Just to say, I like the looks of this 
Mission Profile: Saving the universe, guide the Minbari, with Valen. Hopefully it was for Babylon 4 and not for DS9.
Canât believe that they will reboot Babylon 5 and Star Trek soon. All I can think is, donât do it or at least donât mess up and do modiphius will have rights on Strange new world series?
What reboot of Star Trek are you referring to? Strange New Worlds is a prequel (to TOS) and/or a sequel/spinoff of Discovery, not a reboot. The 2009 film was a reboot.
Then again, I consider Discovery an alternate timeline from the Prime Timeline because of all the breaks from TOS canon in seasons 1 and 2, but I wouldnât call that a reboot.
OK prequel of TOS (or reboot of the pilot, that could have been TOS).
My personal head canon is that all the temporal cold war stuff we saw in Enterprise caused ripple changes that we see in Discovery.
2 Likes
Youmean all the breaks from fanon in the first two seasons. If you look closely enough you will eventually notice that most of the breaks from canons are no real breaks. The few breaks that are left are simply mistakes which happened in every single Trek show.
No, I mean stuff like redesigning and resizing the Enterprise so that it went from a canon length of 289 meters in TOS to a length of 442 meters in DISC, not to mention its completely different warp engine pylons going from straight to swept-back. This was not a âmistakeâ nor were they âbreaks from fanon,â it was a deliberate decision by the DISC showrunners to give the Enterprise a Cosmetically Advanced Prequel visual look. Iâm not the only Trekkie with whom this decision doesnât well.
See the Star Trek entry at the above link under âLive-Action TVâ for further details.
1 Like
Sorry, but the size of the USS Enterprise was never mentioned during TOS. Thus it is not a break from canon if they mention a different size than the one used since the 1960s. it is only a break from fanon. And that applies to every single so called break from canon in DIS, PIC and even LD. They could do that because those things were never really mentioned in all the series and movies from TOS to ENT. And thatâs the reason fans react so strongly because the producers decide to ignore fanon. But they never ignored canon. If you find something that seems to break canon, do a little research. You will often discover that there is no break because the item in question was never mention in canon but only fan speculation.
A change in the visuals is never a break from canon, especially in science fiction, because technology marches on and visuals which looked futuristic several decades ago often look completely out of date today. The movies have aged well, TNG and the later series have aged well, but TOS and TAS had not. So they had to update the visuals and included technologies which were completely unknown at the time TOS was produced but exsist now or are atleast in development.
And BTW Roddenberry himself said that the only reason the Klingons looked different in TMP was the advancement of the prosthetics. For him the look of the Klingons never changed. And you can say that this also applies to the Starfleet uniforms and the design of the Enterprise.
Just because you do not like something from a Franchise does NEVER remove from canon (or place it in a different timeline). There had been many time travel episodes in every single Star Trek series. And you can assume that these were not the only ones in the history of Starfleet. So, if you place DIS in a different timeline than you should place every single series (or even season of a series) in a timeline of its own.
I refer you to The Official Starships Collection by Eaglemoss which has officially published all the canon sizes of Federation, Alien, Massive, and Small starships all across the Star Trek franchise. As this collection has been authorized and licensed by CBS Paramount, it is canon by word of the owners of the Star Trek franchise.
Feel free to have a look at them. Youâll see the TOS Enterprise has a canon length of 289 meters while the Discovery Enterprise has a length of 442 meters. Hence, theyâre different ships. Yeah, there was a hologram of the DISC Enterprise in the first episode of ST: Picard along with other starships named Enterprise, including the Enterprise-D, but this retcon strikes some of us as hamfisted. My headcanon is different from yours, Caranfang. The key words in my post above were the words âI consider.â when I said âI consider Discovery an alternate timeline.â
And Star Trek is filled with alternate universe even in-story. Remember the Mirror Universe? Remember all the alternate universes we glimpsed in Paralells (TNG 7x11)? Since we saw them in a television series, arenât they all canon too?
1 Like
This line of discussion is going nowhere, and based on past instances, it will only get more heated.
I suggest agreeing to disagree and changing the subject, because this never goes anywhere good otherwise.
3 Likes
You have fallen into a very old trap. Just because a book has âofficialâ in its title does not make any of its content canon. The only things which are canon are all TV shows and all movies, nothing else and nothing less. Fanon and your personal headcanon do not count.
This means that the canonical size of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 is the one mentioned in DIS and NOT the one mentioned in any book even if th book in question is authorized and licensed by CBS Paramount!
@Modiphius-Nathan Sorry, but I really had to write this.
1 Like
SoooooâŚ
In an attempt to go back to the original topic of this thread before it was derailed â are there any rumours on full station creation rules with spaceframes and mission profiles? Maybe in the GMâs/Playersâ Guidebooks that might be released already in this year?
4 Likes
I havenât heard anything like that, but using the rules in the Command Division book as well as Narendra Station in the Shackleton Expanse book and the stats for DS9 in the DS9 PC PDF to extrapolate space station Scales, Iâm creating fanmade profiles for several starbases, including the K-class (as a Small Deep Space Outpost), the Watchtower-class, the Ournal-class (aka Earth Spacedock), the Stardock-class (Starbase 75 aka the âbigâ Spacedock), and the Sigma/Buckingham class space stations seen in DS9 Season 6 and the TNG Episode âMeasure of a Man,â respectively. As per the rules in the Command Division book, these starbases wonât have mission profiles as Iâm trying to keep these starbase write-ups simplified. Iâll make them available on my GoogleDocs when theyâre ready.
The GMBinder link in the OP is a nice first attempt at trying to establish mission profiles for starbases, but every time I tried to build on them and reconcile them with the rules in the Command book, it kept jacking up my blood pressure and I had to save-and-quit. 
But even so, if there are official upcoming mission profile rules for starbases by Modiphius, that would be a very nice thing to see. Giving starbases the versatility that starships already have in the RAW would be only fair. 
As MisterX asked, has anyone heard anything about this?
What he said 
As I mentioned earlier, Iâve managed to create a few starbase class write-ups, namely for the Watchtower-class, the Alexandria-class, the K-class, and the Lotus-class. Iâm still working on the Buckingham-class, the Sigma-class, the Ournal-class and the Stardock-class, but I should have them ready in a few days.
In the meantime, the space stations that are ready can be found here. None of them have mission profiles; theyâre designed in the manner shown in the Command Division book. Hope you like them!
EDIT (10/10/21 @ 6:11PM EST): the Ournal-class starbase (aka Earth Spacedock One) is now ready for download also.
EDIT 2 (10/11/21 @ 10:22PM EST): I decided to merge the Ournal-class starbase and the Stardock-class starbase into one after deciding that it was too much trouble to reconcile the two different versions. I re-edited the Ournal-class starbase into the Stardock-class starbase. It can be redownloaded from the above link.
Hmmmm⌠With the basics listed in the Command Division book, I guess itâs time for me to revisit this. 
@Sutehp (and anyone else) - Could you PM me what you might find lacking in the original document? Or where else this could be improved?
1 Like
Iâll provide what I can when I get home from work. Stay tuned.
TCArknight, how do I PM you? I canât find any way to do it on this forum. In any case, you can email me at:
cfduque@verizon.net
Email me and I can send you my modified copy of your âStarbases for Star Trek Adventuresâ document. Keep in mind itâs still a work in progress.
Email sent.