AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
You truncated the full quote a bit there:Overtonnage applies to the hull on page 70:
^ My emphasis above. That last sentence only applies to the hull.Ultimate Hull Tonnage May Vary. Undertonnage improves performance. Overtonnage reduces performance. Gross overtonnage (more than 49 tons) is rounded to the next larger hull.
We have an implied choice here: We can adjust the volume of the hull with a pod, OR take it as overtonnage.B2, p51-52:
___ Overtonnage and Undertonnage. It is impractical to begin with hulls in less than multiples of 100 tons (for example, a 343-ton hull is not available as a starting point, although it may be a final result). Conversely, fine tuning in the final design is possible by attaching appropriate tonnage Pods or Subhulls.
___ In the final design, the Hull may be more or less than the initial design tonnage. Slight undertonnage (49 or fewer tons under design hull tonnage) positively impacts perfor- mance by increasing Agility (+1 per 25 tons under). Slight overtonnage (49 or fewer tons over design tonnage) negatively impacts performance by decreasing Agility (-1 per 25 tons over). Gross overtonnage (50 or more tons) requires rounding the Hull Identifier to the next higher size.
In the 343 Dt example we could attach a 50 Dt pod with the extra stuff, recalculate drive performance, and have 7 Dt undertonnage. If we choose, if we feel like it...
Mirroring the "Gross overtonnage (50 or more tons) requires rounding the Hull Identifier to the next higher size", I would say that is a 300 Dt hull with severe overtonnage, not a 400 Dt with gross undertonnage. But, OK, that is not explicitly stated in the rules...At the same time, the Daring creates an undertonnage based on the total tonnage:
In combat, the ship ideally sheds its two Fighters and Ship’s Boat to create an undertonnage (348 tons) and Agility +2 (total in Atmosphere +3).
Unfortunately I think you are on to something there...Perhaps the Daring's position is identical to the Gazelle's after all (p37):
As I put it before:
Just possibly, small attached items don't affect design tonnage but is counted as overtonnage? At least if the designer feels like it?
It seems like an imprecise sliding scale:
If it's just a little over, you can take it as overtonnage, if you feel like it, or perhaps not.
If it's a lot over, you have to use a bigger hull and/or recalculate drive performance as appropriate.
Which is exactly what you don't want to hear when you design spreadsheets...
What I'm saying here is that it seems you are correct, we can take external craft or internal stuff as overtonnage (if it's small enough and you feel like it), and I'm correct that external craft should be external and recalculate drive performance (if you feel like it).
But if the difference is large enough (≥50 Dt?) hull size should be adjusted and drive potential recalculated. I think, perhaps, if you feel like it?
Last edited: