(R18.17) Module C6 Paravian CVS - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Apr 2014.

(R18.17) Module C6 Paravian CVS - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus (LB). - Ken Kazinski, 16 Apr 2014.

(R18.18) Module C6 Paravian SR - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Apr 2014.

(R18.18) Module C6 Paravian SR - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus (LB). - Ken Kazinski, 16 Apr 2014.

(R18.18) Module C6 Paravian SR SSD - The Special Sensor Destroyed on Torp note is missing from the SSD. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Apr 2014.

(R18.18) Module C6 Paravian SR - The Special Sensor system has a YIS of 134 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y129; there is no refit. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Apr 2014.

(R18.19) Module C6 Paravian CF - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 16 Apr 2014.

(R18.19) Module C6 Paravian CF - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus (LB). - Ken Kazinski, 16 Apr 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, April 18, 2014 - 07:10 pm: Edit

(R18.20) Module C6 Paravian CLL - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.20) Module C6 Paravian CLL - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.21) Module C6 Paravian CL - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.21) Module C6 Paravian CL - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, April 19, 2014 - 12:36 am: Edit

(R18.22) Module C6 Paravian CWL - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.22) Module C6 Paravian CWL - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.23) Module C6 Paravian CW - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.23) Module C6 Paravian CW - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.24) Module C6 Paravian CWV - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.24) Module C6 Paravian CWV - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.25) Module C6 Paravian CWE - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.25) Module C6 Paravian CWE - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.25A) Module C6 Paravian CWA - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.25A) Module C6 Paravian CWA - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, April 19, 2014 - 09:13 pm: Edit

(R18.26) Module C6 Paravian CWG - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.26) Module C6 Paravian CWG - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.27) Module C6 Paravian CWM - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.27) Module C6 Paravian CWM - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.28) Module C6 Paravian CWP - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.28) Module C6 Paravian CWP - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.29) Module C6 Paravian CWS - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.29) Module C6 Paravian CWS - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.30) Module C6 Paravian LTT - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.30) Module C6 Paravian LTT - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.31) Module C6 Paravian CWF - All units capable of aerodynamic landing are also capable of powered landings and should have a PL note. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

(R18.31) Module C6 Paravian CWF - All ships able to land under engine power should have a crash landing bonus. - Ken Kazinski, 18 Apr 2014.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 11:07 am: Edit

Is there a possibility of the QWT having a sabot feature at some point?

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 12:56 pm: Edit

I'd prefer the QWT to get a non-fixed-launcher at some point

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Agreed. As a note though, according to the designer the FA QWT can fire out of the 6/1/2 shield. That helps quite a bit.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Due to rate of fire, I would strongly prefer a swivel to SABOT myself.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 03:18 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

according to the designer the FA QWT can fire out of the 6/1/2 shield

---

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 08:16 pm: Edit

The designer added that it was his intention for the 6/1/2 but forgot to clarify as it never came up in play testing.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 08:47 pm: Edit

SPP said:

"As of right now, and in consultation with the overall universal guardian, they have to go out the #1 shield facing, just like a plasma torpedo without swivels launching in the FA arc."

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 08:49 pm: Edit

To clarify, it's was Gregg's post (Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 02:41 pm). It was his design intention that the QWT's fire out of the 6/1/2 shields. Now yes, SPP did state just above that post that the question just never came up in the Y era material, nor in the CL Paravians nor in the C6 material. And he did state 'as of now' that it is the #1 shield they fire out of. However, perhaps that is something that can be adjusted, particularly for any future tourney ship. But just as important for regular SFB as well.

Having the QWT fire out of the 6/1/2 facings is certainly reasonable and while not as flexible as a swivel mount, does go a LONG way towards making them much more flyable without unbalancing the design. Considering Gregg's comment, I would 'assume' that everyone 'assumed' that it was a 6/1/2 firing during all the years of playtesting.

So perhaps the Galactic powers can revisit the 6/1/2 option. Heck, make it something like 6/1/2 refit if necessary that adds 1 BPV to the ship.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 10:07 pm: Edit

SPP's post is pretty clear. #1 only. Your playing group can do what they want, of course.

By David Schultz (Ikvavenger) on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 10:53 pm: Edit

And Gregg D. was also pretty clear that the Paravians were designed to fire out of the 6/1/2 shields. Since he is the designer, and presumably playtested them that way, it could be fair to say they are unbalanced if played through the #1 only. Be that as it may, our FTF group will go with the Paravians as originally designed i.e. 6/1/2 firing.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 02:38 pm: Edit

(R19.14) Module C6 Carnivon CA Rule - R19.10 is missing from variants list. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Jul 2014.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 07:32 pm: Edit

(R19.15) Module C6 Carnivon CVS - I would like to verify the rule is correct. "Seeking Weapons: The strike carrier can control a number of seeking weapons equal to half its sensor rating (F3.211)." As this is a variant of the CA which can control the number of seeking weapons equal to its sensor rating, it does not seem the reduction is warranted. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Jul 2014.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 14, 2014 - 11:32 am: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

The ship itself (Carnivon CVS) does not possess any seeking weapons beyond suicide shuttles. At that point (F3.211) comes into force and very specifically notes

"Those ships (even those from seeking weapons races) not armed with drones or plasma torpedoes can control weapons equal to one-half of their sensor rating (usually 3), round fractions of 0.5 up."

As Carnivon size-1 and size-2 fighters cannot be armed with deathbolts (FD20.15) and are not themselves armed with seeking weapons the ship does not require additional control channels to assume control of seeking weapons launched by fighters that might be lost due to the fighter being destroyed, unlike what happens in most cases when a fighter guiding a drone is destroyed, i.e., if no other eligible unit can assume guidance of the fighter's drones they go inert and are removed from play unless they are self-guiding and within the range of the target to assume self-guidance.

About the only reason to have more than the ability to control seeking weapons above half the ship's sensor rating is for purpose of remote control fighters (J15.224), and I see no reason to make a special exception for the Carnivons when a similar thing affects the Tholians, Hydrans and Lyrans (who DO have drone-armed fighters unlike the Tholians and Hydrans) and can use the same "solution" as used by those empires (equip the escorts to operate remote controlled fighters launched by the carrier).

So ultimately the seeking weapon control channels are reduced to save space/cost in the conversion/design because the ship does not need the capability.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 14, 2014 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Thanks Steve, just making sure it was not an oversight.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 09:59 pm: Edit

(R19.23) Module C6 Carnivon CWV - Annex 3 (pg 116) shouldn't the spare shuttles be 2+3 and not 2-3? - Ken Kazinski, 21 Jul 2014.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 11:54 am: Edit

The BPV of the Paravian DN is 205. The BPV of the Paravian DNL is 215. This appears wrong. (A ship with fewer systems, but otherwise identical, has a higher BPV??!?)

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Would the DNL not pay a premium due to its status as a "fast" ship? Not just in terms of the benefits gained at an operational level, but in how much added cost there would be in building and maintaining the ship relative to a "standard" dreadnought hull.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Perhaps. But it's status as a "fast" ship is entirely at the strategic level, as it has no more warp than a standard DN hull and, as noted, it has fewer systems all around than the standard hull. Thus it's combat BPV should be lower than the base hull, since it actually brings less to the table than the base hull. Any strategic advantage it has over the base hull would be an argument for a split BPV.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 02:27 pm: Edit

It may have the same warp engines as the DN, but it has a superior move cost which allows it to do more with the power it has available.

(I imagine we'd see a similar distinction with a would-be Paravian BBL relative to the standard BB, since it would presumably mount the same engines on a MC 1.75 hull.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - 03:11 pm: Edit

I agree with Gary on this one. I don't recall the specifics for the Paravian dreadnoughts. But typically the DNLs generate about 2 points less power than their corresponding "standard" dreadnought and about 4 points less power than their heavy dreadnought (with some variation across empires). But they use 7.5 fewer points to move at max speed, with smaller power advantages at lower speeds. In a sustained, multi-turn, high-speed fight, a DNL actually outguns a DN or DNH; not because it has more weapons but because it has more power to keep arming those weapons while maintaining that high speed. Or if the DN slows down to arm more weapons, the DNL may be able to use its superior speed to obtain a positional advantage.

One other thing, the DNL does have one specifically tactical edge as the result of being a "fast" ship. It can accelerate by +15 or triple, rather than +10 or double.

By Troy J. Latta (Saaur) on Wednesday, December 03, 2014 - 02:06 pm: Edit

(R1.4-18) Module C6 Paravian Hangar Bay Module - I believe there should be a note here that the Paravians used the Tholian/Hydran HBM with APR replacing cargo. They don't need to store seeking weapons, but do need more power to recharge QWT freezers. - Troy J. Latta, 3 Dec 2014