Dramatic SFB: Age of PFs Orders

Wayne Power wdpower at yahoo.com.au
Fri Sep 11 22:16:12 PDT 2020


 The Peladine have one  battle remaining, scenario 2189 probe recovery, Peladine DW "Sutu" with 2x SKTs interceptors vs Klingon Office of Security D5K (probably will be resolved during the week).
all good
    On Monday, 7 September 2020, 08:09:53 am AEST, 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
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20200912/7fd73173/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the SFBdrama mailing list