Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Gregory Flusche]

Seltorion ready to advance


On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 4:15 PM Majead Farsi via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

> I would guess you go with the size class of carrier. Size class 3 has 2
> but can have 3 and 1 of them must be size class 4. rest you can choose I
> would guess.
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 20:30, 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
>>
> ____________________________________________________
> 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/20210224/43c012e6/attachment-0002.html>