This topic is now open for business.

Jean
WebMom

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 12:40 am: Edit

ERRATA

Carnivons of the Cloud has a typo saying they grabbed everything within 3000 parsecs instead of the correct 2000.

I swear that I googled jedidiah bila on google and it came up spelled Beauleah or something. Should be Bila.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 10:54 am: Edit

Page #60, under the first heading "Carnivon General Units" on the left hand column, the Parenthetical reads "(ad 1 BPV . . .", should read "(add 1 BPV . . .". Sorry, I do not know how that one got by.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 11:24 am: Edit

Obviously you reverted to using Latin.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 02:17 pm: Edit

From the C6 preview file, on page "22" (3):

In the Paravian timeline, it's noted that in Y95, the Wingatha-Paravians learned of the destruction of their home world the year before. The great debate regarding their future is settled in Y111 (which, in an alternate timeline, leads to them choosing to stay where they are).

However, on page 11 of the 2011 Omega Master Rulebook, these Paravians would arrive in their new territory across the Void in Y95. Even if the historical Wingatha-Paravians decided to set out for the Omega Octant that same year, it would likely take much longer for them to make it to their new home (unless they ran into a vortex or some other such short-cut).

Will the "historical" part of the C6 timeline need to be adjusted to allow the Wingatha-Paravians enough time to make it to the Omega Octant by Y95, or will the Omega timeline need to be adjusted in order to give the exiles a later time of arrival?

(If the latter, there should be enough wiggle room to adjust the arrival date, since those Paravians do not re-surface in the current OMRB timeline until Y164.)

Alternatively, might the Y95 entry in the OMRB refer to the initial discovery of the new territory on the other side of the Void, with a later year representing the point at which the grand exodus was made? (In other words, did these Paravians know where they were going by Y111, or was the crossing of the region between the Void and the Storm Zone a one-time deal?)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 03:58 pm: Edit

From the C6 preview file, the SSD for the Paravian CW shows a ship with a two thirds move cost and 16 total warp.

Is this correct? The Crawford box says it has a YIS of 165, and I didn't see anything in the table of contents showing a rule for some other kind of movement for Paravians.

The ship also has no APR, which seems... weird.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 04:03 pm: Edit

It has 24 warp - note the 8-box C Warp engine in the middle of the ship.

The turn mode issue was discussed in the recent SFUOC podcast. In C6, the Paravians have managed to overcome the warp movement issues that affected them in the Early Years, so no longer have the "drop turn mode in a given direction if all of the L or R warp boxes are destroyed" issue.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 05:02 pm: Edit

There it is, clear as day. My mind just wouldn't let me see it. What a strange experience.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 04:23 am: Edit

You're right, it has no APR but I notice it has quite large impulse engines for a ship of that size (six boxes).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 11:59 am: Edit

For what it is worth, the design was done without APRs as a means of differentiating it more from other empires. Some Paravian ships get APRs added in a pre-General War refit, but these are pretty much "Middle Years" ships getting upgrades to keep them viable. This did not apply across all ships of Paravian design, e.g., the war destroyer does include APRs, but I thought it was a useful difference between the Paravian CW and CWs of other empires.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 12:41 pm: Edit

Hmm. Makes them vulnerable to shuttle damage.

Maybe the carriers will have APR?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

You mean the CWV? No, it is a a CW design and has the big impulse deck. I did not install APRs in place of impulse engines to protect the shuttle bay.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 02:52 pm: Edit

I haven't seen anything from C6 (at least not lately). Just making an observation and maybe a late war refit thing. I knowed nuttin 'cept Paravians bettah launch one of their buckets soon as they start takin' a beating.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 03:21 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

Any carrier that goes where it can be shot at with a full strike on deck deserves its fate.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Yeah. I was thinking general warships in that last post (although I did mention carriers before). The pressure to empty a few shuttle boxes will be greater for Paravians, I imagine.

Eight on the DAC is a pretty common hit. Although, Feds won't fair much better (even with APR a cruiser has so little aft hull). Gorns and Romulans (particularly the KR series) should see a little advantage here.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Loren Knight:

The Federation CVS class has just two aft hull and no APRs. Admittedly it has four admin shuttle boxes so it has a few hits it can take in the bay without a chain reaction starting.

Carriers are generally designed to be consistent with their given empire's design principles, and not on a "okay, this is going to be a carrier, what systems can we add or change that will protect the bay from damage as long as possible" system.

The Paravian CWV is going to benefit somewhat from its center hull, i.e., even with no APRs you have to get through all of the hull boxes on the ship before you are going to hit the shuttle bay. But converting some of the impulse engines to APRs is just not a design consideration when converting the ship to a carrier unless the impulse deck actually gets in the way of expanding the shuttle bay.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, October 02, 2013 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Duplicate post deleted by author. I do not like this computer's new on-line system. It is clunky, requires you to repeatedly reaffirm things, drops helpful reminders that simply require you to click again and again to perform even the simplest tasks, and has no way to make these helpful reminders stop.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 08:42 pm: Edit

If it hasn't been marked down on the list of things-to-do already, would it be possible to add links for the e23, DriveThruRPG, and Wargame Vault uploads of the C6 preview to the product page?

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Thursday, October 03, 2013 - 10:22 pm: Edit

FD20.24, states that it's 2 DC actions to get a drone from storage to the compartment. Does not indicate how many deck crews can concurrently work that task.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Michael Kenyon:

(FD20.201) allows two deck crews to work on a death bolt and combine their actions. Nothing any where allows more than two deck crews to work on a given death bolt. That is generally why we refer to "deck crew actions" after that point unless we need to add a clarification as with bombers in (FD20.25) where it again notes that only two deck crews can work on a given death bolt even though as many as six deck crews might be working on a given medium bomber (or eight deck crews on a heavy bomber).

By Michael Kenyon (Mikek) on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Thanks Steve, I figured it was two, but the reference in (FD20.201) seemed to be specifically phrased to indicate the activating of the warhead of the DB, so I wanted to validate.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Michael Kenyon:

Rule (FD20.2) in its entirety is all about the basic moving and loading of death bolts and all subrules are about that and the limit applies. You get into additional operations in (FD20.5) where you get to modify the warheads, but (FD20.201) still applies. A maximum of two deck crews can work on a death bolt.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, October 11, 2013 - 12:00 pm: Edit

(R1.13A-19) RULE: The phaser-1-360°s should be phaser-2-360°s.

(R1.76-19) RULE: The phaser-1-360°s should be phaser-2-360°s.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Aside from Mike Kenyon as noted above, has anyone else here seen any copies of C6 show up at their local game stores and/or had their mail orders of this module from ADB arrive in the post?

I'm hoping that my FLGS might be able to arrange something with a distributor based in another part of Canada, but I'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 09:56 pm: Edit

If only there WAS a game store local to us that had SFB related stuff. :-(