(R19.39) Module C6 Carnivon DWS - The rule referenced for the minehunter frigate should be (R19.49) as (R19.51) is for the FCR. - Ken Kazinski, 08 Feb 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 12:10 am: Edit

(R19.41) Module C6 Carnivon DWG - The minimum crew units should be 3 and not 4. Troop Transports (Units with a T Note) subtract their boarding parties to determine the crew size for use with (G9.41). - Ken Kazinski, 08 Feb 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 05:57 pm: Edit

(R19.44) Module C6 Carnivon FFL - The FFL is missing the tractor and transporter refit note. Tractors: Type-M (Range 2); refitted to type-N (Range 3) in Y140 at no cost. Transporters: Range 4, extended to Range 5 in Y140 at no cost. - Ken Kazinski, 10 Feb 2015.

(R19.45) Module C6 Carnivon FF - The FFL is missing the tractor and transporter refit note. Tractors: Type-M (Range 2); refitted to type-N (Range 3) in Y140 at no cost. Transporters: Range 4, extended to Range 5 in Y140 at no cost. - Ken Kazinski, 10 Feb 2015.

(R18.F) Module C6 Carnivon, pg 19. The heading rule in the box should be R19.M and not R18.F. - Ken Kazinski, 10 Feb 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, February 14, 2015 - 01:31 am: Edit

(R19.48) Module C6 Carnivon FFS - The Special Sensor system has a YIS of 134 and is after the unit was first introduced in Y129. Should the YIS for this unit be 134 or are these early year sensors? - Ken Kazinski, 13 Feb 2015.

(R19.49) Module C6 Carnivon FFM - The FFM has no additional phasers from the FF. The sentence "so they opted to increase the numbers of phasers and tractors" should remove the reference to the additional phasers, the tractor was increased. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Feb 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, February 15, 2015 - 09:26 pm: Edit

(R19.55) Module C6 Carnivon PV - Annex 3 shows this unit as PLV but the SSD shows PV. Which is correct? - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.55) Module C6 Carnivon PV - The SSD shows PV, if this is correct, Annex 7G PLV should be PV. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.56) Module C6 Carnivon TG - Just to verify the breakdown is 4-6? The CA which this unit is a variant of, has a breakdown of 5-6. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.56) Module C6 Carnivon TG - The rule states "The tug can carry one pod on its centerline or two pods side by side. If two pods are carried, both must be the same weight, i.e., it cannot carry one double-weight pod and one single-weight pod at the same time." Due to this restriction Annex 3A should only have a maximum of 2 pod weights and not 3. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.56) Module C6 Carnivon TG SSD - The DERFACS hit and run box is missing from the SSD. That or I am just not seeing it. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.56) Module C6 Carnivon TG SSD - Per the rule the tug can not carry 3 pod weights. The "With 3 Pod Weight" box should be removed. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.0) Module C6 Carnivon Annex 3 - There probably should be a N1 note for the Carrier pods and the battle pods. N1 - Two carrier and/or battle pods will not increase the command rating any more than one will. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, February 15, 2015 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Found the answer.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, February 16, 2015 - 12:20 am: Edit

(R19.62) Module C6 Carnivon P-B - Per (G9.41) minimum crew units should be 3 and not 2. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.64) Module C6 Carnivon P-SC - Per (G9.41) minimum crew units should be 4 and not 2. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.65) Module C6 Carnivon P-DB - Per (G9.41) minimum crew units should be 3 and not 2. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.68) Module C6 Carnivon P-PF - Per (G9.41) minimum crew units should be 4 and not 2. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

(R19.70) Module C6 Carnivon P-H - Annex 3 shows this unit's type to be P-HFR while the SSD and rule show P-H. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Feb 2015.

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 04:02 pm: Edit

(R1.13A-19) Carnivon AxPFS: Weapon-A should be phaser-2 (not phaser-1) to match other generic units and auxiliaries. (Nick Samaras, June 19, 2015)

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, June 21, 2015 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Nick - The rule for the AxPFS is R1.27. The Federation, Romulan, Kzinti, Gorn, Tholian and ISC Aux PFS (and Aux CVL [R1.13A] and Aux CVA [R1.13B]) all have phaser-1s.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, September 07, 2015 - 11:15 pm: Edit

(R18.55) Module C6 Paravian PLV - The minimum crew units should be 3 and not 4. Carriers (Units with a V? Note) subtract their deck crews to determine the crew size for use with (G9.41). - Ken Kazinski, 07 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, September 08, 2015 - 10:25 pm: Edit

(R18.59) Module C6 Paravian P-V - The minimum crew units should be 2 and not 1. Carriers (Units with a V? Note) subtract their deck crews to determine the crew size for use with (G9.41). The 8 crew units minus the 6 deck crews (3) would leave 5 crew units or a minimum of 2. - Ken Kazinski, 08 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, September 11, 2015 - 11:19 pm: Edit

Annex #4 Module C6 Paravain TSFI - "2x-2-FH" should be "2xP-2-FH". - Ken Kazinski, 09 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, September 11, 2015 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Annex #4 Module C6 Paravain TG-HM - Per J16.12 the cost should be 1.5 times the base unit. The BPV should be 57, 1.5 x 38 (TG-H). - Ken Kazinski, 09 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 12:08 am: Edit

(R19.F1) Module C6 Carnivon JK-1 - Should not this unit be list as "Jackal-1 Superiority Fighter" and not just "Jackal-1 Superiority"? - Ken Kazinski, 09 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 12:49 am: Edit

(R19.F1E) Module C6 Carnivon JK-1E - Per R1.F7 this electronic warfare fighter should not have lost its ADD-4. The ADD-4 should have been retained. - Ken Kazinski, 09 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 02:17 pm: Edit

(R19.F2) Module C6 Carnivon JK-2 Rule - Should not this unit be list as "Jackal-2 Superiority Fighter" and not just "Jackal-2 Superiority"? - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

(R19.F2E) Module C6 Carnivon JK-2E - Per R1.F7 when converting this electronic warfare fighter it should have retained the ADD-4. - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

(R19.F3) Module C6 Carnivon JK-3 Rule - Should not this unit be list as "Jackal-3 Superiority Fighter" and not just "Jackal-3 Superiority"? - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

(R19.F3E) Module C6 Carnivon JK-3E - Per R1.F7 when converting this electronic warfare fighter it should have retained the ADD-6. - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.


(R19.F4) Module C6 Carnivon JK-4 Rule - Should not this unit be list as "Jackal-4 Superiority Fighter" and not just "Jackal-4 Superiority"? - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

(R19.F4) Module C6 Carnivon JK-4M Annex #4 - The phaser group should be "3xP-3-FA" and not "2xP-3-FA" - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

(R19.F4E) Module C6 Carnivon JK-4E - Per R1.F7 when converting this electronic warfare fighter it should have retained the ADD-6. - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

(R19.F7) Module C6 Carnivon HY3 - "A squadron of 12 Hyena-3 assault fighter-3s is included on the Carnivon Assault Fighters page of Module C6." Should not "assault fighter-3s" be "assault fighters"? - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

(R19.F4E) Module C6 Carnivon HY-3 - Per R1.F7 when converting this electronic warfare fighter should not it have retained the single anti-drone drones? This figher does not qualifiy under the Drone, Assault or Other category but would fall into the "All" category. - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 07:04 pm: Edit

(R19.F14) Module C6 Carnivon BR-3M- The first P-2's firing arc should be FX and not FX. The original unit's firing arc is "FX". - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.


(R19.F15) Module C6 Carnivon KOM - The DFR should be -1 and not -2. Per J16.22 - DFR is reduced by 2, but not less than 0. The original unit is -1. - Ken Kazinski, 12 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 10:50 am: Edit

(R18.F) Module C6 Carnivon - Page 91, Carnivon Ground Forces rule number should be R19.M. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Sep 2015.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 11:27 pm: Edit

(R1.PF1) Module C6 Carnivon PFC - The WSS is listed as LPW, but I believe it should be RPW. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Sep 2015.

(R1.PF6) Module C6 Carnivon PFPL SSD - There are two Phase-3 #4's, when one should probably be a #5. - Ken Kazinski, 13 Sep 2015.

By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Friday, May 27, 2016 - 10:36 am: Edit

(E23.141) In the first sentence, recommend changing “cannot installed” to “cannot be installed”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E23.15) In the second to last sentence change “(J4.853)” to “(J4.854)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E23.16) Change “dire- fire” to “direct-fire”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E23.33) The upper range limits for the last four columns are not listed in the table. Based on the range values in the table, and (E23.34) which limits the weapon range to 40 hexes, the ranges should be 9-15, 16-22, 23-30, 31-40. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E23.35) This rule is incorrectly numbered “(E28.35)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E24.31) In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph remove the space from “th ere”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E24.331) In Captain’s Log Supplemental (page 4) if has the following errata for this rule: “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 is a design decision and one of the costs of gaining the extended range; it is not a mistake; it is intentional.” Hopefully this has not already been addressed, but I think this errata is in error (or incomplete) because in (YE24.331) it indicates if the true range is two or less and the effective range is three or more, treat the range as “two hexes” for both purposes. In the early years, since the weapon cannot hit beyond range two this did not result in any strange results. However, since the non-early version, non-extended weapon, can hit at up to range four, if the weapon was fired at a true range of three or four, and the effective range was five, the weapon would be treated as firing at a range of two, giving a better change to hit than if both the true and effective ranges were at a range of three or four. I therefore recommend that the following text in the rule be changed FROM ‘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.’ TO ‘If the true range is four or less and the effective range is five or more, then treat the range for both purposes as if they were equal to the true range but not less than “two hexes” in any case.’ - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E24.433) This rule is incorrectly numbered “(E24.533)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E24.44) This rule is incorrectly numbered “(E24.54)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E24.45) This rule is incorrectly numbered “(E24.55)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(E24.46) This rule is incorrectly numbered “(E24.56)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.142) In the second paragraph, first sentence, change “weapo;,” to “weapon;”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.143) This rule is incorrectly numbered “(E24.143)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.23) Before “(J4.814)” recommend adding the word “in”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.25) In the first sentence change “(R19.F15)” to “(R19.F14)” since that is the rule for the Bear-3 fighter. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.25) Change “(J14.235)” to “(J14.234)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.25) Change “(FD4.443)” to “(FD2.443)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.527) Change “(FD11.223)” to “(FD11.23)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.555) Change “(FD2.554)” to “(FD20.554)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.614) Change “nebulaes” to “nebulas” by removing the “e”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FD20.63) At the end of the paragraph, change “(G10593)” to “(G10.593)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FQ1.415) Change “(FQ1.371)” to “(FQ1.381)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(FQ1.416) The period at the end of the paragraph is missing. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

Keeping in Touch (page 56): Change “HAILING FREQENCIES” to “HAILING FREQUENCIES” by adding the “U”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.1-19) In the last fighter table in Y178, change “DG-2I” to “DG-2i” (make the “I” lower case”). - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.14-18): This rule describes how to create a quantum wave torpedo ground base SSD but there is no need since there is one included in Module C6. The second paragraph should also list Module C6 as a source for the SSDs. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.14-19) This rule describes how to create a disruptor cannon ground base SSD but there is no need since there is one included in Module C6. The second paragraph should also list Module C6 as a source for the SSDs. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.15-18) This rule describes how to create a quantum wave torpedo satellite SSD but there is no need since there is one included in Module C6. The second paragraph should also list Module C6 as a source for the SSDs. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.15-19) This rule describes how to create a disruptor cannon satellite SSD but there is no need since there is one included in Module C6. The second paragraph should also list Module C6 as a source for the SSDs. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.22-18): For the Y183+ row for a fighter pallet, add a space after the “12”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.22-19) In the fighter table for Y170-Y172, remove space from “o f”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.24-18) The headers are missing from the hanger bay module fighter list. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.24-19) The headers are missing from the hanger bay module fighter list. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.41-18) The rule number for the FTR ship description in Module M is (R1.41). However, the large ore processing ship (F-OP) in Module F1 also used (R1.41). This appeared to have been resolved in Module G3 since in the Master Ship Chart the FTR was given rule number (R1.43) and the F-OP retained rule number (R1.41). So presumably this rule, “(R1.41-18)”, should be changed to “(R1.43-18)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.41-19) The rule number for the FTR ship description in Module M is (R1.41). However, the large ore processing ship (F-OP) in Module F1 also used (R1.41). This appeared to have been resolved in Module G3 since in the Master Ship Chart the FTR was given rule number (R1.43) and the F-OP retained rule number (R1.41). So presumably this rule, “(R1.41-19)”, should be changed to “(R1.43-19)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.68U-18) Recommend adding “(SDS2)” to the header since that is the Ship Type in the Master Ship Chart in Module G3. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.68U-19) Recommend adding “(SDS2)” to the header since that is the Ship Type in the Master Ship Chart in Module G3. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.68V-18) Recommend adding “(SDS3)” to the header since that is the Ship Type in the Master Ship Chart in Module G3. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.68V-19) Recommend adding “(SDS3)” to the header since that is the Ship Type in the Master Ship Chart in Module G3. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.68W-18) Recommend adding “(FTRS)” to the header since that is the Ship Type in the Master Ship Chart in Module G3. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.68W-19) Recommend adding “(FTRS)” to the header since that is the Ship Type in the Master Ship Chart in Module G3. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.83-18): For the Y183+ row for a carrier pallet, add a space after the “12”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R1.89-18) In the paragraph after the first list of fighters, recommend that in the text “(R1.70) in are present” that the word “in” be removed. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.0) PARAVIAN MARAUDERS: On page 19, in the right hand column, the second full paragraph, in the second sentence, change “Paraivan” to “Paravian” by reversing the “vi”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.0) Alternate History #2: Y67 is listed twice so the entries should be combined. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.3) In the “Seeking Weapons” paragraph (the first paragraph after the table), remove the space from “sh ip”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.10) RMS SSD: The pod weights allowed should be “0-5”, not “0-4” per the ship description. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.27) Suggest making the “Landing:” sentence into its own paragraph; it currently is part of the fifth paragraph. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.38A) In the second to last paragraph, change “desroyer” to “destroyer” by adding the “t”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.40) Recommend making the “Landing:” sentence into its own paragraph; currently it is part of the fourth paragraph. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.47A) In the second to last paragraph changed “(R19.24)” to “(R18.47)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.50) In the first paragraph, second sentence, in the text “Records are on unclear”, recommend removing the word “on”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.53) In the eleventh paragraph (the one starting with “Landing Force:”), change “(R19.M1)” to “(R18.M1)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.53) In the twelfth paragraph (the one starting with “Shuttles:”), change “(R1,F2)” to “(R1.F2)” (i.e., change the comma to a period). - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.60) In the second to last paragraph, remove the space from “(R1.F 4)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.65) In the first sentence, change “(R19.51)” to “(R18.48)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.67) In the second to last paragraph, change “(F2.313)” to “(F3.213)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.F3) In the first paragraph, third to the last sentence, change “Thunderaven” to “Thunderraven” by adding an “r”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.M1) Recommend that the “1 HQ element” line be indented to line up with the “4 platoons” line below it. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.PF0) Add a colon after the text “Variants include”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R18.PF1) In the final paragraph, first sentence, change “Module 6” to “Module C6” by adding the “C”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

Carnivon General Units (page 60): In the second paragraph, change “Carnvions” to “Carnivons” by reversing the “vi”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.14) In the second paragraph, third sentence, change “fast cruiser (R19.17)” to “fast cruiser (R19.18)” (the rule reference is wrong). - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.22) In the first sentence change “(R19.19)” to “(R19.20)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.25) In the first sentence change “Carnvions” to “Carnivons” by reversing the “vi”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.27) In the first sentence, change “(R19.51)” to “(R19.49)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.29) In the first sentence change "(R19.23)" to "(R19.22)". - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.36) In the first sentence, in the text “was built in many different and yards”, recommend removing the word “and”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.36) In the second paragraph, last sentence, change “(R19.32)” to “(R19.34)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.40) In the first sentence, change “(R19.51)” to “(R19.49)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.42) In the first sentence, in the text “soon led to a specification being issues for ships”, recommend changing “issues” to “issued”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.43) In the second sentence change "(R19.53)" to "(R19.52)". - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.47A) In the fourth paragraph change “has limited aegis” to “has full aegis”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.48) In the fifth sentence, changed “Carnivions” to “Carnivons” by removing the second “i”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.55) In the Carrier Data Table, recommend changing “Pol” to “POL” in five locations (since ship type is normally capitalized). - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.65) In the first sentence, change “bomardment" to “bombardment" by adding a “b”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.F4): Add a colon after the header. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.F7) In the first sentence, change “ant-drones” to “anti-drones” by adding the “i”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.F8) In the first sentence, change “protoypes” to “prototypes” by adding a “t”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.F9) In the third paragraph, first sentence, remove the space from “alway s”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.M): This rule was incorrectly labeled "(R18.F)". - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(R19.PF1) In the first sentence of the final paragraph changed “Module 6” to “Module C6” by adding the “C”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ5.2) In the final paragraph, in the text “F-TS-Soil Smasher” removed the second “-”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ5.2) At the end of the final paragraph remove “550”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ7.0) In the first paragraph, first word, capitalize the first letter of “in”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ7.63) Change “(SL7.45)” to “(SJ7.45)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ8.2) In the DEFENSE SATELLITES paragraph, change “22316” to “2316” by removing the first “2”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ9.2) In the SHUTTLES paragraph change “(SJ9.46)” to “(SJ9.45)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ11.5) In the second paragraph, at the end of the second sentence, in the text “by one for” recommend removing the word “for”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ11.0) HISTORICAL OUTCOME: Change “Carnvions” to “Carnivons” by reversing the “vi”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ12.431) In the second sentence, in the text “(e.g., T-bombs, extra, etc.)” recommend changing “extra” to “extra Marines”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

(SJ12.5) Change “(S2.13)” to “(S2.3)”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

Annex #3A: The “*” note for the Paravian BMS (errata changed if from the Paravian RBB) is incorrect in that per the ship description (R18.5) and the SSD the ship can carry five pod weights (not just four) although it is limited to four pods. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

Annex #3A: Per the ship description the Paravian RMS (R18.10), this annex should indicate that the ship can carry up to 5 pod weights (but no more than three pods). The movement cost remains 1.500 and its turn mode remains C. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

Annex #6: I am unsure if this is errata or not but this annex lists “Each extra death bolt” as having a cost of 1.5 while Module YG3 lists the cast as 2.0 so I am unsure why the difference. Also, Annex #6 does not list the speed of the death bolt but presumably the cost is for a speed 12 death bolt. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

Annex #8B: In the final paragraph, change “deah bolt” to “death bolt” by adding a “t”. - Jeff Coutu, 27 May 2016

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Monday, January 30, 2017 - 12:37 am: Edit

I have just recently gotten a copy of ModY2, and saw an errata item on page 16 for (YFQ1.14) that states that QWTs can be placed with a facing that matches the 120 degree arc of tracking for the weapon. Presumably this notation was intended (as written) to apply to the Early-Years copy of the QWT (as ModC6 did not exist at the publication time of ModY2.)

I would like to see a rescinding of the post made in this sub-forum on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 by SPP that limits the ModC6 QWTs to fixed-FA arcs. This would allow ModC6 QWTs to be launched with a facing anywhere in the 120 degree tracking arc of the weapon.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Published errata takes precedence.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Wednesday, February 01, 2017 - 01:37 am: Edit

So does that mean that ModuleC6 Paravians can launch their QWTs with a facing that matches the arc of the weapon (and thus not have the fixed plasma arcs), based on the errata that affects the EY QWTs?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 10, 2017 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Matthew Potter:

I thought I had answered this (not the previous answer, but a specific answer to your last post) and have only just now discovered I had not. I fear that it is sometimes a good idea to "jostle my elbow" so to speak now and again if I have not responded, as my memory is not what it once was.

In simple terms, the errata was supervised by SVC who was also instrumental in creating the original rule. If he says that the launching arc works that way, then it does. From that point, technology does not generally run backwards. Sure, technology can be lost (look at all of the arguments and discussions about how the pyramids were built for example, the actual technology the Egyptians used to do so was lost and strenuous efforts have been made in modern times to rediscover how they did it).

So if the Paravians could launch their Early Years QWTs that way, the technology would only be improved, they would not go "backwards." So the errata applies to the modern Paravian ships because it is assumed (for purposes of Module C6) that the Paravians remained a going concern all through the Star Fleet Universe history and never lost their own technology.

I hope that clears it up.

And, yes, it means my earlier understanding of the rule is in error and thus wrong.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Friday, February 10, 2017 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Thank you, SPP. That does clear it up. I appreciate it.

I asked very specifically, in my last post, because there is a certain feeling of "if it ain't said, it ain't official." Indeed, when I mentioned your initial answer and the obvious assumption to be drawn from it (that "modern" Paravians have the same ability), I was asked the same thing that I replied to you (almost word-for-word).