Jean:

I have sent the updated Magellanic errata file to Joel for posting. He will not post it any earlier than some time tomorrow (6 Dec 11). You can go ahead and clear this topic when he does post the link to the PDF here (you might move the link into a Header for this topic so that it will be easier for people who come here to ask questions to see it and perhaps find the answer already in the errata file).

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, December 05, 2011 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Will do.

Jean
WebMom

By Joel Alexander Shutts (Admin) on Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Module C5 Updated Errata
Module C5 Errata

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, December 07, 2011 - 02:44 pm: Edit

I am not sure what is going on as the PDF seems to lack the Bold text, but at least the data to note what was new is otherwise present (Italics and a year note at the end of the line).

By Alex Lyons (Afwholf) on Tuesday, December 13, 2011 - 04:57 pm: Edit

(MR3.2) SSD: The CA “plus refit” should be “shield refit”. Alex Lyons. December 13, 2011.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, February 18, 2012 - 10:16 pm: Edit

*(MR4.10): In the R-section for the Maghadim Heavy Destroyer, the vessel is noted as at risk of shock effects if it fores more than two tachyon beams in the same turn; akin to the risk faced by the Federation New Jersey Battlecruiser from its over-burdening photon torpedo suite. Is this issue a specific drawback to the class in question, or is it intrinsic to any SC4 hull attempting to mount more than two tachyon beams? (For example, if a Jumokian squadron commodore uses his 30% quota for "foreign" technology to put a trio of tachyon beams into the option mounts of a New Destroyer, should that ship also run the risk of shock effects if it tries to fire all three in the one turn?) - Gary Carney 18 February 2012

*(MR2.N1) and (MR3.N3): Are the various "war" classes fielded by the Baduvai and Eneen designed to be "true" war ships (in terms of fast construction and reduced service life; akin to the Klingon D5) or are they considered to be regular production and service hulls instead (more like the Romulan Sparrowhawk or WYN Orca)? - Gary Carney 16 February 2012

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 20, 2012 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Gary Carney asked on Saturday, February 18, 2012: (MR4.10): In the R-section for the Maghadim Heavy Destroyer, the vessel is noted as at risk of shock effects if it fores more than two tachyon beams in the same turn; akin to the risk faced by the Federation New Jersey Battlecruiser from its over-burdening photon torpedo suite. Is this issue a specific drawback to the class in question, or is it intrinsic to any SC4 hull attempting to mount more than two tachyon beams? (For example, if a Jumokian squadron commodore uses his 30% quota for "foreign" technology to put a trio of tachyon beams into the option mounts of a New Destroyer, should that ship also run the risk of shock effects if it tries to fire all three in the one turn?)

REPLY: (MR4.10) is specific to the ship. You may as well ask if the Federation DD is subject to shock if it fires all four photons. There is no rule making it subject to shock, and no rule making an Orion Double Raider with five photon torpedoes subject to shock, or a light raider with three photons subject to shock. Further, given the power demands of three tachyon beams, you would probably not be considered a very good captain to fit the ship with three such weapons.

Gary Carney asked on Saturday, February 18, 2012: (MR2.N1) and (MR3.N3): Are the various "war" classes fielded by the Baduvai and Eneen designed to be "true" war ships (in terms of fast construction and reduced service life; akin to the Klingon D5) or are they considered to be regular production and service hulls instead (more like the Romulan Sparrowhawk or WYN Orca)?

REPLY: War Designs. Note that the Sparrowhawk is a war design (as are the SkyHawk and the SeaHawk), as is the Orca (as are the Mako and the Barracuda). The "not a true war cruiser design" does not mean they are not "war cruisers" it simply means they included more systems than normal war cruisers (i.e., they were BIG for war cruisers as is noted).

By Alex Lyons (Afwholf) on Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 10:55 am: Edit

In the Timeline for LMC at the very end of Y187 it states 'They convert thier scout to an CSV' (talking about Mags and thier new fighters)

Shouldn't that be 'They convert thier scout to a CVS'?

By Michael Bennett (Mike) on Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 09:20 pm: Edit

"their"

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 27, 2012 - 09:47 am: Edit

Alex Lyons:

The Maghadim did not convert a frigate-scout (MR4.19) to a "Strike Carrier" (CVS) (MR4.3), they converted it to a "Scout Carrier" (CSV) (MR4.9), albeit a scout carrier operating size-1 fighters as opposed to size-2 fighters as found in the Alpha Octant. The heavy carrier is a destroyer carrier with the carrier collar (MR4.4). The strike carrier was the carrier collar on a non-carrier destroyer hull (MR4.3). The light carrier was the carrier collar on a non-scout frigate hull (MR4.8). The scout carrier is the carrier collar on a frigate scout hull (MR4.9).

By Stephen Elliott Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 02:29 pm: Edit

From the map in the Magellanic Cloud rule book page 70, which direction is the Milky way galaxy, and especially the Alpha sector?

Thanks.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 04:19 pm: Edit

Based on the Magellanic timeline, it seems that the Andromedans arrived in the LMC somewhere near the Neutral Worlds (or at least in some part of the Fringe that allowed them to strike at the northern provinces of the Baduvai and Eneen simultaneously), fought their way "down" the map (into Uthiki space, and then on towards the Baduvai and Eneen capitals), and only started sending ships to the Milky Way after reaching what (to them) was the far side of the LMC.

So, it would appear that the "south" part of the LMC map points more or less towards our galaxy, but which edge leads to which octant is unknown.


(There was a more detailed province-and-planet map which Ken Burnside had created during the development of Module C5 that marked where the three routes from Operation Unity would have arrived in Y202, but that map is not official. If we ever see a "true" F&E map for the LMC, the Unity task forces may end up arriving in different locations, if official "landing" hexes are marked at all.)

By Stephen Elliott Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Gary,

Thanks. I was just wondering how the invasion from the LMC to the MWG developed, and if the Chomak were near the main invasion route. Speculating, it seems that the Chomak were conquered last, and if they were off the main invasion route, their worlds may have suffered less than the other races. If so, they could be more powerful in the post-invasion history of the LMC, when and if that is published.

BTW, does anyone know if the technology and racial characteristics of the Chomak and the Yorl Septs has been decided yet?

Just curious.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 07:00 pm: Edit

You should be able to use http://archive.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss_form

You can put in the coordinates of a couple of known objects and see coordinates.

This might help also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Magellanic_Cloud#View_from_the_LMC

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Stephen; Ken Burnside, who designed the LMC, had rules and histories for all of the various LMC Empires. However, based on comments on the discussion boards his history for the Chomak was unworkable. Outside of Amarillo, where either Empire is at in the development process at this point in time is unknown.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Just a reminder that, while Wikipedia uses LMC and SMC ("Large" and "Small") for the two Magellanic Clouds, ADB refers to GMC and LMC (for "Greater" and "Lesser").

The Chomak were the most out-of-the-way of the Magellanic empires; the first Andro-Chomak contact wasn't until Y163, and their home space wasn't uncovered by the Andros until Y172. By that time, the "main" region of the Cloud had already been secured, with only the Core left to be cracked.

But as has been noted elsewhere, leaving either area unconquered when the time came to invade the Alpha and Omega Octants wouldn't have been an option for the Andromedans. Both holdouts had to go before the Andros would be secure enough in their holdings to send the bulk of their forces over to the Milky Way.


Hopefully, both the Chomak and Yrol (I think "Yorl" is a typo) will be presented at some point, along with a better look at the state of the Cloud post-Unity.

By Stephen Elliott Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Thanks guys.

I also hope that eventually the LMC project is completed.

By Stephen Elliott Parrish (Steveparrish) on Saturday, May 11, 2013 - 07:08 pm: Edit

I found a map of the local galaxies at atlasoftheunvierse.com. From what I can see, it looks like the LMC is nearest the sigma sector.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 04:48 pm: Edit

In light of recent discussions on other parts of the BBS, I wanted to ask about the kind of long-term commitment any of the Operation Unity powers might have made to exploring (or protecting) the Lesser Magellanic Cloud post-Y202.

It has been noted that several Alpha empires deployed at least some forces to the LMC post-Unity; an ISC squadron ambushed by "rogue" Jumokians in Y205, Star Fleet sending a GSC and two GSXs to the Cloud at different points in time, and so forth.

How many empires were involved in these kinds of operations, and how much effort did they put into their respective endeavours?


And from a logistical perspective, how did they maintain such operations?

Were the three chains of mobile bases placed on the way "down" to the Cloud for Operation Unity left in place as waystations?

Once inside the Cloud proper, were there any logistical nodes which the Unity powers had established, and which were kept there (with or without the acceptance of the surviving Triple Pact remnants) in order to supply and support the expeditionary forces sent (or kept) out there?


And from a political perspective, were the surviving Magellanic empires assigned diplomats and envoys on a long-term basis?

Now that they were known to exist, and lived in a region of space that was perhaps too far to annex directly but too important to be left uncleared of whatever lingering Andromedan presence remained, how would those kind of circumstances have shaped the nature of relations between the Alpha Octant and the Lesser Magellanic Cloud post-Unity?

To put it another way, the boundaries of "known space" was expanded for the Federation when they made contact with their near neighbours (Romulans, Klingons, Kzintis, Tholians), which led to knowledge of the Hydrans and Lyrans. Then, when the Gorns and ISC were contacted, those portions of the Alpha Octant became "part of the map", from a UFP persepctive. Once Operation Unity was carried out, did the Federation (and other Alpha empires) go on to consider the LMC, and its surviving species, as another part of known space (in the sense of it being a place where they would be assumed to engage with on a continuous basis from now on), albeit one at something of a remove from their home territory?


Or is that the kind of discussion that might have to wait until Module X2 is up for development?

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - 09:08 am: Edit

Gary, utterly unofficially, I suspect this has been left undefined by intent.

Defining it before an ADB product can be written for it doesn't save work, it constrains future creativity and design for no real benefit.

By Francois Angers (Francoisngg) on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 06:32 pm: Edit

How do I know if I have the correct books (5618R)?

By Galen A. Davenport (Aranier) on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Table of Contents page says revised Dec 2006.

By Francois Angers (Francoisngg) on Friday, September 13, 2013 - 08:13 am: Edit

Thanks Galen

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 09:33 pm: Edit

(MR5.6) Module C5 Uthiki GB-U1 - Size Class for small base units should be 5 and not the 2 listed in Annex 3. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Oct 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, October 18, 2013 - 10:44 pm: Edit

(MR1.1) Module C5 General Magellanic C-PIN - Per B3.3 life support cost should be 0 and is 0.5. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Oct 2013.