He's been taken over by the Andromedans! Quick, quick! Shoot him in the head!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Other known errors in Module E4:

(R1.28B-JR1) Change: Cargo boxes hold 200 spaces of drones or plasma-Ds and/or plasma-Ks depending on the fighters operated by the base.

(R1.28C-JR1) First sentence change ". . . base type-A . . ." to ". . . base has type-A . . .".

(R1.28J-JR1) Change: Cargo boxes hold 100 spaces of drones if the PFs operated by the base use drones.

(R1.28K-JR1) Cargo boxes hold 100 spaces of drones or plasma-Ds and/or plasma-Ks depending on the fighters and/or fast patrol ships operated by the base.

(R1.31-JR1) Change the entry "future" on the fighter table to 12 P-1As.

(R1.46A-JR1) Change: Cargo boxes hold drones, plasma-Ds and/or plasma-Ks if bombers using those weapons are operated from the base.

(R1.46B-JR1) Change: Cargo boxes hold drones, plasma-Ds and/or plasma-Ks if bombers using those weapons are operated from the base.

(R1.48A-JR1) Heavy fighters for the Peladine were in Module E4, delete reference to them being "eventually designed."

(R1.48B-JR1) Heavy fighters for the Peladine were in Module E4, delete reference to them being "eventually designed."

(R1.48C-JR1) Heavy fighters for the Peladine were in Module E4, delete reference to them being "eventually designed." Authorize Piranha-3 fighters?

(R1.83-JR1) Before Y170 plasma-Gs are FA only, plasma-Fs would be LF+L and RF+R.

(J8.0) Annex #4 is wrong and the description of MRS shuttles given here is correct. A six-shot anti-drone system is added in Y173.

(JR1.4) Add six boxes to shield #4.

By Alex Lyons (Afwholf) on Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 08:43 pm: Edit

(KC1.2) I think the word is supposed to be "The"
(GC4.0) innitial paragraph second sentance "Historically, this never occurred, although simulators were rife with such designs" i believe that should be "ripe" with such designs

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Alex,

No, "rife" is the correct word. Using "ripe" would make much less sense.

By Alex Lyons (Afwholf) on Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Ok ive never heard of the word rife, i just thought it looked odd, but if its accurate, then its accurate

By Mike West (Mjwest) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 03:21 pm: Edit

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rife

By Alex Lyons (Afwholf) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Mike, thank you for that information.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Alex Lyons:

Blame a Catholic School education by Irish Nuns supported by an extensive reading habit when I was younger (a book a week every week, sometimes more) even if mostly military history and tactics supplemented by science fiction (if mostly of a military bent) and the occasional detective story (mostly "The Hardy Boys" series when I was younger, but a few others).

I have had more than one person (while I was in the service) introduce me to their spouses as someone with a well-developed vocabulary (which was always embarrassing as I had no idea what to say).

The upshot is that a number of archaic words remain in use by me (purely as a result of the education and reading, not out of pretension, I use them simply because I do so out of habit in my normal conversation) even if they have faded out of general use in modern spoken (American) English (and I, sadly, am not completly cognizant of that fact until someone looks at me and goes "hunh" after I use one).

My use of "rife" is but one example, but I can assure it was correctly used in the sentence in question.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Steven:

I am the same way and use such words around Alex all the time, he has learned to not hear me say them.

The fun part was last night when I asked him how "ripe" was a better word choice than "rife" and the look on his face when he realized that he may have made a mistake.

By Alex Lyons (Afwholf) on Monday, August 29, 2011 - 04:00 pm: Edit

David, thank you for sharing that information.

By Dennis Surdu (Aegis_777) on Saturday, March 16, 2013 - 09:59 pm: Edit

I am curious, what has player feedback told ADB, if anything, about what needs to change with the Nicosians to make them more balanced. Are not their torpedoes too easy to dodge, for example?

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Friday, March 20, 2015 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Where is the Annex 7G information for the Cannadien Carriers? I plan on playtesting them along with the simulator ships from P6 and I need to know how many pls-D reloads for the fighters I get.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, March 20, 2015 - 01:45 pm: Edit

Module G3, p.155

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Friday, March 20, 2015 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Any chance you could provide that particular number to me? I don't own G3 and as a person who gets this stuff with allowance, I'd much rather spend my $2/week on C or R modules than on annexes.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Saturday, March 21, 2015 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Well i hate to say it. I am under a tight budget as well but am so very glad that i bought the G3 master annex. There is so much more in it then io had ever thought as well as telling me what and were ships are found. I say it is really a must have type thing.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Saturday, March 21, 2015 - 06:05 pm: Edit

MCV/12/3/3/150¥/12

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, March 21, 2015 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Ship/Fighters/Admin/Bays/Storage/DeckCrews

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 21, 2015 - 07:58 pm: Edit

G3 is a great must have. I've had my copy for a good while now and still use it almost every time I have to look up something on the SFB side for F&E ships.

By Guillaume Williams (Uioor1) on Saturday, March 21, 2015 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Thank you for the info, it will be helpful when I begin playtesting this ship with my family. I hope that it will be helpful in the publication of C4F or just the furthering of the SFU.

By Deirdre Brooks (Deirdrebrooks) on Sunday, March 22, 2015 - 12:04 pm: Edit

I don't have G3 yet but G1 from the 90s was a godsend.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Friday, August 21, 2015 - 07:35 pm: Edit

What about a revamp of the playtest page and a formal reorganization like you guys did with the battlegroups? Then maybe ADB could get some more playtest reports.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 22, 2015 - 08:06 am: Edit

I doubt it would help but it couldn't hurt to try.

My own feeling is that the play test page was more or less abandoned because nobody sent reports, not that nobody sent reports because the page wasn't pretty.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Saturday, August 22, 2015 - 09:49 am: Edit

I agree it is not the page, but as far as I know the battlegroups had kind of died off but with the revamp and the social media pushes it has taken off again somewhat. I hope that with a playtest revamp, Jean's marketing magic and a social media plus web push it might get a couple playtest reports and even one or two would be better than none.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, August 22, 2015 - 10:42 am: Edit

We may need Jean to do "social media pushes" for playtesting, but only after the material on the playtest page is updated.

By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, August 22, 2015 - 01:36 pm: Edit

I believe part of the issue is there is no feedback or updates to the playtest pages. The main page has not been updated since Updated 20 June 2007. The playtest material (http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/playtest/playtest_base.shtml) was last updated 24 March 2009.