Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

Wed Feb 24 15:04:08 PST 2021

With the Seltorians/Hydrans 141 battle resolved we should all be RTA, and on to cycling the turn..:> (Matt has ruled on carriers/escorts).
all good    On Thursday, 25 February 2021, 08:42:36 am AEST, Gregory Flusche via SFBdrama <sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:  

 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

____________________________________________________
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/20210224/25140e0e/attachment-0002.html>