Modifying surplus ships.

[spank]

So the vehicles specified in LBB5 are not the only vehicle you can put in a LBB5 Hull. Then, in that case, the spacecraft design systems (LBB2/LBB5) specify how hulls are done, what additional equipment you put in there is your problem.

The spacecraft design systems (LBB2/LBB5) specify how garages are done, what you park there is your problem. But the garages are slightly different in LBB2 vs. LBB5...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As I said, the far trader from adventure 3.

Quite, the type A2 far trader Empress Nicolle, converted to LBB2'81 by reducing the number of staterooms.

Technically the cargo hold is a component just like any other, the only limitation is that:

LBB2'81, p13:
The total tonnage of the installed fittings cannot exceed the tonnage of the hull.

Having wasted space is perfectly OK, so you have successfully recreated the far trader from A3 with a 61 Dt cargo hold and 1 Dt wasted space. It's not optimal, but that is not problem for the rules.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So the vehicles specified in LBB5 are not the only vehicle you can put in a LBB5 Hull. Then, in that case, the spacecraft design systems (LBB2/LBB5) specify how hulls are done, what additional equipment you put in there is your problem.

No, the spacecraft design systems describe, in detail, how you design spacecraft, including e.g. hull, drives, and fuel systems, and the LBB2 and LBB5 systems are different.

They do not describe how you design vehicles.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And the second sentence does include a fuel purifcation plant.
No reason to include it if it can't be installed.

Page 10, Express Boat (type X) (correction, omission and clarification): The Xboat has a custom hull, model
B jump drive and power plant, giving jump-4 capability but no maneuver. Fuel tankage is 54 tons, enough for a single
jump-4 and ten days of operation. The ship has one stateroom for the single crew member; one passenger can be
carried at double occupancy. The cost is MCr 78.3 including discounts. Under strict Book 2 (1981) rules, no 100-ton
design capable of jump-4 is possible; this errata covers all requirements of the design, but comes in at 105 tons.

So, 105 Dt of components in a 100 Dt hull is now RAW?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And the second sentence does include a fuel purifcation plant.
No reason to include it if it can't be installed.

Installing it would invalidate the first sentence, so the tonnage and cost would no longer be correct.

And it would explicitly not be allowed by LBB2 rules.

 

[spank]

Installing it wouldn't change the tonnage, see again, the second sentence. Which tells you how much it cost, how much it displaces, and and where it can be installed.

It would be much easier, and clear to say it could not be installed.

but instead, there are installation instructions telling you exactly how it can be done.

and nothing prohibiting it.

Installing it would invalidate the first sentence, so the tonnage and cost would no longer be correct.

Book 2 contains no such prohibition. T&G shows it can be done, and the Errata explains how & does not prohibit it or remove reference to it.

And it would explicitly not be allowed by LBB2 rules.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It is RAW to carry less than 4 weeks of power plant fuel?

Were you trying to drag me into this one?

(I'm still impressed by your "use a Size D powerplant for the '-' result on the table so it needs no PP fuel at all" trick.)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Installing it wouldn't change the tonnage, see again, the second sentence. Which tells you how much it cost, how much it displaces, and and where it can be installed.

Installing a 9 Dt component would change some tonnage somewhere, whether in Engineering or not.

Page 19, Subsidized Merchant (Type R) (correction and omission): Missing notation that this design uses a
standard hull. There is 15 tons reserved for drive upgrades, and 0.5 tons available in the main hull. The listed cost is
correct. ...

So, it has 15 Dt free in Engineering and the cost is MCr 100.035.

R1-4211111-000000-00000-0        MCr 100         400 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=5
batteries                                            TL=9
            Pass=8 Low=9 Cargo=200 Fuel=50 EP=4 Agility=1

Single Occupancy    LBB2 design                   200,5     111,2
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined      400 Dt          4          400        
Configuration       Cone               2                     20
Scoops              Streamlined                              

Engineering                                        15           
Jump Drive          C                  1    1      20        30
Manoeuvre D         C                  1    1       5        12
Power Plant         C                  1    1      10        24
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-1, 4 weeks            1      50

Spoiler:

Bridge                                      1      20         2
Computer            m/1                1    1       1         2
                                                             
Staterooms                                 13      52         6,5
Low Berths                                  9       4,5       0,5
                                                             
Cargo                                             200,5      
                                                             
Empty hardpoint                             2       2         0,2
                                                             
Launch              20 Dton                 1      20        14

Nominal Cost        MCr 111,150          Sum:     200,5     111,2
Class Cost          MCr  10,687         Valid      ≥0          ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 100,035

Where exactly does the purifier fit in this ship?
If you install a purifier in Engineering it no longer has 15 Dt free there, and the cost would change.
Do you mean that the errata is wrong?

It would be much easier, and clear to say it could not be installed.
but instead, there are installation instructions telling you exactly how it can be done.

Of course it can be done: You house rule it.

and nothing prohibiting it.
Book 2 contains no such prohibition. T&G shows it can be done, and the Errata explains how & does not prohibit it or remove reference to it.

Except it is specifically banned:

LBB2'81, p13:
All drives and power plants must be located in the engineering section, and only drives and power plants may be placed in that section. All other ship components, including fuel, cargo hold, living space, and computer must be located in the main compartment.

The question that you studiously ignore is if your logic applies to the XBoat, the Gazelle and the Annic Nova:
Is it RAW to have 105 Dt components in a 100 Dt hull?
It is RAW to carry less than 4 weeks of power plant fuel?
Is it RAW to have more than one hardpoint per 100 Dt hull?
Is it RAW to replace the power plant and jump fuel with collectors?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Were you trying to drag me into this one?

(I'm still impressed by your "use a Size D powerplant for the '-' result on the table so it needs no PP fuel at all" trick.)

Well, Mike Wightman showed me I was wrong about that. Thanks, Mike.

At the very end of the LBB2 design system some limitations are listed:

LBB2'81, p21:
2. Only the drives and power plants shown on the drive potential table are possible. Drives marked with a dash (-) may not be used with that hull size.

 

[kilemall]

Seems to me if the fuel goes in the main compartment, then the purifier goes there too.

If a refit, I’d allow the purifier to be retro in the cargo hold, and either a Rube Goldberg way of shifting around fuel as it refines, or drop some hull value, an IMTU stat I have that covers structural integrity and ability for systems like computer power and fuel to continue operating after damage.

 

[spank]

I could see that as well, what I can't see is prohibiting it altogether.

Seems to me if the fuel goes in the main compartment, then the purifier goes there too.

If a refit, I’d allow the purifier to be retro in the cargo hold, and either a Rube Goldberg way of shifting around fuel as it refines, or drop some hull value, an IMTU stat I have that covers structural integrity and ability for systems like computer power and fuel to continue operating after damage.

 

[spank]

They go in the engineering section per the errata,
and they are adjacent to the fuel scoops per T&G

Installing a 9 Dt component would change some tonnage somewhere, whether in Engineering or not.

Where exactly does the purifier fit in this ship?

15 tons unused space changes to 6 tons with no change in displacement. and the cost is a rounding error, on around error—0.038%. Far less than the cost difference between the variants shown in T&G.

So, it has 15 Dt free in Engineering and the cost is MCr 100.035.

If you install a purifier in Engineering it no longer has 15 Dt free there, and the cost would change.
Do you mean that the errata is wrong?

No need to house rule, It's a standard design.

Of course it can be done: You house rule it.

Nothing in Book 2 prohibits using fuel purification plants.

Except it is specifically banned:

The questions you keep trying to deflect with are easily answered, and irrelevant to installing fuel purification plants.
It is acceptable to have components (including fuel) totaling more than the jump-mass of the ship. —drop tanks
It is acceptable to carry less than 4 week fuel—X-boats.
Hardpoints are limited to 1 per 100 tons— Sup 9 Errata
It is possible to replace power plants and jump fuel to replace the powerplant or jump fuel with other sources—Annic Nova, Et Al
but good luck finding the components, or getting your ship's annual service.

The question that you studiously ignore is if your logic applies to the XBoat, the Gazelle and the Annic Nova:
Is it RAW to have 105 Dt components in a 100 Dt hull?
It is RAW to carry less than 4 weeks of power plant fuel?
Is it RAW to have more than one hardpoint per 100 Dt hull?
Is it RAW to replace the power plant and jump fuel with collectors?

But none of that changes the fact that the Subsidized Merchant in T&G has Fuel Purification installed, nor does the errata.

 

[kilemall]

They go in the engineering section per the errata,
and they are adjacent to the fuel scoops per T&G
View attachment 6861

The flavor text may make it sound engineering but the scoops and purifiers are on the fore end of the engineering bulkhead, looks like all main section to me.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

They go in the engineering section per the errata,
and they are adjacent to the fuel scoops per T&G

In the Engineering section of the type A2 Far Trader? That is the wrong deck plan...

15 tons unused space changes to 6 tons with no change in displacement.

The errata is absolutely correct, so therefore the errata is incorrect?

Consolidated CT Errata 1.2, p29:
Page 19, Subsidized Merchant (Type R) (correction and omission): Missing notation that this design uses a standard hull. There is 15 tons reserved for drive upgrades, and 0.5 tons available in the main hull. The listed cost is correct.
A fuel purification plant is mentioned on page 19. Such an item would require 9 tons of space (located in the space reserved for drive upgrades) and cost Cr38,000, based on High Guard second edition rules.

Either the first paragraph is correct, or the second paragraph. Both cannot be correct at the same time. Which is RAW, and which is incorrect, the declarative statement of fact, or the conditional statement?

and the cost is a rounding error, on around error—0.038%. Far less than the cost difference between the variants shown in T&G.

A LBB5 purifier cost less than a LBB2 turret, so therefore the errata is wrong?

It is acceptable to have components (including fuel) totaling more than the jump-mass of the ship. —drop tanks

That wasn't the question, and you know it.
Does this change RAW in LBB2, just as you suggest the errata for the Subbie does:

Page 10, Express Boat (type X) (correction, omission and clarification): The Xboat has a custom hull, model B jump drive and power plant, giving jump-4 capability but no maneuver. Fuel tankage is 54 tons, enough for a single jump-4 and ten days of operation. The ship has one stateroom for the single crew member; one passenger can be carried at double occupancy. The cost is MCr 78.3 including discounts. Under strict Book 2 (1981) rules, no 100-ton design capable of jump-4 is possible; this errata covers all requirements of the design, but comes in at 105 tons.

This is no longer RAW?

LBB2'81, p13:
The total tonnage of the installed fittings cannot exceed the tonnage of the hull.

It is acceptable to carry less than 4 week fuel—X-boats.

OK, you maintain a house-ruled ship changes the entire design system.
Then why isn't LBB2 corrected in the same errata?

LBB2'81, p15:
At a minimum, ship fuel tankage must equal 0.1MJn+10Pn, where M is the tonnage of the ship, Jn is the ship's jump number, and Pn is the ship's power plant rating.

Or is it just possible that it is a one off, that does not change the entire design system, perhaps even Rule 0 in action?

Hardpoints are limited to 1 per 100 tons— Sup 9 Errata

Yet, the ship isn't changed in the errata... They let is stand despite being against the rules.
Dare I say it, it is house-ruled, without changing the rules of the design system...

It is possible to replace power plants and jump fuel to replace the powerplant or jump fuel with other sources—Annic Nova, Et Al
but good luck finding the components, or getting your ship's annual service.

So this is no longer RAW, without any rule, errata, or numbers whatsoever?

LBB2'81, p13:
A non-starship must have a maneuver drive and a power plant. A starship must have a jump drive and a power plant; a maneuver drive may also be installed, but is not required.

Then RAW isn't really Rules as Written anymore, is it? Rules at Whim?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I could see that as well, what I can't see is prohibiting it altogether.

As Referee, you can do whatever you want, but that doesn't change RAW, what is written in the rule books.

It's even RAW:

LBB1, p7:
The referee must settle disputes about the rules (and may use his own imagination while doing so, rather than strictly adhering to the letter of the rules).

 

[Grav_Moped]

Just to get this in about XBoat fuel (because I can):

Based on rules mechanics, there is no reason a LBB2'81 XBoat should ever need more than 11Td of fuel for the power plant in normal operation*. They never operate for more than 7.7 days after each refueling**, and under LBB2'81 cannot misjump if properly maintained and provided with refined fuel (as they are, by canon).

Rules as written, however, insist that it be built with onboard fuel tankage for almost four times as much power plant fuel as it could possibly use. There is no explanation for this -- but since it's rules as written it needs no explanation.

-------------------
* 1/4 of the 4-week allocation, plus 10%.
* 168 hours, plus the maximum duration variation of +10%. Yeah, post-jump recovery delays. Whatever. Pn-4 is one gigawatt; and there's nothing on board that would need anywhere near that amount of power outside of Jump. They'll quench the reactor as soon as the Jump Field collapses and run on batteries until pickup.

 

[spank]

I figure the 4 weeks fuel requirement is probably some kind of Imperial regulation, Like aircraft and their METO {minimum except take-off}, everybody has to have a certain amount of fuel reserve even if the only intend to go out for a 3 hour tour.

Just to get this in about XBoat fuel (because I can):

Based on rules mechanics, there is no reason a LBB2'81 XBoat should ever need more than 11Td of fuel for the power plant in normal operation*. They never operate for more than 7.7 days after each refueling**, and under LBB2'81 cannot misjump if properly maintained and provided with refined fuel (as they are, by canon).

Rules as written, however, insist that it be built with onboard fuel tankage for almost four times as much power plant fuel as it could possibly use. There is no explanation for this -- but since it's rules as written it needs no explanation.

-------------------
* 1/4 of the 4-week allocation, plus 10%.
* 168 hours, plus the maximum duration variation of +10%. Yeah, post-jump recovery delays. Whatever. Pn-4 is one gigawatt; and there's nothing on board that would need anywhere near that amount of power outside of Jump. They'll quench the reactor as soon as the Jump Field collapses and run on batteries until pickup.

 

[Rupert]

Just to get this in about XBoat fuel (because I can):

Based on rules mechanics, there is no reason a LBB2'81 XBoat should ever need more than 11Td of fuel for the power plant in normal operation*. They never operate for more than 7.7 days after each refueling**, and under LBB2'81 cannot misjump if properly maintained and provided with refined fuel (as they are, by canon).

Rules as written, however, insist that it be built with onboard fuel tankage for almost four times as much power plant fuel as it could possibly use. There is no explanation for this -- but since it's rules as written it needs no explanation.

-------------------
* 1/4 of the 4-week allocation, plus 10%.
* 168 hours, plus the maximum duration variation of +10%. Yeah, post-jump recovery delays. Whatever. Pn-4 is one gigawatt; and there's nothing on board that would need anywhere near that amount of power outside of Jump. They'll quench the reactor as soon as the Jump Field collapses and run on batteries until pickup.

LBB2 '81 doesn't say '168 hours', it says 'about one week' and no mention of what the variation is. It also tells us that batteries can run life support, etc. for 1d days, so that's covered. LBB2 '77 says that this week includes time taken setting up the jump, etc., so a week's fuel for the power plant plus whatever margin for jump variation the designers think fit should work.

LBB5 (both versions) gives jump duration as '150 to 175 hours', for what that's worth.

The only question is whether reduced fuel is 'legal'. We know ships can fly with reduced fuel levels, because that's what happens when nasty people poke holes in the fuel tanks. It makes sense that it wouldn't be in High Guard and TCS, because they're set up for tournaments, and thus need firm rules to stop people shaving tonnage and claiming it's totally fine for a battle rider to have on one day's fuel. For normal rpg play, though, I don't see why it's a problem as long as it's noted as one of the ship's design quirks.

 

[spank]

'77 wouldn't require any powerplant {or powerplant fuel}, because powerplant usage and fuel is tied to maneuver drives. No M-drive, no need for powerplant or fuel.

If the X-boat is a '77 design then your good.

Or alternately you can mount drop tanks, Or make the X-boat a 2 part design {Jumper + tug}, Or use jump capacitors. Or any number of other work-arounds.

 

[spank]

And the RAW in LBB2 do not say "no fuel purifiers may be installed".
And there are clear examples in official material of it being done.
If you want to prohibit it via Rule Zero, that's your businesses, but As written, and as demonstrated it is allowed.

As Referee, you can do whatever you want, but that doesn't change RAW, what is written in the rule books.

It's even RAW:

No, the errata is correct on the cost a weight. per LBB 5 "A large ship with a large fuel tank capacity requires several plants. A small f~ietla nk capacity requires a fraction of the fuel purification plant shown. In no case may a fuel purification plant be procured
with less than one-fifth the tonnage and price shown."



Which exactly matches the Errata. The cost in relation to other components is irrelevant to the issue.

A LBB5 purifier cost less than a LBB2 turret, so therefore the errata is wrong?

The second sentence does not conflict with the first because of the conditional statement. There are far simpler ways to say a part should not be installed in a ship—such as saying " this part should not be installed on this ship" The first and second parts of the errata do not contradict each other. The errata does not prohibit the installation nor does it say it should not be {but is} installed. in cases where the installation is illegal, IE the extra hardpoint on the Gazelle, then it says it should not be installed. So once again, the fuel purification plant is not prohibited in book 2 rules, shown to be installed in T&G, not disallowed and not said to be illegal in the Errata. The rules support it's installation, it's show to be installed, and the errata supports it's installation.

Either the first paragraph is correct, or the second paragraph. Both cannot be correct at the same time. Which is RAW, and which is incorrect, the declarative statement of fact, or the conditional statement?