Phillippe you are correct. The Battle Pods are either removed or replaced depending on Tug Mission assigned under (509.1).

By fabio poli (Fabioz) on Tuesday, November 02, 2021 - 04:46 pm: Edit

not sure it will be a good business expend 20ep (or 12) + half a B10 for a 10CF Tug.
I'll wait for more clarification, though

@turtle thx for info about (R3.150). I don't have that...

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, November 02, 2021 - 06:31 pm: Edit

One can either use the B10T similar to the CVTs (ignore those pods and add two BPs to the Pod Pool) or just treat the ship as a tug and swap pods when needed from the Pod Pool ...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 08, 2021 - 02:48 pm: Edit

I wrote the B10T to be treated as a fixed ship with no pod swaps. We might consider allowing that, but it is a battleship (by doctrine) that happens to originate from a tug, not intended to operate as a tug.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, November 09, 2021 - 09:02 am: Edit

Rules (551.11) and (551.12) do not align. The last line of (551.11) states <I>These ships all have production limits, usually one or two
ships per turn “by any means.”</I> Then (551.12) give a free production for every fifth ship. The Federation has as many as twelve NCL on its schedule, meaning it would get 2 or 3 CLC per turn. But the SIT for the CLC limits production to 1 per turn.

I think that (551.12) upgrades are supposed to be outside the limit of (551.11)/SIT. But that is not clear.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, November 10, 2021 - 03:29 am: Edit

FEDS: Unless I misunderstood ADB, the "fifth" ship produced under (551.12) is eligible to be produced as a no-cost leader 'upgrade' that does not count as either a substitution or a conversion. The production limits on the SITs are for additional normal production leaders outside of these free upgrades.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, November 13, 2021 - 12:49 pm: Edit

712.0 - WYN order of battle:
Y159 - remove PBB
Y181 - add "Convert LDD to PBB"
Rationale: The SFB MSC lists the PBB YIS as 181. R12.12 confirms this YIS.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, November 23, 2021 - 12:24 pm: Edit

The Tholian DDF silhouette is shown as the NDD.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, November 23, 2021 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Four (SO) has an Orion BRH counter (8-8) vs OSCAR (TO) Orion BRH (8-7).

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, December 02, 2021 - 10:17 pm: Edit

(634.0) INTO THE WHIRLPOOL

This scenario states the entire WYN force can be used during Battle Round #1 and #2 (ignoring command limits) but makes no mention of further rounds. (Nick Samaras December 2, 2021).

What happens if someone captures the WYN hex, do they get to defend with a battle force ignoring all command limits as well? (Nick Samaras December 2, 2021).

(634.12) CAPITAL DEFENSES: WYNs are listed as having a starbase, but the SFB starbase rules states the WYNs do not have these. (Nick Samaras December 2, 2021).

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, December 13, 2021 - 11:04 am: Edit

(634.12) CAPITAL DEFENSES: The planets of the WYN Cluster are the most heavily defended in the known galaxy...

Freeholm (Minor Planet): Battle station, 8xPDU: This is the site of the shipyard.

Freeholm listed as a Minor Planet with 8xPDU seems to violate rule (433.424) as written (Limit of 6xPDU).


Q. Is the commentary (included above) enough to be considered an exception to the rule?

Or does the game officially require defining the term "Minor Capital"?

This could be done in the upcoming CivilWars, added to TacOps, or included in either the Basic Set as part of the Capital section of the rules or the Minor Empires first revision in the future.

Currently, in ME the LDR description of their planet almost gets there. The Seltorian description of their borrowed planet also is close but gives a specific limit with lower numbers. (possibly enforced by the Klingons who learned a lesson when the Tholian's stole their space?)

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, December 27, 2021 - 02:06 pm: Edit

(660.0) Eastern Sunrise

Small typo in the scenario description paragraph two: Noticed the word 'scraped' in place of the intended word "scrapped". -L Bergen 27 DEC 2021.


(660.0) & (704.A1) Staff Q: In the original historical set up the Romulans received some SKH 'free of charge' as part of the rule introducing Theatre Transports. The SKH or SHH does not appear in this scenario's OOB and my be justified as its an entirely new timeline. (ALA players may build them if they like.) I was just wondering if these ships were inadvertently forgotten as other empires do start with Theatre Transports. - L Bergen 27 DEC 2021

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, January 20, 2022 - 03:51 am: Edit

(552.3) The X-stellar fortress is listed as having a EWF range from 1 to 6 when uncrippled and 1 to 3 when crippled. Per Annex 761 of Advanced Operations 2003 (page 65), an X-starbase’s EWF is listed as having a range from 2 to 7 when uncrippled and 2 to 4 when crippled. Should not the EWF range of the X-stellar fortress be 2 to 7 when uncrippled and 2 to 4 when crippled? – Jeff Coutu, 20 Jan 2022

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 11:47 am: Edit

(551.21) Battleships: there is no shock listing for the B10M under this rule or on the SIT. Is this confirmed?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Wouldn't it use the standard mauler rules, shock on 5-6??

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 08:29 pm: Edit

I think the B10M would be more inline with the STL.

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, February 08, 2022 - 10:54 pm: Edit

All maulers are marked as requiring a shock roll in the notes section of their SIT entry. That note also states whether the mauler shocks on a 5-6, or just a 6 (the STL and the Rom FHP only shock on a 6). The B10M is not marked as making a shock roll; and it specifies that it can only maul for 14 points instead of its entire 20 attack factors. Its the only mauler that does not use its entire attack factor; which already makes it different.

So no; it is not like standard maulers. It is way bigger than an STL; which as I noted does not follow standard shock rules. In fact, there really is no standard shock roll for maulers. Each one is specific based on its SFB rules.

Which is why I'm asking for an official answer. The Tac Ops SIT is a bit of a mess still, but this entry looked intentional. I just want to confirm that.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 09, 2022 - 03:30 am: Edit

Unless overruled by ADB, no "true" mauler is without shock rating (including the new X-maulers); the shock rating for the B10M is "6" and should be added to the SIT.

FEDS SENDS

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, February 10, 2022 - 01:47 pm: Edit

What are the actual shock rules for the B10M in SFB?

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Thursday, February 10, 2022 - 02:57 pm: Edit

The B10M ship description in the Klingon MSSB refers to the standard shock rules for maulers. So from an SFB perspective, it would be treated the same as any other mauler. That said, the total at which shock is triggered (27) is comparatively high. For example, the shock total for the D5 mauler is only 13 and the D6M is 17.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, February 10, 2022 - 04:31 pm: Edit

Note that the B10M in F&E is MB10 in SFB, and is located on page 82 of the Klingon MSSB. Rule number is R3.147.

I initially didn't find it when searching the PDF for B10M.

--Mike

By Daniel Glenn Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, February 10, 2022 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Having looked up the Shock ratings for SFB mauler entries; the Klingon MB10 (shock 27) is in a comparable range to other maulers with a shock on a 6 rating. Looks like maulers in the range of 21 or higher in SFB [MD7X (24), Rom CNM (21), Rom FHP (21), Rom FALX (30), Lyrna STL (30)] all rate a 6.

Agree with FEDS; and thanks for the answer Chuck.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, February 11, 2022 - 12:19 am: Edit

I confirm Chuck's analysis.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, February 11, 2022 - 07:51 pm: Edit

(551.71) - The Lyran DNL is in error as TO added the DNLP (the DNL was added in AO), plus the BBL and BBLP should be added as they are 'fast' ships SWFrazier 220211

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 - 09:11 pm: Edit

(553.0) Test Bed Rules:
Players may select, as their one test-bed X-ship, any basehull X-ship that is smaller than a heavy cruiser. Examples...
A variant such as the Klingon D5PX is not eligible as it is not a “base hull warship.”

Are the Strange Ships: Lyran JGP (looking at the JGX) considered variants because they can be converted from a CL? Other variants are clear the JGP is something else.