Federation Commander

I was looking over my Romulan ship cards for an upcoming tournament and I noticed that the Fleet Scale Royal Hawk has a PV of 100 while the Fleet Scale Nova Hawk has a PV of 101. Looking at the cards I see no other differences.

In Squadron Scale, both ships have a PV of 192 and differ only in the plasmas, the Royal Hawk has 1 R and 2 F torps while the Nova Hawk has 2 S and 2 F torps.

I can understand the squadron scale same PV different torps, but the 1 PV difference between the Fleet Scale versions (with identical cards) is confusing.

Any ideas?

I don't have the cards handy, but, I believe the 1 point value difference is because the RoyalHawk's Pl-S has an FA arc, but the NovaHawk's Pl-S has an FP arc.

Yep, that's it.
Dang - need to look a LOT closer.

Thanks

I remeber being confused by that one too.

I think I'm going to be sick...

Mike wrote:I think I'm going to be sick...

I don't quite follow ...

Anyway, the reason for the different arcs is because of what the Pl-S represents. In the case of the RoyalHawk, the Pl-R is FA, therefore its fleet scale Pl-S should also be FA. However, the NovaHawk's Pl-Ss are FP, therefore its fleet scale Pl-S should also be FP. Therefore, the otherwise identical fleet scale ships have that one slight difference.

FWIW, Steve originally planned to combine the two fleet scale ships into a single ship on the NovaHawk card, then use the fleet scale side of the RoyalHawk for something else (most likely a fleet scale Battlestation). However, the general concensus was that both ships should have their own fleet scale flipside, even if they are identical. That was when I pointed out that the fleet scale ships are not exactly identical ...

(I know no one wants to know the backstory. But, there it is.)

pinecone wrote:I remeber being confused by that one too.

Post Count UP UP UP!!!

I think thats why he is going to be sick. Maybe its just me but I am a bit sick of Pinecones inserting "meaningless sentence here" posts on EVERY active thread. It's getting old. And yes I am the jerk but for the love of all that is good in Internetland someone had to say it. Now if you must ban me for being so judgemental I understand, I will take one for the team.

FWIW, I happen to agree - Forums should be kept clear of meaningless "me too" posts.

(although I suppose me posting here I guess is the same kinda thing - Oops), but it does need to be said.

I didn't wan't him to feel like he was the only one who missed that. Are you going to give me a hard time about this all through out my time on the fourms? I don't want you to get banned, or myself either. I apologize for that if you don't think it was important. I'll try to stop posting useless things, but what do you consider useless?

Mike West:

Actually, those backstories are very interesting and go a long way to explain the reasons for some things. There are those of us who do want to know the truth...

I am going to make this post here because, while totally off-topic, it is where the comments were made. After this post (yes, I am claiming last word here on this), I will delete any followups. If anyone wants to have a discussion on "meaningless posts" (and whatever that means), please do so in an appropriate thread in the General topic.

For the record, pinecone's post here was perfectly fine. However, I can also see the issue from other posts that have been made. But let's please move the discussion to somewhere more appropriate.

Thank you.