Dramatic SFB: Age of PFs Orders

[Majead Farsi]

yep! That one I will get my ass kicked to the otherside of the galaxy! Well
outgunned and even on an equal fleet very difficult to stop u from getting
1 ship there for 1 impulse!
The freighter one is more of an equal battle but you are up there too! I'm
trying to see if there is any way to save the freighters as they are so
slow and your QWT will catch them for certain! Not looking good for those
Freighter captains 😀


On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 09:16, Don Lavanty <emeketos at gmail.com> wrote:

> yeah for that fight I need to seriously evaluate if its worth it.
>
> I am game for the Freighter one, I was very surprised you fit a carrier in
> with the move/side limitation I think I have the upper hand in that fight
> but I am not sure by how much. you have an actual squadron of 8 vs my
> casual 6(3x2) plus the interceptors.
>  assume you are exiting stage left on the overwhelming.
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:06 AM Majead Farsi <majeadfarsi at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> More like 300 more than yours! I will be fighting this one! As I'm well
>> up here in fire power! Encounter #2116 I'm not fighting that one as I'm
>> well outgunned!! #2115 I'm still debating if there is a way of saving the
>> freighters. will let you know on that one!
>>
>> Majead
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 08:38, Don Lavanty <emeketos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Trust me I find fighting Carnivon's very dangerous those disruptor
>>> cannons are nasty. His force does include a CV group but I have 6
>>> interceptors included
>>>
>>> Carnivon have
>>> CWL, 2xCW, CWB, DWS,  2xDWA, CVS 12 fighters(JK-4 & HY-3), ISC CC w//
>>> int's
>>> vs my Paravian
>>> CWL, 3xCW, RMS w/ 2p-b&p-sd w/ ints, BCH w/ Ints, DWL w/ int's
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> his force is at least 100bp more than mine.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:52 AM Wayne Power via SFBdrama <
>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You would need to battle in a fleet, with some heavy ships, to take
>>>> that Paravian force on.
>>>> On Monday, 7 September 2020, 09:38:20 am AEST, Gregory Flusche via
>>>> SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes looks legal to me as well
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2020 at 6:09 PM Matt via SFBdrama <
>>>> sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > He has a total of 7 ships with 4 command type/ Leader equivalent
>>>> ships
>>>> > ( they have Flag bridges etc!). Is this Fleet legal or has he got too
>>>> > many leaders/ Command ships. His ships are :
>>>> > CWL, CW, CW, CW, RMS (with 3 pods), BCH, DWL.
>>>> > To be honest it's the DWL that looks as if it should not be there by
>>>> > itself as there are no SC 4 ships to lead!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Flag bridge does not necessarily make it a leader variant. For example,
>>>> starbases (S8.27) and some Lyran ships (R11.5). Even leader variants
>>>> don't always have flag bridge - see most DWLs and FLGs. As near as I
>>>> figure, leader variants are marked as such only on the SSD (though
>>>> looking at higher-than-normal Command Ratings for the class can be an
>>>> indicator. Unfortunately, that also captures some PFTs and carriers.)
>>>> See (S8.36); it begins with the most complete definition of a leader
>>>> variant that is off the top of my head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The RMS (regardless of the number of pods) counts as a Size-Class 2
>>>> ship. As such, it counts under (S8.331). One would think that (S8.363)
>>>> applies to keep it from being considered as a leader, but the RMS is
>>>> actually a dreadnaught-sized tug variant - which is still not a leader
>>>> variant. (note that the tug pods are never applied against a flagship's
>>>> command rating.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The BCH very much is under (S8.333). This also excludes it from being
>>>> considered a leader variant. This also allows the BCH to be included,
>>>> specifically regardless of the inclusion of a Size-Class 2 unit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So per (S8.36), the consideration of leader variants falls to the CWL
>>>> and the DWL. The CWL is leading a full squadron of CWs, allowing the
>>>> DWL
>>>> to be included under (S8.361).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above fleet appears legal to me.
>>>>
>>>> --Matt
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>> ____________________________________________________
>>>> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
>>>> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
>>>> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
>>>> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20200908/06380ae7/attachment-0002.html>