Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[David Hanson]

 So where do the Jindarian Rock CA with 6 meter fighters fall in this rubric?  These seem to fail the casual carrier rule of 1-2 fighters and the hybrid rule in S8.322 that are 5 and under and exemption in R are not upheld.
    On Sunday, February 21, 2021, 10:53:11 PM CST, Matt via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:  
 
 
> Some Roms like SUP-As are always exempt since they never need escorts.


This is a case where you need to determine what type of carrier they 
are. Looking at the Superhawk:

- It has 8 fighters, that's more than two, so it's not a casual carrier 
(J4.62).

- It has more than six fighters, so it's not a hybrid carrier (S8.322). 
That's a shame: I wanted it to fit here.

- There is no flavor text or mention in other sources that claims it was 
intended for a specific role. The examples in (J4.62), the text of 
(R9.R4), or the flavor text of (R4.128) are examples of countervailing 
"other sources".

- It has an escort table and the "V" note in the MSC. That pretty much 
nails it as a "true" carrier without the others to fall back on.

So the Superhawk needs escorts.


Some of the other heavy hawks (R4.N3) include the Killerhawk, Novahawk, 
and the Royalhawk, which have no fighters. This suggests that it was not 
an attempt to create a hull classification that traditionally carriers 
fighters simply for the firepower benefit (unlike the Farhawks.) 
However, the Thunderhawk,Superhawk-N (the "Sunhawk"), and the 
Superhawk-B are obviously intended as full carriers.


--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/20210222/d657c876/attachment-0002.html>