Mike, so it is and now I know. It is indeed in Annex #5, just not where I looked. Thanks.

By Shawn McManigell (Irish) on Sunday, October 04, 2009 - 08:50 am: Edit

G3A "after action" items:

(R2.24) page 38--The names in the table do not agree with the description text below. They appear to be swapped.
(R2.75) Battle Control Ship (BCS) there is no description regarding the F-111 semi-external "bay" as is included with all the other "F-111 capable" carrier descriptions.
Pages 110, 112 and 114 Chronological is misspelled as "Chornological" in the page header.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 12:25 am: Edit

Still working on it. Are you planning on closing this thread soon?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

This topic and the G3 topic will remain open for reports pretty much indefinitely.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Tuesday, October 06, 2009 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Annex #5: Suggest adding "CO = Commander's Option (S3.2)" 06 OCT 2009 - Tos Crawford

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 - 01:05 am: Edit

The Federation F-111 pod (J2, R2.101, SSD pg 11, rule pg 24) is not listed in G3A. Does the pod use the same fighters as those listed for the CVH?

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 10:40 am: Edit

R2.22 Police Carrier PV; carrier escort chart. The names Marshall and Sheriff should be reversed on the chart. The Sheriff should have the police escorts and F20s, the Marshall should have the FFA escorts and the F18s. This configuration of the chart would then match the dagger and double dagger notes below the chart, and would match with the original R2.22 entry from Module J. Nick Blank 2/4/10

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 10:48 pm: Edit

This was reported 10/4/2009 08:50:00.

R2.22 is for the Federation CVT.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 09:42 am: Edit

Should be R2.24, not R2.22

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 09:43 am: Edit

(R2.35) NVL. All FFR entries should be replaced by FRA after Y175. Nick Blank 2/10/10

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Nick,

G3A already has the correction.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 09:29 am: Edit

Strange. Mine doesn't. There were a few lists that use FFR after Y175. Was there a later printing already?

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 09:31 am: Edit

R2.60 for example also uses FFR all the way through the list, and it starts in Y175.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 04:12 pm: Edit

Tos Crawford reported on Friday, October 02, 2009: In Annex 5 there should be a listing for WSS: Warship Status

REPLY: This will be considered.

Tos Crawford suggested on Tuesday, October 06, 2009: Annex #5: Suggest adding "CO = Commander's Option (S3.2)"

REPLY: This will be considered.

Ken Kazinski reported on Wednesday, December 09, 2009: The Federation F-111 pod [Module J2, (R2.101), SSD pg 11, rule pg 24] is not listed in G3A. Does the pod use the same fighters as those listed for the CVH?

REPLY: The unit is not included in the carrier escort chart because it is not an active carrier. It is in essence a heavy fighter carrier resupply pod. See the ship description. A tug with this pod is not a carrier, which is why there is no "V" in its notes column in Annex #3, so it would not be provided with carrier escorts. It is, essentially, the Federation version of the PF transport pods used by other empires (which you will note are not considered to be PF tenders despite carrying PFs).

Nick G. Blank reported on Thursday, February 04, 2010: (R2.22) Police Carrier PV; carrier escort chart. The names Marshall and Sheriff should be reversed on the chart. The Sheriff should have the police escorts and F20s, the Marshall should have the FFA escorts and the F18s. This configuration of the chart would then match the dagger and double dagger notes below the chart, and would match with the original (R2.22) entry from Module J.

REPLY: This was previously reported and included in the after action report found in the Captain’s Log #40 Supplement.

Nick G. Blank Reported on Wednesday, February 10, 2010: (R2.35) NVL. All FFR entries should be replaced by FRA after Y175.

REPLY: Correct. Sorry I missed that one. After Y175 all entries of FFR should have been changed to FRA. The error is mine. I have checked, and the NVL and NVS seem to be the only two ships I made this error on.

Nick G. Blank Reported on Thursday, February 11, 2010: (R2.60) for example also uses FFR all the way through the list, and it starts in Y175.

REPLY: Sorry I missed that one. After Y175 all entries of FFR should have been changed to FRA. The error is mine. I have checked, and the NVL and NVS seem to be the only two ships I made this error on.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 04:29 pm: Edit

(R2.78) BTV Y186+ escort entry includes a vanilla DW, should be DWA. Nick G. Blank 2/12/10

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Master Table of Contents- Suggest adding an entry for "J52.0 MULTI-ROLE SHUTTLES (Simulator Races)" Shawn Hantke 30Mar2010

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Master Table of Contents- JJ2.0 GORN MODULAR BOMBES Should read "Bombers" Shawn Hantke 30Mar2010

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 01:37 am: Edit

Question on the towing cost of pods.

R1.34 states there was a double weight general pod. Would a towing cost of 0.3333 be a correct extrapolation?


Per R1.45 there is a tripple weight pod with a towing cost of 1.0. - Ken Kazinski, 20 Apr 2010.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 20, 2010 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

In the case of (R1.34), you are misreading the text. All civilian cargo pods described by the rule are 25 cargo boxes, but not all of the military pods used by the various empires are 25 boxes.

Federation pods (including those used by the Tholians) and ISC pods are 32 boxes (and thus each considers the civilian cargo pod to be "a normal single weight pod" when carried by an LTT, Tug, or Strategic Transport).

Klingon pods (including those used by the Romulans, Lyrans, WYNs, LDR, Seltorians, and Vudar), Kzinti pods, and Hydran pallets, are 24 boxes (and all thus consider the civilian cargo pod to be "double weight" when carried by an LTT, Tug, or Strategic Transport).

Gorn Pods are 31 boxes (and thus the Gorns consider the civilian cargo pod to be "a normal single weight pod" when carried by an LTT, Tug, or Strategic Transport).

As to (R1.45), the triple weight reference is to the Operational Auxiliary itself if carried by a tug (an LTT could not carry one).

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 02:04 am: Edit

Master Scenario Index (page 97): 'MASTER SCENARIO INDEX' header in upper right overlaid with other (illegible) text. --Alexander Fulton, 23 May 2010

Master Table of Contents (page 3): E107.0, chapter misprint: "MEGAPHSASERS" should be "MEGAPHASERS". --Alexander Fulton, 23 May 2010

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 08:26 pm: Edit

deleted by author

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, October 06, 2014 - 09:24 pm: Edit

(R6.0) The "HAD" should be "HDA".

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 10:15 pm: Edit

(SL45.0) Module G3A - Master Scenario Index (page 102) - "Gorn CV Group Attacked" should be "Gorn PF Group Attacked". The Federation variant is a CV. - Ken Kazinski, 5 Mar 2017.

(SL48.0) Module G3A - Master Scenario Index (page 102) - "After Yank's Hole" should be "Yank's Hole II", which is the title in CL#2 - Ken Kazinski, 5 Mar 2017.

(SL49.0) Module G3A - Master Scenario Index (page 102) - "Combining of Arastoz" should be "The Combining of Arastoz", which is the title in CL#2 - Ken Kazinski, 5 Mar 2017.

(SL53.0) Module G3A - Master Scenario Index (page 102) - "Trouble in Moddville" should be "Trouble in Muddville", which is the title in CL#3 - Ken Kazinski, 5 Mar 2017.

(SL53.0) CL#3 - Not sure where to put this. The scenario seems to be missing (SL53.1) to (SL53.45). Is there a update for the scenario? - Ken Kazinski, 5 Mar 2017.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 11:32 pm: Edit

The SL53 missing information is in either CL4 or the next Nexus magazine that came out.

By Russ Simkins (Madcowak) on Sunday, March 05, 2017 - 11:51 pm: Edit

I know the Arastoz was reprinted in the 1992 Scenario #1 book where CL#2 was from sometime in the early 80s. I suspect some of the other scenarios were also reprinted in newer products.