Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Matt]

> *Romulan Heavy Hawks*: Go by the above carrier definitions. The 
> Superhawk (SUP) is a true carrier because it has more fighters than 
> are allowed as a hybrid carrier. If you want a Hawk hybrid carrier, 
> make Farhawks instead.
>
> Why would the SUP be considered a true carrier (it carries 8 fighters) 
> when the Farhawk is a hybrid carrier (it carries 12 fighters). Both 
> ships should be considered hybrid carriers since they both have their 
> carrier version which are the SUB and the FAB. SUP and FAK both dont 
> require escorts while the SUB and FAB do need escorts.

You're right. I had to dig into the Master Ship Book for the Romulans, 
where it describes the ships better than it did in the module they were 
released in. The MSSB indeed say that the SUP and FAK both are "true 
carriers". Apologies for confusing things by saying that the Farhawk was 
a hybrid carrier.


> With the exception of the Hydrans, very few ships have the ability to 
> carry fighters without having escorts.

Indeed.


> What about Jindarian rock ships when they can have from 4 to 12 
> fighters in addition to up to 6 bombers. Those are considered hybrid 
> carriers (They dont require escorts)

If you mean (R16.R2), where the asteroid ships may replace some 
prospecting shuttles with fighters, that rule specifically points out 
that these are hybrid carriers.

There are some true carrier variants, mentioned in (R16.R3) and given 
their own shout-out in (R16.xx). Those would need escorts.


> In addition S8.315 does not invalidate S8.311 in my own opinion. If 
> S8.315 invalidates S8.311, every ship that has a V in the MSS would 
> need to have escorts (including all hydans hybrid carriers and 
> Jindarian hybrid rockships) because S8.315 would invalidate the R 
> section, where it is listed if the ships requires escort. This would 
> also include all BB's since they carry 6+ fighters.

I presume you are referring to the last line of (S8.311), which says 
"/Some carriers are listed as having no escorts and may operate as 
such./" This line you refer to, is the crux of the whole conversation. I 
take this to mean the normal state of SFB (e.g. some ships have "none" 
in their escort tables.) When playing by an optional rule, some "normal" 
rules are ignored. I've come out and said that the flexible escort rules 
overrule that line of the rules.


> I will make a list of all ships that carry fighters (excluding hydran 
> hybrid carriers) and if they can have escorts and of the ones that can 
> have escorts but are not required to do so as per their ships 
> description. (there is not that manhy of them)

No need.

If it's a true carrier, it needs escorts. Blanket statement.


> If you rule that the SUP-A/K needs escorts, i will have to either 
> change my initial build order or convert it to a SUB. FAK are not 
> available since they are UNV. The only reason i build a SUP is that it 
> did not need escorts as per R4.34 (same as the FAK as per R4.128)

But in the Romulan MSSB, the SUP is a "true carrier". Thus, per the 
campaign ruling that is a mere three days old and has spilled gallons of 
email text, it needs escorts.


--Matt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210224/e98cd46a/attachment-0002.html>