TEXT: (FP11.0) and (FP14.0): Carronade is a normal firing option. If the
  torpedo is converted into a Sabot shot, then by
  (FP11.214) it cannot be converted back to a normal
  torpedo. It can be bolted (FP11.26), but not fired as a
  carronade shot.
  (FP11.0): The plasma sabot rules mention proximity photons as
  an upgrade for photon ships. The mention is simply that
  there was an improvement to the photons, not that it
  was done as part of the General War.
  (FP11.11) The (FP11.11) BPV cost of the Sabot, can be paid for
  with commander's options. It says it is a refit, and Annex
  #6 and Annex #6A both include the purchase of refits
  “available but not installed”.
  (FP11.315): This rule should have read “If a sabot plasma
  torpedo is launched on Impulse #3, #7, #11, #15, #19,
  #23, #27, or #31, it moves only one hex, not two”.
  (FP14.0): Carronade was originally developed by the Gorn
  Military, and first used by the police while the Gorns
  were trying to develop it for larger torpedoes. When that
  failed (along with the failure to develop stasis boxes for
  the larger torpedoes), the Gorns eventually simply
  installed plasma-Fs on their larger ships.
  (FP14.0): The use of Carronade by Gorn X-Ships is still under
  review, but right now plasma-Ls are sort of plasma-Gs
  and cannot use it.
  (FP14.15): (FP14.0) says "It is fired in the same manner and
  under the same restrictions as a plasma bolt . . ." which
  means that the (K1.543) restriction "PFs cannot bolt
  more than one plasma torpedo per turn" does apply.
  Although I agree the "launch" is a little confusing.
  (FP14.21) Note that a plasma-F can be armed at three points as
  even a plasma-F can be completed with two points of
  reserve power added during the third turn of arming
  (FP1.91). And even a plasma-F can use “contingent
  allocation” with two points of power allocated on the
  third turn of arming pending the addition of the third
  point to complete the torpedo for launch (H7.6).
  (FP14.23): The reference to adding reserve power to an armed
  torpedo is meant as a note that a plasma-F carronade
  cannot be reinforced past fully armed, i.e., no more than
  five points can be used for a carronade shot. Rule
  reference (FP14.33) should also be to (FP14.36).
  (FP14.23): Reference (GP13.36) should be (FP14.36).
  (FP14.37): Second instance of RP should actually be AP (Aft
  Plasma).
  (R02.106): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track. The
  shields on this ship are correct, it does not get the
  stronger shields of the CLC, these additional shield
  boxes are lost in the conversion in order to keep other
  CLC systems not found on other NCAs.
  (R02.107): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track. Attack
  Carrier – “Movement Cost = 1” is not complete, 360°
  phasers numbered #11 and #12. Should be #9 and #10.
   (R02.108): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track. We did
  the countersheet before I did the NCF hull outline and
  nobody thought of it. We did those counters MONTHS
  ago so we would not have any problems with the
  Origins deadline. R-section says first example in Y178,
  MSC says Y175. MSC should probably say Y178 with
  Y2 note. SVC decided to go with the first year the ships
  could have been built on the MSC for some reason that
  he has forgotten.
  (R02.109): - Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track. R-
  section says first example in Y179, MSC says Y175.
  MSC should probably say Y179 with Y2 note. SVC
  decided to go with the first year the ships could have
  been built on the MSC for some reason that he has
  forgotten.
  (R02.110): - Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track. R-
  section says first example in Y176, MSC says Y175.
  MSC should probably say Y176 with Y2 note. SVC
  decided to go with the first year the ships could have
  been built on the MSC for some reason that he has
  forgotten.
  (R02.110A): R-section notes that one was never converted. MSC
  should probably have UNV note. SVC decided to go
  with the first year the ships could have been built on the
  MSC for some reason that he has forgotten.
  (R02.111): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track.
  Mistakenly has 24xF-18Bs and 6xF-111s in the Ship
  Description. It should carry 12xF-18Bs and 6xF-111s. R-
  section says first example in Y180, MSC says Y177.
  MSC should probably say Y180 with Y2 note. SVC
  decided to go with the first year the ships could have
  been built on the MSC for some reason that he has
  forgotten.
   (R02.112): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track.
  (R02.113): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track. We
  checked the Table of Contents and Ship Description of
  the NVH, and both said it was the “New Heavy Fighter
  Transport”, meaning the SSD for the NVH is in error and
  has been, this ship should probably be changed to NVA
  for New Attack Carrier. R-section says first example in
  Y179, MSC says Y177. MSC should probably say Y179
  with Y2 note. SVC decided to go with the first year the
  ships could have been built on the MSC for some
  reason that he has forgotten.
  (R02.114): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track. R-
  section says first example in Y176, MSC says Y177.
  MSC should probably say Y176, although the “one or
  two may have been built earlier” clause for MSC Year-
  in-Service dates probably covers this one just fine. SVC
  decided to go with the first year the ships could have
  been built on the MSC for some reason that he has
  forgotten.
  (R02.115): Missing the “Ident” label on the shuttle track.
  (R03.??): Some thought it might be a good idea to state that all of
  the D5W's use a standard D5 boom. While a more or
  less factual observation, it is a background point and not
  entirely correct as D5A and D5J booms are not
  “standard”, and the DWE boom has the phaser-1s
  downgraded, so it is not an exactly correct statement.
  Obviously a D5J boom could simply be slotted into a
  DWJ rear hull, and a D5A boom could be added to a
  ship to make a DWA, but a DWE boom is a modified
  boom (or a boom built for a D5I? But there was only one
  of those).
  (R03.119): In the first paragraph, “Andromeans” should be
  “Andromedans.” The ship description says that a third
  DWD may or may not have been built before the end of
  the General War, but scenario (SH225.0) (Y180) lists a
  fourth DWD. At this point we are stuck and will just go
  with the ship being a conversion of an existing D5D.
  (R03.121): MSC has Y2 note; probably not needed, since ship is
  introduced the same year as Klingon PFs. SVC decided
  to go with the first year the ships could have been built
  on the MSC for some reason that he has forgotten.
  (R03.121): SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on cargo.” note.
  (R03.122): SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on cargo. . .” note.
  (R03.123): R-section says first (and only) example in Y183, MSC
  says Y175. MSC should probably say Y183 with Y2
  note. SVC decided to go with the first year the ships
  could have been built on the MSC for some reason that
  he has forgotten.
  (R03.125): This ship has security stations because they also help
  in boarding party combat (G6.13).
  (R03.128): The marine contingent includes two Commando
  Squads, Four Heavy Weapons Squads, and four GCVs.
  The DWG cannot carry battle or carrier pods (it can
  carry a carrier pod if the pod is loaded with GAS and/or
  HTS shuttles to support a ground attack), and neither
  can the D5G (except as noted for the DWG). Neither of
  them ever could. If we need to update the errata we will
  (next year!) but you wanted to know and now you do.
  
  (R03.129): MSC has a YIS of Y175. The YIS of the D7D is Y176.
  So should the DDW's YIS be after the D7D, since from
  the description, it sounds like the DDW came after the
  success of the D7D. SVC decided to go with the first
  year the ships could have been built on the MSC for
  some reason that he has forgotten.
  (R04.0): INTRODUCTION: from Module R10 indicates that the
  Romulan Firehawk “. . . could (previous data being
  incomplete) carry most of the Sparrowhawk’s modules.
  This allowed quick conversion to some of the more
  useful variants.” This did not make Firehawks modular
  in the same sense as Sparrowhawks. While Firehawks
  could use the modules, they still had to be “hard
  welded” to the hull, a process taking a month or more
  (including breaking the welds on the previous modules).
  (R04.107) SSD: Lists the G-D and G-III-K fighters prior to their
  Y183 deployment date. The policy is to print the most
  up-to-date fighter SSD on the Carrier SSD, then the
  player can cross out anything that does not apply.
  (R04.109): Add: Note after: U-Scout Carrier module: Possible,
  but never done.
  (R04.110) SSD: Lists the G-D and G-III-K fighters prior to their
  Y183 deployment date. The policy is to print the most
  up-to-date fighter SSD on the Carrier SSD, then the
  player can cross out anything that does not apply.
  (R04.113): The design began with K-Modules, but these were
  also modified as part of the conversion process and are
  not a new type of module. The ship cannot use any
  other type of module.
   (R04.114): Ship description KWR listed as KRW 
  (. . . convert
  KD5s into KRWs . . .).
  (R04.116) SSD: Lists the G-D and G-III-K fighters prior to their
  Y183 deployment date. The policy is to print the most
  up-to-date fighter SSD on the Carrier SSD, then the
  player can cross out anything that does not apply.
  (R05.75): R-section says first example in Y183, MSC says Y182.
  MSC should probably say Y183 with Y2 note. SVC
  decided to go with the first year the ships could have
  been built on the MSC for some reason that he has
  forgotten.
  (R05.84): Missing the “IDENT” label on the ADMIN Shuttle
  damage track.
  (R05.85): Missing the “IDENT” label on the ADMIN Shuttle
  damage track.
  (R05.86): Missing the “IDENT” label on the ADMIN Shuttle
  damage track. R-section says first example in Y177,
  MSC says Y175. MSC should probably say Y177 with
  Y2 note. SVC decided to go with the first year the ships
  could have been built on the MSC for some reason that
  he has forgotten.
  (R05.87): Missing the “IDENT” label on the ADMIN Shuttle
  damage track. Has FA arcs described, but no weapon
  uses this arc. R-section says first example in Y176,
  MSC says Y175. MSC should probably say Y176 with
  Y2 note. SVC decided to go with the first year the ships
  could have been built on the MSC for some reason that
  he has forgotten.
   (R05.89): NPF: Missing the “IDENT” label on the ADMIN Shuttle
  damage track. SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on
  cargo.” note. MSC says Y179, but Kzinti PFs introduced
  in Y181. MSC should probably say Y181. SVC decided
  to go with the first year the ships could have been built
  on the MSC for some reason that he has forgotten.
  (R05.90) This ship has the correct shields. In the MSC, (R05.90)
  is listed as NDC, not NDS, the ship description is where
  the error is. SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on cargo.”
  note. The use of external bays on Kzinti ships has to do
  with hulls that are so crowded that there is simply no
  room to install an internal bay. The hangar decks pretty
  much use all the space. MSC says Y179, but Kzinti PFs
  introduced in Y181. Escort/fighter chart in R-section also
  starts at Y181. MSC should probably say Y181. SVC
  decided to go with the first year the ships could have
  been built on the MSC for some reason that he has
  forgotten.
  (R05.91): Missing the “IDENT” label on the ADMIN Shuttle
  damage track. R-section says first example in Y179,
  MSC says Y175. MSC should probably say Y179 with
  Y2 note. SVC decided to go with the first year the ships
  could have been built on the MSC for some reason that
  he has forgotten.
   (R05.92): NSC: Missing the “IDENT” label on the ADMIN Shuttle
  damage track. The “R-Section” lists that the NSC was a
  conversion of a “CMS”. The Kzinti Medium Scout is the
  “MSC”.
  (R05.93): The marine contingent includes two Commando
  Squads, four Heavy Weapons Squads, and four GCVs.
  SSD names the ship the “New Heavy Ground Assault
  Cruiser.” It is the New Commando Cruiser.
  (R06.72): SSD Gorn G-12D fighters for the MSR list a dogfight
  rating (DFR) of three. The G-12D has a DFR of two
  according to Module J2. The Master Fighter Chart in
  Module J2 was in error, see the SSDs for the carrier
  with G-12Ds in Module J2.
  (R06.72A): MSC is missing UNV note.
   (R06.74): Marine forces includes two Commando Squads, three
  Heavy Weapons Squads, and three GCVs.
  (R06.75): SSD Gorn G-12D fighters for the MSR list a dogfight
  rating (DFR) of three. The G-12D has a DFR of two
  according to Module J2. The Master Fighter Chart in
  Module J2 was in error, see the SSDs for the carrier
  with G-12Ds in Module J2.
  (R06.76): Note that SSD (and MSC) is labeled as CMV ‘Medium
  Strike Carrier’ while rulebook is MDV ‘Medium Carrier’.
  It should be Medium Strike Carrier. R-section says first
  example in Y176, MSC says Y175. MSC should
  probably say Y176 with Y2 note. SVC decided to go
  with the first year the ships could have been built on the
  MSC for some reason that he has forgotten. SSD Gorn
  G-12D fighters for the MSR list a dogfight rating (DFR)
  of three. The G-12D has a DFR of two according to
  Module J2. The Master Fighter Chart in Module J2 was
  in error, see the SSDs for the carrier with G-12Ds in
  Module J2.
  (R07.50): Ship is not subject to shock. The Tholians cannot weld
  these packs on any other war cruiser variant due to
  Mission requirements. These ships are meant to be
  defensive, so the slow speed was acceptable. The CWH
  was 
  a 
  “product 
  improvement” 
  (says 
  so 
  in 
  its
  description), the CAN says that it was not possible to
  make a HEAVY CRUISER out of a CW, not that it was
  not possible to improve it.
  (R07.51): The APRs on the actual ship were not converted to
  AWRs to save money. The APRs can power the
  disruptors while the ship will still have to divert warp
  engine power to either fire the photons, or fire the
  disruptors. So there was no reason to change the APRs.
  The ship is not subject to shock.
   (R08.45): This SSD has LS and RS arcs described for use by
  plasma cartel ships that have plasma-D racks instead of
  drone racks.
   (R08.46): SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on cargo.” note. This
  SSD has LS and RS arcs described for use by plasma
  cartel ships that have plasma-D racks instead of drone
  racks.
   (R09.095): Should have N1 note in MSC (true carriers).
  (R09.097A): While obvious, a note mentioning that the Survey
  fighters replace Admins on the MSR would be
  consistent with other Survey Carriers.
  (R09.097A): Should have N1 note in MSC (true carriers).
  (R09.098): Hydran MKP: SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on
  cargo.” note.
  (R09.099): DCS: Should have N1 note in MSC (true carriers).
  SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on cargo.” note.
  
  (R09.100): This ship is qualified to use the FSP.
  (R09.102): Should have N1 note in MSC (true carriers).
  (R11.75): The R-Section for the Lyran NSR has ‘Note that this
  ship could carry stand tug pallets or two (or one) K-type
  tug pods.’ seems to be very clear that the ship is a tug.
  (R11.76): SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on cargo.” note.
  (R11.77): SSD needs “Repair is destroyed on cargo.” note.
  (R13.67): SSDs of the CL with the plasma-S and CS with PPD
  pack might be published in the future. In any case, the
  hull does not suffer shock. Ship is named “New System
  Cruiser” on the SSD because we were thinking about
  doing the other variant as well, but wound up with only
  two ISC pages.
   (R13.68): Ship is named “Strike System Cruiser” on the SSD
  because we were thinking about doing the other variant
  as well, but wound up with only two ISC pages. This
  ship does not suffer from shock.
   (R14.40): The ship description says that the lone NCA was
  upgraded to an NCC in Y175, but (R14.27) says the
  lone NCA Spokesman was built Y177. The conversion
  date should have been Y185.
  (R15.30): Was the big “MODULE R10 - SSD BOOK” on the
  Seltorian NVS. We put that “SSD book” title on the back
  page so that the warehouse crew could identify the book
  when it is upside down. We will do that in future to all
  books.
  (SG75.0): Scenario number was repeated. (SG75.0) was used in
  the 2000 Edition of Module T.
  (SG77.46): Example Federation Forces have an NSA, which is
  the NHS..
  (SH222.0): Historical outcome: “Should have read “left AFTER
  loading.”
  (SH222.451): The reference to (SH222.4521) [which does not
  exist] should be to (SH222.61).
  (SH223.45): lists a Pegasus carrier as a “Hydran scout.” The
  Pegasus CV does not have scout sensors. Use a PFT
  with Harrier PFs and one Stinger-FM in its place.
  COVER: On the cover, the NCC numbers on the engines of the
  NCA do not match the NCC number of the saucer. The
  engines still have the number of the original NCL model
  Ted must have used as the base of the NCA model. Ted
  missed it.
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/Star Trek RPG/Star Fleet Battles/Star Fleet Battles - adb5626 - Captain's Module R10 - The New Cruisers - Errata.pdf