Big Pile of Starships (errata collection for Don)
I hope this helps. A lot of the question seem to be attributed to typo or layout errors, therefore it'll probably need some recalculations... I'm still in the process of collecting more and if there's any i should add, let me know and i'll add them to the first post for all to see. I hope this helps, Don. Here they are:
Are row shifts allowed between the Hull Plating, Hull Polarization and Deflector Shield categories of table 1.19 for example?
Absolutely not.
If I'm working with beam weapons (table 1.16) can I cross on to the Alien table (1.21)? If I do, am I restricted by nationality, or not at all? And would you add the new table at the bottom of the original, or try to slot it into the original by date or some other factor?
As above, you can't cross into other nationalities or types. Rules already exist for taking on alien equipment or modifying availability dates.
Prototype exists to add a small wrinkle or distinction to a component, not dramatically alter the nature of said component. It's to illustrate an CIDSS grid that isn't quite up to snuff for some reason or a warp drive that's faster-than-normal on a particular ship.
Someone might be wondering why bother with the trait at all? After all, in my example the FSQ + prototype has the same cost and overall stats as the FSR-2. So what's the point?
The point is that there is a 20 year availability difference in the systems. By using the prototype trait you've saved 2 space points (2 space per decade, 20 years = 4 space), but only for that one vessel. If you want to build a whole line of ships using the FSR-2 before 2370 then you have to pay the availability cost (NG pg 137).
Prototype lets you do it cheaper for one vessel only. Again, the intention is to add character or a wrinkle to a ship.
In the newly-arrived fabulous tome that is Starships, it is now possible for ships to gain experience as well (great concept by the way). As such, edges, space, etc. can be bought for experience picks. Does this mean no space costs are associated with them (i.e. in the case of a purchase of an edge)? I understand some space cost may be paid if an edge requires the prerequisite purchase of some item/equipment.
That's correct. You only have to purchase space with XP (advancement picks) if you need additional space to later purchase a new (larger) system. Purchasing or upgrading traits through XP (advancement picks) does not have a space cost associated with them.
The SECOND clarification is for pulse phasers. Are they considered an edge that provides like an optional "setting" (like widebeam is a setting) or is it a different beast altogether. I ask this despite canon reference to pulse phasers as a new system. However, from reading the rules in Starships, as it is a phaser, the pulse phasers would seem capable of doing those versatile effects phasers are capable of (i.e bringing down power grids, setting to mass stun, set for drilling). What is correct?
Pulse phasers as designed are an upgrade (trait) to the standard phaser system but are one-way; you can't retro them back to a standard phaser array and switch them back-and-forth at will.
on the 1.25 table, there seems to be a few systems where only flaws can be "bought", such as ops, life support and missile weapon. Yet a few ship stats have the protoype- missile weapon +1 edge ... ?
Good catch (reviewed the Nebula). I'll have to review and see what my reasoning was and try to offer a solution. Which other ships did you see with this snafu?
I assume that when a bonus is indicated it is already factored in into the stats? For instance the Excelsior has the battle tested edge and has +3T, so the +1T given by the battle tested edge is already factored into that +3T right? Can I assume the same applies to system bonuses like the Galaxy upgrade which has the prototype-missile weapon edge? So the 6/6/6/6/6 penetration value takes into account the +1 bonus (?)
Correct -- all modifiers are already reflected in the vessel stats.
Also, I noticed that some ships have a number of transporters that don't match the previous rules. My understanding is that you get a "free" basic allotment of each type of transporters equal to half the ship's size (rounded down). Then at the cost of 1 space you get an extra allotment equal to the basic allotment. But the Vor'cha is size 7 so there should be a basic allotment of 3 and if extra transporters were bought then it would have 6 but the value given is 4. Did I miss a new rule?
Nope, you've got it right. I didn't do the ship in question so I'll have to reverse-engineer the design to see if it was done incorrectly. What other ships did you notice this in?
also (again!), I see some ships that have 2 different reliability ratings for the impulse and warp systems (such as the Ferengi D'kora which has a D for impulse and B for warp)- does the older NG rule still apply where you had to pick the lowest rating of the 2?
This is certainly an error. I don't know if the vessel was done incorrectly or fat fingers during layout -- the rule continues to be that the reliability is the worse of the two ratings. Glancing through my galley copy it would appear that Dave's ships are in error in this regard. In this case remember to use the lower of the two values for the entire Propulsion system.
Lastly, I noticed that the stats for the Galor and the Keldon are almost identical- is that some sort of mistake?
Again, I'm going to plead the fifth and say this wasn't my design so I can't really comment. I'd have to agree and say the designs are so similiar as to not merit a new class designation.
If the Romulans didn't have a true FTL drive before their 2268 treaty with the Klingons, why is the RWC series available as early as 2221? Are these earlier models supposed to be the "magnetic bottle" FTL drives (I thought those were primarily one-way devices, based on the BoP description)
Aside from the dialog in "Balance of Terror" I think it's pretty silly to say the Romulans have no warp technology, especially since ENT has shown the Romulans galavanting about the galaxy nearly 100 prior. But, that's just me. I'd say the date for the RWC is in error, as you've pointed out.
The K'tinga actually uses less space than its D-7 predecessor, and uses the inferior K-GDM-2 disruptor, when its size and the weapon availability would dictate that the K-GDM-4 should be mounted (less space, more powerful). Mounting 4 K-GDM-4's also puts the K'tinga's cost equal to the D-7.
Unfortunately my shitty copy is unreadable so I'll have to take your word on this! Perhaps the weapons section was reversed or something? I'll take a look at this ship as soon as someone sends me a readable copy of the book.
Thanks for pointing these out.
I was wondering about the differences in the Scout classification Don. In the Narrator's guide, they basically got a drastically reduced cost on sensors (in some cases a -1 in others a -2 because of the different scale), yet in Starships, they get a flat -1. Was that intentional? The reason that I ask is that if the Nova is added up (other than the fact that it should have Transporters 2/2) with the Class 4 Sensor package from the Narrator's guide (cost of 2) rather than the Starships cost of 3 (4-1 for being a Scout) we would get a total of 65 spaces, without requiring that "Prototype (-3 Beam)" for balancing out the numbers.
What wasn't intentional is the extra reduced cost in the NG on pg 139 for Scouts -- all scout vessels (as per "Starships") receive a -1 cost to sensor systems. Period. Until you pointed it out I never noticed the super deal that scouts have been getting in the NG. The table in "Starships" is correct, although, until any errata comes out to change the NG sensor costs, you are technically allowed to use that chart instead.
This is correct and an error on my part. Pulling out my spreadsheet for the Nova that I originally created her with I neglected to discount her sensor package, instead paying the full cost. This eliminates the Prototype (-3 beam) Trait from that ship. [Actually, it doesn't -- see below.]
[Edit] Woops. Spoke too soon. Looks like I'm still 1 over so the Prototype Trait stays. Move along, nothing to see here. Nova is fine as written.
The description on p. 27 states: "Take one value of an installed system and 'shift' that value up or down..."
Okay, does this mean that if I have the PB-32 Mod 3 warp drive (wf 6/7/8) with the Prototype (warp drive, speed +1) edge, does the PB-32's speed increase to wf 7/9/12? Or, does only one of the three ratings increase by one column (to, say 6/7/12)?
Prototype is the most complex piece of "Starships" and I'm not surprised that you might find confusing. You're pretty close in your understanding.
Essentially, you take your base system and you're shifting 'rows.' Up or down has no meaning; the result of the shift--making an item better or worse--is what we're interested in.
In your example the PB-32 Mod 3 WD with a Speed +1 shift would alter that engine's speed ratings to 6/7/12 and only its speed rating. In this particular example you're allowed to shift that PB-32 Mod 3 +2 (to 8/10/13) or -6 (1/2/4). Remember, those plusses and minuses are relative to you gaining or losing functionality. On some systems, depending on the column, three row shifts "up" the page could provide 1 bonus and 2 penalties.
If it improves a system its a positive shift. If its detrimental to the system its a negative shift.
On the same note, does the reliability move along the A, AA, B... route, or does it move along the chart of the appropriate system (which may not follow the linear progression from A-F)?
It moves along the chart.
I was looking at the Ambassador and it says it has a beam penetration of 6/6/6/0/0 but above it says that it has only a pair of type IX phasers, which should give 4/4/4/0/0. ?
Your figures are correct, however I looked at my handwritten build sheet (that I built all the ships with) and I show the Ambassador having Type IX x6 phasers for an OV of 54 and a 6/6/6/0/0 beam penetration. So, until I reverse-engineer the ship against my notes I'm tempted to say that line of "Type IX (x2/E) is a typo and should read "Type IX (x6/E)". The rest of the ship appears to be correct.
Do the space limits based on Ship Size (Table 1.3) indicate a hard maximal limit. If so, what about the spaces between any two given sizes (i.e. Size 6 has 81, Size 7 has 99 spaces)?
For abstraction purposes we don't track the amount of space between two sizes. As a rule of thumb (it may even be in the NG or Starships) a vessel should fall within two dimensions of a size (height, beam, or width) to qualify for that size.
