mine has arrived over a week ago.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, October 13, 2013 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Gary: Mine arrived (quite surprisingly) in BC this past Wednesday (the 9th).

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 08:32 pm: Edit

(Z48.4) DESIGNER's NOTES: First paragraph, second sentence "backgroundS" should be "backgrounds". (Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

(Z48.4) DESIGNER's NOTES: Third paragraph, third sentence "anD" should be "and". (Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

(E23.15) This rule states that disruptor cannons cannot be mounted on ships larger than size class 6, but PFs are size class 5 and use the weapon. (Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

(E23.43) Confirming, no feedback for firing overloaded DC at range zero? (Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

(SJ9.0) Scenario graphic shows Paravian units instead of Carnivon.(Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

(SJ10.0) Scenario graphic shows Paravian fighters instead of Carnivon.(Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

Carnivon counters: The text should have been yellow on green instead of black (Andromedan) on green.(Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 11:56 am: Edit

(Z48.4) DESIGNER's NOTES: First paragraph, second sentence "backgroundS" should be "backgrounds". (Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

ANSWER: Sorry about that, I apparently did not notice the caplock key was locked when I was doing some editing.

(Z48.4) DESIGNER's NOTES: Third paragraph, third sentence "anD" should be "and". (Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

ANSWER: Sorry about that, I apparently did not notice the caplock key was locked when I was doing some editing.

(E23.15) This rule states that disruptor cannons cannot be mounted on ships larger than size class 6, but PFs are size class 5 and use the weapon. (Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

ANSWER: The problem is that on the screen "6" and "5" look enough alike that my eye did not catch it. It should have been "larger than size class 5."

(E23.43) Confirming, no feedback for firing overloaded DC at range zero? (Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

ANSWER: Ahem. This is "side effects" and is referring to whether or not the weapon has to cool or something before rearming can begin. For feedback damage see (E23.36).

(SJ9.0) Scenario graphic shows Paravian units instead of Carnivon.(Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

ANSWER: I think you mean the fighters and bombers. We do the graphics in house so no one else gets to check them, and by the time SVC did the scenario graphics I must have been so punch drunk that it did not dawn on me to compare the fighters and bombers with the counter graphics. The fault is entirely mine.

(SJ10.0) Scenario graphic shows Paravian fighters instead of Carnivon.(Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

ANSWER: We do the graphics in house so no one else gets to check them, and by the time SVC did the scenario graphics I must have been so punch drunk that it did not dawn on me to compare the fighters with the counter graphics. The fault is entirely mine.

Carnivon counters: The text should have been yellow on green instead of black (Andromedan) on green.(Nick Samaras October 16, 2013)

ANSWER: Sigh. Back when the project got to the point that the countersheet graphics were done SVC posted them in color on the board before we ever sent them to be printed. Would have helped to make that note then, now we are stuck with the counters as printed. Not an invalid line item here, but definitely not one we can currently do anything about. The counters have been printed, and short of my winning the lottery, there is no way we can just throw them out and reprint them.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 17, 2013 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Page #23, Right hand column, second paragraph at the end of the Y110 entry. I am not sure where this paragraph came from or how it was missed, but it is clearly in error as the Romulans would not have been fighting "the Paravian menace."

(E24.331) You may have been informed already, but I think I found a mistake in Module C6. Under rule section (E24.331) it notes, "If the true range is four or less and the effective range is five or more, treat the range as "two hexes" for both purposes." while extended range notes, "...if the true range is eight or less and the effective range is nine or more, treat the range as "eight hexes" for both purposes." Looking at the firing chart, it looks like the first case should give a range base of "four hexes" for both purposes, or the chance to hit is significantly higher when firing (hitting on 1-3 instead of only on a one). Ron 14 October 13

ANSWER: The way the weapon works when not firing at extended range is consistent with how it worked in the Early Years, see (YE24.331) in Module Y1 or in the 2012 edition of the Master Rulebook. The way the weapon works at extended range was a design decision and one of the costs of gaining the extended range, it is not a mistake, it is intentional.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Sunday, October 20, 2013 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Master Ship Chart: Carnivon FFA explosion cost listed as 11, should be 8 to match what is on the SSD. (Nick Samaras October 20, 2013).

(E24.212) This rule does not list size class-5 units.(Nick Samaras October 20, 2013).

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Sunday, October 20, 2013 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Annex #3: Carnivon Hangar pod (R19.70) is refered to as P-HFR. The rule and SSD refer to it as P-H.(Nick Samaras, October 20, 2013).

Annex #3A Paravian: Raid Battleship is listed as RBB, should be BMS. (Nick Samaras, October 20, 2013).

Annex #10 Paravian: Raid Battleship is listed as RBB, should be BMS. (Nick Samaras, October 20, 2013).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, October 21, 2013 - 01:25 pm: Edit

(R1.83-18) Rule: Light Monitors cannot use space control pallets.

(R1.83-19) Rule: Light Monitors cannot use space control pallets.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 01:49 am: Edit

What are the designations and BPV of Paravian Ground Based QWT and Carnivon Ground Based DC? (Nick Samaras, October 24, 2013)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:58 am: Edit

Nick Samaras:

In both cases the rule notes that when modifying the designated ground base to be a quantum wave torpedo base or a disruptor cannon base "there is no change in BPV." As we did not include a complete "(R1.0)" MSC but simply noted what changes would be made (to include shifts in BPV) it literally did not occur to me to have specific three letter designations for these two ground bases (honestly), the oversight is entirely my fault on that score. (An AxCVL is an AxCVL whether it is operated by the Federation or the Paravians, but small ground based defense stations do have individual indentifiers). At this juncture I would refer to and be consistent with Module Y2, and simply delete the "Y", thus an Early Ground Based Defense Disruptor Cannon was a "YGBDDC" and a non early version would be a GBDDC. Same with the Early Ground Based Defense Quantum Wave Torpedo "YGBDQ" becoming a GBDQ.

But then, I would be wrong. We actually published SSDs for the ground based defenses in Module C6 with the Paravian base designated "GBQWT" with a BPV of 10, and the Carnivon base designated "GBDC" with a BPV of 10 (which in both cases is consistent with their respective rules, which modified a disruptor ground base which has a BPV of 10).

By John Naylor (Johnn) on Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 10:34 am: Edit

Rule R18.56. This rule states the tug must use two pods the same weight if using two. However it then goes on to state movement cost for 3 pod weights which it cannot carry as it must have two single or two double weight pods.
Or am I missing something?

By John Naylor (Johnn) on Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 11:01 am: Edit

Found my answer, the space control pod is a triple weight pod. However does this mean two double weight pods can't be carried as there is no reference to the tug with 4 pod weights? In which case should the rule clearly state that only single weight pods can be carried on the wing mounts?

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 11:48 am: Edit

Annex #3A states:

. *This tug, Paravian RBB, can carry four pods or up to four "pod weights," and if doing so its movement cost remains 2.00 and its turn mode remains D.

. NOTE: The number of pods is the total equivalent weight. Some pods are "double weight." No tug can carry three pods except the Paravian RBB and RMS, (some can carry three "pod weights." No tug can carry four pods except the Paravian RBB.

There you have it -- the final line says it all.

By John Naylor (Johnn) on Sunday, October 27, 2013 - 01:56 pm: Edit

thks, missed that

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Monday, October 28, 2013 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Minor typos

(R18.0) Paravian History, page 19, 3rd last paragraph. Marengo misspelled Moango. (Nick Samaras October 28, 2013).

(R18.34) DD ship background: Second sentence "...by a force to powerful.." should be "too". (Nick Samaras October 28, 2013).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, November 01, 2013 - 05:44 pm: Edit

So can someone give me a practical example of Death Bolt operations? They seem *extremely* potent (10 damage to destroy, 30 warhead, speed 20 or speed 32 like regular drones and lack the 4 impulse delay of the similar Tachyon Missiles from Omega), especially combined with the Heel Nipper (is there a better thing to call this? Warp Field Interruptor? WFI?) that makes folks not move on the next impulse (which, as we know, is a really good way to get seeking weapons to hit).

It seems like there is a disadvantage in that they need to be prepared to launch, involving deck crews, but I'm apparently not seeing how that really slows them down. It is possible I'm just not understanding how they work?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 01, 2013 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Peter Bakija:

In any given turn you can launch a lot of death bolts from a fleet or squadron, but there is always going to be a delay between launchings. You cannot launch a death bolt from a given rack on Impulse #32 of Turn #1 and launch a second death bolt on Impulse #8 of Turn #2. You cannot launch the second death bolt any earlier than Impulse #24, and that only if you have two deck crews working on that death bolt. [They cannot begin rearming the death bolt rack until 8 impulses after a death bolt was launched (FD20.22), after which it requires one full deck crew action which takes 32 impulses (J4.8171) to move the then next death bolt into launch position (FD20.20), although two deck crews can work together to accomplish this (FD20.201) which would allow you to launch the second death bolt in 24 impulses). Non carrier ships cannot purchase extra deck crews (J4.816), and a hit in the death bolt rack kills the deck crews there, which can leave you with death bolts, but no deck crews left to load them if you subsequently repair the death bolt rack. A ship with only one deck crew to work on its death bolt rack would not be able to launch death bolts on subsequent turns very often because of the delays (wait 8 impulses after the launch, then take 32 impulses to load a new missile).

The Carnivons also have fewer death bolt racks in a fleet than the Kzintis have drone racks, which allows the Kzintis to kill death bolts with drones. Lyrans (the other traditional enemy) have to make heavier use of other drone defenses than just ESGs (which applies versus the Kzinti drones also), and should give more consideration to having a carrier (with drone-armed fighters) to disrupt Carnivon death bolt strikes. Other empires will have to consider their options versus death bolts when having to defend against them, of course.

You can track the rate of death bolt launches, i.e., if he launched one on Impulse #32 of the current turn, you know he cannot launch another one any earlier than Impulse #24 of the following turn, so keeping track of the number of deck crews he has available is a factor. The bombardment ships, for example, have six death bolt racks, but only eight total deck crews (assuming the shuttle bay crews are diverted), which means launching six death bolts on two consecutive turn is going to be fairly rare.

There are no "supplemental" means of launching death bolts.
No fighters (only bombers), no scatter packs, and no fast patrol ships to supplement and increase the number of death bolts in flight, so even if you buy some extra death bolts with Commander's Options they probably are not going to do you much good. (Okay, you can launch some suicide shuttles to augment the death bolts).

Yes, they are tough and you do not want to let one hit you. But unless the Carnivons are taking more time between launches (more deck crew actions to modify the death bolt before it is launched which is also at the cost of reducing their warheads) they are not that impossible to kill, and many of the other defenses remain available (tractors, T-bombs, wild weasels, cloaking device) even if ADDs are not going to reliably kill them (FD20.32).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, November 02, 2013 - 09:02 am: Edit

Ah, ok. So in a practical sense, there is a longer delay between launching DBs over turns, as you can't start reloading until 8 impulses after a launch, and then you need to spend 32 impulses (or 16 if you have 2 DC working) reloading/preparing the next DB.

So if I launch a DB on impulse 1 of a given turn, I can start preparing the next DB for that launcher on impulse 9, and with 1 DC, that means I can't launch a second DB from that launcher till impulse 10 of the next turn. So while not quite a situation of only being able to launch them every other turn, if you launch one late on a turn, you probably won't be able to launch another one from that rack on the next turn (if I launch on impulse 25, say, I can start reloading on impulse 1 of the next turn, which means I can't launch on the next turn).

So a given ship comes with 1xDC per launcher (so a standard ship with 2xDB racks will have 2xDC, and can't get more--edit: can the 2 default shuttle bay DCs *also* be used to reload DBs?), so you can essentially launch a DB out of a given rack once every 40 impulses, or you can double up DCs, allowing you to launch 3xDB (our of 2 racks) in a span of, like, 25 impulses over 2 turns as a best possible rate of fire.

Ok. That makes sense. Thanks!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, November 02, 2013 - 12:45 pm: Edit

Peter Bakija:

As I noted, you can divert the two casual deck crews to working on the death bolts (why I noted that the death bolt cruisers have six launchers and can have eight deck crews to work on them). Things you have to think about is that if all of your deck crews are in death bolt racks when they take hits, the deck crews are all dead and even if you repair the rack you cannot load death bolts because only deck crews can. Which can leave you with death bolts, but no deck crews to load them, a problem that does not afflict drone racks (although drone racks do lose all of the loaded or loading drones).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, November 02, 2013 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Heh--I saw that, and then went a found the section in the DB rules that specifically indicate that you can use those two default Deck Crews.

So a generic Carnivon CA with 2xDB racks comes with 2 default DC and the 2 Death Bolt specific DCs, for a total of 4. Which means that you can pull the 2 out of the shuttle bays and prep DBs with them, at 16 impulses per DB. So you if launch them both on impulse X of turn Y, you'll be able to launch them both again 25 impulses later (8+16 impulses to prep) on the next turn (so if you launch on impulse 16 of T1, you'll be able to launch again on impulse 9 of T2).

If the rack gets blown up along the way, two of the DCs will get whacked as well. Dangerous job.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, November 02, 2013 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Peter Bakija:

You can use the (J4.814) deck crews, but remember that transferring deck crews takes time [a turn (J4.813), and that turn is from the energy allocation phase to the end of turn, you cannot transfer them in mid turn].

While launched shuttles have a very high mortality rate, if you have no deck crews in your bay you cannot repair [(J4.814) and (J4.818)] a damaged shuttle, or service a voided suicide shuttle [(J1.865) and (J1.869)] or wild weasel [J1.965) and (J1.869)] for reuse as either a manned shuttle or a suicide or wild weasel shuttle again. (Obviously only an Orion ship or Barbarian ship would need to worry about servicing scatter pack shuttles, and only if it had both drones and death bolts).

You also cannot add or remove warp booster packs (J5.432), or reload the chaff dispensers on your advanced shuttles [(J17.0) and (D11.21)].

So you can begin the scenario with your deck crews assigned any way you wish (J4.813), but changing where they are will take a turn, and they tend to die when the area they are working in is hit (J4.811) (so the fact that they die when working on death bolts is not unusual). So you might want to consider whether or not you will want to repair a death bolt launcher at some point in the battle and where the deck crew to operate it will come from since you cannot convert crew (or boarding parties) to deck crews (J4.814), or transfer deck crews from another ship (J4.814), nor can a non-carrier purchase extra ones (J4.816).

The only way around deck crew casualties during a scenario is a Legendary Doctor healing your dead deck crews (G22.611). Between scenarios you can just have deck crews "recover from wounds" (G9.23).

NOTE: As most Carnivon ships armed with death bolts are not carriers, they only get one extra deck crew if they have an "outstanding crew" (G21.243), the "flies in the ointment are of course the HDW which is a "casual carrier" and the various carrier escorts which have deck crews and death bolts (G21.243). Off the top of my head the only "true carrier" that has death bolts is the battleship, so it could purchase extra deck crews as a carrier, but it cannot access (G21.243) because it is a size class 2 unit (G21.01).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, November 02, 2013 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Life as a deck crew is a rough one :-)

Thanks for the info!

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Saturday, November 02, 2013 - 10:46 pm: Edit

PARAVIAN R-SECTION (mostly minor typos)

(R18.49) FFS background: First paragraph 3rd sentence “…especially if was …………” should read “………especially if IT was ……….” (Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.26) CWG background: Does not list how many commandos the ship has.(Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.41) DWG background: First paragraph: “… to sent to slip through…” should read “… to BE sent to slip through…”. (Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.41) DWG background: Does not list how many commandos the ship as.(Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.46) FFV carrier data table Y178 entry lists escorts as "FFA or". (Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.50) FFG background: Does not list how many commandos the ship has. (Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.60) P-T background: Does not list how many commandos the pod has. (Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.F6) 5th paragraph: “…and that only …” should be “and that WAS only …".(Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R1.PF9) Last sentence: “… too badly damage …” should be “… too badly damaged…”(Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.66) SCOUT POD (P-SC): “The Paravians, did not expect…” Delete comma after Paravians.(Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

(R18.68) Under the carrier data table for LTTs there is a † symbol for LTVAs but no corresponding symbol on the carrier data table
(Nick Samaras, November 2, 2013)

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, November 04, 2013 - 03:09 am: Edit

I'm yet to get this module, it's on the Christmas list so hopefully in a month or two. Two ten damage point launches from a cruiser doesn't sound particularly scary, Kzin frigates that really want to can throw six. Still a useful adjunct, just as klingon drones are.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 04, 2013 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Nick Samaras:

Paravian commando ships do not list commando squads because they do not have commando squads. See the battalion organization under (R18.M1).

You can buy commando squads, or convert boarding parties to commando squads, but Paravian Marine battalions do not normally include commando squads.

Yes, it is a negative, but it is something to make Paravian marine units different from non-Paravian marine units. And, again, they are not prohibited from buying commando squads or converting boarding parties to commando squads.

So the fact that the CWG (R18.26), DWG (R18.41), FFG (R18.50), and troop pod (R18.60) do not list commando squads is not an error.