General A Starship is (NOT) a Starship is (NOT) a Starship …

[Spinward Flow]

Yes, I agree it's beyond obvious

Forest vs Trees
Round 1
FIGHT!

 

[aramis]

Really? Where does it say LBB2 hulls are allowed? I can't find it.

That's what "not depracated" means... we've seen a couple canon designs with Bk5 drives in Bk2 hulls.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That's what "not depracated" means...

That's not what I'm seeing:

LBB5'80, p18:
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
_ _ The ship design and construction system given in Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components. It is not superceded by any system given in this book; instead this book presents a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisions for use of the system with smaller ships.

The LBB2 ship design system is (still) a valid CT method to design ships.
The LBB5 ship design system & small craft design system are valid CT methods to design spacecraft.
It says nothing about intermixing components, and certainly not explicitly.

we've seen a couple canon designs with Bk5 drives in Bk2 hulls.

Which canon designs would that be, I can't recall seeing any?

 

[Silverhawk]

That's not what I'm seeing:

The LBB2 ship design system is (still) a valid CT method to design ships.
The LBB5 ship design system & small craft design system are valid CT methods to design spacecraft.
It says nothing about intermixing components, and certainly not explicitly.



Which canon designs would that be, I can't recall seeing any?

So I think the word being overlooked is 'superceded'. The only definitive mention of Book 2 components are the drives and power plant. That said, I compared two different components between Book 5 '80 and Book 2. Computers are the same in weight and cost. The difference is the extension of the FIB series. Weapons is slightly more confusing since Book 5 doesn't make you purchase the hard point or the turret separate from the weapon. The weapon costs though are the same.

So while you can probably say that nothing explicit about mixing components, it would appear that the only real difference is the drives and power plants which are specifically mentioned and ruled upon by stating you can use Book 2 drives but you also must use Book 2 fuel formulae.

 

[McPerth]

Please, reread rules, specially about respect to others, smirk answers and no personal attacks. As always, I'd hate to have to close the thread or to delete more posts.

 

[McPerth]

Neither really did reaction engines, for the sake of ease of play most likely

MT did, in "One small step" rules, given in HT and also in Challenge (though I can not give you the exact issue(s) now"

Even funnier M-drives are dimensioned by volume, but grav drives per mass, despite being supposed to be the same basic tech...

I used to give an explanation to MDs using volume, not mass (albeit I must admit it's a very weak one, to say the least):

As MDs are based on gravitics, they use the ship's own "gravity field" (as minimal as it can be, mostly when comapred with planets'. So, as mass increases, so does its own "gravity field", compensating the increase of mass for a given volume.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I used to give an explanation to MDs using volume, not mass

I don't think we need any explanation other than that it's a simplification; FFS made it explicit:

TNE FFS, p69:
_ Thrust requirements are abstracted by tying thrust energy requirements to hull displacement rather than craft mass. This is an obvious abstraction, but one which is necessary for ease of design. Too many variables affect ship mass throughout the design process, and tying thrust to mass would require you to continually redesign and redesign to get a workable craft.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So I think the word being overlooked is 'superceded'.

It's the entire LBB2 system that isn't superceded, not the components.

LBB5'80, p18:
_ _ The ship design and construction system given in Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components. It is not superceded by any system given in this book; instead this book presents a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisionsfor use of the system with smaller ships.

LBB5'79 said the same, but didn't mention using LBB2 drives:

LBB5'79, p18:
The ship design and construction system given in Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing small craft using off the shelf components. It is not superseded by the system given in this book; instead, this book presents a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisions for use of the system with small craft.

The only definitive mention of Book 2 components are the drives and power plant.

Agreed.

That said, I compared two different components between Book 5 '80 and Book 2. Computers are the same in weight and cost. The difference is the extension of the FIB series. Weapons is slightly more confusing since Book 5 doesn't make you purchase the hard point or the turret separate from the weapon. The weapon costs though are the same.

There are large similarities, but also differences, such as hull costs.

If we can use LBB2 components in the LBB5 system, we can presumably also use LBB5 components in the LBB2 system? LBB2 ships with armour and bays? LBB2 ships with LBB5 drives and fuel requirements? LBB2 ships with very cheap Flattened Sphere configuration standard hulls? (In effect making most standard designs obsolete).

So while you can probably say that nothing explicit about mixing components, it would appear that the only real difference is the drives and power plants which are specifically mentioned and ruled upon by stating you can use Book 2 drives but you also must use Book 2 fuel formulae.

LBB2 standard hulls is a major difference, that started this discussion.

 

[kilemall]

All of which I agree with and don’t min-max with combos. If people want to in their universes fine, I just don’t think they have a leg to stand on claiming it’s RAW.

The mismatch of EP shortages with the LBB2 ships operating under LBB5 rules is something I expect is glossed over by many refs, but probably technically should mean many book 2 ships don’t fire and maneuver at the same time.

 

[Silverhawk]

All of which I agree with and don’t min-max with combos. If people want to in their universes fine, I just don’t think they have a leg to stand on claiming it’s RAW.

The mismatch of EP shortages with the LBB2 ships operating under LBB5 rules is something I expect is glossed over by many refs, but probably technically should mean many book 2 ships don’t fire and maneuver at the same time.

Personally, I agree on the don't mix 'n match. Glossing over something always seems to come back to bite me at the wrong time. I like consistency when I'm running or when I'm playing. Some of the least fun adventures have been where something is glossed over or is stated one way and then later is changed or can't be glossed over anymore but in doing so causes more problems that it solves.

 

[aramis]

LBB2 standard hulls is a major difference, that started this discussion.

The standard hulls table isn't deprecated nor superseded.. therefore, it can be used.
It's that bleeping simple.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The standard hulls table isn't deprecated nor superseded.. therefore, it can be used.
It's that bleeping simple.

Well, while it's self-evident, it's not stated in black-letter rules-as-written (unlike the forward-compatibility of LBB2 drives).

I'd allow it, personally, and would be mildly surprised if anyone wouldn't.

RAW, I think you'd have to build it without drives and use the LBB5 (or is it TCS?) drive retrofitting rules to install the LBB5 drives. (Yes, that's silly.)

 

[Grav_Moped]

RAW, I think you'd have to build it without drives and use the LBB5 (or is it TCS?) drive retrofitting rules to install the LBB5 drives. (Yes, that's silly.)

On the other hand, if someone's going to munchkin it up by cherry-picking advantageous components from different build systems, it might be worth slapping them with the retrofitting costs as a disincentive.

 

[Condottiere]

For engineering, the common connection would be transferring energy to power the equipment, and the other aspect would be remote control and monitoring from the bridge.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The standard hulls table isn't deprecated nor superseded.. therefore, it can be used.
It's that bleeping simple.

It's the entire LBB2 system that isn't superceded, not the components.

LBB5'80, p18:
_ _ The ship design and construction system given in Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components. It is not superceded by any system given in this book; instead this book presents a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisionsfor use of the system with smaller ships.

The GDW LBBs makes a clear difference between ships build with LBB2 and LBB5, e.g.:
S7, p47:


S9, p21:


Spinward Marches Campaign, p35:



It's two separate ship design systems, not one big buffet of components. Both systems are equally valid, but not identical.

... we've seen a couple canon designs with Bk5 drives in Bk2 hulls.

Have we? I can't recall any such ships?

 

[Grav_Moped]

Not canonical per se, but at TL-13 it's possible to build a Type S with J3/2G; drives match the 100Td LBB2 Standard Hull's 15Td drive bay. In fact, with the fuel cleaner and the requisite Mod/3 computer, the rest is an exact fit.

 

[McPerth]

I don't think we need any explanation other than that it's a simplification; FFS made it explicit:

I don't own FFS (I was among the torches and pitforks mob when TNE appeared), so I trust what you say.

fact was I had some players not so benevolent about simplifications, so I had to find a pseudo-logical explanation (or at least one that confused them enough) to explain why MDs didn't account for mass, while gravitics (and reaction drives) did...