Maybe, maybe not. But that was the only time in however many games where shuttles were even used.

Couple things:

1) The point is to mimic the "experience" of the Star Fleet Universe, not TV/movies. If I were to do the movies, I'd probably use FASA as the starting point, rather than SFB/FC.

2) Drones/fighters are disproportionately influential in any game of Starmada, not just in Klingon Armada. As has been discussed elsewhere, I am not by any means convinced that they are unbalanced, and I believe there are many ways of countering them... but if you don't have some kind of plan, I admit they will dominate the game.

Considering these points, I'm not sure I agree there is any reason to dilute and/or eliminate drones.

In the games we played (at DieCon and then at Archon) drones themselves weren't always decisive -- but how the Feds dealt with the drone threat from the Klingons determined whether they won or lost... I don't remember a single probe being used, and shuttles proved to be a nuisance at best.

The Kzin NCA actually has 6 drone racks... 4 drones and 2 anti-drones. In KA, however, no distinction is made between the two. The D7 has 2 drones and 1 anti-drone.

The number and types of weapons and equipment on each ship are based on their current appearance in Federation Commander. Since I am not intimately familiar with the SFU, I can't comment on whether they have changed over the years.

As a size 10 ship, the Fed CA can launch up to 3 "flights" each turn (per rule F.4). As each shuttle is a separate flight, then the answer is "yes".

I'm tempted not to reply to this due to the repeated use of the word "hella", but I'll let it slide. This time.

The number of hexes a 60* arc weapon can cover is determined as follows:

((R+1)*(R+2)/2)-1

ie. a Range-6 weapon can cover 27 hexes, while a Range-12 weapon can cover 90.

A ship's engine rating determines how far it can extend the far edge of that "cone" in a single turn... so Range x (Engines + Range) is a pretty good estimation of the coverage of a weapon (ignoring the /2, which is a constant). In practice, the only change would be to remove the /Range portion of the weapon ORAT calculation.

We actually talked about this during the development of the Admiralty Edition. I don't remember why we didn't implement it...

These cards have been completed and provided to ADB. I understand they will be available as free downloads.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

Defender's choice.

This is something I think I was doing incorrectly when running the games at Archon. The number on the shield rating track and the total of all shield facets should always be equal. So, if the shield rating is 0, all indicated shield damage must be allocated by the defending player.

No. You must lose a point from a non-zero facet.

This should not happen. See above.

My preference would be that they are out of play, but I'm not sure it really matters one way or the other. As long as everyone knows the "ground rules" before the game begins, you can do it either way.

I think it is a corollary to the fighters-to-ships ratio discussion, and I disagree that there's no tradeoff. For a cost savings of less than 4%, your example battery of weapons must (a) all fire in one mode or the other; you can't split between them and (b) the decision on which mode to use is made before anyone has moved, so there's no guarantee you'll be able to use them in the most efficient manner.

Not true.

Theoretical Weapon A (RNG 12, ROF 1, ACC 4+, IMP 1, DMG 1, Piercing +1)

Base SU cost = 9

Theoretical Weapon B, Mode 1 (RNG 12, ROF 1, ACC 4+, IMP 1, DMG 1, Piercing +1, Starship-Exclusive)
Theoretical Weapon B, Mode 2 (RNG 12, ROF 1, ACC 4+, IMP 1, DMG 1, Fighter-Exclusive)

Base SU cost = 6.3 + 3.6/2 = 8.1, round up to 9

All other things being equal, if you have ships with Starship Exclusive weapons and I don't, you get 20% more points. So, you'll probably win more often than not.

On the other hand, all I have to do is bring a few fighters, and the balance shifts back into my favor. Even if you give your weapons an anti-fighter mode, each turn you are fending off my fighters is a turn you're not attacking my ships.

Actually, thinking about it...

Extra Hull Damage "automatically inflicts a hull it". Catastrophic says "For each hull hit, roll a die."

Thus, the average amount of hull damage caused by this combination would be (100% x 3.5) + (50% x 3.5) = 5.25. Comparing this to the normal 0.5 hull hits, and you get a multiplier of 10.5, which is the product of 3 x 3.5.

All is well.

Unfortunately, no.

I'd go with (a).

See mea culpa above.

Earlier in the book I mention that those options from the Core Rulebook do not have their construction/point-cost information included.

Actually, I was right for once... 0.8 is the multiplier for combined Carronade/Doubled Range Modifiers.

See mea culpa above.

When you are composing your message, you should see a box below the text area with two tabs: one for "options" and one for "upload attachment". Click on the second one.