The comic seems to be teasing us, on purpose, so the timeline is not yet clear.
I'd say it's not clear because O&K had one period in mind, and the writers of the comic/IDW editorial had another in mind (to tie in with STO).
Converting stated stardates into precise days, weeks and years, using a web-based stardate calculator, is something squarely in the domain of Star Trek fans, and the more continuity-avid novelists.
No one's trying to pin it down to anything more than a year. Since TNG's premiere, the basic stardate formula of 1000 units = 1 year has remained unchanged. It's a convention of the production office, passed on to the licensees.
Many novels and comics have been published where the stardates are little more than a selection of random numerals and a decimal point. The Timeliner's timeline in "Voyages of Imagination" is full of projected stardate corrections.
Aside from a typo in the
Q-Continuum triology that added an extra digit, the novels of the modern era have been more or less consistent in their use of stardates. Most adjustments in
Voyages of Imagination are the result of info from subsequent
canon productions requiring a retcon of the printed work.
The comic sets up an air of mystery.
That's
one way of putting it.
Spock mentions being on Romulus - as a resident - for 40 years. That s already at odds with its stardate.
A point that I myself, and several others, have already made in other threads relating to
Countdown. The forty years comment seems to be
clearly referring to "Unification," which means
Countdown is set circa 2408.
That makes most sense, given the plot developments, but is at odds with Orci and Kurtzman's statement that the comic takes place "a few years after
Nemesis." I'm willing to bet that
they provided the range of stardates in their story treatment, and the writers didn't want to be bothered with the details.[/quote]
Had they wanted us to pin this date down to a particular year yet, he'd have used a typical Spockian decimal point at least.
So maybe in ST's future they even calculate stardates differently. That has happened before: between TOS movies and TNG.
But it has remained - in concept - consistent since TNG came around. Every time a "futuristic" novel has given us a stardate, they've been at least a somewhat different format instead of just a contuation of the current system.
These writers clearly do not know or understand
Star Trek and probably only saw
Nemesis and "Unifcation" to get a barebones background crash course for the most relevant plotpoints. It seems they couldn't care less about stardates, or plausible psuedo-science beyond a third grade level, or even characterization. Using background from Star Trek Online is most likely an editorial mandate, and has confused the hell out of the original intent of the comic, which was to put a cap on the TNG timeline and build a bridge to the new film. It's a confused, poorly-written, and even-more-poorly-edited mess.