Thermonuclear vs Antimatter bomb

[Dragi]

I know this is just a cosmetic detail and is not really important, but still - in (4F1b) it is said that suicide shuttles are armed with thermonuclear bombs, while in (5H6) it is stated it is an antimatter bomb. Shouldn't it be consistent throughout the rulebook? These two don't sound like the same thing. At least I imagine "thermonuclear bomb" as just "nuke", similar to what we have today, but "antimatter bomb" as something much more sci-fi. Or am I missing something? My only experience with SFU is Star Fleet Command so far and I'm very excited to get into Federation Commander now

PS: I have Revision 6 Rulebook.

[Mike]

Many of us are probably so used to seeing these types of things in the rules that we just pass over them. Two points worth making. One is that it doesn't really make any difference what it is in game terms. The result is the same. The second point is one of consistency. If the device is thermonuclear, it shouldn't cost the ship any power at all. Furthermore, there should be a finite number of those carried by ships. Perhaps they could be thought of just as drones are (with thermonuclear warheads). Since Federation Commander allows unlimited drone reloads, there would be as many of these warheads around as you want. But it doesn't really make any sense that power from the ship could adjust the strength of the warhead unless they were matter-antimatter devices. I agree that the reference in the rules should be changed.

[mjwest]

I'm pretty sure it should be antimatter in both places. We'll get that noted somewhere.

[Magnum357]

This is how I look at it. EPS power systems with Advanced Nuclear Generators. Antimatter....? Perhaps the "next generation".