Klingon HDW: Salvage costs are inconsistent. Some say 1.5, some say 1.25. They should all be the same. (Nick Samaras May 6, 2020).
SVC DOES NOT THINK THESE ARE AUTOMATICALLY ALL THE SAME AND AWAITS STAFF REVIEW, WHICH WOULD COVER ALL EMPIRES.
FEDS:
All Klingon HDWs have a salvage value of 1.500; base hull cost is 5 EPs x 30% Klingon salvage rate = 1.500.

All Klingon HWXs have a salvage value of 3.000; base hull cost is 10 XTPs x 30% Klingon salvage rate = 3.000.

Klingon HDW: Conversions list "DW" and DW variants instead of F5W/F5L, maybe a cloning error and there may bo some incorrect costs here. At some point will need to add conversions from F5 and variants. (Nick Samaras May 6, 2020).
FEDS: ALL Klingon DW conversion listings on the HDW SIT should be F5W and not DW. FEDS also concurs that the next round of SIT need to include F5 and variant conversions to HDWs.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Klingon D5WX: The 5 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R3.215) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y183. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Klingon D5PX: The 5 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R3.209) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y184. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Klingon D5SX: The 5 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R3.207) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y183. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

Klingon F5WX: The 5 May 2020 SIT does not include a provisional listing for this hull type, which was published as (R3.212) in Star Fleet Battles Module X1R; for comparison's sake, its Romulan conversion, the KXW, is already listed over on the Romulan SIT file from 24 April 2017.Could a line entry be added to the next SIT revision? Historically, the first ship of its kind was built in Y183. - Gary Carney, 18 May 2020

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 18, 2020 - 07:34 pm: Edit

What would be the purpose of including these in F&E? There are no counters for them. Until there are, is there a point?

When we do new ships in CapLog we do an F&E table for them and integrate that into the SIT because we don't want to forget we did it, but what reason exists to pick random SFB ships and insert them into the F&E SIT?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, May 19, 2020 - 11:21 am: Edit

My request for the F5WX was based on the inclusion of its Romulan counterpart on that empire's SIT (which notes a conversion cost from an F5WX to a KXW), though only the KXW has been featured in an issue of Captain's Log. So if there is no real need to consider the F5WX itself prior to its potential inclusion in a future F&E product, well and good.

The other ships can wait until they are considered for inclusion in a future F&E product, so I would like to withdraw my requests for them until then.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, June 09, 2020 - 09:46 pm: Edit

RKL has this in the Build cost or substitution

---

Quote:

Schedule: 5 See (431.16)

---

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 12:32 am: Edit

Wasn't the RKL a conversion of 2 or 3 SP that got trapped in Klingon space?

If so, then why *should* they be on the Klingon production schedule at all? They are a foreign hull converted to Klingon use.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 12:47 am: Edit

I think it's so people can make use of the counters if they wanna.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 07:59 am: Edit

Richard is most likely correct. It would follow along the Romulans building KR hulls under (431.6). A way to use up spare counters if you really wanted to.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 07:59 am: Edit

Deleted by author, duplicate post.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, June 10, 2020 - 06:00 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

If so, then why *should* they be on the Klingon production schedule at all?

---

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, July 04, 2020 - 11:10 am: Edit

Klingon: Battleships: MB10: The command rating is blank, but the previous SIT listed the command rating at 10. - Ken Kazinski, 4 July 2020.

Klingon: Battleships: B10T: The command rating is blank, but the previous SIT listed the command rating at 10. - Ken Kazinski, 4 July 2020.

Klingon: HF5 Heavy War Destroyers: "2+1+FOP" should probably be "From DW: 2+1+FOP" - Ken Kazinski, 4 July 2020.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Klingon HDWG: The uncrippled "G" factor is missing per (525.23G). FEDS - 23 Aug 2020

===============

KlKlingon HDWs: The construction costs for the several of the Klingon HDWs needs to be corrected. Ref:

---

Quote:

(525.211) If a HDW is built configured for any mission (525.23) except K-Combat, the cost of the reconfiguration is paid at the time of construction.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, September 04, 2020 - 06:55 pm: Edit

Klingon C8M: Recommend ADDING to SIT: REF: 148; Factors 11+-12/5-6; TO; CR10; Y175; size C8(2); From C8: 5, From C6: 8; For C8: 18; salv 4.800; Mauler Variant of C8. Shock variant (Roll: 6 on d6). Maximum of one per battle force.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, May 02, 2021 - 12:50 am: Edit

Question for Staff:
Can a D5P be converted directly from a D5S (similar to the D5S -> D5B)? If so the cost to do this is missing from the D5P.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 08, 2021 - 01:20 pm: Edit

After some study of the problem (nobody builds D7Ds since their higher cost is not justified by the added power) we went back the original Air Force tapes to find out what we missed. Seems that this ship was a pet project of one of the major shipyards. For one such ship per year (produced by any means) the purchase cost is 8.5 instead of 9 and the cost to convert from a D7 is 0.5 instead of 1.0.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Tuesday, June 15, 2021 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Query whether the Klingon SIT is correct as to the DWB. It states a substitution cost of 11+16 (sensible - +2 for carrier, +3 for EW), but conversions costs of:

From D5: 5+16
From D5W: 2+16
From D5B: 3

I am fairly certain there is a bug here, as it looks like for the first two conversions the EW is being added for free (and as to the D5, it may be missing the two-step symbol and discount as well)

As it is, I can make and convert during construction a DWB for 8+16, rather than substituting for 11+16.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 18, 2021 - 07:06 pm: Edit

Add PF Depot to all SITs.

By Lee R. Sims III (Ssims2) on Sunday, July 11, 2021 - 09:32 am: Edit

Klingon HDW: Command rating is inconsistent among non-C modes : HDW, HDWE, HDWG, HDWH, HDWP, HDWQ, HDWR, HDWS, and HDWV have 5, while HDWF, HDWK, and HDWT have 6. HDWC (10) is consistent with the latter (6+4).

These should probably all be 6, to be consistent with other empires' HDW. SFB shows 5 for the HF5.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Tuesday, July 20, 2021 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Just got to Y175 in my game, and am so enthused over the Klingon DWB I think it has to be wrong.

Substitution cost is 11+16, representing 6 (base) +3 (EW) +2 (Carrier) + fighters.

However, I think all the conversion costs omit the scout premium:

Conversion from D5 is 5+16 (meaning you can use a D5 and convert it for one less than the substitution cost, and also this is the same as
the cost for converting D5 to D5B)
Conversion from D5W is 2+ 16 (meaning you can convert a DWB for 3 less than the substitution cost)
Conversion from D5B is 3 (maybe this one is OK?)

I think the costs should be:
D5 7+16 (two step symbol)
D5W 5+16
D5B 3

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - 03:58 pm: Edit

I have a scrap of paper here that the staff left on my desk during StratCon-21. It says two things:

F5L needs to be reduced to 3.5 EPs.
(I can do that.)

Future F5C should be 6-5/3
That one I don't get. The F5C and F5L are subsumed into one counter which we're not going to change. We're not going to start breaking subsumed non-refit variants out of the combined counter.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - 10:13 pm: Edit

I don't get why the F5L should be reduced to 3.5 EP. As a 6/3 ship, it's a war destroyer, and war destroyers cost 4 EP. We don't need the Klingons to get a cheaper war destroyer than everyone else.

Technically, the Romulans already get a cheaper war destroyer than everyone else, at 3.5 EP, but it's a 5/3 ship. If we want to make the F5L a 6-5/3 ship then sure, reduce the cost. But at 6/3, keep the cost at 4 EP.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Out of curiosity, any idea why the F5L would be reduced from (presumably) 4 EPs to 3.5 EPs?

F5L appears to be identical to things like the Lyran DW, Fed DW, and Gorn BD, (6/3, 5 CR) which also cost 4 EP?

--Mike

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Wednesday, October 27, 2021 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Mike;

Just a point of clarification: The F5 series were not "war" classes. They were regular production warships. The Klingons called them frigates, but the rest of the galaxy recognized them as destroyers.

The F5W and its ilk *are* "war" classes, and were adaptations of the basic F5 hulls, but are not considered to *be* F5s.

(Paraphrased from (R3.6) F5 FRIGATE, Klingon MSSB)

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, October 28, 2021 - 12:13 am: Edit

Yeah, actually the F5L is a destroyer leader, not a war destroyer, and is 6/3 because it is part of an F5Q squadron (which otherwise is covered by a rule which artificially enhances into a "leader" the war destroyer or war cruiser in the lead of a three ship squadron.

So I don't get reducing its cost, although it is true that it is less good than an F5W, which after all gets the benefit of that rule to be a 7/3 ship sometimes, in squadron.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Thursday, October 28, 2021 - 11:30 am: Edit

[The rule I'm referring to is 305.5. It is relevant because it makes the Klingon F5 and F5L modestly less good than the 5 and 6 COMPOT ships that benefit from this rule.]