OTU Only: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way from Collace

[Grav_Moped]

Probably, but they phrased the rule clumsily, and that is what we are left with.



You might imagine so, but the rules are blunt and does not give any reason.

That's fine. We're still left with the fact that they didn't want the '81 rules to prohibit the XBoat, and they didn't think the rules did that. Perhaps it was because they didn't notice or care, but as the song goes, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." They also didn't change it to a LBB5 design.

However you look at it, something breaks. It cannot be built as described in S-7 under any post-1977 rules while remaining consistent with the OTU timeline. If you're using an ATU, but taking the rules and description as absolutes, it cannot exist. If you're using the OTU, it exists and works only if either the OTU timeline is incorrect or the description and/or rules aren't absolutely literal. It's just a matter of choosing what to break, preferably doing the minimum possible violence to the rules and setting.

The choices are:
1. It's a TL-15 ship built per HG '80. This really breaks the OTU timeline. It also has room for a 1G maneuver drive. It makes some sense as a state-of-the-art version used in the Imperial Core in 1105-7.
2. It's a TL-13 ship built per HG '80. This still breaks the OTU timeline, but everything including the big mail server and comms equipment fits.
3. It's a TL-11 ship built per LBB2 '81. This breaks "literal S-7 description" (which was already broken by LBB2 '81 just by not having a powerplant) and "four weeks of fuel no matter what", but not the implied weekly fuel use rate.
4. It's a TL-unknown ship built per LBB2 '81 but the powerplant doesn't need fuel and it still breaks the "literal S-7 description". The only other canonical ship that doesn't need powerplant fuel (to be fair, it doesn't need a powerplant either, or Jump fuel for that matter) may have had TL-22 components -- Annic Nova.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I find it remarkable that GDW managed to come up with four published ship design systems that look similar but are in fact very different, and that's before taking into account bespoke designs such as the Annic Nova and the Gazelle.

Indeed. Different purposes, different priorities. The later versions appear to be efforts to reconcile and add detail.

The Annic Nova works as an 1977 design if you assume the collector sail and accumulators occupy the same tonnage as Jump fuel would. They were probably winging it on how much acceleration one of the pinnaces would provide, though.

The Gazelle is just plain broken (4 hardpoints on a 300Td hull?) even before the HG '80 rules change, but it was an attempt to showcase what could be done in the small-ship class with the HG ruleset.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Gazelle is just plain broken (4 hardpoints on a 300Td hull?) even before the HG '80 rules change, but it was an attempt to showcase what could be done in the small-ship class with the HG ruleset.

The original Gazelle works as an LBB5'79 design with a 10 Dt particle bay reskinned and rated as two barbettes (perhaps for compatibility with LBB2 combat?).

Later versions use too many hardpoints, though.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

However you look at it, something breaks. It cannot be built as described in S-7 under any post-1977 rules while remaining consistent with the OTU timeline.

S7 Traders and Gunboats was published in 1980 according to the copyright notice, before the LBB'81 set. The ships are LBB2'77 designs, note e.g. the Far Trader with J-2 and PP-1 drives.

The choices are:
1. It's a TL-15 ship built per HG '80. This really breaks the OTU timeline. It also has room for a 1G maneu...

Or the obvious choice: It was published as a LBB2'77 design when that was the current system and then grandfathered in for the rest of CT.

 

[whartung]

Simply because it is logical and scalable and does not necessarily contradict anything else in most versions of CT about the rate at which power plant fuel is actually consumed during operations.

For those without Beltstrike, those consumption numbers are per 100 tons of ship.

The Seeker, a modified Scout ship in Beltstrike, has 30 tons of fuel and a 2J drive.

That essentially means that it has 10 dTons for operations.

Using that chart, those 10 dTons provide 5000 G/Hrs of acceleration. 208+ days. For simply "power" (not maneuver), that 10 dTons is almost 4 years of power.

Considering the ubiquity and low cost of fuel, that's "ample" fuel for most anything.

It's certainly a generous amount compared to the TNE HePlar universe, where ships are lucky to have 20-30 G/Hrs of fuel.

 

[Grav_Moped]

S7 Traders and Gunboats was published in 1980 according to the copyright notice, before the LBB'81 set. The ships are LBB2'77 designs, note e.g. the Far Trader with J-2 and PP-1 drives.




Or the obvious choice: It was published as a LBB2'77 design when that was the current system and then grandfathered in for the rest of CT.

That is indeed obvious.

The underlying issue is why they kept the XBoat while repudiating Jump Torpedoes, and what they intended to imply about how their fictional universe functioned by doing so.

Is the reason the XBoat "works" in second edition (w/o PP) only applicable to a Size B drive in a 100Td hull, 100Td hulls in general, Size B drives in general, or any starship with no maneuver drive? And does it apply to a 3Boat (JD B, but J3-only due to inadequate computer) at TL-9? It matters.

If it's just 100Td hulls, you can make a J2/0G ship with 45Td excess space. (Not as silly as it sounds. If it carries a 40Td Pinnace it still comes out ahead in available cargo space compared to a MD A, PP A, and fuel. Install collapsible tanks in the Pinnace to use it as a tanker.)

If it's just Size B drives, you can make the '77 Far Trader. The 1981-compliant Far Trader in A3, "Twilight's Peak" strongly suggests that's not it though.

If it's any ship without a maneuver drive, you can make a 200Td Jump-6 XBoat analog at TL-12. (Under '77 it's TL-10!) I can understand wanting to kill that off!

 

[Grav_Moped]

For those without Beltstrike, those consumption numbers are per 100 tons of ship.

The Seeker, a modified Scout ship in Beltstrike, has 30 tons of fuel and a 2J drive.

That essentially means that it has 10 dTons for operations.

Using that chart, those 10 dTons provide 5000 G/Hrs of acceleration. 208+ days. For simply "power" (not maneuver), that 10 dTons is almost 4 years of power.

Considering the ubiquity and low cost of fuel, that's "ample" fuel for most anything.

It's certainly a generous amount compared to the TNE HePlar universe, where ships are lucky to have 20-30 G/Hrs of fuel.

It'd be a lot more plausible if counted against High Guard fuel tankage requirements. As it stands, the stock Type S would have an utterly ridiculous fuel reserve instead of the merely silly reserve it has under the presumed LBB2 fixed-tonnage burn rate.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's detailed in S7. It keeps the drives, of course, but takes two staterooms and 10 Dt fuel tankage to turn into two 10 Dt ore bays.

It is noted that it is reduced to J-1 with the reduced fuel tankage (30 Dt), but can do J-2 with a 10 Dt demountable tank in one of the ore bays.

Since it still has a PP-2 it requires 20 Dt power plant fuel.

It's broken according to the rules as written. This modification would never be allowed.

Rules as written require both 4 weeks of fuel and fuel for one Jump of the ship's maximum rated range. (This also breaks the Gazelle design, yet again.)

Just because the captain pinky-swears he won't do a Jump-2, doesn't change the fact that the ship itself can do Jump-2. The rules are based on capability, not intent.


...just like the 4-week power plant fuel requirement.

To be fair, the Beltstrike maneuver rules strongly suggest that Jump requires full powerplant output for the duration of Jump, with fuel consumption to match. Otherwise, the listed fuel consumption for maneuver and baseline power draw doesn't use enough fuel to make 10T/Pn (or 1%/Pn, depending) necessary for 4 weeks of operation.

To be unfair, if most of the 4 week supply is used during the two Jumps, that would break non-starship fuel requirements (which are supposed to be the same as for starships, despite non-starships being on maneuver drive for a lot more than two days a week).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The Seeker, a modified Scout ship in Beltstrike, has 30 tons of fuel and a 2J drive.

That essentially means that it has 10 dTons for operations.

According to S7 it means that is has 20 Dt fuel for the PP as required and 10 Dt left for jump:

Dismountable fuel tanks can be used in the ore bays to increase the fuel tankage back to forty tons, but at a reduction of ore bay tonnage to ten tons total. With normal tankage, the ship can achieve jump-1;with the dismountable tanks full, the ship can achieve jump-2.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Is the reason the XBoat "works" in second edition (w/o PP) only applicable to a Size B drive in a 100Td hull, 100Td hulls in general, Size B drives in general, or any starship with no maneuver drive? And does it apply to a 3Boat (JD B, but J3-only due to inadequate computer) at TL-9? It matters.

The X-boat works, because the X-boat works (for historic reasons).
Annic Nova works because Annic Nova works (for alien reasons).
The LBB5'80 Gazelle has 4 hardpoints because the Gazelle has four turrets (for historic reasons).

None of them means a permanent loophole in the rules.



If you as Referee want to allow ships without PPs that's entirely up to you, but it's a house-rule and you have left canon and the OTU behind (as I suspect we all do).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's broken according to the rules as written. This modification would never be allowed.

Rules as written require both 4 weeks of fuel and fuel for one Jump of the ship's maximum rated range. (This also breaks the Gazelle design, for those keeping track at home.)

No, TCS changes this:

Enough fuel for the power plant must be carried in normal fuel tanks; jump fuel and additional fuel may be carried in one of the additional tankage types outlined below.

Demountable tanks operate in the same manner as normal fuel tanks, and their fuel is available for use by the drives immediately.

 

[Grav_Moped]

No, TCS changes this:

And thus you get Jump-6/6G in 200Td at TL-12 (TL constraint: computer and jump capacitor TL). 60Td powerplant fuel, 20Td Jump fuel, 120 Td drop tanks. Crew: 5 in single staterooms. Cargo: 8 tons (but internal Jump fuel is optional, so up to 28Td cargo). J3/3G with tanks attached. MCr 173.709 in quantity. Replacement tanks Cr120,000.

It's the rules, but MAN does that ever mess up the OTU if it's used.

 

[aramis]

Annic Nova works because Annic Nova works (for alien reasons).
[...]
None of them means a permanent loophole in the rules.

It's worth noting that in T5, the Annic Nova can be built out of the corebooks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's worth noting that in T5, the Annic Nova can be built out of the corebooks.

Sure, we can build it using T5 or MgT2, but I believe Collectors are still not part of the 3I campaign setting?

 

[mike wightman]

Collectors are part of the setting ever since Annic Nova introduced them to the setting, within the setting the Imperium does not use collector based jump drives and we had to wait seveal rule sets begore their design parameters were made public.

 

[whartung]

Collectors are part of the setting ever since Annic Nova introduced them to the setting, within the setting the Imperium does not use collector based jump drives and we had to wait seveal rule sets begore their design parameters were made public.

Even JTAS #24 didn't discount collectors.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Collectors are part of the setting ever since Annic Nova introduced them to the setting, within the setting the Imperium does not use collector based jump drives and we had to wait seveal rule sets begore their design parameters were made public.

OK, someone knows how to build them obviously, but The Imperium and other major races does not, at least as far as I know. Hence they are not available in the Imperium setting.

 

[mike wightman]

They are available in the OTU circa 1105, Annic Nova and the JTAS 24 Jump space article (thanks whartung ) - they are in the setting that we refer to as the OTU, which covers a lot more than just the Third Imperium.

They are just not available to an Imperial ship yard (or any of the major and minor races we are privy to information about) within the setting as far as we know...

a group travelling beyond the Imperium may happen across the world or worlds where collector tech is common.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And thus you get Jump-6/6G in 200Td at TL-12 ...
It's the rules, but MAN does that ever mess up the OTU if it's used.

The setting has additional limitations to LBB2, e.g. jump limited by TL. The OTU is quite safe...

Any shipyard in the Imperium can build any ship using the LBB2 system, LBB2 ships have no TL and are not limited by the TL of the shipyard, presumably using potentially imported standard components. In ~1100 the Imperium is limited to TL-15 and J-6. The Zhodani is in general limited to TL-14 and J-5 using roughly the same types of standard drives.

The First Imperium, that presumably used the same LBB2 system, was limited to TL-11 and J-2. In a First Imperium campaign only A-K drives would be available (LBB3).

In effect ships built using the LBB2 system is not limited by the TL of the local shipyard, but the TL of the building civilisation, at least in the OTU.


Other campaign settings may use LBB2 differently. LBB2 is mostly setting agnostic.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

They are available in the OTU circa 1105, Annic Nova and the JTAS 24 Jump space article (thanks whartung ) - they are in the setting that we refer to as the OTU, which covers a lot more than just the Third Imperium.

They are just not available to an Imperial ship yard (or any of the major and minor races we are privy to information about) within the setting as far as we know...

It seems we agree, since I made no claim about the entire universe, only the 3I.