(MR3.17) Module C5 Eneen DW - There should only be 20 crew units (Annex 3). The 21st crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Nov 2013.

(MR3.18) Module C5 Eneen DWP - There should only be 20 crew units (Annex 3). The 21st crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Nov 2013.

(MR3.19) Module C5 Eneen DWC - There should only be 20 crew units (Annex 3). The 21st crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Nov 2013.

(MR3.19) Module C5 Eneen DWC - Shouldn't the Y175 refit be +2 as there are only Pl-E's? - Ken Kazinski, 14 Nov 2013.

(MR3.19) Module C5 Eneen DWC - There should only be 20 crew units (Annex 3). The 21st crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Nov 2013.

(MR3.20) Module C5 Eneen DWS - There should only be 20 crew units (Annex 3). The 21st crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 14 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 12:35 am: Edit

(MR3.21) Module C5 Eneen FF - There should only be 18 crew units (Annex 3). The 19th crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.21) Module C5 Eneen FF - Shouldn't the shield refit cost 4 and not 6? A total of 8 shield boxes are added by the shield refit. Using the other ships as a template it would cost 0.5 points per shield box. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.22) Module C5 Eneen FFP - There should only be 18 crew units (Annex 3). The 19th crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.22) Module C5 Eneen FFP - Shouldn't the shield refit cost 4 and not 6? A total of 8 shield boxes are added by the shield refit. Using the other ships as a template it would cost 0.5 points per shield box. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.23) Module C5 Eneen NMS - There should only be 18 crew units (Annex 3). The 19th crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.23) Module C5 Eneen NMS - Shouldn't the shield refit cost 4 and not 6? A total of 8 shield boxes are added by the shield refit. Using the other ships as a template it would cost 0.5 points per shield box. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.24) Module C5 Eneen FFS - There should only be 18 crew units (Annex 3). The 19th crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.24) Module C5 Eneen FFS - Shouldn't the shield refit cost 4 and not 6? A total of 8 shield boxes are added by the shield refit. Using the other ships as a template it would cost 0.5 points per shield box. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.25) Module C5 Eneen FFG - There should only be 28 crew units (Annex 3). The 29th crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

(MR3.24) Module C5 Eneen FFS - Shouldn't the shield refit cost 4 and not 2? A total of 8 shield boxes are added by the shield refit. Using the other ships as a template it would cost 0.5 points per shield box. - Ken Kazinski, 15 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 07:07 pm: Edit

(MR3.26) Module C5 Eneen MB - There should only be 30 crew units (Annex 3). The 31st crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.26) Module C5 Eneen MB - Shouldn't the shield refit cost 6 and not 8? A total of 12 shield boxes are added by the shield refit. Using the other ships as a template it would cost 0.5 points per shield box. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.26) Module C5 Eneen MB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.27) Module C5 Eneen BS - There should only be 60 crew units (Annex 3). The 61st crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.27) Module C5 Eneen BS - Shouldn't the Y175 refit cost 4 and not 8? Per MR3.R4 the cost is 1 BPV per launcher and there are four launchers. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.27) Module C5 Eneen BS - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.28) Module C5 Eneen WB - There should only be 90 crew units (Annex 3). The 91st crew unit is added when the Fighter Refit is applied. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.28) Module C5 Eneen WB - Shouldn't the shield refit cost 18 and not 36? A total of 36 shield boxes are added by the shield refit. Using the other ships as a template it would cost 0.5 points per shield box. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.28) Module C5 Eneen WB - Shouldn't the Y175 refit cost 8 and not 16? Per MR3.R4 the cost is 1 BPV per launcher and there are eight launchers. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

(MR3.28) Module C5 Eneen WB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 17 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 11:05 pm: Edit

(MR3.29) Module C5 Eneen GBNB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 21 Nov 2013.

(MR3.30) Module C5 Eneen DefSat-NB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 21 Nov 2013.

(MR3.31) Module C5 Eneen GBPE - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 21 Nov 2013.

(MR3.32) Module C5 Eneen DefSat-E - There is no abbreviation in Annex 05 for this unit - Ken Kazinski, 21 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, November 24, 2013 - 11:45 pm: Edit

(MR4.4) Module C5 Maghadim CVA Description - Escort table year format should be Y183-191 and not Y183-Y191. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Nov 2013.

(MR4.4) Module C5 Maghadim Tug Annex 10 - The listing should be Tug and not TG. TG is not in annex 3 nor on the SSD. - Ken Kazinski, 23 Nov 2013.

(MR4.34) Module C5 Maghadim C-P - By convention units with no crew should have a command rating of '-'. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Nov 2013.

(MR4.8) Module C5 Maghadim CVL - Description - By convention the escort table year format should be Y180-187, Y185-190 and not Y180-Y187, Y185-Y190. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Nov 2013.

(MR4.9) Module C5 Maghadim CSV - Description - By convention the escort table year format should be Y187-191 and not Y187-Y191. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Nov 2013.

(MR4.13) Module C5 Maghadim HV - Description - By convention the escort table year format should be Y177-184, Y183-185, Y184-191 and not Y177-Y184, Y183-Y185, Y184-Y191. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Nov 2013.

(MR4.14) Module C5 Maghadim DD Annex 10 - All the units have the "§" symbol. Is this correct and as intended? - Ken Kazinski, 24 Nov 2013.

(MR4.17) Module C5 Maghadim DDV - Description - By convention the escort table year format should be Y175-184, Y183-185, Y184-191 and not Y175-Y184, Y183-Y185, Y184-Y191. - Ken Kazinski, 24 Nov 2013.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 25, 2013 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Ken Kazinski:

Sorry, but that convention on the escort tables no longer applies.

I argued that it should not be changed, but I lost.

Jean has decreed that from now on the escort tables will show the years as "Y###-Y###" and there is nothing I can do about it.

When Module C5 is updated, any carrier fighter and escort table entries that do no meet Jean's new and ruthlessly imposed (by repeated vicious beatings, withholding of food rations, turning on the heat in summer and the air conditioner in winter, and other unpleasantries) new standard will be changed to meet it.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, November 25, 2013 - 02:04 pm: Edit

(sigh) Petrick, you know that your thermostat is broken and you don't notice the temperature changes.

And I did feed you gruel.

At least every other day.

When you were good.

And I even made sure the shackles were cleaned from last time!

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Monday, November 25, 2013 - 08:21 pm: Edit

SPP,

I will adjust my error template.

Jean - what about getting a separate errata topic so questions are not lost in the errata listings?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 12:45 am: Edit

(MR4.23) Module C5 Maghadim MB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 10:45 am: Edit

(MR4.24) Module C5 Maghadim BS (C5, pg 81)- The errata states there are no medium lasers but to replace each 3 lasers with 2 heavy lasers. Are ML's 7 & 8 supposed to be heavy lasers?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, November 28, 2013 - 12:42 am: Edit

(MR4.24) Module C5 Maghadim BS - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Nov 2013.

(MR4.26) Module C5 Maghadim SB - Shouldn't the last sensor FX & RX box be 0 and not 1. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Nov 2013.

(MR4.26) Module C5 Maghadim SB - The Y170 refit slashes should be the other direction. The system boxes are all the same direction. - Ken Kazinski, 27 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, November 29, 2013 - 08:17 am: Edit

(MR4.25) Module C5 Maghadim SB - Per MD2.21 the outer shield cost should be 4 and not 5. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.25) Module C5 Maghadim SB - Per B3.3 life support cost should be 3 and is 4. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.25) Module C5 Maghadim SB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, November 29, 2013 - 12:02 pm: Edit

(MR4.26) Module C5 Maghadim GBTB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.26) Module C5 Maghadim GBTB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 5. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.27) Module C5 Maghadim Defsat-TB - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 5. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.28) Module C5 Maghadim GBMD - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.28) Module C5 Maghadim GBMD - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 5. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.29) Module C5 Maghadim Defsat-MD - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 5. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.30) Module C5 Maghadim GBHL - There is no abbreviation in Annex 05 for this unit - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.30) Module C5 Maghadim GBHL - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.31) Module C5 Maghadim GBFTR - The minimum crew units should be 1 and not 2. Carriers (Units with a V? Note) subtract their deck crews to determine the crew size for use with (G9.41). - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.31) Module C5 Maghadim GBFTR - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.31) Module C5 Maghadim GBFTR - There is no abbreviation in Annex 05 for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.31) Module C5 Maghadim GBFTR - Shouldn't there be a entry in Annex 07N for this unit? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.32) Module C5 Maghadim FTR - Are the cargo donuts detachable like a pod? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.32) Module C5 Maghadim FTR - There is no abbreviation in Annex 05 for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.32) Module C5 Maghadim AxV - Shouldn't there be a entry in Annex 07N for this unit? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.33) Module C5 Maghadim AxV - 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, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR4.33) Module C5 Maghadim AxV - There is no abbreviation in Annex 05 for this unit - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, November 29, 2013 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Per MR1.N1 the medium laser is not available until Y75. Is that just for ground bases or all units? If only for bases, what is the YIS for the system?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, November 29, 2013 - 10:35 pm: Edit

(MR5.5) Module C5 Uthiki DEF - There is no abbreviation in Annex 05 for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR5.5) Module C5 Uthiki DEF - There is no entry for this unit in Annex 10. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, November 29, 2013 - 10:36 pm: Edit

General question about the Jumokian Pirates, for the ships that have space for 2 pallets, do you have to have 2 or can you have just one?

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, November 30, 2013 - 12:09 am: Edit

(MR.6.4) Module C5 Jumokian Pirates CL - Based on the text from the laser refit MR6.R1, this unit should have had the laser refit. Shouldn't the early lasers (4 & 5) have been refitted to MLs? - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

(MR6.5) Module C5 Jumokian Pirates NDD - There is no abbreviation in Annex 05 for this unit. - Ken Kazinski, 29 Nov 2013.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, December 30, 2013 - 03:22 pm: Edit

I was speculating on this topic in another thread recently, but wanted to ask if it applied or not.

In the Alpha Octant, one key difference between TL 11 and TL 12 tactical warp drive is that only the latter is capable of what Prime Directive would refer to as "dash" warp (or what, in Federation and Empire terms, would be strategic movement). So on a strategic level, it would follow that a Y-series ship (or a G/L-series "National Guard" upgrade) would have to rely on what F&E would refer to as operational movement.

Assuming that I'm not mistaken with the above (and my apologies if I am), would the same distinction apply in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, in that the Y-series ships (and the "old fleet" Eneen upgrades) would be prevented from using "dash" warp, in contrast to the capabilities which more modern warp engines can provide to other ships in the LMC?

Indeed, can a "modern" LMC ship even use "dash" warp at all?


To give an example of this, the "middle years" Eneen are noted as being relatively hamstrung by their inability to install modern warp drives into their "old fleet" hulls (CL, DD, and CT). This makes those ships perhaps most akin to the G/L-series hulls in the Alpha Octant, and contrasts with the Baduvai experience (since they were able to remove the warp pylons on their own Y-series ships and install more powerful ones in their place).

But while this limitation has an effect tactically (in that the "old fleet" ships can go no faster than Speed 25), would it also mean that they would be hampered strategically (due to an inability to use "dash" warp)?

And once the Eneen start building CAs and BDDs (or later move on to the "war" classes of Y105), would those ships themselves be able to use "dash" warp; or is that a function which the C5 empires are (so far) unable to match?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 04:03 pm: Edit

In light of the new Jumokian ships set for CL48, I had a few pirate-related questions.

*In the LMC timeline, the Baduvai invent the CPA-2 in Y101, which allows them to bring the CL, FFI, and CT into service. Do the Jumokians gain access to this weapon in that same year, or is there a delay in adoption akin to that imposed on mass driver warheads in (ME2.44)? (Since none of the pirate ships in service by then have adjacent centerline option mounts, they cannot mount CPA-3s. So are they restricted to CPA-1s until gaining access to the CPA-2?) - Gary Carney 03 March 2014

*Are the "modern" Jumokian ships able to take neutron guns in their option mounts instead of neutron beams? There is a cost for the NG in Annex #8B, but I wasn't sure if they were obliged to go for NBs instead. (Given the power demands of NBs, perhaps a given cell might see the lower arming cost of a NG as an acceptable compromise for use on smaller ships like the FF. But if they are obliged to go for NBs instead, that might leave them with the same hasty repair option that the modern Eneen fleet has with the NB.) - Gary Carney 03 March 2014

*To follow up on one of Ken Kazinski's questions above, are the Jumokian DD and CL able to mount only one Pinnace pack at a time; or are there any "dynamic balance issues" which oblige them to have two packs or none (akin to the limitations imposed on ISC tugs in the Alpha Octant)? - Gary Carney 03 March 2014

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 04:38 pm: Edit

If I have to answer questions, I'm going to delete the ships from Gary's copy.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 09:53 pm: Edit

LOL everytime I see Jumokian I think of Arby's.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 04:06 pm: Edit

I had a couple of Jumokian line items posted over in the CL48 discussion thread, which I can re-post here if it was deemed a better fit.

But in light of Module C6's publication (and my actually getting a hold of that volume today), I had a question regarding Jumokian option mounts overall.

*(MR6.1D3). According to Module C5, Jumokian ships cannot carry non-Magellanic technology outside of a simulator. However, while (E24.143) and (FD20.143) state that the Jumokians might have placed such weapons in their simulators (emphasis mine) post-Unity, (E23.143), and (FQ1.143) say that they might have adopted such weapons at that time (without the simulator reference). To clarify, are all four weapons (and any other Alpha Octant weapon encountered post-Unity) strictly for simulator purposes only, or is the intent to leave the door ajar for the post-Y202 Jumokians to gain some form of access to non-native weapons technology? - Gary Carney 10 April 2014

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, April 10, 2014 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:

In the historical universe, they are by definition simulator only because the Paravians and Carnivons did not survive to develop the weapons into what is seen in Module C6. In an alternative universe where the Paravians and Carnivons survive and develop the weapons is another matter. So it is not "leaving the door open for post Y202" it is stating that if the universe is different, than circumstances are different. If you decide in your universe that the Paravians survived and the ISC never went peacekeeping as a result (because of the Paravian raids and violent empire on their border) . . .

By Alex Lyons (Afwholf) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 04:44 pm: Edit

Maghadim Wasp: Speed 15+8

What does the +8 represent?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Overdrive, check the LMC J-section rules.