New Fleet Book errata?

5 posts ยท Oct 28 2001 to Oct 29 2001

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:21:27 +0000

Subject: New Fleet Book errata?

Please check me on this...

FB1 p11: example ship second sub-total is wrong. Should be 101 points,
not 95. (This is consistent with the sustems fitted and with the final total.)

FB2 p18: Do'San class Follower Sliver Mother should be 691 points, not 671:

Item Mass Points
Basic Hull		   (180)    180
Hull Integrity		      54    108
FTL Drive		      18     36
Main Drive (Thrust 4A)	      36    108
Sub-total                    108    432
Class 3 K-gun (1 arc) x 4     20     80
Class 1 K-gun (6 arc) x 3      6     24
Fighter Bay x 4 	      36    108
FCS x 3 		       3     12
Scattergun x 7		       7     35
Sub-total                     72    259
Total			     180    691

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:37:29 +0100

Subject: Re: New Fleet Book errata?

> Roger Burton-West wrote:

> FB1 p11: example ship second sub-total is wrong. Should be 101 points,

No, it should be 98 points. Check the FB1 section of the FT FAQ at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3565/faq-index.html . The
example design only uses 84 of its 85 Mass.

> FB2 p18: Do'San class Follower Sliver Mother should be 691 points, not

Correct. This was pointed out about a week after FB2 was published, but the
FT FAQ doesn't seem to have included it yet - Tim?

Regards,

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:44:00 +0000

Subject: Re: New Fleet Book errata?

> On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 09:37:29PM +0100, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

Ah. I evidently have a different FB1 printing (it's still copyright 1998, but
I bought it at Colours this year); the example ship design
in mine is correct in everything except the second sub-total.

All the errata noted at that web page have been corrected in my FB1; I did
check before posting. (A few of the FB2 errata have also been corrected in my
copy of that.)

Am I correct in my reading of the rules, that there is no _human_
weapon which can attack a fighter group that is not itself attacking
a ship? The old ADAF didn't have this limitation; is it a mis-phrasing?
(Certainly, scatterguns and interceptor pods seem to be able to do this.)

Also: is list consensus that the maximum-thrust-of-8 restriction has
been lifted?

From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 16:50:28 -0500

Subject: Re: New Fleet Book errata?

> Also: is list consensus that the maximum-thrust-of-8 restriction has

Yes.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:18:58 +0100

Subject: Re: New Fleet Book errata?

> Roger Burton-West wrote:

> >>FB1 p11: example ship second sub-total is wrong. Should be 101

OK.

> Am I correct in my reading of the rules, that there is no _human_

Yes.

> (Certainly, scatterguns and interceptor pods seem to be able to do

Correct.

> Also: is list consensus that the maximum-thrust-of-8 restriction has

It certainly was Jon's intention. ALL of the FT2 design rules (pps
29-32)
have been replaced by the FB1/FB2 rules.

Later,