G3 - Annex 6 - Fighters and shuttles - Advanced shuttles

I undersand the:
"There is no rebate for trading advanced shuttles of any type for a non-advanced shuttle"

But why is it more expensive to replace two A-admin with 1 non-A HTS/HAS as opposed to 1 A HTS/HAS? Shouldn't the numbers remain equal?

Based on the previous quote, I think:

Annex 6: Advanced shuttles - Replace 2 A-admin with 1 A-HTS.....2

Annex 6: Advanced shuttles - Replace 2 A-admin with 1 A-HAS.....5


or is it really the reverse:

Annex 6: Advanced shuttles - Replace 2 A-admin with 1 non-A HTS.....1

Annex 6: Advanced shuttles - Replace 2 A-admin with 1 non-A HAS.....4

B^)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 10:59 am: Edit

George Duffy:

The costs are correct in that annex. If your ship has advanced shuttles, it costs more to replace them with non-advanced shuttles. You can do it, but you will be penalized for doing so (i.e., the added cost for trading two A-Admin for an HTS compared to trading two A-Admins for an A-HTS etc.).

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 - 11:16 am: Edit

(deleted due to math error)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 03, 2009 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Annex 3: Master Ship Chart - Inter-Stellar Concordium CLX (R13.202) BPV listed as 185. This was changed to 210 in Module X1R (see "Revisions to BPVs in Module X1" on page 10 of X1R Rulebook. - Alan Trevor, 3 April 2009

Annex 3: Master Ship Chart - Inter-Stellar Concordium CSX (R13.203) BPV listed as 195. This was changed to 225 in Module X1R (see "Revisions to BPVs in Module X1" on page 10 of X1R Rulebook. - Alan Trevor, 3 April 2009

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, April 04, 2009 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

Somehow, those two, and the Federation GSX (250/180 should be 270/200) and the LDR CCX (250 should be 252) got missed.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Master Fighter Chart, pg 132, Kzinti VBMR is mislabeled as a 4-space bomber (heavy) when it is a 3-space bomber (medium) in Module J2. S.Tenhoff 4-14-08

Master Fighter Chart, pg 132, Kzinti VBMRM is mislabeled as a 4-space bomber (heavy) when it is a 3-space bomber (medium) in Module J2. S.Tenhoff 4-14-08

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 11:14 am: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

One of the things intended to drive me to an early grave (and no I am not accusing you, simply noting a frustration element) is people who notice an existing error AFTER a revised book (G3 being a revision of G2) goes to press. Module G2 showed the Kzinti VBMR as a size 4 unit, and since there was no report line item on file, when I updated the Annex for G4 it was not fixed.

By Fred J. Kreller (Kreller1) on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 02:21 pm: Edit

After having this in my hot little hands for a couple days now, I have to say I am *VERY* pleased with the Master Annexes book!

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 - 11:05 pm: Edit

SPP, don't feel frustrated. It just goes to show you, that unfortunately bombers aren't used that often....

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Annex 4 - Are the R17.0 Vudar fighters are missing from the annex? - Ken Kazinski, 24 May 2009.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 02:28 am: Edit

Vudar CVS (R17.8) - There is a "Y" in the notes section possibly should be a Y1 or Y2 note - Ken Kazinski, 29 May 2009.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, May 29, 2009 - 11:59 am: Edit

Hard to fix an error that was not apparently previously reported. The "Y" note is there because that was the note that was in Module F2, and there is nothing in the after action file printed in Captain's Log #32 indicating that the item had been found and reported.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 11:03 pm: Edit

OK, new item ...
Annex 4: Fed F-101B: Shows the F-101B having 6xI drones. This should be 4xI, 2xVI instead. - Mike West 11-06-09

Annex 4: Fed F-101BM: Shows the F-101BM having 6xI drones. This should be 6xI, 2xVI instead. - Mike West 11-06-09

In both cases I double-checked the source material in CL35.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Thursday, June 11, 2009 - 11:09 pm: Edit

While here, forgot to transfer this over from the G3 topic ...

Annex 3: Federation GSC is missing the N7 note. - Mike West 11-06-09

Annex 3: Federation GSC+ is missing the N7 note. (Interestingly, this means that the GSC+ would actually have one Type-E rack from its original equipment, and two Type-G racks from the refit.) - Mike West 11-06-09

Annex 3: Federation MS is missing the N7 note. - Mike West 11-06-09

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, June 21, 2009 - 10:45 am: Edit

(R11.54) Lyran Pal-SC - I believe there is a error since R5. As this is a SCS pallet shouldn't the type/designator be Pal-SCS. R11 has a scout pallet also designated Pal-SC. I could not find a SSD of just pallets with the SCS pallet on it to verify the designator. - Ken Kazinski, 21 June 2009.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Annex 3: Federation NCF is missing the F note. (It should probably be grouped by itself like the other Fast NCAs, but at the least the "F" note is missing.) - Mike West 13-07-09

By Aaron Day (Hedgehobbit) on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 - 01:47 pm: Edit

This is my first time reporting errata. Please let me know if the format is incorrect or if I shouldn't be doing this at all.

Master Ship Chart, pg 49, Romulan VUL+ is a sub-light ship. Breakdown, Move Cost and Turn Mode need to reflect this. I think the Eplo Str and CMD Rating need to be revised as on the VUL, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Ship Chart, pg 50, Romulan VUL is listed twice under Early Years Vulture. The first entry should be removed, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 121, General HRS-Y DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 121, General LVP-Y DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 121, General RSh-Y YIS should be 70 (or any number earlier than that of the regular RSh). DFR should be 0, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 121, General VFS-Y DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 121, General VIP-Y DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 130, Romulan HFS-S DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 130, Romulan HRS-S DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 130, Romulan LVP-S DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 130, Romulan LVP-Si DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 130, Romulan VFS-S DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 130, Romulan VIP-S DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Master Fighter Chart, pg 130, Romulan VIP-Si DFR should be -1, A. Day 8-12-09

Annex #7L, pg 157, Add Romulan Vulture .... 1.50 to SUBLIGHT UNITS list. A. Day 8-12-09

Technology Timeline, pg 174, Y100 "(Y-GBS)" should be "(GBS-Y)", A. Day 8-12-09

Technology Timeline, pg 175, Y162 "t his is quickly copies" should be "this is quickly copied", A. Day 8-12-09

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Aaron Day:

The only problem with your line items is that you say "this is wrong" but not "why". Other than that your format was pretty good, except that Master Fighter Chart should always be "Annex #4", then empire, then unit:

Example: "Annex #4: Romulan VIP-Si: DFR should be -1 because . . ."

Similarly, reports on the Master Ship Chart should begin "Annex #3", then empire, then unit.

This is done so that all reports will sort to the same place when placed into a file. The explanations of why something is wrong helps because you are looking at why something is wrong at the time and know why it is wrong, whereas I may be going "Hunh? Why is that wrong?" and spend a certain amount of time trying to find a reference that says so. It is a big game, and I will not claim my memory works as well as it did when I was younger.

By Aaron Day (Hedgehobbit) on Thursday, August 13, 2009 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Hopefully this is the correct format.

Annex #3, pg 49, Romulan VUL+ is a sub-light ship as with WB+ and SNS+. Breakdown, Move Cost and Turn Mode need to reflect this. I think the Eplo Str and CMD Rating need to be revised as they are worse than the regular VUL (whose values were changed from R5 to Y1/Y2), A. Day 8-12-09

Annex #3, pg 50, Romulan VUL is listed twice under Early Years Vulture. The first entry should be removed as it represents the later warp driven ship and shouldn't be in the earlly years charts, A. Day 8-13-09

Technology Timeline, pg 174, Y100 "(Y-GBS)" should be "(GBS-Y)" which is how early years shuttles are listed elsewhere, A. Day 8-13-09

Technology Timeline, pg 175, Y162 "t his is quickly copies" should be "this is quickly copied" (regular typo), A. Day 8-13-09


The following shuttles are all size 3 & 4 shuttles from J2 whose early years versions had a different DFR than the J2 version. Only the HFS-Y shuttle was corrected from Y2 to G3. And, yes, I realize that many of these shuttles have probably never been used and, if they were, they wouldn't ever get into a dogfight.

Annex #4, pg 121, General HRS-Y DFR should be -1 the same as the regular HRS, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 121, General LVP-Y DFR should be -1 the same as the regular LVP, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 121, General RSh-Y YIS should be 70 (or any number earlier than that of the regular RSh). DFR should be 0 the same as the regular RSh, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 121, General VFS-Y DFR should be -1 the same as the regular VFS, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 121, General VIP-Y DFR should be -1 the same as the regular VIP, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 130, Romulan HFS-S DFR should be -1 the same as the regular HFS, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 130, Romulan HRS-S DFR should be -1 the same as the regular HRS, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 130, Romulan LVP-S DFR should be -1 the same as the regular LVP, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 130, Romulan LVP-Si DFR should be -1 the same as the regular LVP, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 130, Romulan VFS-S DFR should be -1 the same as the regular VFS, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 130, Romulan VIP-S DFR should be -1 the same as the regular VIP, A. Day 8-13-09

Annex #4, pg 130, Romulan VIP-Si DFR should be -1 the same as the regular VIP, A. Day 8-13-09

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 02:15 pm: Edit

MSC, Seltorian OGR is listed as being in CL 31, I can not find it, what page is it on?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 03:30 pm: Edit

A. David Merritt:

That was an unreported error from Module G3 that got carried over (because it was not reported). The ship in question is the "Old Galaxy Raider", a NON-SELTORIAN Pirate ship used by Pirates in the Tholian Home Galaxy which only ever appeared in an issue of Star Letter.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Yes, I have it, I was just hoping it had become official.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 07:34 pm: Edit

A David Merritt:

If you have a copy (I do not, my copies of Starletters were destroyed in some accident a long while ago), send it in and I will attempt to recreate the ship and see if SVC will allow it to be posted as a download.

I think tomorrow I will finally have a few moments to recreate the Canadi'en Carrier Group that Ken Kazinski sent in so that it can be uploaded.

So much to do, so little time.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 09:59 pm: Edit

SPP,

I am not ADM, but you will have a message for the OGR in your inbox shortly ...

EDIT: Email sent.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, September 07, 2009 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Thanks Mike, My wifes exhusband had a brain anuerism and we have been at the hospital, he's the father of our kids.