Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Michael Helbig]

I wish we could just get past this. Personally I'm sock of this topic.  Sigh

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021, 3:30 PM Charles Carroll via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

> Matt since the listed escorts for it are um...NONE....that makes it easy,
> Or are you going to write up an escort table for ships that do not have
> escorts ever? And just arbitrarily assign some for it based on some other
> ship?
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 9:15 AM Matt <matt at mattnet.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> *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
>>
> ____________________________________________________
> 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/20210224/ef53d8fd/attachment-0002.html>