This topic is now open for reports.

Jean
WebMom

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, November 05, 2020 - 07:12 pm: Edit

(R7.70) [Page 43] includes the statement "This refit was described in Module C2 for use with the
generic starbase SSD in Basic Set." Description should be included here as the point of this MSSB is that replace the need for the original C2. - Wyszynski 11/5/2020

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 06, 2020 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Second Paragraph of (R7.R2) which describes the refit.

Bases: One web caster replaced one phaser-4 on each of the docking modules of some starbases (R1.1-7), and one web caster replaced each of the two 360° phaser-4s on some battle stations (R1.3-7). The web casters had the same firing arcs as the phaser-4s they replaced. Each such change increases the BPV of the base by three points per replaced phaser-4, i.e., by 18 BPV for the starbase and six BPV for the battle station.

This was in the Tholian Master Starship Book on Page #5.

The Original Text for the Tholian base on page #28 of Module C2 said only that:

"(R7.70) SBW: This was a Starbase with a web caster installed."

If you turned to page #27 you would read under the (R7.R2) Web Caster Refits

"Bases: One web caster replaced two disruptors in some modules of some starbases and battle stations. Each such change increases the BPV by two points."

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, November 06, 2020 - 05:50 pm: Edit

OK I now see it. Perhaps changing "described in Module C2" to "described in (R7.R2)" would have made it clear where to look.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 11, 2020 - 05:07 pm: Edit

(R7.R5) In the paragraph beginning "No interceptors, fast patrol ships. or fighters" the period after "fast patrol ships" should be a comma.

Are there any other error reports?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 20, 2020 - 01:27 pm: Edit

The PDF version of the Tholian Master Starship Book has been out, and there are almost no reports.

I am (sadly) not that good.

Come on guys, if there are errors, report them so they can be fixed.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, November 20, 2020 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Well, you did forget to include the (completely historical) Tholian Advanced Technology Dreadnought...


OK, to be serious for a moment, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this comment but I'll give it a stab. Some time ago I had proposed an improved Tholian fighter, the "Spider-VI". I couldn't convince you and SVC the fighter was needed and I am not trying to to revive the argument. I accept that the Spider-VI is dead. But during the discussion on the proposal, while I was explaining why I found mixed Spider-II/Spider-III squadrons a poor option for the Tholians, you did address one of my objections with the statement that the Tholians could replace their Spider-IIs with Spider-IIIs and field pure Spider-III squadrons. I actually found this very useful, as not only is the Spider-III cheaper than the Spider-II, there are many circumstances in which I believe it is just plain better.

The problem is that, so far as I know, this option is nowhere "offically" sanctioned, either in Module G3 or in any of the Tholian ship decsriptions. I was hoping to see a statement to that effect in the Tholian Master Starship Book; that the Tholians could (and sometimes did) swap out their Spider-IIs and field pure Spider-III squadrons. Would it be possible to add somthing like that in the final version, presumably in the section describing Tholian fighters?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, November 20, 2020 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

(J4.893) Players might choose to standardize the types of fighters on their carrier to reduce their workload and simplify the game.

(J4.8933) Disruptor-fighter boxes (+) can be replaced with drone-fighter boxes (=), but not vice-versa.

While not armed with drones, the statements cover replacing disruptor fighters (Spider-II) with non disruptor fighters (Spider-III) to "standardize the types of fighters on their carrier to reduce their workload and simplify the game." It is in the fighter rules.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, November 20, 2020 - 06:18 pm: Edit

SPP,

Thanks.


Now, about that DPWX...

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, November 20, 2020 - 06:36 pm: Edit

I'm not sure if this is a topic for this thread, or for a future Module R4T discussion. Or, indeed, for somewhere else entirely.

I'm grateful that the Tholians of Draco article has been included in the Tholian Master Starship Book. However, I had hoped that R4T - and, by extension, the TMSSB - could have been an opportunity to explore the Draco-Tholian Enclave in more detail.

So far, we know that the Dracos have (or had) the NBB War Havoc; the one-of-a-kind survey ship Sojourner; and "several new ship designs" (a "late" development referred to in the M81 Galaxy data elsewhere in the TMSSB).

Be it in what these new designs looked like when they were built back in M81; what (if any) modifications might have been done to the Sojourner and its two escorting ships during their time in the Holdfast; and what kind of task force is sent out to Tholiax in Y207; there remain various details that remain to be explored.

That said, if it's best to keep the Y207 task force data in reserve for Module X2, well and good. Or, for that matter, if further data on the new ship designs as they appeared back in the home galaxy should be kept in reserve for a potential M81 module, also well and good. But that might still allow the establishment of Tholiax itself to be looked at, as well as to see what the Holdfast were to make of the Sojourner itself upon its arrival in Y195.

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Friday, November 20, 2020 - 10:24 pm: Edit

A shame that the Crown of Tholia wasn't in there....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 21, 2020 - 01:02 am: Edit

Steve did give me a stack of Tholian fast ships that will be in R4T and some kind of NeoCVA thing.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, November 21, 2020 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Can't wait to get the Dead Tree of this!

When's it scheduled for release?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Wednesday, August 11, 2021 - 06:18 pm: Edit

(R7.131) 'was less than anticipated' is followed by he same phrase.

(R7.137) The title bar displays '(CVJ)' instead '(CVH)'.

(R7.136) The NSCS xre is given as '(J7.65)' instead of '(R7.65)'.

(R7.216)=Seeking Weapons The CoMX is shown as the 'advanced light command module', twice.

(R7.217)-Seeking Weapons The CoMX is shown as the 'advanced light command module, twice.

(R7.219) Has a fragment as the last sentence of the first paragraph ('Like the Neo-Tholian Destroyer.')

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, May 15, 2022 - 11:32 pm: Edit

(R7.F7) Tholian S-V - There is no difference in the armerment between the (R7.4) S-IV and the S-V. In the statement "The Spider-V fast heavy fighter had modest improvements in speed and firepower." be changed to remove "and firepower"? - Ken Kazinski, 15 May 2022.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, May 16, 2022 - 12:07 am: Edit

Ken,

The improvement in firepower is the superior Spider-V phaser suite. Spider-IV has one phaser-2, two phaser-3. Spider-V has two phaser-2, two phaser-3.

Note the heavy fighter squadrons depicted on page 67 of the Module R4T SSD Book.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Thanks totally missed that.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Sunday, November 05, 2023 - 12:40 pm: Edit

(R7.52) Tholian POL

Page 26, paragraph 4

This ship cannot carry cargo (R7.14) or other (R7.25) packs; see (R7.N1).

Then 2nd paragraph later;

This ship is nimble (C11.0) if not carrying a pack.