Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

[LesMasters]

Not sure whether this is a typo or intentional:

H1.06.5 Planetary Defense Centers
PDCs are built like a base except they don’t require any systems and they cannot mount shields [M6.02].

Les

Cralis: LOL! They don't require any life support systems... I guess spell check won't help us catch that one, will it?

[LesMasters]

Found this one earlier, then lost it again:

Under "L1.04.1.1 PTU Growth (Optional)"
Note: PTU Growth is much slower than PU growth, but is more realistic. PU growth is accelerated to allow populations to growth large within the expected length of an average game. Should be "...to grow large..."

Les

Cralis: marked for edit.

[LesMasters]

Two in Section W

"W5.05.5.3 Proto-Disk System Effects The entire system is filled with the equivalent of an emissions nebula except that it does not affect planetary formations." Should be "emission" (single). [Minor/quibble.]

Cralis: by our writing standards, should be "Emission Nebula [W5.04.4]" so I'm marking to change to that.

"W5.05.2.1 Pulsar Damage Pulsar emissions are strong enough that they cause smcft to take 1 DP per hour of exposure, with any smcft exposed for less than an hour take the DP damage after landing." Should be "taking"

Cralis: hmmm... not sure which is more correct, but I'll mark to check for possible edit.

"W6.06 Planet Type Definitions
The following definitions...
Note: These descriptions are for T/ST races. When using [GG5.06] the hospitality will be different for other race types." Should be either "hospitability" or "habitability".

Cralis - yikes. The other end of the spell check error? Marked for edit.

[LesMasters]

Here are various typos and comments from the Introduction and Section A. Nothing major.

Introduction
4th para. “But we are also moving to support online board gaming systems like Vassal so players can play without leaving your computer.” Inappropriate change from 3rd to 2nd person (should be “their computers”, or “…so you can play…” (I suspect this has carried over from previous versions of SSF, and maybe even from Ultra!)

Cralis: Hmmm. Probably. Interesting that nobody caught it all this time.

A3.(Whole section) This is largely a holdover from Galactic (the last edition of the game to supply counters on cardboard die-cut sheets as a matter of course.) Probably needs a serious rewrite.

Cralis: You think so, eh? Aside from the fact that there are downloadable versions of the counters...

A4 Ship Control Sheets
… (3rd para): “Rule [A4.01] describes the master control sheets for large units in the tactical scenarios provided…” Since Solar does not (currently) provide “tactical scenarios” as part of the package, should this not end at “…large units?” Or mention the location (elsewhere) of these scenarios? (Another holdover from Galactic.)

Cralis: While the rules do not have scenarios (Lord knows we don't need the rules any bigger!!), we have already made the Training Scenarios available and we are going to be releasing more this year.

A6.02 Spacecraft Definitions
…Mine • Armed Buoy that are built with the AP rules. [H3] If I was an English teacher, this would be underlined several dozen times! (Probably after my head had finished exploding...)

Cralis: heh, speaking of things left over from Ultra... (I looked). I never caught that one either. Marked for edit.

A6.03 Tech System Definitions
Active Defensive System • Defensive systems that must be turned on to have an effect.
Example: Tractor disrupter “Td” and EMS “?”. Should be “Examples” (plural)

Cralis: Marked for edit.

A9 Strategic Game Definitions
…. Record Form. Solar does not currently provide any “official” record forms, and this is the only reference to the term “record form” in the entire PDF. A redundancy, rather than a typo.

Cralis: The spreadsheets are record forms, and whether or not any have been provided (and whether or not that remains true for very much longer), the player still needs to use record forms.

… Spaceport. This is probably redundant as well, since there are (currently) no rules for civilian infrastructure in Solar. At the moment, it is synonymous with “population centre”, and should perhaps be so replaced wherever it occurs in the rules. (I made it 6 locations, including this one.)

Cralis: Currently all colonized bodies have a spaceport (K1.02, actually), but that may not always be true, and it may not always require a colonized body. That has been left for a reason...

Les

[Cralis]

With this version the rules have become more stable, with less errors, but with 400+ pages there are always going to be one or two minor mistakes. This topic is for you to tell us what you find.

A brief overview of the editing icons:

"Add" - means that the adjacent text has been newly added.

"Mod" - means that something in the adjacent text has been modified.

"Del" - means that some text, either before or after the del icon, was deleted. Most of these deletions were because we've re-ordered the rules and some sub-rules have been shifted around. But occasionally we actually delete something.

If you believe you have found a typographical error or a rule problem please post at a minimum the rule number, paragraph in which the issue is located, as well as the issue itself. One of us will check the rules and edit your post to acknowledge the error, list the fix if appropriate, or otherwise explain why it is that way if it isn't actually a error.

Thank you for helping us improve SOLAR STARFIRE! With your help each version will be better and better!

[LesMasters]

v6.02 201307

From Section B, Tactical Sequence

Not really a typo, either

"Phase 4. Tractor Beam Phase [E5]
Beam Movement [E5.05].
Tractor Pulse (until all units have unused tractors)."

I think I know what this is meant to mean, but it seems rather awkward. How about, “until all units that wish to have used their tractors”?

Les

Cralis: don't think that would fit on the same line.

[LesMasters]

v6.02 201307

Found in Section C

“C1.03.3 Running Damage Engines” Should be “Damaged”.

Cralis: Marked for edit.

“C4.03.1.1 Ships entering a WP on later pulses before a larger unit finishes transiting, all of the ships will exit the WP on the same movement pulse of the unit that will take the longest to transit the WP (and then check for interpenetrate).” Was there meant to be a title here? If not, the first sentence should read “If ships enter a WP on later pulses before a larger unit finishes transiting, all of the ships will exit the WP…” (It should read thus anyway, even if a title is added.)

Cralis: This is an affirmative statement, not a branching statement. This is the way Marvin edits and the rules are full of this type of wording... I actually prefer it because it avoids players saying "what if they don't ______ ?? "

C11.04.1.3… Example: A ship under acceleration has an RR of 1/2. On tactical turn 1 it cannot rotate. On tactical turn 2 it can rotate 1 facing. On tactical turn 3 it continues to accelerate, but on tactical turn 4 it stop accelerating…” Should be “stops”

Cralis: Marked for edit.

Les

PS It occurred to me that I haven't checked the links (especially to the Examples) in any Sections A-C.

Cralis: Not as big of a deal. Dazrand's editing software manages those on it's own, and the only reason we have broken links anymore is because we are pushing the limits of how many are allowed!

[LesMasters]

PPS

To the guys who wrote and proof-read these rules:

I've so far read 27 pages of text (excluding the contents) and not found any major errors - certainly none which make the rule incomprehensible or subvert its intentions. I think you guys have done a great job in proof-reading this - I've just finished Section C, and almost gave up about two-thirds of the way through because my attention was beginning to drift. (And because reading rules just to check for typos is just no fun at all!)

Les

Cralis: Thank you, but really the credit goes to you, Reddavid, PracticalM, Xveers, Vandervecken... ALL of YOU who have taken the time to post the hundreds of typo and bug reports here on the forums. The credit goes to Dazrand, Elminster, Dawn Falcon, Procyon, BillW, and everyone in the SDS & playtesting groups who proofread the new material in such a short time!

[LesMasters]

v6.02 201307

Here's one from Section D (D7 was as far as I managed to get during clack time at work today).

“D7.04.1 Nature of the Battle
…This paragraph is definitely not always 30 days or always same or adjacent systems. It is much more about the nature of a particular attack campaign….”

I think there might be something missing from the beginning of this sentence. Either that, or “paragraph” was not the intended word.

Les

Cralis: don't know, but it doesn't say what I think it should say either. How about:

The nature of a combat campaign may be such that 30 days may be too few or too many, or the campaign may wage across more than a few adjacent systems. The SM may choose that losses for an entire campaign may count together regardless of space or time constraints.

[LesMasters]

Yeah, I'd go with that

Les