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 thebard on Sun 09 Nov 2014 04:34

Hello all...


Section W.2.2

Process...
4a) If a nomad...... Nomad? Should this be nexus? (And if not, what is a "nomad"?)


maybe less important, but as I'm here:

10) Apply Nebula effects - the first time I read this I thought that there are always nebula effects (maybe better: "apply nebula effects if in a nebula" or "apply any nebula effects"



I'm also unsure about the definition of "gas giant"
Rule W6.6 has, for type I (but not type G) "gas giants far from the stars"
But page 351, table 12. Title "Gas Giant makes AST belt". Each G world has a 20%.....
I would have assumed gas giant is only massive G-type planets (or also the largest I-type planets)
but these 2 phrases aren't in agreement. (further thoughts about "giant planets" and mass index are further down in this post)



Gas Giants W.07.2.3
"Gas giants are more massive than rocky or ice planets of the same mass"
I can imagine the reaction of any physics teacher upon seeing this. I assume that you mean the the mass scale (mass=1 or 2 or 3) is in relation to the planet type, so a mass=2 T planet has much less mass that a mass=2 gas planet.
Maybe you could change the phrase to "Gas giants are more massive than rocky or ice planets of the same mass index (for example a mass=2 T planet has much less mass that a mass=2 gas planet)"

Alternativley (moving away from "typos" and into "suggestions", change table W6.05 planet types by the inclusion of 2 more lines which would read
101-125 Mass 4 -- -- -- Type G Type I
126-150 Mass 5 -- -- -- Type G --
with the note that, if the first role is 26 or more for the gas and ice zone, the role is repeated but adding 50 (gas) or 25 (ice) zone. This would then allow the use of a single mass-scale, with the gas and ice giants being clearly mass=4 and mass=5. (and possibly defining explicitly that mass=3,4,5 I and G planets are giant for the effects of AST formation)
Example Gas-zone, role of 22 : mass1 type-B
gas-zone, role of 45. Repeat role of 56, add 50 = 106. Mass=4, type-G (gas giant)
ice-zone, role of 75. Repeat role of 13+25 = 38. Mass=2 type I
ice-zone, rol of 35. Repeat role of 78+25=103. Mass=4, Type I
thebard
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2014 08:47

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Sun 09 Nov 2014 21:57

thebard wrote:Section W.2.2

Process...
4a) If a nomad...... Nomad? Should this be nexus? (And if not, what is a "nomad"?)


"nomad" is the CLASSIC STARFIRE name for "nexus systems" ... we tried to wipe that out when we were editing the rules but it was used interchangeably quite a bit over the years.

I believe in the Weber/White novels they explained them as systems where the WPs "wandered away" from a star system. In SOLAR STARFIRE we obviously have a different definition. I've made the edit, thank you.

maybe less important, but as I'm here:

10) Apply Nebula effects - the first time I read this I thought that there are always nebula effects (maybe better: "apply nebula effects if in a nebula" or "apply any nebula effects"


Yeah, we can adjust that to be more clear. Done.

I'm also unsure about the definition of "gas giant"
Rule W6.6 has, for type I (but not type G) "gas giants far from the stars"
But page 351, table 12. Title "Gas Giant makes AST belt". Each G world has a 20%.....
I would have assumed gas giant is only massive G-type planets (or also the largest I-type planets)
but these 2 phrases aren't in agreement. (further thoughts about "giant planets" and mass index are further down in this post)


In this case they are talking about W7.02.3 (which you've quoted below), and the rule is talking about BOTH Type-G and Type-I worlds ("Gas Giants"). I'll put a note in W7.02.3 to make this clear.

Gas Giants W.07.2.3
"Gas giants are more massive than rocky or ice planets of the same mass"
I can imagine the reaction of any physics teacher upon seeing this. I assume that you mean the the mass scale (mass=1 or 2 or 3) is in relation to the planet type, so a mass=2 T planet has much less mass that a mass=2 gas planet.


These are "mass categories" intended to give relative effects. We kept the original design, which was that each "zone" had it's own actual definition for each mass rating. Vandervecken agrees with that it doesn't look good, so when he made his own sysgen he has unified the mass ratings onto a single chart with gas giants having high value (6 or more I think, you can ask him about it).

Maybe you could change the phrase to "Gas giants are more massive than rocky or ice planets of the same mass index (for example a mass=2 T planet has much less mass that a mass=2 gas planet)"


We haven't decided to change it yet. But I'll take your suggestion under advisement when we do have that discussion.
Alternativley (moving away from "typos" and into "suggestions", change table W6.05 planet types by the inclusion of 2 more lines which would read
101-125 Mass 4 -- -- -- Type G Type I
126-150 Mass 5 -- -- -- Type G --
with the note that, if the first role is 26 or more for the gas and ice zone, the role is repeated but adding 50 (gas) or 25 (ice) zone. This would then allow the use of a single mass-scale, with the gas and ice giants being clearly mass=4 and mass=5. (and possibly defining explicitly that mass=3,4,5 I and G planets are giant for the effects of AST formation)
Example Gas-zone, role of 22 : mass1 type-B
gas-zone, role of 45. Repeat role of 56, add 50 = 106. Mass=4, type-G (gas giant)
ice-zone, role of 75. Repeat role of 13+25 = 38. Mass=2 type I
ice-zone, rol of 35. Repeat role of 78+25=103. Mass=4, Type I


Ah, I see what you're saying. Interesting idea. Be careful, Vandervecken might steal it!
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10149
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Vandervecken on Thu 13 Nov 2014 01:39

Cralis wrote:Ah, I see what you're saying. Interesting idea. Be careful, Vandervecken might steal it!


Nah, I like my single die roll per planetary slot table just a little better; but thebard's idea is an nice house rule for a Standard Solar Sysgen'ed universe.
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby VoidStalker_WoE on Thu 13 Nov 2014 09:56

Ok well, this is the place for typos to goto, I guess. Here is my first one:

Yep, on page 346 under Terrain, first sentence: "...(–0 for think AB, .....Should be ....-0 for thin AB...)

Cralis: marked for edit.
User avatar
VoidStalker_WoE
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun 21 Sep 2014 16:36
Location: Ann Arbor, Mi

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby thebard on Sat 17 Jan 2015 12:54

someone's probably found these already but I'm too lazer to shift through 10 pages of typos....

W5.05.7
"A WP to close to ..." TOO close

Titus-bode relation : _> titius-bode

Cralis: W5.05.7 marked for edit. Titus- removed, as it is apparently known only as "Bode's Law" today.
thebard
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2014 08:47

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Whitecold on Wed 28 Jan 2015 01:14

I guess this is a Typo, tractors/pressors work differently for AP and Cargo:

Table E4.01A
From a unit with tractors 3 per tractor beam
To a unit with pressors 3 per pressor beam
To a unit with tractors 1 AP per tractor beam
From a unit with pressors 1 AP per pressor beam
Whitecold
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri 19 Sep 2014 15:03

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby tkinias on Wed 28 Jan 2015 07:40

Cralis: W5.05.7 marked for edit. Titus- removed, as it is apparently known only as "Bode's Law" today.


It’s not really called anything since it’s not taught any more :)

For what it’s worth, though, Wikipedia calls it the Titius–Bode law. A Google ngram shows that Bode’s law has always been more common than Titius–Bode law, which didn’t really start being used at all frequently until around 1970. It looks like the long-term trend is to call it Titius-Bode, though the real long-term trend is not to refer to it at all, of course. See here.

I learned it in school as Bode’s law, but I suspect the error referring to it as Titus– rather than Titius–Bode is rather long standing in SF, enough so that Titus didn’t even sound wrong to me.
tkinias
Lieutenant SG
Lieutenant SG
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue 20 Jan 2015 01:33

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Vandervecken on Tue 03 Feb 2015 01:55

Found a very small typo ...

AA7.07 Bombs
Dumb nuclear bombs (dropped from st, ast, or holds) ar SL0, cost ...

underlined 'ar' should be 'are'.

Cralis: Got it! Marked for edit.

I'm amazed reddavid, Les, or Lomn didn't catch this. I'd like to thank them, SDS, and everybody else who is making Solar so much easier to read when compared to Ultra. And I really look forward to the Solar version that will come out this year; the cleanest version yet!

I'd be remiss if I didn't give thanks the same. I don't say it enough, but without all the care and attention that the players give the rules, and without all the effort by the SDS team, these rules would not be half as good as they are. Thank you to everyone!
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Tue 03 Feb 2015 13:29

At the risk of straying into the "hyper-optional" portion of the rules....

I've been coding the GG5 life forms into the solar spreadsheet and noticed that Super Terran populations have a different population cap in GG5 (Table GG5.06) than they do in the standard rules (Table L1). Is that intentional?

Specifically, GG5 increases:
Benign from 3000 + 250*EL to 3500 + 250*EL
Hostile from 750 + 150*EL to 750 + 200*EL
(T population limits still match the L1 data)
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 tkinias on Tue 03 Feb 2015 15:24

Lomn wrote:At the risk of straying into the "hyper-optional" portion of the rules....

I've been coding the GG5 life forms into the solar spreadsheet and noticed that Super Terran populations have a different population cap in GG5 (Table GG5.06) than they do in the standard rules (Table L1). Is that intentional?

Specifically, GG5 increases:
Benign from 3000 + 250*EL to 3500 + 250*EL
Hostile from 750 + 150*EL to 750 + 200*EL
(T population limits still match the L1 data)


The higher limit actually makes more sense IMHO since those worlds are... y’know, bigger.

But while we’re on GG5 typos, GG5.06.10.1 Initial PU Placement refers twice to “I” races having “F” homeworlds. I think that should be F races, and the note about “G” races should probably refer to both “G” and “I” races.
tkinias
Lieutenant SG
Lieutenant SG
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue 20 Jan 2015 01:33

PreviousNext

Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron