(C11.2) "Interceptor" should be plural.

(C5.232) "... [a ship] can never have more than one TAC available in any eight impulse period..." - This doesn't make any sense at all in the context. A ship can never have more than one TAC available period, so the eight impulse restriction is silly. If we instead interpret it as saying that a ship can't use a TAC and then acquire another one within eight impulses, this prevents a ship from actually performing four warp TACs in a single turn, as if it allocates power for four and then acquires the first one on Impulse #2, if it uses the TAC, it can't acquire one on Impulse #8 since that would violate this restriction; if it doesn't use it, then it loses the TAC on Impulse #8. I think the intent of this rule is clear, but the wording leaves something to be desired.

By Sean Hunt (Coppro) on Friday, April 22, 2011 - 05:49 pm: Edit

(C12.24) The last paragraph says that "In all above cases, ... The ship is at Speed 20 ..." but the last example features an Andro ship never moving at speed 20.

By Sean Hunt (Coppro) on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 09:56 pm: Edit

The example for (D15.32) has RAS syndrome; it reads "... and one GAS shuttle.". The "shuttle" should be omitted.

Hmm... on second thought, this is actually quite endemic with shuttle acronyms. I don't know if you want to actually fix that, but my inner pedant insists that it be fixed.

By Sean Hunt (Coppro) on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 11:40 pm: Edit

A few other comments:

Section A feels quite weird in the context of a master rulebook. There are other references to "future products", especially on rules originating in the basic set, that sort of remove the "consolidated rulebook" feel and give it a "bunch of modules glued together" feel (I know it's the latter, but it should strive to also be the former I think).

Ground combat (D15.0) seems like it was written for another game entirely, in particular as (D15.36) says "link with SFB" which is odd in the SFB rules. Cleaning it up a little bit would be nice.

One of the weird things about the master rulebook is that modules didn't have Commander's and Advanced designations on rules. This is usually fine for C module rules since if you're playing with that race you will need to know what their systems do, but a couple of odd ones stand out - are plasma sabots and carronades considered "basic" rues? What about PFs?

By Sean Hunt (Coppro) on Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - 06:29 pm: Edit

(D19.221) the last sentence is repeated once with an acronym, once without.

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, May 01, 2011 - 08:28 pm: Edit

I have hyperlinked the eMRB and found a number of bad or obsolete cross-references:

(X1.0) - Page 4
(Y1.0) - Page 4
(Z6.1) - Page 7 - (A3.214)
(Z6.1) - Page 8 - (A3.221)
(G13.93) - Page 44 - (C13.91)
(K8.223) - Page 87 - (D14.32)
(K8.234) - Page 88 - (D14.32)
(H8.13) - Page 149 - (E21.312)
(H8.13) - Page 289 - (G37.21)
(H8.13) - Page 289 - (G37.212)
(H8.13) - Page 289 - (G37.222)
(FD2.252) - Page 174 - (FD10.4254)
(K1.384) - Page 192 - (FP11.11)
(D6.333) - Page 207 - (G7.412)
(R10.3316) - Page 235 - (G14.745)
(D6.1344) - Page 251 - (G21.2123)
(D22.16) - Page 287 - (G36.221)
(G24.2214) - Page 295 - (H7.2)
(S8.2321) - Page 406 - (S8.2826)
(S3.322) - Page 409 - (S8.49)

(XE1.40) - Page 416 - Should be (X1.4)
(EX16.1) - Page 417 - Should be (XE16.1)
(XP3.12) - Page 424 - Should be (XR3.12)

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Monday, May 30, 2011 - 10:52 pm: Edit

I've been poking around to see what I missed.

From looking at things it looks like there isn't an (paper) update pack instead of a complete replacement of the MRB, am I barking up the right tree.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 30, 2011 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Check your profile info on your e-23 account, there should be a setting for e-mail notifications of product updates. Make sure it is on.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - 12:28 am: Edit

Kenneth, there were so many pages with changes that it practically was the whole rulebook. Some were minor ("race" became "empire") and some incorporated rulings.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - 12:46 am: Edit

Nick that would have been useful if I had been online from Late Oct until March. Since I wasn't and shortly after getting back an electrical power surge killed my PC and I had to buy another taking another month of downtime...

Tnx Jean it will most likely be a good while until I'll be able to justify the expense of replacing something I already have for more material.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - 06:49 am: Edit

Kenneth, I think the biggest change was that "more stuff" was included. Parts of R and S are in this version. I think the Steves said it grew by 50 pages.

Keep it in mind for a present, perhaps. There's Father's Day coming up and there's always birthdays. That said, we've always said the Real Life (TM) takes priority over gaming and the MRB will be there when you're ready for it.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 09:38 pm: Edit

(D6.371) This rule still lists Dicplacement Devices, but Displacement Devices should NOT be in this list. The EW shift is applied to the Dicplacement die roll as explained in various Displacement Device rules. See Annex #7P in module G3 for verification.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 03, 2011 - 09:45 pm: Edit

(FD10.52) The cost of a speed 12 1/2 space module should be .25, not .50 as shown in the table. A single speed 12 dogfight drone should cost .5, (.25 for the warhead and .25 for the speed 12 engine) not .75. The cost to increase a dogfight drone from speed 12 to 20 should be .25 (not 0), and the cost to go from speed 12 all the way to speed 32 should be .50 (not .25). Remember that dogfight drones don't have the same progression as types I and IV, those drone pay .5 to go from speed 8 to EITHER 12 or 20, and pay 1.0 to go from speed 8 to 32. Dogfight drones start at 12, pay .25 to go to 20, and pay .50 to go to 32.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 10:54 am: Edit

(P2.62) The shading in this rule's graphic could use some darkening. Four of us looked at it yesterday (to compare to my faded print version) and were just barely able to make out which hexes were shaded and which were not.
-Troy J Latta, 2011/08/29

By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Are you talking about the left graphic? If you can't tell the difference, it is your computer or pdf program. The shading is at about 50% and could not be any clearer to me.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 09:08 pm: Edit

Mine is fine, as well.

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Tuesday, August 30, 2011 - 09:50 am: Edit

Hm. It seems exactly as pale as my print copy from '99 (10% shading, by eyeball), so we assumed it was a problem in the file.

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Monday, September 12, 2011 - 06:18 pm: Edit

(J1.333) SENSORS: The statement "A crippled shuttle cannot perform an HET or EM." has nothing to do with sensors, and should be listed under (J1.331) or (J1.336).
-Andy Vancil 12 September 2011

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, September 12, 2011 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Either that or the title should be 'MISC' (instead of 'SENSORS') as it covers items not mentioned above...

By Andy Vancil (Andy) on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 12:41 am: Edit

(D3.42) or (D3.43) There are ambiguous situations that can arise from two ships entering the same hex simultaneously that can only be resolved by (D3.43-C2) (die roll). This was written up in detail in CL#21, but needs to make it into this rule section.
-Andy Vancil 29 September 2011

By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Friday, December 09, 2011 - 06:06 pm: Edit

The X1R errata did not make it into the eMRB. Specifically, the items posted in the Captain's Log 38 supplemental file.