Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 305788 times)

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #780 on: 30 September 2016, 18:00:13 »
Figured I'd ask this here instead of cluttering up the thread.

In XTRO Primitives, the PX-1R Phoenix is different from the PX-1R Phoenix in the old BC210 RS3075 Unabridged. Is this an errata worthy oversight or deliberate change?

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #781 on: 30 September 2016, 19:09:08 »
The Primitives series specifically overrides previous material.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #782 on: 13 November 2016, 18:16:44 »
Going through the Tech Manual v3.0 Infantry Tables, I noticed a small problem with the Light Machine Gun.  Due to the vagaries of the conversion formula, it ends up doing less damage than the lighter (and non-support weapon) Auto Rifle.  As fixing this would imply changes to both AToW and Tech Manual, I'm not sure where it should go.  My proposed fix is below, with rationale.

On page 273 of AToW, recommend changing the Light Machine Gun stats as follows:
AP/BD: From 5B/3B to 4B/4B (matching the Auto Rifle's base damage and implying the same ammunition, similar to the M16 and M249 SAW)
Shots: From 45 to 60 (maintaining 3 bursts, to insure against future changes to how "shots" might be counted for Reload Factor)
Notes: From "Burst 15, Recoil -2" to "Burst 20, Recoil -2" (to increase its damage above the Auto Rifle and justify the extra weight)

This change would neatly place the Light Machine Gun's damage (0.60 with the changes above) between the Auto Rifle (0.52) and the Portable Machine Gun (0.65) where it logically should be.  It also leads to the below progression among the machine guns, analogous to the 5.56mm/7.62mm/.50 caliber progression of real life:

Code: [Select]
Weapon            AP/BD  Burst  TW Damage
Auto Rifle:       4B/4B    15     0.52 (unchanged)
Light MG:         4B/4B    20     0.60
Portable MG:      5B/4B    15     0.65 (unchanged)
Semi-Portable MG: 5B/4B    20     0.75 (unchanged)
Support MG:       5B/5B    20     0.94 (unchanged)

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #783 on: 19 November 2016, 19:14:35 »
I'm still going through the Tech Manual v3.0 Infantry Tables, and seem to have found another disconnect between it and AToW.

The M61A Combat System is listed as being 6kg in the table (with reload weight in line with being just a laser rifle), but 9kg in AToW (page 267, which also only lists reload weight for the laser rifle component, ignoring the compact grenade launcher (which was changed in AToW errata v2.2)).  I believe AToW at 9kg is the correct weight, but if I'm wrong, AToW needs the errata, not Tech Manual.

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #784 on: 02 December 2016, 16:06:09 »
I have a small error to report in the Alpha Strike Quick Start Rules PDF. I can't find an appropriate thread about this product, so for now I'll report it here.

The problem is with the second sentence of the first paragraph of the components section on page 11 "These items were described
in  brief  in  the  previous  chapter  (see  pp.  6-9)". There no previous rules chapter in this document, and the pages 6-9 contain only the last part of a Jason Schmetzer's story. The entire sentence looks like copied straight from the Alpha Strike book and can be simply removed from the quick start rules document.

How should I report such problems with products that have no errata threads? Should I start a new thread or post them here?

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #785 on: 02 December 2016, 16:07:24 »
Here is fine.  Thank you.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #786 on: 11 December 2016, 07:22:05 »
Question: are the old errata files from prior to the reprints archived anywhere?  My hard copies are sufficiently old that they're missing things no longer listed in the current errata as changes.

cavingjan

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #787 on: 11 December 2016, 08:02:51 »
Did you get the correct errata document? You would need the one for first printing. I suspect you have the one for second printing.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #788 on: 11 December 2016, 08:18:39 »
I was looking at the one for the second printing, which is the only one available on the errata website.  I found a version of first printing errata buried in my archive, but shouldn't it be posted somewhere public too?  And do you know the latest first printing errata version number?  I'd like to know if the old copy I have has all the changes from first to second printing.

cavingjan

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #789 on: 11 December 2016, 08:54:19 »
It is in the first post of the TacOps errata thread.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #790 on: 11 December 2016, 09:06:45 »
Got it, thanks!  Perhaps if the first link at battletech.com was listed with "(First Printing)" like the second link, it would be a little clearer.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #791 on: 11 December 2016, 14:54:55 »
It doesn't say first printing because it's also intended for people with the second and third printings.  But I'll see about clearing it up some more.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #792 on: 11 December 2016, 14:56:55 »
Thanks, Xotl.  It's possible I'm the only one who got tripped up by that, but I wouldn't put money on it.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #793 on: 11 December 2016, 14:57:47 »
No problem.  I've added some extra wording below to clarify.  Thanks for the spot.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #794 on: 16 January 2017, 20:48:23 »
Clan Capital Scale Weapons and Equipment BV Table [Addendum]
TO pg 384

Section titles (I think that is what they are called) 'Naval Guass', 'Naval Laser', 'Naval PPC', and 'Sub-Capital Missiles' each have a battle value assigned to them, despite not being actual weapons, and sometimes an ammo BV as well.

Those lines should be blank, similar to the 'Naval Autocannon' line on the same chart.



On a side note, all of the numbers on that chart that are supposed to be there are the same as the ones on the inner sphere chart. Room on the layout could probably be saved by removing that whole chart and renaming the inner sphere one to get rid of the faction alignment. The weapons and equipment stat tables already designate which ones each faction can use.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #795 on: 16 January 2017, 23:39:44 »
This is, I believe, already addressed in the current TacOps errata.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

GoldBishop

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 667
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #796 on: 27 January 2017, 12:10:44 »
I had asked back in August, and unsure where else I should ask.  Please forgive me for a double-post; edited for clarity.

Two possible erratas: first in the Alpha Strike Companion, and then retroactive Errata to the Master Unit List (specific links below).

Alpha Strike Companion p.113
. Clan Battle Armor Weapons Conversion Table --> Direct Fire Ballistics --> Battle Armor LB-X Autocannon
"Flak" is missing from the Notes section on the far right hand side.

Per TacOps p.412 - "Battle Armor Combat Data table" the weapon is a coded "DB, C/F" for Direct Ballistic, Cluster/Flak.
p. 286 "Battle Armor LB-X Autocannon" reference: this weapon deals up to 4 damage in 1-point clusters, [resolve hits as if by Missile Attack (Cluster Hits Table = 4 x {#/active suits})

The damage appears to have already been calculated properly for Flak weapons in AlphaStrike (Cluster Hits table for "4" rack, avg 7 = 3; -1 flak multiplier = x1.05; 3 x 1.05 = 0.315).
As Battle Armor weapons are multiplied by their troop factor when calculating their AlphaStrike weapon values, I have determined the following:
 . . (0.315 x 3.5 troop factor = 1.1025 damage at Short and Medium for CAR4, CAR5) = qualifies for FLK Special...
 . . (0.315 x 4.5 troop factor = 1.4175 damage at Short and Medium for CAR6) = qualifies for FLK Special...

Assuming this is actual errata for the ASC, I have managed to find a handful of units that require Retroactive Updates based on their Record Sheets and respective TRO entries:

Black Wolf [LB-X]: TRO3145 p.11, 66 (RS), RS3145_Unabridged p.422
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird (Upgrade) (LB-X): RS3145_Unabridged p.27
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird II (Standard): XTRO_Republic_2 p.16
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
"Watch the man-made-lightning fly!"  -RaiderRed

FrozenIceman

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #797 on: 12 February 2017, 21:11:53 »
I am currently working with a group of individuals on conventional infantry rules.  We just looked at the Tech Manual Errata 3.0.  I have a concern with the Mauser IIC

Regular Grenade Damage: 0.92->1.37
Regular Grenade BV: 2.2->9.82
Inferno Grenade Damage: 0.62 ->0.90
Inferno Grenade BV:  2.2->6.45

This is kind of a massive jump from what was previously published and will drastically effect all of the Clan units in TRO 3085 unabridged.

For example, the Clan Heavy Jump Infantry on page 305 will have the following stat changes.
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/609/clan-heavy-jump-infantry-heavy-infantry-point-91st-mechanized-assault-epsilon-galaxy <These Guys

Damage 20 Troopers: 24 -> 31 Damage
BV: 136 ->325 BV (199 without Anti Mech)

Just looking at that, I don't think I would ever dream of using these guys in Anti Mech operations with that kind of damage and point value.

Similarly if we go with a reinforced Jump squad (24 troopers, 6 per squad) and give them two Support Laser ER Heavy Clan the squad now has 32 damage out to 21 hexes (instead of 9) for a BV of 259.  You don't want to even know what happens when I try a Foot Platoon of 6 troopers each...

Was this intentional, both buffing the BV and the damage of the units instead of one or the other?  Just looking at this it completely destroys the rolls that were previously built for these units and creates an even larger divide between IS and Clan.  For example if we switched this over to a standard IS faction (with armor divisor 2 and used their Support ER Heavy IS version, 8 troopers per squad).  The most damage they could do is 16 out to 18 hexes (maybe around 20 damage if you use the updated Federated Barret M61A errata).

Was this intentional when the Tech Manual V3.0 infantry tables were updated?  If not, when can we see a revised 3085 unabridged (as well as the MUL)?  Without those updates the BV and damage potential are not even close.
« Last Edit: 12 February 2017, 23:48:57 by FrozenIceman »

BrokenMnemonic

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #798 on: 19 February 2017, 08:10:57 »
I'm not sure if this is an errata issue or a simple canon supercession, so I thought I'd ask. The original Technical Readout: 3025 had the 2nd Lyran Guards being destroyed on Port Moseby on 2786 (Firestarter entry, page 24). Technical Readout: 3025 Revised also had the 2nd Lyran Guards being destroyed on Port Moseby, but in 2789, rather than 2786. Technical Readout 3039 makes no mention of the event in the entry on the Firestarter.

First Succession War mentions the 2nd Lyran Guards several times during the timeline for the Bolan Thumb campaign - fighting on Radostov on 2790 and 2791, and Herzberg in 2801, before being destroyed on Finsterwalde in 2803.

The original House Steiner sourcebook has an entry on the 30th Lyran Guards on page 57, and mentions that the 30th included elements of the 2nd, which it states defeated Kuritan forces on Port Moseby (but doesn't give a date for that event).

Does the detail on the 2nd Lyran Guards in First Succession War mean that the Port Moseby detail from the two TRO 3025s is now no longer canon, meaning that the House Steiner book is referring to a battle at Port Moseby at some later point, with the 2nd Lyran Guards presumably having been rebuilt? Or should it be another unit fighting in the Bolan campaign?

It's more interesting than optimal, and therefore better. O0 - Weirdo

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #799 on: 20 February 2017, 09:24:25 »
A question regarding jymset's dev-level errata post in the IO thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=50926.msg1286711#msg1286711):

Quote
Cut the following sentence - "In terms of game rules, Common items may be considered Tournament Legal."

I understand why this change was made, as items like artillery tubes have common dates. But how does one differentiate between TL items and non-TL items now? Is there some other marker that I'm missing?

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #800 on: 21 February 2017, 01:04:29 »
Not sure this is something that you guys would errata, but I think it should be, so I wanted to bring it up:

Interstellar Players 3 Interstellar Expeditions pg 114
PDF

The Bug Eye Surveillance Vessel has 12 passengers listed. In rebuilding it on my own, I found that those 12 passengers are the crew required to operate the Large NCSS, rather than 12 extra people that the word 'passengers' implies.

In SO pg 149 it states (underlined for emphasis):
Quote
The unit’s crew must be equal to (or, at the designer’s option, greater than) the sum of its minimum crew requirements (including any supplemental crew such as officers and those needed to man special equipment such as weapons, communications, kitchens and MASH theaters).

I would assume the 12 people needed to operate the Large NCSS would fall into that category, and be counted in as part of the crew number. While not important for tabletop play, it seems like it could throw off the fiction a bit, or possibly affect the RPG. It's probably the exact opposite of a huge deal, but I thought I would bring it up.

Also, discovered at the same time, but it seems to be .5 tons overweight, and I would have thought the cargo would have been 101.5 rather than rounded up to 102.  ;D

Possible solutions:
Delete the 12 passengers and increase the crew to 49 and officers to 10.
Change Cargo to 101.5.

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #801 on: 21 February 2017, 12:04:15 »
A question regarding jymset's dev-level errata post in the IO thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=50926.msg1286711#msg1286711):

I understand why this change was made, as items like artillery tubes have common dates. But how does one differentiate between TL items and non-TL items now? Is there some other marker that I'm missing?

Right now, the only official product which covers this are the Jihad and Dark Age Tech Advancement tables in TROs Prototypes and 3145 respectively.

While hardly ideal to have this hidden in non-rule books, the BattleMech Manual does implicitly differentiate, collecting all TL level equipment appropriate to Mechs and applicable to the 3145+ era.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #802 on: 21 February 2017, 12:33:32 »
Right now, the only official product which covers this are the Jihad and Dark Age Tech Advancement tables in TROs Prototypes and 3145 respectively.

While hardly ideal to have this hidden in non-rule books, the BattleMech Manual does implicitly differentiate, collecting all TL level equipment appropriate to Mechs and applicable to the 3145+ era.

Ok, that was my next question. I was unclear whether those tables were rendered obsolete by IO.

Semi-related: Does the addition of a common date on the Apollo FCS in the IO errata thread make it TL or is it still considered advanced despite having a common date?

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #803 on: 21 February 2017, 15:43:33 »
Heh, I spammed the boards too much... :-[

Dev-level errata:

p. 215, Dark Age Technology Advancement Table

Between "Angel ECM" and "Armor", add:
Apollo MRM Fire Control System - Adv - ~3065 - TL - 3071 - IS

Hope that helps!
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19826
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #804 on: 21 February 2017, 16:28:07 »
Hope that helps!

It certainly does  ;D

gracias

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

wantec

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #805 on: 17 March 2017, 09:45:34 »
I don't see a thread for the Spotlight On: Stone's Trackers, but I think I found an error:

pdf pg. 11, Under Abstract Combat System Combat Teams

The 3112 version has a unit type of "MX", which should be "CI". Per pg. 326 of IO, at least 2/3rds of the sub-units are the same type, "CI" therefore the whole unit should be "CI" not "MX".
BEN ROME YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD, I READ YOUR BOOK!


Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #806 on: 28 March 2017, 00:55:57 »
I've found a couple more broken links to compiled errata files in the first posts of their respective errata threads. Since those are just broken links, and not errors within the books themselves, I decided to report those here, and not in errata threads.

The threads in question are:
Technical Readout: 3075 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5936)
Technical Readout: 3085 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5929)

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #807 on: 28 March 2017, 09:52:36 »
Thanks, Alfaryn.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Vampire_Seraphin

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 220
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #808 on: 04 April 2017, 20:14:44 »
Hey guys, I'm reading through the 3.5 version of the Tactical Operations errata and I noticed a change to how mud is handled.

Battlemechs are now effected and make checks like tanks.

This is a very poor choice for game balance reasons. You're taking the flagship unit of the franchise, and cutting away one of the major advantages it enjoys over tanks. Superior battlemech performance in bad conditions is one of the major reasons to bother using them instead of fielding armies of tanks.

Its also not fun. When you bring tanks, you implicitly accept the need to make checks in more situations. Forcing a mech to make a check every hex is a major drag.


Xotl: this is not an errata report, so it was removed from the errata thread.
« Last Edit: 04 April 2017, 20:26:18 by Xotl »

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #809 on: 13 April 2017, 17:36:51 »
Not sure if this should be here or rules questions, but:
DropShuttle Bays in interstellar Operations page 119 say they have a max capacity of 10,000 tons.

I was wondering if that means the Defender class battle cruiser (pg 26 Field Report 2765: AFFS) and/or League class Destroyer Block I (pg 24  Field Report 2765: FWLM) need their DropShuttle Bays errata'd, since they claim to have 20,000 ton capacity each.

At first I thought they could just be 2 DropShuttle bays put together, but in the Defender's case that would exceed the maximum number of DropShuttle bays that can be put on a ship.

 

Register