Latest Errata File

[Da Boss]

What I think he is saying that the Fed Dreadnought benefits much more than the other Dreadnoughts as like the C8 it has turn 6 which means it can actually make two turns going at normal speed.

The majority of the others have turn 9 which means that even with ALL Power to engines (move 16) they can still only make one.

 

[billclo]

What I think he is saying that the Fed Dreadnought benefits much more than the other Dreadnoughts as like the C8 it has turn 6 which means it can actually make two turns going at normal speed.

The majority of the others have turn 9 which means that even with ALL Power to engines (move 16) they can still only make one.

Which is why I would argue for a house-rule that you can accumulate movement from the last turn to make turning easier...simply place a small die behind the ship to note how much straight line movement has occurred since the last turn.

 

[Da Boss]

I would prefer it stays as is to avoid clutter on the table - there is IMO, more than enough things to track especially having to track all the defesive fire from phasers etc. If neccesary I would rather the other Dreadnoughts drop to turn 6 (or even 8 as that would allow two turns under All Power).

 

[Asguard101]

Going by what we know of the Mongoose conversion system, it is 2 x hull = damage score.

The Sparrowhawk and the Fasthawk break this rule (or the Sparrowhawk would be 30 and the Fasthawk 36). The Firehawk is marked as 32 because the Firehawk-K, which is the SFU ship the Mongoose Firehawk is based on, sacrifices two hull boxes for extra phaser-1s. However there are also two versions of the Fasthawk, the Fasthawk-A and the Fasthawk-K. Again the -K sacrifices two hull for two extra phasers. Given the way the weapons are arranged (the phaser-1s in blocks of 2) then I would say the Mongoose Firehawk is the Firehawk-K.

This means that there are two phaser-1s missing still and the hull value is 8 more than another version of the hull with exactly the same number of hull boxes.

So your saying it's missing 2 PH-1s and the hull is over valued?

 

[Clanger]

Da Boss said

I would prefer it stays as is to avoid clutter on the table - there is IMO, more than enough things to track especially having to track all the defesive fire from phasers etc. If neccesary I would rather the other Dreadnoughts drop to turn 6 (or even 8 as that would allow two turns under All Power).

As a Romulan player this would be a nice idea.

 

[archon96]

Page 14 of the errata "Remove the lumbering trait and delete all references to it from the rest of the rule book."

Lumbering is gone period. The Dn's should be alot more playable now.

 

[Keeper Nilbog]

Don't think they'll drop the Turn 9's to 8, as that allows them to give Lt. Dreads that and get 2 turns on APTE. All it means at the mo is that Fed and Klingon Dreads are more maneuverable than others. Happy with the Klingon models, not sure on the Fed DN, may need a boost to turn, or all non-klingon dread's have turn 8 (then lights could have turn 7 and fast - 3 turns flat out)

And as far as Battleships go, i'd look at bringing back lumbering - but in it's B5/NA version where it was the end of your move. Then you could make the things Turn 8 whilst still giving the dread's some benefits.

 

[Iain McGhee]

Kzinti CM's still a couple of Phaser-1s short. The original version was essentially correct, but it lost 1AD from PH/SH in a previous "fix". Suspect it was intended that it should have got 1AD each F,P and F,S added (to match the CL's arcs) at the same time but there was some miscommunication.

 

[Totenkopf]

C8 needs something if all other DNs are no longer lumbering...and yeah...now the D5 costs more points than the D7 which is supposed to more expensive to produce...but I suppose it balances out the Klingon fleet.

 

[JohnDW]

How does 'take evasive action' interact with the new seeking weapon rules?

Within 18" i see it being how it was before, but longer ranges than that? Would you do opposed skill check to see if its ignored completely, and then if that fails, still get the -1 to hit for a -2 to-hit penalty total for the drones to hit?

 

[MongooseMatt]

now the D5 costs more points than the D7 which is supposed to more expensive to produce

Points do not equal currency.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Just updated the Hawk ships.

 

[Asguard101]

Just updated the Hawk ships.

Where are they updated at?

 

[billclo]

now the D5 costs more points than the D7 which is supposed to more expensive to produce

Points do not equal currency.

Correct. As I recall, the base D7 hull costs 125 BPV, whereas the D5 costs 110. Monetary cost of building a hull is not reflected in BPV cost normally. I think there are some units where it lists the economic cost but you pay the combat BPV (like Fast Patrol ships).

Now in F&E, it is. 8 Economic points to build a D7 (rated at 8 combat value), versus a D5 which costs 5 Economic points (rated as a 7 combat value).

 

[MongooseMatt]

Just updated the Hawk ships.

Where are they updated at?

On the errata.

 

[Asguard101]

Just updated the Hawk ships.

Where are they updated at?

On the errata.

I guessed that, I meant the link at the front of this thread points to the PDF that was put out yesterday, where would I find the new one you updated?

 

[Da Boss]

now the D5 costs more points than the D7 which is supposed to more expensive to produce

Points do not equal currency.

Why did the D5 go up rather than the D7 go down which was IMO more realistic?

Slightly irated that the Romulans keep getting effective upgrades for free and the Klingons have to pay for theirs..........

 

[Nerroth]

The new file. (Thanks for the FastHawk fix!)

 

[Captain Jonah]

now the D5 costs more points than the D7 which is supposed to more expensive to produce

Points do not equal currency.

Why did the D5 go up rather than the D7 go down which was IMO more realistic?

Slightly irated that the Romulans keep getting effective upgrades for free and the Klingons have to pay for theirs..........

What is an Upgrade, all we get is vanishing Phasers :lol: :wink:

 

[Nerroth]

Just noticed the change to the SparrowHawk's Damage score, which brings it more in line with its size relative to the Firehawk elsewhere. (It's meant to be pretty big for a "light" cruiser.)