Carnivon and Paravian Tournament ships?

Any word on if these ships are being worked on for possible play-testing in a tourney venue?

I was looking at the Paravian

I was looking at the Paravian CC since the tourney ships are usually based on a CC class vessel. It has 5xQWT. The CA has 4XQWT. I would 'think' that if/when a tourney ship is create it would probably need the 5xQWT.


My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser


I've never played the tournament ships before (although I figured they were based more or less on the CA for most races).

I think the QWT is nasty. Five is a handful to deal with every turn. I don't know what the Gorn TC carries in plasmas, but the Paravian should be comparable.

The QWT does hold it's warhead strength much longer than normal plasmas, and is just as hard to kill after 20 hexes of movement as it is after 2 hexes, so knocking 'em out with phasers is not a very economical proposition (methinks).

We've been playing with a "pinned" map, which allows for ample maneuvering room yet still places some boundaries on the battlefield.

If tournament games are strictly fixed map, going against 5 QWTs per turn should prove challenging.

Gorn TCC

The Gorn tournament ship has 2XS and 2XF for plasma. IIRC it has 8Xph-1 and 2Xph-3. I cannot carronade. Seems like the tourney ships are based more towards the CC rather than the CA. The Paravian CA = 4XQWT while the CC = 5XQWT. Peter things the Paravian would get mugged in the fixed map tourney environment but perhaps if it stays with the 5XQWT CC version it would be more capable in the tourney environment. Certainly, as you point out, the QWT isn't easy to kill. A standard is going to take 15 (6+11) points to destroy both elements and an OL takes 21 (6+15). And anything less doesn't affect the warhead. That is pretty substantial imo. Unless it gets weaseled, which is a losing proposition for the opponent as they're going to rapidly run out of shuttles, it is going to eat phasers like candy and you're still not going to stop all of them. You can take them on different shields probably but it's going to quickly shred your shields since it can fire every turn. Yes, you have to be in the forward arc but likely your opponent will be going slow (WW) or he'll be running. He 'might' be chasing you but that would mean he/she flew through 4 or 5 QWT, possibly OL'd. That'll mean no phasers for their alpha and chewed up shields. And the Paravian will still have all its phasers.

And the ability to hit with an OL at R14 is substantial as well. Fighting plasma, I'd eat an S-EPT and an F if I had the opportunity to get behind someone and pepper them with QWT every turn.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser


As a designer of the early year QWT, does anyone have a chart link to something that has the Gen War QWT on it?

I would be curious how it looks now.
Gregg Dieckhaus

Birdy vs Gorn

Paravian has the turn mode
Gorn has the phasers (slightly?)
power pretty even (weapons considered)
plasma way more flexible
quantums more frequent (oh yeah)
plasma 3 ECCM (helpful) vs quantum 3 ECM (devious)
Gorn has lots of shuttles
Paravian probably has just as many

i think 5 qwt would be pushing it, but plasma torps can go places where the QWT only dreams of

call it 4.5

Preview file

I think they're the same as in CL28, but I may be wrong.

There's a free C6 preview file which has SSDs of the Paravian and Carnivon CWs. I can't find it on the ADB site (which is a mess and has no search facility) but you can get it here

I have it, but don't want to breach copyright by forwarding it.


The "current day" QWT is something like:

Standard: 1/7/1 out to 10, 1/5/1 out to 15, 1/3/1 out to 30 or something

Overload is about 50% more on the main element (I think 1/11/1 and 1/7/1?).

In terms of the hypothetical TCC, I suspect that 5xQWT is probably too many. But 4 in the FA is asking to get cornered and killed.

Standard QWT 1-5-1 out to 7,

Standard QWT 1-5-1 out to 7, 1-4-1 to 14, 1-3-1 to 21, 1-2-1 to 26, 1-1-1 to 29 and 0-1-0 at 30.

OL QWT 1-10-1 out to 7 and 1-7-1 to 14.

Standard is 2 points, 1 hold. OL is 4 points (2 warp) and 2 hold.

For a TCC you'd either have to expand the arc for 4 QWT or give them 5 like the standard SFB CC. The CC has 6xph-1 and 4xph-3.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser


I guess I was thinking of the overloads. And off by a few factors :-)

Figure the QWT is pretty much

Figure the QWT is pretty much like a 'Plasma Disruptor' but slightly better (if it hits of course). A FH QWT would be pretty substantial or a FA/L and FA/R. But I'm thinking that 5XQWT in the FA for a TCC would be a good starting place. The Hydran has 2Xhelbore and 4Xfusion and the Selt has 4XPC and IIRC 2XSB so it isn't out of bounds for five HW for a tourney ship. The FA (like on the regular SFB CC) would put some reasonable limits on it of course. The bird has B turn mode so that helps as well. And the 6xph-1/4xph-3 is reasonable for a tourney ship as well.

Good starting point anyway. Tweak as needed (if needed). Only way to see for sure is to develop it and playtest it. NK tourneys may be a good test ground for it as IIRC you can use non-sanctioned ships if the other party agrees. Figure it would be like a 5 disruptor Klink without the drones/ADD and one less phaser overall. I don't think it would be anymore prone to being corner-mugged than other ships like the Klink that have FA HW's. It would be interesting to see...

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Heavy Weapons

>> The Hydran has 2Xhelbore and 4Xfusion and the Selt has 4XPC and IIRC 2XSB so it isn't out of bounds for five HW for a tourney ship.>>

It is important to keep in mind that these are hit on different lines on the DAC (i.e. torp/drone), so they fall off twice as fast.

On the Hydran's front, yeah, it has the 4 fusions along with the 2xHB, but it also has few P1s, and restrictive arcs.

On the Selt's front, it has 4xPC and 3xSC, but it is *still* pretty horrible :-)

poor buggers

are the Seltorian ships considered weak overall?

i've only flown/flown against them a few times
(been meaning to more)


The Seltorian is pretty bad, as TCs go. The Particle Canons are bad--they do damage like disruptors but hit like photons. They theoretically make up for it by being able to fire twice a turn, but that hardly ever works out well. They have a good phaser suite, and 3x Shield Crackers, but the ship is insanely power hungry, inaccurate, and not real effective in any direction. It has no seeking weapons, no way to affect enemy movement, not a particularly devastating alpha strike, and generally kind of blows.

In theory, on an open map, with a fleet of ships, Particle Canons could be kind of good--if you are firing like, 30 of them, twice a turn, the damage is going to add up. But on a closed map vs other TCs, they are pretty bad, especially as you have to wait 12 impulses over a turn break to fire again.

>>The Particle Canons are

>>The Particle Canons are bad--they do damage like disruptors but hit like photons<<

That's a good way to sum it up. It *can* be good under the right set of circumstances. For example, R9-15 is a 50% chance of a hit for 3 damage. That isn't terrible. With some nice dice you could dance at range and soften up a shield or two and then come in for the OL punch which is slightly inferior to the disruptor OL punch. The SB has a decent chance (50% or better) of hitting on the way in before the OL strike to further soften up the (hopefully) damaged shield or even better, take it down completely. The FA ph-1 suite actually is pretty nice with 8xph-1. That's equal to the Feds. And the other arcs for those ph-1's are actually pretty sweet with LS/RS or FA/L and FA/R. Tack on 4xph-3 with LS/RS arcs and it's actually not that bad at all and I'd go as far as saying that maybe it's a bit under-appreciated. Maybe it just hasn't been flown enough to really bring out the strong points? It has 40 power so it's on the top end in that regard and has 6 transporters for the marines which comes in handy as well.

As with some of the other ships (like the Fed) if you soften up a shield at R15 with some good die rolls, and then come in for an OL alpha and roll will with the PC's and SB's (SB's first making sure they can't turn a fresh shield before the alpha) then you're going to do some fairly nasty internals. Roll badly and it's going to be a bad/long day.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Shield Cracker

I should say Shield Cracker and not Shield Breaker actually. ;)

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser


>> ". . . it's actually not that bad at all and I'd go as far as saying that maybe it's a bit under-appreciated. Maybe it just hasn't been flown enough to really bring out the strong points?

heck yeah - kinda like the Charlie Brown Christmas Tree

i'm gonna put the Bugs back on the docket for a future session

Paravian TCC

I see Jim Davies proposed a TCC back in 2009 to ADB.

This is a 4XQWT version which is more like the CA than the CC version that has 5XQWT. The difference is that the proposed version has the 4QWT as FP instead of FA. He states that he feels the 4QWT/FA version is a bit weak while the 4QWT/FP is a bit strong. I don't remember offhand the difference between FP and FH.

This TCC version also has more ph-3's added (6xph-1 and 6xph-3). Power of 38 and has cargo boxes. If you're going to go with FP for the QWT then I think I'd back it down a bit on the ph-3's. No more that 4 and maybe only 2 ph-3's. The LS/RS ph-1's can be used for rear defense as well so that covers the RA as well as say the FED TCC.

If a TCC is going to keep the FA on the QWT then I'd suggest five of them. Whereas 4QWT is okay, 5QWT is kinda scary and makes up for the FA arc. Not something you'd want to see HET in your direction!

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

>>i'm gonna put the Bugs back

>>i'm gonna put the Bugs back on the docket for a future session<<

I agree. Too be honest, I'm kinda pumped about flying the doggies and the birdies as well as the bugs. Like my original thoughts on the Carnivons and the use of the DB's firing rate, I just 'feel' that the Parv and Selts have yet to be truly maximized on the tactics.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Paravians old and new

My old Paravian TC was based on the CL28 conjectural birds. The new ones from C6 don't have cargo, so that would go, probably replaced with about 4 more C hull.

The main difference between FP and FA torps is not the slightly increased tracking arc (180 vs 120) but that it can launch out of 3 shields rather than 1, which makes a huge difference in the knife fight. At R0-1, an FA Paravian without its front shield will be gutted by DF before it can launch.

The alternative way around this is to do what the CW does: have a MASSIVE front shield. The CW shields are 34-20-20-20, which if scaled to a TC total of 162 boxes gives 42-24-24-24.


If the PCs had better firing arcs (say FAL/FAR) and were on a more agile hull (B) so you could get two shots per turn on a relevant shield*, they'd be OK. But instead they're nailed to the FA of this lumbering carcass with a D turn mode that has no effective way to control the enemy's movement, so heaven help you if the enemy gets behind you. The only option you have is to run or HET. Thankfully it can HET at 28, but that's the only saving grace for this thing.

* and didn't have such punitive hold costs

Particle Canons

>>That's a good way to sum it up. It *can* be good under the right set of circumstances. For example, R9-15 is a 50% chance of a hit for 3 damage. That isn't terrible. With some nice dice you could dance at range and soften up a shield or two and then come in for the OL punch which is slightly inferior to the disruptor OL punch.>>

The big problems with the PC. Well, many of them:

-At R9-15, they hit for 3 on a 1-3. For 2 damage on the first shot. Which is 1.5 damage expected for 2 power, compared to the 2 damage expected for a disruptor for the same energy. If you can fire it twice, it comes out to identical to the disruptor (1 damage per energy), at 3 expected damage for 3 (2+1) power, but you are stuck likely hitting 2 different shields and using more power.

-The big killer is R2. Disruptors hit 1-5 for 8 damage at R2. Photons hit 1-5 for 16 damage at R2. PCs hit 1-4 for 8 damage. Which are horrible odds for getting that close.

mistakes were made

far from perfect agreed, but for a bunch of arthropods they aren't without their merits (they can always serve as a bad example to other races)

plus, who wants to lose to 'em?

Long Live the Queen!

>>-The big killer is R2.

>>-The big killer is R2. Disruptors hit 1-5 for 8 damage at R2. Photons hit 1-5 for 16 damage at R2. PCs hit 1-4 for 8 damage. Which are horrible odds for getting that close.<<

I agree with you here, 1-4 at R2 kinda does suck...a lot! ;)

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

C6 Paravian TC

And so here is a new Paravian TC as suggested above. You might try 5 QWTs if this is too feeble.

Jim I like your SSD. Some

Jim I like your SSD.

Some initial thoughts/questions. First, the #1 shield is pretty hefty. Why? I can't see it being 'sanctioned' with that big a #1. I understand that many feel the FA for the QWT is going to allow it to get mugged. I don't necessarily see this. Many other weapons/ship have only FA (Fed-photon, Klink-disruptor, Neo Tholian-disruptor, Lyran-disruptor, Hydran-HB, ISC-PPD) and they've stood for years as-is. And several of those ships have either TM of C or D rather than the Paravian B TM. So I don't see the FA for the QWT as a particularly unusual problem. Yes, the photon has crunch...if it hits. Yes, some of the other HW's have some back up (fusions or G plasma). But those take a roll for hit/miss. The QWT pretty much will always hit unless phasered down which takes quite a bit (15 or 21 each) or you out run them. If they're phasered down the opponent isn't going to have many/any phasers for you. If they outrun them you're going to get behind them.

A max standard 4QWT would be 4-20-4. That's pretty decent for 8 points of power. A max Ol 4QWT would be 4-40-4 which is pretty substantial. Yeah, they could run through it but then they're facing something along the lines of 6xph-1 and 2xph-3 which should give some pause (if on the now down shield of course, otherwise it would probably be on the already slightly damaged shield to either side of the down shield and that phaser strike would probably go a long way towards knocking it down as well. At least give it a good whack. So now you have a down shield and a down/weak shield next door). And the QWT's are going to be ready on the very next turn with a B TM or even an HET. The Paravian can afford to stay at range with a pretty high speed and just lob QWT's all turn long, every turn. If the opponent weasels it will be a very short lived defense since they've only got four shuttles. And again, phasers are going to get soaked up quickly.

At first I thought the 6xph-3's was maybe two to many. But if we're going to limit the TCC to basically CA armament (i.e. 4QWT instead of 5QWT) then I see this as a fair compromise. It will help against seekers to be sure. So I like the 6xph-3's.

Question is: nice SSD...what do/can we do with it? It's fine for FTF games of course and I appreciate the effort you've put into it, now do the Carnivon :). But in order to get it santioned (or whatever TCC is finally decided on) it is going to have to have the 'stuff' played out of it for ADB to sanction it. Probably on SFBOL for the most part. So what is the chance of this (or any) SSD being accepted for playtest and put out 'there'?

As far as the Carnivon, I agree with your opinion that it needs to retain 2xHN. One will get killed pretty early so as to make it too much of a non-factor. Yes, I know many consider it a scary weapon. And it is. But hey, that's what it's suppose to be. Photons are scary...if they hit. Plasma S is scary...if it hits. HB's are scary if you have a down shield...and they hit. OL fusion beams are scary...if you can get close enough. HN's need to hit as well. And it is an weapon that the Carnivons are designed to use. That's why their weak on ph-1's but have a nice set of ph-3 rear claws. As with anything, people will need to find tactics to really make it work....and to defeat it.

I don't agree with the 'the tournament ships are fine let's not add anything' position. To me, and no offense intended to anyone, that is a 'lazy' position. This game can't afford to stagnate if it is going to have any sort of continued future. People need to embrace some change so that additional tactics are developed. I've read some are really worried that the AuxBox will not fare well against the Carnivon because of the HN. So what? The TKE (and BP in general) doesn't play well with webs either. But if you want to win the big game(s) you deal with it and work around it. Not every ship in the tournament is going to be 'equal' to every other ship. And though it is nice to have some balance, they don't need to be cookie-cuttered to each other either. Let's face it, in play (as verified by many different winners that have written into CL) there are 'great' match ups that they really feel good about and there are games where they go 'oh crap' about the match up. And it should be that way. Makes it more interesting and is how better tactics are developed.

So overall, I'd like to see a Carnivon TCC (maybe I'll toss one out for 'unofficial' consideration...maybe I'll even submit it for grins). And I like your SSD and I think we'll see about using it and seeing how she flies.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Paravian TC

>>Some initial thoughts/questions. First, the #1 shield is pretty hefty. Why? I can't see it being 'sanctioned' with that big a #1.>>

It took 6 shields off each the #2 and #6 and moved them to the #1. That being said, I also don't think anyone is going to ok that.

>> I understand that many feel the FA for the QWT is going to allow it to get mugged. I don't necessarily see this. Many other weapons/ship have only FA (Fed-photon, Klink-disruptor, Neo Tholian-disruptor, Lyran-disruptor, Hydran-HB, ISC-PPD) and they've stood for years as-is.>>

Direct fire weapons are vastly different than seeking plasma. You fire 4xFA disruptors/photons/whatever, and they are going to hit the shield that you are facing and all your phasers are shooting at the same time. You launch plasmas, that isn't necessarily true. If I launch a plasma an an incoming opponent, it is generally easy for them to take it on a non facing shield. So when they get to close range, they still have a shield to hide behind. Granted, that the QWTs fire every turn might make a difference in this dynamic. But generally speaking, on closed map tournament duels, the way plasma ships tend to operate is either:

-Launch envelopers one at a time, or 50 points of plasma in a chunk, and then evade, hoping to eventually wear their opponent down or find a good window to close and clobber them.

-Run in and anchor/mug.

Big Plasma ships can do this as each individual S torp is significant enough on its own to make someone turn off (or accept significant damage) when enveloped or paired with an F torp. And if you have 3 of 4 torps ready, an anchor is a viable winning move (as that 70-100 damage that you land when you get there is going to make up for the damage you take getting there).

The QWTs can't really do either of these things. As a single QWT isn't scary, and 4xQWT, really, are only likely to take down a non facing shield and maybe do a few internals. And then your opponent is on top of you. And with the FA torps, launching some and then trying to evade is difficult (as you can only launch torps when moving towards your opponent).

That, and all the FA only DF ships also have something else to back them up (except the Fed, but the Fed can win a game and kill you in a single volley)--ESGs, drones, fighters, etc. The ships that don't have back up (the Selt, for example), tend to be not at all good.

Carnivon Tournament Ship

I've started putting together a Carnivon tourny ship for SFBOL. Largely it is the CC with the Y175 refit and without the ability to adjust the deathbolts for ECM. I figure that is a decent enough starting place.

Josh Driscol had been putting together a Paravian TCA just before C6 came out, based on the CL28 Paravians. He'd even flown it a few times (some against me). I've found that the QWTs (when fired as a lump) were enough of a deterrent to mugging because the phasers usually would finish the job once you sidled up to knife-fighting range. Additionally, the long-range of the QWTs and their disruptor-like launch rate make the ship an outstanding dancer.


Like I said, the TCC is based on the CW which has shields of 34-20-20-20. Multiply that by 1.2 and you get a very nice 42-24-24-24, happily giving you the TC standard 3-4-5 and the right total.

True, lots of TCs have FA heavy weapons, but apart from the TKE, they are ALL DF. An FA DF weapon can fire out of 3 shields (6-1-2). An FA seeker can launch out of only 1, the #1. So in a knife fight, you MUST turn that shield towards your opponent to launch (which you want to do every turn). And if it's down, you're taking a world of hurt in return. Add that to the LS/RS phasers and the #1 is even more important.

Whether or not the odd shield allocation is an actual advantage is another question; it does make it more dangerous to approach behind the #1 or #6. But that's the point of making ships different.

As noted, if I were the head of the Paravian naval yards I'd demand FP arcs and 30-30-24-24 shields, but that approach doesn't appear to reflect Paravian doctrine. Maybe QWTs are too bulky to swivel.

This is what I was thinking

This is what I was thinking Matt. 4QWT coming at you, perhaps with several or all of them OL'd would probably force a turn off or a WW. Either of which is good for the Paravian. The opponent could fly through it, but that would be taking 20-40 points of damage not counting the splash elements. Even taking it on a side shield. Of course some of that (but not all of that) could be degraded by phasers, but again that is good for the Paravian. And even a standard, taking 15 points to destroy is pretty much a minimum of 4xph-3's and an OL about 6xph-3's. And that's just one QWT. And as mentioned, they can be fired again on the next turn. So if one wave was taken on a side shield, well it's gone now and the next wave gives you the choice of losing another shield or a WW. Pretty soon the opponent is running out of shields and/or shuttles. A lot quicker than BP. One of the saving graces of the Paravian FA is that it the ship as a B-TM.

If it is finally decided that it should be a TCC (rather than a TCA) the fifth QWT is icing on the cake. It would need another couple of points though (40 total) to make that feasible. IIRC the CC has 30 warp, 8 impulse and 2 APR. That would be about right.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

FA plasma?

a FA plasma (non-swivel) can only launch a torp in the direction of it's #1 shield?

it can't be placed on the map "facing" the #2 or #6 shield at the time of launch?

the one time i flew the Paravian i don't think i was abiding by that rule

FA seeking weapons FP3.11 & FP3.12

FA = 120 degrees (60 on each side). A seeking weapon, in this case the QWT can fire at any target in the 120 degree forward arc but the counter is placed in the same direction as the fixed launcher. So the target ship can be in the #6 or #2 shield arc but the counter will be placed to fire first out of the #1. So no, the #1 shield does not have to face the target ship. You can have the target ship off the #6 or #2 and still fire on it. The QWT will simply go straight out of the #1 for one movement before turning to track.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser


I knew the ISC rear-Fs had that (similar) restriction

I usually play the Gorns with refits, so I guess it was one of those things I forgot from non-use

QWT Launching

>>An FA seeker can launch out of only 1, the #1. So in a knife fight, you MUST turn that shield towards your opponent to launch (which you want to do every turn).>>

I don't know that this is true in this case.

The rules on "fixed" plasma launchers are pretty specific (and only apply to a small number of old ships). The QWT rules are, admittedly, pretty vague on the subject (I suspect that someone just didn't think about it).

Worst case scenario, you face your opponent with your #2 or #6, launch the QWTs facing directly ahead, HET them on the next impulse, and hit the following.

Perhaps it would be possible

Perhaps it would be possible to see if there is an official position on the FA QWT. As noted, at the moment we only have the fixed plasma launcher rule to use as a guideline. Perhaps the FA QWT has the ability to fire out of the 6/2 facings as well like a DF FA ship.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser


>>Worst case scenario, you face your opponent with your #2 or #6, launch the QWTs facing directly ahead, HET them on the next impulse, and hit the following.

Trouble is, this means that the QWTs don't get to hit for a while, which lets the opponent unload (once he knows you're not going to turn the #1) and weasel (with up to 3 impulses to get the WW into the Paravian's hex). Or TAC and take them on a strong shield. Or HET back and watch the QWTs circle helplessly as they can't HET again...I once did that to an enveloping R in similar circumstances.

In any case, I'm not saying that the FA arc is crippling, merely that it's a problem which justifies some solution, and the C6 Paravians have selected a solution.

Awaiting BBS decision

I see Peter asked the question on the BBS on Sunday. The question hasn't been answered yet which leads me to believe that this may have been a case where it slipped through the cracks. No meant as a slap, things like this have slipped through the cracks before and will do so again as it is a complex game with a LOT of variables. I would suspect they're taking a hard look at it before making a firm decision.

This also may have an impact on any future tournament cruiser as well.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser


>>I would suspect they're taking a hard look at it before making a firm decision.>>

It is more likely that just no one has noticed it yet.

Benefit of the doubt ;)

It's been a few days since you asked the question and no one has touched it. Hopefully that means that this design rule did kinda fall through the cracks and no one noticed the implication before. So hopefully it is being discussed behind the scenes with a decision forth-coming. SPP is usually on top of stuff like this. I would imagine (hopefully) that it is being looked at closely as it does have a substantial effect on the weapons system as well as any tournament ship that is designed in the future.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Interesting development

Got a ruling from SPP on the BBS in regards to FA QWT. He stated that 'as of right now' a QWT has to fire only out of the #1 shield. From the way the response was worded there may be room for further thought on the topic. Gregg Dieckhaus (Paravian/QWT designer) just responded in that it was his original intent for the QWT to be able to launch out of the 6/1/2 facings. So perhaps there is further discussion to be made. He agrees that a tourney ship would have difficulty.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

42 #1

There isn't any other tournament ship with a front shield that isn't 30 boxes (except Andro, obviously). I don't see any particular reason to give this ship such a thing, and am certain that it will never be allowed to have 42 boxes on the front shield (unless of course that became the new standard and all tourney ships had that).

Basing the ship on the CW instead of the CA is also not very likely. I think that's only happened when existing CA type hulls were grossly overpowered and not suitable as a tournament ship (Orion CA, LDR CA). The Paravian CA is not in the same league as those.

- Richard Eitzen

I think it would be

I think it would be acceptable for a group to decide the FA QWT question either way. On one hand they could use the official decision (as it stands now) or go with the intent of the original designer.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser



You can use Google to search the Star Fleet Games site by entering your keywords and adding the command to search a site. For example, to search for drones in the site you would type this into Google:


Upcoming tourney

Bringing this back up to the top. We are looking at doing an in-house tournament within our Battle Group. I'd like to add both the Paravian and the Carnivon as well as the Peladine and Borak to the list of choices a player can choose. Also the Frax and Vudar.

Comments on any of them are welcome.

I know we tested out several a couple of years ago. The Paravian, IIRC, had 5xQWT but I'd have to check the SSD. I don't remember what is on SFBOL as far as the Paravian TCC. Does anyone know/remember?

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Paravian TCC

I had since put together a Paravian tourney cruiser and written a tactics page for it. It's based on the Paravian CC (with 5x QWTs), with shields and batteries brought up to the numbers used across the tournament board (and shuttles should be reduced to 4, but I missed that when I wrote it.) At the time, I put it into SFBonline but had not officially handed it over to ADB (for reasons that are published on this site.)

I like the tournament ship

I like the tournament ship you developed. I’d like to have the opportunity to play it FTF in the near future.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Paravian TCC

Hey, thanks man.
I've played that one enough on SFBOL to get the feel for it. People get scared of the 5-torps thing, but it tends to die against aggressive opponents. Over-all, I think it's fairly solid.

How do you tend to play it?

How do you tend to play it? Lob 5 standards or mix in an OL here and there? I can see a really aggressive opponent trying to charge through the torps to get a R8 shot. Anything that you have found to dissuade that at all?

Edited to add: Ah, I see you detailed it a bit in your other post. Be interesting to work out a tactic that would really mess with aggressive DF opponents.

Also, what is the stautus of the TCC with TPTB? Is it officially and unofficial playtest ship?

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Paravian TCC

My SSD has not been sent to ADB for possible sanction. It is an unofficial playetest ship. SVC has officially, and without mincing words, said that I am only to contribute to SFB by doing 3rd gen SSDs. You can find my name all over CapLog #49 (which was going to press when this happened) for all kinds of things. You don't find my name in any of the CapLogs since (nor in the ADB BBS.) ADB can go hang, for all I care.

Well, there's the tactics that I wrote up about it. Basically, yeah: First turn I juice up all five torps, with an overload or two. If the opponent flies through, they take something like 26 damage to the facing shield and then my phaser-Is when they go for their shot. They'd take more if they went for the knife-fight.

Being seekers, it's possible for the opponent to take it on a different shield then they show me. But with a dancing Paravian, (launch at R15, turn off. Circle around to launch again on T2, probably while hugging the wall) the opponent is going to be shy a second shield when they get their shot. It's entirely likely that one of those dead shields are pointed at my phasers.

I'd like to point out that if the opponent decided to take the torps on a flank shield, it meant they had to give me some space (e.g. turn away or otherwise back-off severely. Unless, of course, I really messed up on how I moved the seekers.) Playing for time like that would let me get a third shot in with the torps.

Additionally, if the opponent played it real shy (e.g. did their own saber-dance) then instead of losing a shield to each volley of QWTs, it would take two volleys to crash the shield. It's possible for a disruptor ship to take advantage of this (but, see the QWT posts. The numbers look bad for the disruptors, on paper.)

I was mentioned in a CL years

I was mentioned in a CL years ago, in a negative fashion. And it was disingenuous on the part of ADB and TPTB. I made a comment on the BBS in reply to another members proposal. He was suggesting Klingon ships that fired photons like in TMP/TNG. I suggested that from an SFB perspective, a type F plasma torpedo made more sense because the Klingons had a treaty with the Romulans thus sharing of tech could be worked into the fabric. Wasn't an official proposal, just a comment. Well, they put it in CL as a proposal that they didn't like and made a rather nasty comment about how they didn't like it. First, it wasn't an official proposal, just a comment to another member so it should not have been included as an official proposal. Secondly, if you're going to just make a tacky, negative comment you just shouldn't say anything to begin with. And third, it showed my that TPTB scramble to have any sort of content to publish because they've alienated so much of their fan base that they don't have the material coming in to fill their pages.

Very sad what they've done to the game imo.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser

Kirk & Bakija

Barry Kirk & Peter Bakija are the two guys that I can think of that have done the most playtesting of these Omega TCCs.
You can see many of Bakija's comments in the thread above.
If you really want to include them in your tournament, I suggest you reach out to Barry.

Dave, although the Paravian

Dave, although the Paravian are in a omega in a small way, I think both can be considered alpha races due to module C6.

My other car is a D7 Battlecruiser


Yes, my bad. I see your point.
I was lazy in equating Omega with "ships beyond the current crop of sanctioned tournament ships".

Happy New Year, all!