensors and the CSV has only 1 less APR and 1 less Battery. Thomas Mathews 28 Mar 2015
STRONG: Concurs with EW=4.
SVC: ok
=======
ISC: CA Heavy Cruiser: CA: YIS: Y160. Y160 is correct as this is the date listed in G3. (624.43) has a total of 9 PPD armed ships (7xCA, 2xCM) available in Fall of Y168. Thomas Mathews 11 Apr 2015
SVC: then so It shall remain.
=======
ISC: CL Light Cruiser: CS: YIS: Y162 should be Y168. Y168 is the date listed in SFB Module G3. Thomas Mathews 11 Apr 2015
STRONG: Concurs with both of these.
SVC: done.
=======
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, April 21, 2015 - 06:33 pm: Edit
These are the ISC SIT AVAILABILITY dates for the stated units below:
CPF: Y182F PF3 604.0
CPX: Y182F PF3 604.0
MP-V: Y170 AF intro
MP-P: Y181F PF1 604.0
MP-S: Y182F PF3 604.0
LAV: Y170 AF intro
LAH: Y178 HF intro ALREADY THERE
LAP: Y181F PF1 604.0
ASC: Y181F PF1 604.0 NORMALLY A YEAR LATER, ISN’T IT?
SAV: Y170 AF intro
SAH: Y178 HF intro
SAP: Y181F PF1 604.0
FRD+: Y170 AF intro
FRX: Y182 per G3 ALREADY THERE
BS(N): Y120 per G3.
BS(F): Y170 AF intro
BS(FP): Y181F PF1 604.0
BSX(N): Y182 CCX
BSX(F): Y182 CCX
BSX(FP): Y182 CCX
BTS(N): Y130 per G3.
BTS(F): Y170 AF intro
BTS(FP): Y181F PF1 604.0
BTX(N): Y182 CCX
BTX(F): Y182 CCX
BTX(FP): Y182 CCX
STB(N): Y175
STB(F): Y175
STB(FP): Y181F PF1 604.0
STX(N): Y182
STX(F): Y182
STX(FP): Y182
SB(N): Y140 per G3.
SB(F): Y170 AF intro
SB(FP): Y181F PF1 604.0
SBX(N): Y182
SBX(F): Y182
SBX(FP): Y182
SFB(N): Y179 per G3.
SFB(F): Y179 per G3
SFB(FP): Y181F PF1 604.0
SFX(N): Y184
SFX(F): Y184
SFX(FP): Y184
FTM: Y170 AF intro
PFM: Y181F PF1 604.0
HFM: Y178 HF intro
PDU: Y170 AF intro
MEGA: Y179
MEGA-H: Y179F
STRONG: Concurs with all above.
SVC: DONE EXCEPT FOR TWO THAT WERE WRONG.
=======
HDW-S (in the HDWX-? section) should be labeled HDWX-S. In addition, it is listed with a P, and that P should be a 0. Eric S. Smith 17JAN2013
STRONG: CONCURS. Factors should be 8-10 not 8-1P.
SVC: DONE
=======
ISC BBP crippled side shows 0-10; should be a 10 value.
STRONG: CONCURS.
SVC: DONE
=======

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Friday, May 22, 2015 - 04:41 pm: Edit

ISC HDW-T: The listing for this mode says "6-7U(1)"; however, being able to carry an (inoperable) pod is not a normal HDW-T ability, and neither any F&E I can find (other than the SIT), nor the SFB listing for the ship (R13.50) mention this. --James Lowry, 5/22/2015
STRONG: The SIT is wrong; remove the "U" designation from the SIT. The printed is correct and does not have the "U".
SVC: DONE 24 MARCH 2017

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, February 26, 2017 - 07:39 pm: Edit

Monitors & Pallets: MPAL(SCS): Cost: 5+6 should be 5+6+PFs. The cost of the PFs is missing from the actual cost of the pallet. Thomas Mathews 26 Feb 2017
DONE 24 MARCH 2017--SVC

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, February 26, 2017 - 07:53 pm: Edit

MMG. Change availability to Y132. In notes Free MMGs available per (321.11) during General War. This is a rule change in (657.432). Ryan J Opel 26 Feb 2017
DONE 24 MARCH 2017 BUT IT WAS PROBABLY WRONG TO DO SO AS THEY HAD NO ONE TO FIGHT AND NO NEED FOR MARINE GENERALS UNTIL THEY CONTACTED GORNS AND ROMULANS.--SVC
FINALLY DECIDED ON Y162.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 30, 2016 - 12:14 am: Edit

DONE 4 APRIL 2017
ISC CA: In the recently-uploaded (2016 edition) SFB Module C2 rulebook and SSD book, the R-section for the ISC Star Cruiser has been adjusted to account for the later availability of the plasmatic pulsar device. According to the new version of (R13.6), the first CAs to enter service in Y160 were equipped with no centre-mounted heavy weapon; as in, they had two plasma-G torpedoes only. Most of these ships were refitted to mount the central PPD in Y168, while the rest were each given a centre-mounted plasma-G torpedo and designated as CATs (R13.82). In light of this clarification, it may be worth considering a new "CA-" line entry to account for the original "two-torpedo" version of the CA hull, and adjusting the current CA's YIS date to Y168 so as to match the revised YIS date in C2-2016's Master Ship Chart. - Gary Carney, 30 September 2016

I should note that the above supersedes two of the older line items (from 11 April 2015) listed in the "staff endorsement required" thread, since those were posted prior to the recent clarifications.

Also, while this may not be a priority for the "historical" timeline, any scenarios done for the "F&E: Lost Empires" project which were set in one of the "Paravian timelines" from Module C6 may be liable to make more use of this proposed "CA-", so as to take part in would-be "Middle Years" conflicts fought between the ISC and the Paravians (and/or the Romulans).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 02, 2017 - 06:47 am: Edit

DONE 4 APRIL 2017
ISC: CL Light Cruiser: CSF: From CL: 2.5+12 should be 3+12. The CL does not have PPDs, The CSF has 2 PPDs on the SIT. 0.5 surcharge per PPD. Thus 2 for the carrier conversion + 1 for the 2xPPDs. Thomas Mathews 2 Apr 2017

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Everybody does remember the "keep it to five line items per post" instruction, right?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:16 pm: Edit

DONE 4 APRIL 2017

BB conversion from BB- should be +6 for FTR, not +8 Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

SDS build/conversion costs say "+PFS" instead of glyph Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

SCS build/conversion costs say "+PFS" instead of glyph Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

DCS build/conversion costs say "+PFS" instead of glyph Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:17 pm: Edit

DONE 4 APRIL 2017

NCA conversion cost has "(min)" instead of glyph Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

BCS conversion cost says "+PFS" instead of glyph Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

BCS build cost doesn't have glyph for PF cost Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

CMX conversion cost has "(1/turn))" remove stray 2nd ")" Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:17 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
PFT doesn't have glyph for PFT cost in build/conversion costs Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

PFTX doesn't have glyph for PFT cost in build/conversion costs Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

HDW-P should have "+POG" in build cost Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

FLG counter has "none" instead of "None" for flip side. Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:17 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017

HAA factors are "3-8-1-4" instead of "3-8/1-4"- systemic cut & past error Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

VARIOUS PFS vs ¶ had been done much earlier in the general sweep.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:18 pm: Edit

FIXED 4 MAY 2017

HAA factors are shown as "3-8-1-4" instead of "3-8/1-4" suspect this has propagated through several other (all?) SITS. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-02

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:19 pm: Edit

ALL DONE 5 MAY 2017
BB YIS should reference (436.0) - Howard Bampton, 2017-04-03

BB- YIS should reference (436.0) - Howard Bampton, 2017-04-03

BBP YIS should reference (436.0) - Howard Bampton, 2017-04-03

BBV YIS should reference (436.0) - Howard Bampton, 2017-04-03

SDS YIS should reference (436.0) - Howard Bampton, 2017-04-03

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:19 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017

ISC BLT - is the "ISC" in designation needed? - Howard Bampton, 2017-04-03

DNWV - conversion from DNW should be +24 for FTR (base hull has none), not +12- Howard Bampton, 2017-04-03

DNWV - build cost does not include FTR cost (+24) - Howard Bampton, 2017-04-03

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 04, 2017 - 01:20 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
ISC HPC Is the ISC prefix needed in designation?

PLP Build cost for PFs missing- add glyph - Howard Bampton 2017-04-03

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, April 17, 2017 - 11:01 am: Edit

DONE BUT WITH 436 NOT SPECIAL

BB Build cost should be "Special: 38+6" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-17

BB- Build Cost should be "Special: 38" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-17

BBL Build cost should be "Special: 38+6" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-17

BBP Build cost should be "Special: 36+6" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-17

BBT Build cost should be "Special: 37+6" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-17

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, April 17, 2017 - 11:06 am: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017

BBV Build cost should be "Special: 40+24" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-17

SDS Build cost should be "Special: 40+12+PF glyph" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-17

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 12:54 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
HAP Notes do not state unit is a scout: "Auxiliary PFT, Scout, EW=2" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

HSC Notes do not state unit is a scout: "Auxiliary SCS, Scout, EW=2" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

LAS Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Large Auxiliary Scout; EW=3 (317.1)" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

LAP Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Large Auxiliary PFT (526.4), Scout, EW=2" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

SAS Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Small Auxiliary Scout, EW=2" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 12:54 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
SC Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Scout, EW=2 (battlegroup symbol)" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

PLP unit carries active PFs- said pods usually note so in notes; Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "LTT only, PFT pod, Scout, EW=2" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 12:56 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
SR Unit is SR with special sensors. Scout is missing from notes: "Survey ship, scout, EW=3". - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

CLS (HSC) Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Scout, EW=4 (battle group symbol)" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

CSF Notes have conversion costs for CVL/CVLS to CSF. Move to conversions. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

CSV Nonstandard EW notation. Alternative: "Medium Carrier, Scout, EW=4" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

CLSX "+" instead of "=" in EW note. Fix: "X-ship, scout, EW=4 (Crippled EW=1)" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 12:56 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
BBV Hull is conjectural. Adjust note: "Conjectural Heavy carrier variant of battleship" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

SDS Hull is conjectural. Adjust note: "Conjectural Space Control Ship variant of battleship" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

BCS: Build cost doesn't account for PFs. "For CC: 18+6+ pf glyph". - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 12:57 pm: Edit

CHECKED ON 4MAY 2017 AND FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DONE EARLIER
BB additional data on conversion from BB-: The BB has (3) FTR, so conversion should be "From BB-: 0+6", unlike most other BB-/BB conversions. - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 12:58 pm: Edit

ALL DONE SOMETIME EARLIER
BB Hull is conjectural. Adjust note: "Conjectural Battleship, base hull; single-ship carrier " - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25 - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

BB- Hull is conjectural. Adjust note: "Conjectural Battleship without fighters" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

BBL Hull is conjectural. Adjust note: "Conjectural Fast Raiding Battleship" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

BBP Hull is conjectural. Adjust note: "Conjectural Battleship, combat variant, plasma only; single-ship carrier" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 12:58 pm: Edit

SENT TO FEAST 4 MAY 2017
BBP Note says "plasma only" counter factors has "*" for PPD (front and back). Is this correct? Staff? - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

BBT Note says "plasma instead of PPD" counter factors has "*" for PPD (front only) Is this correct? Staff? - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

BBT/BBP These seem like they are the same ship- a BB with plasma torps instead of PPDs. Am I being clueless? Staff? - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 - 12:59 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
BLT Hull is conjectural. Adjust note: "Conjectural Fast Raiding Battleship, blended combat variant; single-ship carrier" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

BLT Build cost notes that unit can be subbed for DN. Probably not what is intended. Suggest making it sub for BBL: "For BBL: 35+6" - Howard Bampton 2017-04-25

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, April 27, 2017 - 07:17 am: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
Light Cruisers: CVF: Notes have conversion costs for CVL/CVLS to CVF. Move to conversions. Thomas Mathews 27 Apr 2017

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Monday, May 01, 2017 - 09:10 pm: Edit

PROCESSED 4 MAY 2017
SOME DONE, SOME SENT TO FEAST, SOME DONE EARLIER, SOME SOMETHING ELSE.
General Note #1: Does the circle in the Factors column indicate the presence of a PPD? If so, this should probably be added to the "SYMBOLS USED" line at the bottom of the chart. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

General Note #2: There are a number of units that have "+PFs" in the Conversion Cost and/or Build Cost columns. This text should be replaced with "+¶". F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

General Note #3: All of the ISC bases from base stations and bigger mount PPDs. Should these be included in the Factors column? (I'm assuming yes, as all of the Pacification stations are so indicated.) F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

BBL: The SFB Ref # should be R13.A9. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

BBP: As the Notes column indicates that this unit does not have PPDs, the circles should be removed from the Factors column. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Monday, May 01, 2017 - 09:10 pm: Edit

PROCESSED 4 MAY 2017
SOME DONE, SOME SENT TO FEAST, SOME DONE EARLIER, SOME SOMETHING ELSE.

BBT: As the Notes column indicates that this unit does not have PPDs, the circles should be removed from the Factors column. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

BLT: The word "ISC" can be removed from the Designation column. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

NAX: Since this is a variant of the NCA, the Base Hull should probably be "NCA(3)". F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

CW: Is the "DD(4)" in the Base Hull column accurate? As this is a new class, and with the CWX being "CW(3)", I would expect the CW to also be "CW(3)". F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

HDW-H: One instance of (525.2) in the Notes column should be removed. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Monday, May 01, 2017 - 09:10 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
HDW-P: One instance of (525.2) in the Notes column should be removed. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

HDWX-P: One instance of (525.2) in the Notes column should be removed. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

HDWX-Q: One instance of (525.2) in the Notes column should be removed. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

HDWX-S: One instance of (525.2) in the Notes column should be removed. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

DW: The SFB Ref # should be R13.81. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Monday, May 01, 2017 - 09:11 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
PODS: Either the Base Hull column for 2BP, 2VP, 2PFP, and 2PTT should be "Two Pods" or the Base Hull column for 2VHP and SCP should be "Pod". F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

VHP: This unit is listed twice. Based on the information in the 2VHP row, I would say that the second instance is the correct one. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

HAA: The SFB Ref # should be R1.A35 (add the “R”). F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

JAC: The SFB Ref # should be R1.A23. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

JAA: The SFB Ref # should be R1.A34 (add the “R”). F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Monday, May 01, 2017 - 09:11 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY 2017
SAL: The SFB Ref # should be R1.94. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

SAO: The SFB Ref # should be R1.91. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

SAS: The extra close paren in the Date column should be removed. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

OPB: The row for this unit in the Mobile Support Units section should be removed, as it is also listed (correctly) in the Transportable Bases section. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

BSX(N): The SFB Ref # should be R1.207. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Monday, May 01, 2017 - 09:11 pm: Edit

DONE 4 MAY
BSX(F): The SFB Ref # should be R1.207. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

BSX(FP): The SFB Ref # should be R1.207. F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

BSX(FP): Should the "BTX" in the Conversion Cost column be "BSX"? F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

STB(F): Is it possible to convert the STB(N) into this unit? F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

STB(FP): Is it possible to convert the STB(N) and STB(F) into this unit? F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Monday, May 01, 2017 - 09:12 pm: Edit

FIRST THREE DONE 4 MAY,LAST TWO SENT TO FEAST

SB(FP): The text "4xPFM/HPM/HFM" should be "4xFTM". F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

SBX(FP): Should the BTS(N) in the Notes column be BTX(N) instead? F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

SFX(FP): Is it possible to convert the SFX(N) and SFX(F) into this unit? F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

PS: As the BTS has a Base Hull of BTS(2), and this unit appears to be a version of that, should the Base Hull for this unit be "BTS(2)"? F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

PSX: As the BTX has a Base Hull of BTS(2), and this unit appears to be a version of that, should the Base Hull for this unit be "BTS(2)"? F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Monday, May 01, 2017 - 09:12 pm: Edit

SENT TO FEAST 4 MAY 2017
PST: Should the first instance of "BTS" in the Conversion Cost column be "PS"? F Brooks, 1 May, 2017.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, May 02, 2017 - 07:06 am: Edit

Dreadnaughts: DNT: From DN: 3 should be From DN: 3 and From DNE: 2 The DNT could be considered a refitted DNE with 2 PPDs replacing 2 plasma torpedoes had any DNEs existed at the time. Thomas Mathews 2 May 2017
FEDS CORRECTION: From DN: 1 From: DNE: 2

Dreadnaughts: DNP: From DN: 3 should be From DN: 3 and From DNE: 1 The DNP could be considered a refitted DNE without the plasma torpedoes had any DNEs existed at the time. Thomas Mathews 2 May 2017
FEDS CORRECTION: From DN: 1 From: DNE: 1

Battleships: BLT: CORRECTION: From BBL: 1

Battleships: BBT: CORRECTION: Notes should read: Battleship, blended combat variant; single-ship carrier

RATIONALE: From SFB:

---

Quote:

(R13.37) TORPEDO DREADNOUGHT (DNT): During the Andromedan War, some dreadnoughts had some of their PPDs replaced with plasma torpedoes to increase their effectiveness against Andromedans. This variant, designated DNT, was less susceptible to attack by a ship equipped with displacement devices.

(R13.57) PLASMA DREADNOUGHT (DNP): Yet another variant designed during the Andromedan Invasion, the ISC went the whole way and gave up all PPDs for more torpedo firepower.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 04, 2017 - 06:21 pm: Edit

I processed all of the ISC line items today but had to send several to Ryan so I won't post it until I get answers.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, May 04, 2017 - 08:20 pm: Edit

DONE
Check the date on the SIT header so it automatically updates.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, May 05, 2017 - 07:05 am: Edit

---

Quote:

I am not grokking why converting from a less powerful ship is cheaper.--SVC

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 05, 2017 - 01:32 pm: Edit

DONE
Fix EW spacing
Fix Scout capitalization
update HDW entries.
Check auto-date on header.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 05, 2017 - 01:37 pm: Edit

DONE

<FONT COLOR="119911">FROM FEDS:

Battleships: BBL: From BTL: 1 Change notes to read: Fast Raiding Battleship, single-ship carrier

Battleships: BBP: Factors should read 21-20(3)/11-10(1.5); From BB/BBT: 1 . Factor Rationale: These ships had ALL of their PPDs replaced with plasma torpedoes to increase their effectiveness against Andromedans and made them less susceptible to attack by a ship equipped with displacement devices; PPD/Displacement Device interactions will be addressed in AndroWar.

Battleships: BBT: Factors 21-20(3)•;/11-10(1.5); From BB/BBP: 1 . Factor Rationale: These ships had HALF of their PPDs replaced with plasma torpedoes to increase their effectiveness against Andromedans and made them less susceptible to attack by a ship equipped with displacement devices; PPD/Displacement Device interactions will be addressed in AndroWar. </FONT>