CT Errata Compendium

[Matt123]

Medics are not part of the "catch-all" or equal to deck swabs, cooks or maintenance.

If all we need and are after is big brush strokes I refer you to Book 2:

"Extremely large starships should have at least 10 crew members for each 1000tons of displacement."

Simple, easy, quick, and all we need for HG combat.

(Me? I want a little more for my RPG thank you )

I can't disagree with that, but I'm a wargamer first, RPGer second.

Might as well ignore Command Section by that rationale, it's hardly a big department

Our 200 kton BB with 400 Service staff, perhaps including the 4 person Medical Department, has 100 Bridge crew (including the chief Medical Officer).

I see no evidence that the two were merged. However, can you elucidate on the "exactly why" that you see? Or is it simply the numbers issue?

The "reason" is literally the numbers issue. Detailing such a small department goes against the tone set by the rules. Otherwise the Service Crew would be detailed as well. Cooks, swabbers & maintenance departments are all very important for the on-going health of the ship & its crew.

I also read the HG1 description of Service Crew (well... "Crew") and note HG2 stopped detailing what Service Crew "is", leaving it far more open to interpretation or role-playing possibilities.

I'm not sure who else would be waking the Frozen Watch in the TU. Lowbeths pretty much demand Medic-1 at a minimum. It's automated imo but that's MTU, where the medical care and time is involved in the front end to allow rapid awakening and 100% survival* in time of crisis. The opposite of Emergency Lowberth protocol (with regular lowberth practices being more middle of the road).

* failures are weeded out before the installation is completed, to jive with HG's lack of casulties in FW use

Whether your qualified Medical department supervises the re-awakening of the Frozen watch will depend on the existing casualties they are dealing with (a lot if a frozen watch is needed) and where they think they can do the most good. Their job is to save lives, not fight the ship.

Say we have a 200 kton BB with a crew of 1100 and a Frozen Watch of 550. Medical staff will save 49 of those sleepers, (while 49 will still die regardless). To be compared with the number of injured survivors that need urgent medical attention from the hit that necessitated the FW's awaking. So I guess we can say, sometimes they will waken the Frozen Watch.

But, like you, personally I don't use the CT low berth death rates & IMTU a technician is all that is required to awaken Sleepers with 100% success. That applies to both military & civilian Sleepers.

 

[DonM]

I think I've caught up on all the posted errata. Some side notes:

1. Batteries. Until there's a concensus, please argue over mounts in another topic.

2. Medical Crew. If Marc says it was just left out, it was just left out. It happens. Look at the weapon descriptions sometime with the LBB, TTB and ST editions all laid out in front of you.

3. HG design corrections. I'm looking at the AHL and its refits at the moment (basically a review of Supplement 5). If anyone is interested in looking at my HGS draft files to help with the fixes, drop me a direct e-mail at don.mckinney@gmail.com.

4. The Spinward Marches. I've been asked if the errata for Supplement 3 and the Spinward Marches Campaign are official. Specifically, the TL changes for Mire (TL 12 in 1105, TL 13 in 1112), the Starport change for Sacnoth, and Population changes for Jacent, Dyrnwyn, Durendal, Hofud, and Tenalphi. Yes, they are. I've got errata for the Stellar Data as well, but I've held off jumping off that cliff. All of these changes have been seen in the T5 Marches data that has been released.

5. What NEEDS to be looked at for CT? I'm semi-trolling for suggestions :rofl:

I've got a new version almost ready, but would like to include the draft errata for Supplement 5. And I've been driving AndrewMV insane with HGS questions along the way.

 

[McPerth]

I4. The Spinward Marches. I've been asked if the errata for Supplement 3 and the Spinward Marches Campaign are official. Specifically, the TL changes for Mire (TL 12 in 1105, TL 13 in 1112), the Starport change for Sacnoth, and Population changes for Jacent, Dyrnwyn, Durendal, Hofud, and Tenalphi. Yes, they are. I've got errata for the Stellar Data as well, but I've held off jumping off that cliff. All of these changes have been seen in the T5 Marches data that has been released.

There was also some controversy on other threads about if Regina was TL 12 in 1105 (its TL 10 would be then a errata) or it rised its TL to 12 after the FFW (as the first source where it's TL 12 is SMC).

 

[DonM]

There was also some controversy on other threads about if Regina was TL 12 in 1105 (its TL 10 would be then a errata) or it rised its TL to 12 after the FFW (as the first source where it's TL 12 is SMC).

That errata already appears in the TTB and Supplement 3 areas of the existing CT errata; the TL of Regina in 1105 is TL 12 (C).

Probably need to apply the Supplement 3 errata to Fifth Frontier War the board game as appropriate. I'll make a note.

 

[AndreaV]

I think I've caught up on all the posted errata. Some side notes:

5. What NEEDS to be looked at for CT? I'm semi-trolling for suggestions :rofl:

I've got a new version almost ready, but would like to include the draft errata for Supplement 5. And I've been driving AndrewMV insane with HGS questions along the way.

Not driving me mad as such, I'd much rather have the errors in HGS found and you're giving it a good work out

However if you're looking for errata, most of the designs from Fighting ships and definitely batron 154's tender and riders.

 

[Matt123]

5. What NEEDS to be looked at for CT? I'm semi-trolling for suggestions

A suggestion only, it would be worth considering whether Planetoids can be carried and subsequently launched in one turn from a Dispersed Structure.

My suggestion is to limit Planetoids (& Buffered Planetoids) to jump capable craft or Monitors. And prevent them being used as Battle Riders with (at TL15) Armour 21 (immune to everything bar Meson guns). BB's can still be Armour 21, but with jump fuel considerations, achieving Armour 21 is much harder.

A suggested errata might be;
"Planetoid hulls cannot be carried as easily as other craft, due to the unique nature of every ship. When required they may be moved by a carrier, however it takes a week to adapt the carrier and secure the Planetoid and at the destination, a further week to release the Planetoid and run safety checks."

I picked a week as a time frame to reflect the TCS campaign system. Activities either take no time, or they take a week. But any time frame will do, if it effectively makes shifting Planetoids a non-combat activity.

I've long felt Planetoids as carried craft, launching into or just before combat, doesn't feel right. And I've done it myself, with hordes of 1800tn buffered planetoids carried on a Dispersed Structure hull. They are effective & very hard to kill.

 

[sfchbryan]

A suggestion only, it would be worth considering whether Planetoids can be carried and subsequently launched in one turn from a Dispersed Structure.

My suggestion is to limit Planetoids (& Buffered Planetoids) to jump capable craft or Monitors. And prevent them being used as Battle Riders with (at TL15) Armour 21 (immune to everything bar Meson guns). BB's can still be Armour 21, but with jump fuel considerations, achieving Armour 21 is much harder.

A suggested errata might be;
"Planetoid hulls cannot be carried as easily as other craft, due to the unique nature of every ship. When required they may be moved by a carrier, however it takes a week to adapt the carrier and secure the Planetoid and at the destination, a further week to release the Planetoid and run safety checks."

I picked a week as a time frame to reflect the TCS campaign system. Activities either take no time, or they take a week. But any time frame will do, if it effectively makes shifting Planetoids a non-combat activity.

I've long felt Planetoids as carried craft, launching into or just before combat, doesn't feel right. And I've done it myself, with hordes of 1800tn buffered planetoids carried on a Dispersed Structure hull. They are effective & very hard to kill.

As a minimum, they can be carried non-tactically. See Planetoid Monitor on pg 44 of Supplement 9. Very specific example with more info than almost any other large ship in the CT OTU.

 

[AndreaV]

A suggestion only, it would be worth considering whether Planetoids can be carried and subsequently launched in one turn from a Dispersed Structure.

My suggestion is to limit Planetoids (& Buffered Planetoids) to jump capable craft or Monitors. And prevent them being used as Battle Riders with (at TL15) Armour 21 (immune to everything bar Meson guns). BB's can still be Armour 21, but with jump fuel considerations, achieving Armour 21 is much harder.

A suggested errata might be;
"Planetoid hulls cannot be carried as easily as other craft, due to the unique nature of every ship. When required they may be moved by a carrier, however it takes a week to adapt the carrier and secure the Planetoid and at the destination, a further week to release the Planetoid and run safety checks."

I picked a week as a time frame to reflect the TCS campaign system. Activities either take no time, or they take a week. But any time frame will do, if it effectively makes shifting Planetoids a non-combat activity.

I've long felt Planetoids as carried craft, launching into or just before combat, doesn't feel right. And I've done it myself, with hordes of 1800tn buffered planetoids carried on a Dispersed Structure hull. They are effective & very hard to kill.

The TL14-15 uber rock, stick a factor 9 meson screen on it and its immune to everything but a spinal meson. I always rule that any planetoid hull is ineligible for a class discount (asteroids do not come in standard shapes or sizes), tends to limit them a little. But yes they do rather feel "wrong."

 

[Matt123]

I always rule that any planetoid hull is ineligible for a class discount (asteroids do not come in standard shapes or sizes).

Yes, I'll second that one too (done it myself).

 

[dean]

I would one up that and say every planetoid has to pay an architect's fee and have no class discount. It' very unlikely that every one, even if the rock is about the same shape and size, would be able to be laid out the exact same way. There'd be a fissure here, and a fault line there, that would require some components to be repositioned or shifted.

 

[Matt123]

If I can pinch a post from Hans...

...snip...
It can't have helped that drop tanks weren't invented yet when the ships were designed and built.

("¶L-Hyd drop ships have only been in service for the last dozen years in the interior, being made possible by recent advances in the field of capacitor engineering, a joint press release explained." [TNS 097-1105])

This press release should be mentioned in the HG errata, along with a note that at the referees discretion Drop Tanks are available at lower tech levels.

I'm picking normally Refs will say no, but given the various ways stuff can be reverse engineered and made at lower tech levels once the principle has been demonstrated, I'm reluctant to support an outright ban on DT's before TL15.

 

[aramis]

If I can pinch a post from Hans...



This press release should be mentioned in the HG errata, along with a note that at the referees discretion Drop Tanks are available at lower tech levels.

I'm picking normally Refs will say no, but given the various ways stuff can be reverse engineered and made at lower tech levels once the principle has been demonstrated, I'm reluctant to support an outright ban on DT's before TL15.

Especially since later editions (MGT included) allow lower TL drop tanks.

 

[rancke]

If I can pinch a post from Hans...



This press release should be mentioned in the HG errata, along with a note that at the referees discretion Drop Tanks are available at lower tech levels.

I'm picking normally Refs will say no, but given the various ways stuff can be reverse engineered and made at lower tech levels once the principle has been demonstrated, I'm reluctant to support an outright ban on DT's before TL15.

Drop tanks are not TL15 technology. It's <whatever level MGT has them at> technology that in the OTU wasn't invented until around 1070 or so (And it's not drop tanks per se that's invented, it's some fancy capacitors that allow drop tanks to work for jump drives).

It's just a historical accident that, in the OTU, they weren't invented earlier. In other universes they could be invented as soon as the tech level allowed.

But I agree that a clarification would be good.



Hans

 

[rancke]

Especially since later editions (MGT included) allow lower TL drop tanks.

HG also allows drop tanks at lower tech levels. IIRC there no tech level limit mentioned, although one must assume they're not germane before TL9.


Hans

 

[aramis]

HG also allow drop tanks at lower tech levels. IIRC there no tech level limit mentioned, although one must assume they're not germane before TL9.


Hans

They're very germane to reaction drive users!

 

[rancke]

They're very germane to reaction drive users!

I don't think you need fancy capacitors for drop tanks for anything other than jump drives. Perhaps that ought to be included in any clarifications.

Or am I misunderstanding you?


Hans

 

[aramis]

I don't think you need fancy capacitors for drop tanks for anything other than jump drives. Perhaps that ought to be included in any clarifications.

Or am I misunderstanding you?


Hans

No, I think you got it.

To be more clear
Drop tanks are TL6 for non-jump. Use for reaction mass or PP fuel in system.

Carry-with tanks, that you can't use for running the JDrive, should be TL 9 or TL 10. I prefer TL10 so that there's improvement in Jump Tech.

Burn-n-drop tanks, like the Gazelle carries, I think should be TL15.

 

[rancke]

Burn-n-drop tanks, like the Gazelle carries, I think should be TL15.

The Gazelle is TL 14, so TL14 would be the absolute minimum. HG allows drop tanks at TL9, albeit only be default. I don't have MGT High Guard, but ISTR someone (you?) saying something about rules for failure chances at lower than TL15. If that is the case, why not errata (or clarify) CT HG to conform to the new MGT version?


Hans

 

[aramis]

The Gazelle is TL 14, so TL14 would be the absolute minimum. HG allows drop tanks at TL9, albeit only be default. I don't have MGT High Guard, but ISTR someone (you?) saying something about rules for failure chances at lower than TL15. If that is the case, why not errata (or clarify) CT HG to conform to the new MGT version?


Hans

Reasonable, but unlikely to be popular with CT Grogs.

 

[McPerth]

As for the TNS quote Hans cited, drop tanks begin its service in the core (and so we assume in the Imperium) at about 1092...

JTAS 4, in the Gazelle example it gives, says the unicorn was laid down in 105-1084, and made its first flight in 098-1086 (JTAS 4 page 20), about 6 years before drop tanks began to be used (and it was not the first Gazelle built, as is hinted in many places)...

Both are cannon, aren't they?

I see no way to justify the Gazelle design without its use of drop tanks...

Yes, I guess some clarification is needed here