Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Try model/2bis and get back to me ...1. The bargain-basement versions of the J3/3G streamlined-XBoat have only a Mod/3; and either no turret or 1.5 staterooms and 1Td cargo.
In a 100 ton starship, every ton COUNTS!
![Face with monocle :face_with_monocle: 🧐](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f9d0.png)
Try model/2bis and get back to me ...1. The bargain-basement versions of the J3/3G streamlined-XBoat have only a Mod/3; and either no turret or 1.5 staterooms and 1Td cargo.
It's presumably a LBB2'77 design, slightly retouched for S7 (just as the Far Trader on p23).3a. Yes, this is a daisy-chain of house rules. On the other hand, the XBoat Loophole is the only way to reconcile Pn>=Jn for it while keeping it a functionally possible LBB2'81 design, as it canonically is -- otherwise, it's just broken.* The rest follows from the resulting necessary drive package.
Oh it's definitively a product of LBB2.77 alright.It's clearly not a valid design under LBB2'81 rules...
The premium model is the one with the Mod2/bis.Try model/2bis and get back to me ...
In a 100 ton starship, every ton COUNTS!![]()
Was it derived from a LBB2'77 Trade Route map, perhaps?
Which is my whole point. Something has to give, or it simply can't or won't exist in-universe.It's clearly not a valid design under LBB2'81 rules.
But they were not inefficient in the context of the 1977 rules!Their jump drives were "inefficient" ... consuming 40 tons of fuel regardless of how many parsecs they were jumping
It's even possible at TL-12, but then costs MCr14.002 extra* and loses 1Td of cargo plus either the Air/Raft or a stateroom. (Power plant, fuel processor, and losing the Standard Hull discount make the difference.)Or build a TL-13 Type S in HG that does J3/2G, and call it a day. Uses an ordinary 100Td standard hull.
...but then you need to bring in HG.
They avoided the problem by not even trying to reimagine the XBoat under LBB2'81 rules, but just continued to use it without detailed specification...Which is my whole point. Something has to give, or it simply can't or won't exist in-universe.
LBB2'81 small craft did have a design system: LBB5'80. They didn't bother to mention that's what they'd done, though.They avoided the problem by not even trying to reimagine the XBoat under LBB2'81 rules, but just continued to use it without detailed specification...
Just as they did in MT.
And I don't see any problem with that: Smallcraft works just fine, even if we don't have any design system for them in LBB2.
Sure, but if you didn't buy HG, how would you know? They would just be "magic"?LBB2'81 small craft did have a design system: LBB5'80. They didn't bother to mention that's what they'd done, though.
There is no design system for the smallcraft in LBB2'77, the grav vehicles in any LBB3, or the Modular Cutter in LBB2'81. Does that make them broken and unusable?As noted, it's broken in '81. Which is ok as fiat, but the implications break the build rules.
Sure, throw down a challenge like that....I've never seen anyone complain that the Air|raft or Modular Cutter are broken...
Yes, so? They're still consistent with a set of design rules, even if it's not defined in LBB2'81.Sure, but if you didn't buy HG, how would you know? They would just be "magic"?
'77 sort of used Size A Drives (and maybe half a Size C drive in the Shuttle?) The LBB description of the Air/Raft is insufficiently detailed to adequately reverse-engineer its components for re-use in other vehicles. On the other hand, the XBoat uses components that are well-characterized in both editions of LBB2. The Modular Cutter's only problem is that its performance without a module is undefined.There is no design system for the smallcraft in LBB2'77, the grav vehicles in any LBB3, or the Modular Cutter in LBB2'81. Does that make them broken and unusable?
I've never seen anyone complain that the Air|raft or Modular Cutter are broken...
Indeed. That said, we have only one known Annic Nova, and its potential new owners may seek to keep it secret to the extent possible, after completing DA1. But, there are tens of thousands of XBoats in service, and have been for hundreds of years.The rules we have describe how we do some things, not everything in the Universe. E.g. there are no collectors in CT, yet we still have the Annic Nova.
When the RULES change ... what can (and cannot!) be done within the boundaries of those rules ALSO CHANGES ...Which is to say that while the rules don't explain how we do some things, they explicitly describe how we do other things. The problem I'm having here is that the rules of HG'80 and LBB2'81 describe how a starship should work, and the LBB2'77 XBoat does not work that way. The HG'80 version works, but has no good reason to just be an XBoat within a specific infrastructure rather than a courier that might not even need such an infrastructure.
And (or except that) when the rules change to make something "not work" while the setting materials say "it still works," the conflict simetimes poses an interesting challenge.When the RULES change ... what can (and cannot!) be done within the boundaries of those rules ALSO CHANGES ...![]()
For me, the distinction that TL=10 Jump Governors (LBB5.79, p32) are not "standard equipment" for LBB2.77 drives, but are "already included" in LBB5.79, LBB5.80 and LBB2.81 drives is effectively the "retcon factor" you're looking for which can make things still work.[ETA] That's because the setting materials then indicate that the rules change was not intended to make it "not work." Therefore, there ought to be a reasonable interpretation of the new rules that enables it to still work.
Interesting. I don't really accept that, but I understand it.Think of the LBB2.77 construction rules as being an "alternative" technology/industrial base that is more ... calcified ... rather than innovative. The tech is more compartmentalized and less interdependent, but is also less flexible as a result. Since the XBoat is perhaps the LEAST FLEXIBLE starship design in existence in all of CT, it "works as a carve out" in which building to LBB2.77 standards makes sense (within that paradigm) and doesn't invalidate anything that came along afterwards.
This is flawed thinking.Similarly, from a rules-defined-universe perspective, the LBB2 Drives and Power Plants table lists the only possible drives.
They're both an incredibly "bounded" sandbox to play in, unlike LBB5 which is more open ended.'77 describes a different universe from that which '81 does.
Because first draft of rules wasn't vetted to the extent that they should have been.Why does this ship need to carry an extra 58 tons of fuel?
The second edition wasn't either -- or, rather, the writers prioritized backward-comptibility over rationalizing it.Because first draft of rules wasn't vetted to the extent that they should have been.
Except HG doesn't use the same formulae, so it's not describing the same underlying system. The drives (and paradigm) are different.This is why I figure that LBB2 drives are merely "points on the continuum" of possibilities, with LBB5 laying out the formulas that define that continuum.
And Mongoose came closest to HG-izing LBB2, aside from, well, being different because they're Mongoose.The second edition wasn't either -- or, rather, the writers prioritized backward-comptibility over rationalizing it