I believe there's an error in the "background" text for the Police War Destroyer Scout (R7.105 - pages 11 and 12 in the Rulebook).

---

Quote:

The Tholian Holdfast desperately needed scouts to counter the heavy firepower the Klingon Empire could bring to bear, particularly the Empire’s use of drones to tie up the Holdfast’s phasers while Klingon phasers then tore their ships apart. Cast web could do much of this, but there were at the time only 10 ships armed with web casters and they could not be everywhere they were needed.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 12:36 pm: Edit

I also want to stress that, though it may not seem like it from my above comments, I am really enjoying Module R4T. I understood at the time that I was buying what amounted to a "beta" version that might have some errors, and accepted that. I will buy the final version when it is ready. But in the meantime I am greatly enjoying all the new Tholian ships. Some of my favorites are actually the smaller ships. The Battleship is a behemoth, but it is also "Impossible". But a lot of the smaller ships are things that really existed withun the SFU, and which better fit the Tholians' place in it.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 01:28 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor

I think that when I wrote the ship description to (R7.105) I counted the ships, then added the extra two and subtracted them.

The 312th arrived with essentially 14 ships that were web caster capable.

2 NDNs, 4 NCA, 6 NCL, and 2 extra command sections (which have one web caster each).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 02:26 pm: Edit

SPP,

Ahh... I remembered how many dreadnoughts an cruisers the 312t had arrived with but the extra command sections had slipped my mind.

Also, any comments on my above posts about BPV? I love both the NHX and DL/DLW. But they are so good that I think the BPVs need to be increased, as I stated above. And I also think the NDL needs to have its movement cost reduced to 1¹/₄, which is the template for all the other light dreadnoughts, as far as I can recall. But at that MC, I believe its BPV is also a bit too low, though perhaps not as clear cut as the NHX and DL/DLW.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

The BPV of the NHS was apparently a "slip of the fingers" while I was typing it, Fives and Sixes look enough alike to my increasingly poor eyesight that one can be confused for the other quite easily. And with so many other things being changed on the SSD a the time, I am afraid mistakes happened. I am, I am sorry to say, reasonably shocked that I managed to keep the error rate down as low as it is. I am also grateful for the checkers, although sometimes they drive me nuts, but honestly if they miss something, the fault for it is still mine, and mine alone.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 04:42 pm: Edit

I can certainly understand "slip of the fingers". And it seems to me (knowing nothing about game publishing) that this is one of the advantages in bringing a work out in PDF format. It allows a much larger set of eyes to examine the books. And if errors are found they can be corrected much easier than after "hard copies" are printed.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 05:09 pm: Edit

That's a very common model for crowdsourced projects in part for just that reason.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Is there any difference between the NDD(M) and the NDD (A)? (Also NFF(M) and NFF(A)?) I'm trying to understand why there are two entries for what appears to be the same ship.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Tuesday, March 09, 2021 - 11:06 pm: Edit

John, this was answered earlier - the (m) is conjectural for that time period, the (A) was in historical service.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, March 10, 2021 - 11:45 am: Edit

The Master Ship Chart shows the DL as DF.

The Master Ship Chart shows the Movement Cost of the NDL as 1.25, the SSD has a 1.50 movement cost on the SSD.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, March 10, 2021 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Had it ever been formally decided upon as to whether or not "fast" warships were permitted to exist in the M81 galaxy, or might this be a topic worth considering here? So far as I can tell, the technology notes listed under (R7.N5B) in the Tholian Master Starship Book do not explicitly rule out their existence.

If "fast" engines had been developed in the home galaxy, this might have permitted the Tholians (and their "pre-conquest" rivals, such as the Nebuline) to consider such units as raiding vessels during the Great Martial War; or perhaps allowed the Tholians (and their various enforcer species, such as the Seltorians) to deploy them as rapid response units when dealing with rebel, pirate, or monster encounters thereafter.

In other words, perhaps Module R4T (and the TMSSB) could offer "home galaxy" variants of the Neo-Tholian NCF, NLF, NDL, and/or NBL (with particle cannons in place of their disruptors) as historical units.

But if "fast" technology were to be kept off-limits to the M81 empires, fair enough.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, March 21, 2021 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Having previously posted that I thought the NHX and DL/DLW are so good that I think their BPVs need to be increased (my suggestions: 260 for NHX, 225/250 for DL/DLW), and that the NDL needs to have its movement cost reduced to 1¹/₄ but at that MC its BPV should also be increased, though less drastically (my suggestion: about 235 for the 1¹/₄ MC NDL), it gives me great pleasure to recommend (for however much good it may do) a reduction in the BPV for the NDD(A) and NDD(M).

The SSD shows the three-disruptor version at 97, the two-disruptors-and-a-web caster version at 100. Three points seems way too cheap to upgrade a disruptor to a web caster. By way of comparison, consider the CCH/CCW. The only difference between these two ships is that the CCH has five disruptors for heavy weapons while the CCW has four disruptors and a web caster. the BPVs are 153 and 163, a 10 point difference. The web caster version of the NDA has been established as 100 for a while now, suggesting that the three-disruptor version would be 90 BPV. In practical terms, 90 may be too cheap. But I think 97 is too expensive. The Fed DW is 97 BPV, plus cost of drones. But even with empty drone racks, the DW seems the much better ship. It has more power, stronger shields, better phasers. The only Tholian advantage is better turn mode, which seems insufficient to counter the Fed advantage in power/shields/phasers.

Now, a 10 BPV reduction from the long-established "standard" NDD seems too much, even given the CCH/CCW example. A web caster is a very power-hungry weapon and the CCW has the power availability to use the web caster far more effectively. But, and I confess this "gut feeling", a cost of 93 or 94 for the NDD(M), but an increase in the refit cost of 7 or 6 respectively, seems a better fit to me.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, March 21, 2021 - 03:16 pm: Edit

SPP,

Will a "corrected" version of R4T ever be published, with whatever suggstions for changes are judged to be valid? I understood at the time that I was buying a "Beta" version and there might be changes in the final version. And I would be willing to but a "corrected" version when the time comes, though it would be nice if the changes could be listed on the website as well.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Sunday, March 21, 2021 - 03:31 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The SSD shows the three-disruptor version at 97, the two-disruptors-and-a-web caster version at 100. Three points seems way too cheap to upgrade a disruptor to a web caster.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, March 21, 2021 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Mark,

Yes, I realize that. See my final paragraph in my 3:05 PM post, which addresses the CCH/CCW power curve compared to that of the NDD(A) and NDD(M). But forget the webcaster. Look at the three-disruptor version and compare it to comparable late-GW/ISC Pacification/Andro Invasion ships in the same time frame. Do you really like the NDD(A) in that situation? Without the web caster, it's weak-to-mediocre. With the web caster you have a lot more options.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, March 21, 2021 - 06:17 pm: Edit

Webcasters are pretty gnarly.

Able to store power for free in addition to everything else they do.

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, March 21, 2021 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Yes, BPVs can be nebulous things. That is true. However, despite that it is undoubtedly the case that a web caster is 10 BPV more expensive than a disruptor. In fact, it is 10 BPV more than a disruptor-30. The difference is *greater* for a lesser disruptor.

So, independent of anything else, if two ships are identical other than one replaces a disruptor with a web caster, then the web caster ship should be 10 BPV greater than the disruptor ship.

I say this without having read R4T. This is just how the weapons compare.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 22, 2021 - 02:40 pm: Edit

Mike, Richard;

Well, I agree the web caster is awesome. If the Tholians could deploy it in large numbers (in this galaxy), I would consider it a strong candidate for the best heavy weapon in Alpha. The key factor is its flexibility. It can be used as an efficient direct fire weapon (less effective at short range but better at long range than the disruptor) or a system for creating "terrain" which, while temporary, is highly favorable to the Tholians while it does exist.

But since I do think that deployment limitations are a legitimate consideration in determining the "best" heavy weapon (which also eliminates the PPD from the running), I would probably say the hellbore is the best heavy weapon in Alpha.

That aside, what about BPV for the NDD(A)? Currently the three-disruptor version differs by only three BPV from the two-disruptors-plus-web-caster version, and we all agree that's too little. Since the cost of the standard NDD has long been extablished at 100, would you make the three-disruptor NDD(A) 90 BPV? Well, maybe. It does have three disruptors, after all. But its power is average and its shields and phasers are below average for that time period.

Or here's a possibility for consideration; make the basic NDD(A) about 93 and increase the web caster-refitted version to 103, preserving the 10 point difference. What do you think?

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, March 22, 2021 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Just to be clear, I am not making any judgement on what weapon is better or worse. I am merely stating that the BPV difference between a disrupt or and web caster is 10 BPV. (And just because a weapon has a higher BPV cost does not make it better or worse.)

As I have not seen the ships in question, I cannot provide input as to what the full ship value should be. I just wanted to comment that the raise objection about the BPV difference is legitimate given the descriptions I have seen here.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 24, 2021 - 06:00 pm: Edit

I hadn't paid much attention to the two Tholian maulers, the CAM and MCW, because the Tholians never actually acquired mauler technology and the ships are purely conjectural. But I looked at them today, and... wow...

The CAM description states:

---

Quote:

Still the concept of a ship trapped in an outer ring of web suddenly confronted by a mauler ship crossing an inner web ring into point-blank mauler range would keep any cruiser captain awake at night and make even the commanders of dreadnoughts take notice.

---

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 25, 2021 - 04:59 pm: Edit

(R7.105) PWS: The reference to 10 web caster equipped ships should be changed to 14, which includes the two spare Neo-Tholian command modules that arrived with the 312th Battle Squadron. Corrected in the first printing.

(R7.126) NDD(M): BPV is 94. Corrected in the first printing.

(R7.131) DL: Increase BPV by 15 to 225 on SSD and in Annex #3. Corrected in the first printing.

(R7.135) NDL: Movement cost should be 1.25 on SSD, has the correct movement cost in Annex #3. BPV should be 235 on SSD and in Annex #3. Corrected in the first printing.

(R7.216) NHX: BPV corrected to 265 on the SSD and in Annex #3. Corrected in the first printing.

(R7.217) NMX: The designation on the Master Ship Chart is NLM, should be NMX. Corrected in the first printing.

(R7.F6) Spider-IIP: Data table on the squadron SSD lacks the phaser-2-FA. Corrected in the first printing.

(SH0.0) Scenario numbers (SH263.0), (SH264.0), (SH265.0), and (SH266.0) are duplications of those in Modules R12 and Y3, change respectively to (SH271.0), (SH272.0), (SH273.0), and (SH274.0). Corrected in the first printing.

(SH271.0) First paragraph, change "Klingons Tholian Border…" to "Klingon Tholian Border…" Corrected in the first printing.

(SH274.0) In the second paragraph, change "on such" to "one such." Corrected in the first printing.

ANNEXES: Headings seem to be double printed.

Annex #3 The DL (R7.131) is listed as DF, changed to DL. Corrected in the first printing.

SSD Book Cover: (R7.131) DL: Is listed as DF, delete DF from title. Corrected in the first printing.

SSD Book Cover: (R7.217) NMX: Rule number has a comma rather than a period in the rule number, change comma to period. Corrected in the first printing.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 25, 2021 - 10:36 pm: Edit

SPP,

Thanks.

Two questions:

"(R7.126) NDD(M): BPV is 94. Corrected in the first printing." I presume this change includes an increase to the cost of the web caster refit, correct?

Will the "first printing" corrections also be made to the PDFs on the Warehouse 23 site?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 25, 2021 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Will the "first printing" corrections also be made to the PDFs on the Warehouse 23 site?

Yes, of course, we have always done that, but we will wait a while to see if we found everything. Right now we think R4T hardcopy/with-counters will ship around 4 or 5 May and that would be the final update copy of the rules. Not really much point in re-uploading it to W23/DTRPG until then. We don't want to keep uploading it every two or three days.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 25, 2021 - 11:37 pm: Edit

SVC,

Understood. Thanks.

I also want to stress again that, despite some of my specific remarks about BPV above, I really like R4T.

And I'm really looking forward to R4J.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, March 26, 2021 - 10:02 am: Edit

To clarify, has a "first printing" of Module R4T already been made, or shall ink only be committed to paper for this product once the countersheets have arrived?

I was still hoping that "fast" ships could be permitted to historically exist back in M81 (as noted in my last post in this thread), enabling "home galaxy" variants of the NLF, NCF, NDL and/or NBL to be considered for the "final" version of R4T. Or perhaps for some future product, if R4T is already "locked in".

But if "fast" ships are a no-go for M81 - or if this is a question to be set aside for a later date - well and good.