Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 08-17-2015, 11:26 AM   #1
weby's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

A lot of the ships in the starships line of PDFs have bugs and since the errata process has not worked for a while, I am posting them here for comment and/or use for others.

They are all collected at:

A couple of the entries are not really errata, but commentary on something about them. I will try to mark such clearly. Overall they are based on my notes and comments to myself that I started to collect.

Please see if I made some mistakes and/or post other errata in them that I have missed. Also note that the later volumes have had a lot less use than the earlier so have not gone through them as carefully so I expect them to have more issues that I have not discovered.

I also hope that these help someone who might be confused by something in them.


Airlocks: The table on p.42 and the Free equipment box on p.10 have different sizes for airlocks for SM 6-15 ships.

Star flower
seems to have wrong listed load of 301 as it has 6 cargo for 300 tons, 43.5 cargo in the tertiary battery and 20 people. The correct load should be: 345.5

Also the price seems to be wrong:
number module Total price
3 metal laminate armor 3
1 control 2
2 stardrive 20
2 standard reactionless 2
1 tertiary battery 1/30 0.2
1 enhanced sensor 2
1 engine room 0.3
1 fusion reactor 10
6 cargo 0
2 habitat 2
artificial gravity 1

Is only 42.5 million with the listed price of 44.5 million.

Spaceships 2
Is listed as TL 9^ but does not seem to have any super science systems.

Is listed as both TL 10(table) and 11(top) but the single reactionless engine is listed as 2G that is a TL 11 feature, so likely should be TL11^

Dark Horse-Class
Lists two items for rear slot 6: its third stardrive, and an Engine room. The stat-line also reflects both: It has range x3, and an HT of 13.

The force screen is not listed in the table DR field.

Not an errata, but if using half systems then installing half size power plant would allow 3000 ton more cargo and installing a much smaller habitat and the remaining in cargo would allow bit more cargo as well totally.

Is listed as having:
Hot Reactionless Engine (50G acceleration) and Move 50G/c

But Hot Reactionless engine only has 2G/c acceleration. So the engine is Super Reactionless not Hot Reactionless.

Has seven 500 ton Cargo Holds, 200 tons cargo in the Secondary Battery, 200 tons cargo in Habitat, a 300 ton Hangar Bay and 28 people for a total load of 4202.8 tons not the listed 3,142.8 tons.

Not an errata, but if using half systems then installing half size power plant would allow more space for other things.

Has only two stardrives and the power to drive only two high power systems and yet the range is listed as 3x, should thus be 2x

The single drive is rated 100g/c, should be 2g/c as is hot reactionless.

Rear hull section has a habitat with five luxury cabins, 180 cabins and a 20-bed sickbay. That is total of 210 cabin units of the 200 possible.

Maltese Falcon-Class
The load and occupation ratings are wrong. Like they front hull "Habitats (two luxury cabins, 10 tons cargo" is only counted once in the table as it dies not have "each" in the description so the table values are missing 10 tons of cargo and 4 people. Thus the occ should be 20 and load 82.

The table is missing ^ in TL field as the 10^ is the correct TL

Taj Mahal-Class
Is listed as SM +9 craft with 100 dST/HP in the vehicle entry, but is really SM +8 and 70 dST/HP.

is listed as 8ASV despite having a calculated: 4 staterooms(=8) and a cage(=4) 12 total.

Zeta Reticuli-Class
Listed as having 3+3 luxury staterooms and 4 staterooms but only Occ 14ASV when the total should be 20ASV.

The price is obviously wrong, just the cloaking device is 30 million and the two teleport projectors are 20 million each so more than the total of 65.7 million.

# Modules Mcr
3 armor $15.00
1 array $20.00
4 habitat $4.00
1 battery $6.00
1 hangar $0.10
1 control $2.00
1 force screen $15.00
1 engine room $0.30
1 powerplant $60.00
1 drive $10.00
3 stardrive $30.00
1 cloaking $30.00
1 cargo
Module total $192.40

Special staterooms Mcr
minifac $2.00
science lab $1.00
teleport projectors $40.00
automed sickbay $0.20
Total $43.20
Grand total $235.60

Baikonur Third Stage STV is listed as TL 8, but has control room computer and sensors calculated as TL7 and has no other components that are above TL 7, so should likely be TL 7.

Not really an errata as such more an observation. In the end the first stage is thus controlled by a control room 2 sizes too small for it. Should this not cause a penalty?

The third stage is an inefficient design with the 3 armor systems, so it could carry more without them.

Also the question of needing armor for streamlining, the whole stack does not fill that need.

The total delta-v value is wrong, it uses 13 tanks of HEDM that would have a d-v of 0.5*1.6=0.8/tank for a total of 10.4 mps.

Definitely not an errata, but an observation: This is a very inefficient design with way too many armor systems, a huge control room when compared to as example the Bainokur stack and way too much fuel for the most likely mission of lifting things to low earth orbit as high earth orbit and escape velocity are more likely better served by something with lower thrust and higher impulse.

A modified version could carry 300 tons to low earth orbit easily. (-2 armor, -1 hangar, -2 fuel, +5 cargo), 7.7 mps and if using a smaller control station and dropping 1-2 more fuel tanks up to something like 430 tons at the upper end.

Has 1 module with 80 hibernation chambers and yet lists "Plus 200 in suspended animation", should be " Plus 80 in suspended animation"

It has a listed load of 172.6 but has a cargo module at 150 tons, two 100 ton hangar bays, 10 ton steerage cargo and 206 total people for load: 380.6 tons.

Condor Spaceplane
Has listed airspeed of 2450mph, but at 3 modules of 0.5g each it should be 3100mph

Definitely not an errata, but an observation: This design is also inefficient due to too much armor.

A variant with -2 armor could lift 25 tons and a cargo version without passenger seats could carry 30 tons.

Definitely not an errata, but an observation: This design is also inefficient due to too much armor.

Alpha Shuttlecraft
Is missing one module, it only has 19 total as it only has one core module.

Has as module 6 in front hull: Hangar Bay (three tons capacity). A SM +5 single module hangar bay is 1 ton.

The total load is also wrong 8 cargo*1.5 tons=12, add 1 ton bay and 0.6 from passengers and you get 13.6 tons, but adding the last module as extra cargo +1.5 tons gives a total of 15.1 tons.

The load is wrong it has 2 cargo holds*50 tons, 45 tons in the battery and 5 tons in habitat for a total load of 150.8 tons.

The force screen is not listed in the table DR field.

Dark Horse
Lists two items for rear slot 6: its third stardrive, and an Engine room. The stat-line also reflects both: It has range x3, and an HT of 13.

Lists load as 201.8 tons, but has 300 ton hangar, 200 tons in the habitat and 18 people as load thus total should be 501.8 tons.

100 ton Container Barge

The descriptive text says: "The barge’s interior is devoted to 255 tons of cargo capacity." But the correct cargo capacity is 85 tons.

Spaceships 3
Collision formula on page 32 seems to produce too high values. Collisions according to the formula do about 3.6 times the value they should do. Just use the Spaceships p.64 formula to fix.

Is missing module 5 in central hull.

Has 2 Fuel tanks with 15mps listed delta-V each but the table says 1G/15 mps. It should be 1G/30 mps or if the missing module is fuel tank 1G/45 mps.

Sword-Class Heavy Cruiser in SS3 page 14. The stat-line is listed as having a DR of 100/100/50, but the design has 140/140/70 (which seems to fit the actual stats for streamlined diamonoid)

Also, it has 10 fixed rear-mounted missile launchers. Does it expect to be running away often?


Has a single Fission Reactor providing one Power Point, but two high energy systems (Major Battery and Secondary Battery), so it should have a note saying it cannot operate both at same time. Alternatively upgrading the fission reactor to a Fusion reactor would solve the problem.

The price is obviously wrong. A quick calculation would indicate 1,901.5 million could be the right ballpark instead of the listed 1,901.5 billion.
Since the total post hit the 10000 character limit, the remaining Starships books errata can be found few posts down.
GURPS spaceship unofficial errata and thoughts:

Last edited by weby; 09-06-2023 at 04:41 AM.
weby is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.