SIT reports need to go into the SIT topic. (I did one wrong and led others astray.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 13, 2021 - 06:44 pm: Edit

(522.0) Specify that Prime Teams are non-ship units. Add to Annex (756.0) -- Ryan Opel June 05, 2021

By Ryan Opel (Feast) on Sunday, June 13, 2021 - 08:44 pm: Edit

This product might be a good place to put examples.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 14, 2021 - 12:34 am: Edit

Uh, …from the point that we could add them over time and not hold up the release of the books.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, June 17, 2021 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Candidates for possible annexation:

(420.42) Repair Capacity

(441.X) Numbers and types of augmentation allowed on each type of base.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 18, 2021 - 11:55 am: Edit

(705) allow the Kzintis to have three SADs as this is what is called for in scenarios.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 30, 2021 - 08:50 am: Edit

The list of non-ship units needs to be in alphabetical order.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 01, 2021 - 02:24 pm: Edit

While this is not quite complete it does show you where we're going.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/F&EWarbookAnnexes.shtml

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Thursday, July 01, 2021 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Ah, having all the SITs and OOBs accessible from one page is so handy!

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Thursday, July 01, 2021 - 06:40 pm: Edit

That web page is an incredibly useful and time saving compilation of frequently accessed materials. Excellent.

--Mike

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Friday, July 02, 2021 - 12:39 am: Edit

This will save a LOT of paper printing and re-printing the SITs for my warbook.

By Will Culbertson (Willhc) on Friday, July 02, 2021 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Thank you! That is a great reference page to have.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 03, 2021 - 11:14 am: Edit

It will get better over the next month and the next year.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 03, 2021 - 11:52 am: Edit

(100.6) Symbols on Counters should read: (103.3) Factors on the Counters.
Reason: (103.3) is where the symbols and their definitions appear in F&E.
Also, there is no rule number (100.6). Thomas Mathews 2 Jul 2021.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 03, 2021 - 11:53 am: Edit

Famous Lost Rules - 'Capital Shipyard' has an interesting history, it's first use (AFAIK) in in Carrier War (1993) under Salvage (439.11) being added to the treasury in the Capital Shipyard. Then its PO [(321.13) and (424.0)] before adding itself in later expansions before surfacing under (431.50) [previously (R0-R4) referred to only as the 'capital'] and (433.45) (3 times). There are currently 50+ references (including this note) ...

Pg 4 - Advanced Combat Table (311.1) from CO (nee Special Operations)

(450.19) - Minor Shipyards
First I suggest adding '(x#)' after the empire to denote the maximum allowed (3 for Federation, Klingon and ISC, 2 for other listed empires).
Add ISC (x3) FF/NFF, DD/DW/NDD, CL/CS/CW [ISC War]
LDR (x1) FF/POL, MP, DW [no conversion facilities (714.22)]
Seltorian (x2) FF, DD, (CL*) [* one CL minor shipyard after medium shipyard, one minor & one major conversion facility (715.22)]
Vudar (x1) FW*, DW, CW [*second FW allowed, two minor conversion facilities allowed, the major is built in Y172 inside 'The Hole' (717.22)]

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, July 05, 2021 - 07:59 am: Edit

EW Ratings for bases (761.0) from AO

SBX EW FACTOR vs ATTACK FACTOR
EWF: ....................2 ..3 ..4 ..5 ..6 ..7
ATTACK: ..............54 45 36 27 18 09
ATTACK-Kzinti: .....54 45 36 27 27 27
ATTACK-Fed-Klg: ..54 45 36 27 18 18

CRIPPLED SBX EW FACTOR vs ATTACK FACTOR
EWF: .................2 ..3 ..4
ATTACK: ...........27 18 09
ATTACK-Kzinti: ..27 18 14

BTX EW FACTOR vs ATTACK FACTOR
EWF: .................1 ..2 ..3 ..4
ATTACK: ...........18 14 09 05
ATTACK-Z-F-K: ..18 14 09 09

CRIPPLED BTX EW FACTOR vs ATTACK FACTOR
EWF: ............1 ..2
ATTACK: .........09 05
ATTACK-Z-F-K: ...09 06

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 06, 2021 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Many new things have been added/updated in

http://www.starfleetgames.com/F&EWarbookAnnexes.shtml

including the new Supplemental file.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, July 06, 2021 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Repeated Rules File: (515.0) Carrier Groups. Reason: (515.0) Carrier Groups was originally published in Carrier War with the introduction of escorts to allow players the flexibility to build their own carrier groups to include the groups with the original type and number of escorts. When 2010 was published with the expanded 280 counter sheets the majority of the extra counter space went to escorts as part of the elimination of the clunky CEDS rules. (515.0) is currently published in both the F&E 2010 rulebook and Fighter Operations 2016 rulebook. Thomas Mathews 6 July 2021.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Tuesday, July 06, 2021 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Error in:

Warbook Annexes, Supplemental File (800)

(000.0) STELLAR FORTRESSES (SFB)
SFXs have 14 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 7 SIDS steps before a crippled SBX is destroyed.

This should be corrected to:
"SFXs have 14 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 7 SIDS steps before a crippled SFX is destroyed."

RATIONALE: The paragraph is about SFX, not SBX.


QUESTION about this supplement:

Is this a good place to put the F&E ship factors table for Romulan modular dreadnoughts (Omnihawk, Megahhawk and Demonhawk)?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 06, 2021 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Good place? Dunno. It's a SIT thing, really, but may need a special SIT entry of some kind.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 08, 2021 - 03:28 am: Edit

"Error in:

Warbook Annexes, Supplemental File (800)

(000.0) STELLAR FORTRESSES (SFB)
SFXs have 14 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 7 SIDS steps before a crippled SBX is destroyed.

This should be corrected to:
"SFXs have 14 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 7 SIDS steps before a crippled SFX is destroyed."

RATIONALE: The paragraph is about SFX, not SBX.


Correction - the - unit anacronym needs to be updated in the rule title too -


"(000.0) STELLAR FORTRESSES (SFX)

SFXs have 14 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 7 SIDS steps before a crippled SFX is destroyed."

Depending how the rule is also shown though, the rule may need to cover both STF's and SFX (i.e. both Stellar Fortresses and X-Stellar Fortresses).

The following may therefore be required :-

"(000.0) STELLAR FORTRESSES (STF and SFX)

STFs have 10 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 5 SIDS steps before a crippled STF is destroyed.

SFXs have 14 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 7 SIDS steps before a crippled SFX is destroyed."

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, July 08, 2021 - 10:48 am: Edit

@Paul Howard: Reminder that SVC prefers that each comment be listed one at a time, begin with the rule number, and end with your name and the date of the comment. Doing so helps him process them.

You might want to reformat slightly.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 08, 2021 - 08:56 pm: Edit

I can handle that one.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, July 08, 2021 - 09:19 pm: Edit

@ Paul Howard:

I respectfully disagree. SFX are still SFB, save with the addition of X technology. The "base hull" is still SFB.

FEDS CONFIRMS:

SFBs (compost 50/25; SIDS=5) have 10 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 5 SIDS steps before a crippled SFB is destroyed.

SFXs (compost 70/55; SIDS=5) have 14 SIDS steps before they are crippled and 7 SIDS steps before a crippled SFX is destroyed.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, July 09, 2021 - 08:28 am: Edit

Mike - Sorry.

I assumed SFB wouldn't be wanted as the anacronym, as those who play both SFB ad F&E may not like it - plus SFB's as a rule covers both STF's and SFX's?

(The SITS shows the non X-SFB to be a STF).