Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Home of SOLAR STARFIRE, 6th edition, rules based on the upcoming history of the Terran Solar Union.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby SCC on Mon 07 Apr 2014 01:35

Cralis, isn't section EE the primary reference for what weapons can do, and NOT AA?
SCC
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri 08 Mar 2013 15:11

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Mon 07 Apr 2014 12:10

SCC wrote:Cralis, isn't section EE the primary reference for what weapons can do, and NOT AA?


EE is the only reference for what weapons "can do" (to-hit and damage), AA is the primary reference for availability and mounting characteristics (i.e. cost, HS, SL, etc.). That is why Marvin filled out the tables as much as possible, but because post-SL50 items are not technically available yet, they are not in the trees.

I understand why he flagged them and so I told him why it was done that way. What I didn't appreciate was the counter-response that made it sound like we acted nefariously, especially without a clear "this is what I think should be done." (i.e. a solution to what you perceive to be a problem) The problem with hinting or implying about something you perceive as a problem is that "the other guy" may noy see it, or see it the same way you do. Now that may not have been the intention, and it may be that I interpreted the intent of the wording incorrectly, and if so I apologize. IMHO this is simply not worth the fuss that has followed.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10144
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Tue 08 Apr 2014 17:00

I apologize for escalating the tone of the conversation. It was wrong of me to do so.
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Tue 08 Apr 2014 20:35

To be fair, I've already flagged the SL50+ rapid-fire techs to go back into the trees so there is no confusion. While Marvin may not have put them there, in hind-sight I don't think it matters and it doesn't matter to me. I suspect this is what you were really wanting to suggest :D
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10144
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Rigelian12 on Sun 18 May 2014 08:22

Hii Cralis,

Just found a typo "Elec.01 Communication Center Communication Centers (CC) carry specialized communications ( gea ) and reusable CDs for short-range communications through warp points. A (CC) chain connecting two systems with populations of 25 PU or more may generate income"

Should it be "communication gear"

Cralis - indeed, it should. Marked for edit.
Rigelian12
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu 09 Aug 2012 23:49
Location: NSW Australia

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Tue 01 Jul 2014 15:08

Apologies if this is old news, but I couldn't figure out a search string for this one that the search system didn't reject as "too common". Google didn't find a hit, anyway.

Table N9.01, R&D Accel, appears to have some issues with footnote placement:

* note a, Extra RP available only if the race purchases at least one RP, is shown both for the "Extra RP Available" column as a whole and individually for TA: Assisted EL R&D. I think this should either be solely on the column header, or on every +% RP Rate entry (it only appears to be relevant for those, as those are the only extra RP sources that are cheaper than the base rate RPs). I think the column header makes more sense.

* note b, RP limited by N9.03.4.2, is listed for TA: Assisted R&D "available" column; it should instead be on (only) TA: Assisted EL R&D "available" column.

* note c, NPRs demand repayment for assisting, should be moved on the TA: Assisted EL R&D from the "extra facility" column to the "cost" column (thus matching TA: Assisted R&D above).

* note d, assisting race requires R&D slot, should be added to TA: Assisted EL R&D "extra facility" column (matching TA: Assisted R&D above) and removed from Counter TR header.

Cralis - all of these have already been noted. I think what happened was that we changed the footnotes around at one point in the past and forgot to edit the actual footnote markers above. Oops.
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Wed 02 Jul 2014 08:47

Table W6.03 is missing some entries that support planets out to 350 LM.

(A,B) pairs 1,6; 2,7; 3,8; 4,9; 5,10 should have a planet 8 at 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, respectively.


Cralis - that is because W6.01 limits the maximum distance for planets at 300 LM, less for certain star types. Table W6.04 has an entry out to 350 LM for white stars, it is a typo.
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Thu 03 Jul 2014 08:29

The rules appear to be missing a single definitive listing of what units have weak hulls.
  • D4.06 gives the combat ramifications
  • D6.03.1 says that SS modules, core and outer, are weak
  • G7.06.1.1 says "Remember that FT hulls are weak hulls" -- but notably, no direct mention of FT hulls being weak exists elsewhere.
My preference would be to find the list via chapter H -- either listed there directly, or via something linked from there (such as the Ship and Base Hull Tables). That listing should probably in turn point to D4.06, like the D6 and G7 rules above do. I could also see D4.06 being the right place (but again, I think a pointer from H and/or the Hull Tables would be good).

//edit: nevermind, I see this was noted up-thread. I'll leave my $0.02 on where this could go here, in case it's helpful.
Last edited by Lomn on Thu 03 Jul 2014 08:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Thu 03 Jul 2014 08:35

Lomn wrote:Table W6.03 is missing some entries that support planets out to 350 LM.
Cralis - that is because W6.01 limits the maximum distance for planets at 300 LM, less for certain star types. Table W6.04 has an entry out to 350 LM for white stars, it is a typo.

OK. Given that the correct range limit is 300 LM for white stars, do white stars need to have their Gas outer range limit adjusted? As it stands now, only one system (P1 at 1 LM, P2 at 10 LM) allows even a single Frozen/Ice planet in a white star system.
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Thu 03 Jul 2014 11:05

Lomn wrote:Given that the correct range limit is 300 LM for white stars, do white stars need to have their Gas outer range limit adjusted? As it stands now, only one system (P1 at 1 LM, P2 at 10 LM) allows even a single Frozen/Ice planet in a white star system.


The truth is that were going to adjust some of those ranges but never finished, so we reverted the changes for the release. It's going to have some extended zones in the next version. The 350 was part of that and we just missed reverting it.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10144
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron