Rulebook now, or should I wait?

Post by **Steve Cole** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:43 pm

I hope I have a list of these "new wordings" that I need to write.

Yesterday, the ADD gained an offensive fire capability (against drones and shuttles/fighters) and the ability to shoot at suicide shuttles.

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:55 pm

Steve Cole wrote: Yesterday, the ADD gained an offensive fire capability (against drones and shuttles/fighters) and the ability to shoot at suicide shuttles.

Only suicide shuttles, or shuttles in the generic term (i.e. stingers)

[edit] NVM - I missed the 'fighters' bit, doh.

dharras · Post by **dharras** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:05 pm

storeylf wrote:
Steve Cole wrote: Yesterday, the ADD gained an offensive fire capability (against drones and shuttles/fighters) and the ability to shoot at suicide shuttles.
Only suicide shuttles, or shuttles in the generic term (i.e. stingers)

Reading the above, I'd guess it can be used offensively against fighters, and defensively against suicide shuttles. I think there's no way it can be used defensively against a fighter as they'll not impact....

storeylf · Post by **storeylf** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:07 pm

Just out of interest why the ADD change, it was only 6 months ago that most people posting here thought ADDs were fine vs drones - though some were concerned about BoM fighters.

What happened in those months to result in the change?

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:30 pm

Steve Cole wrote:I hope I have a list of these "new wordings" that I need to write.

They are in the big list of things I sent.

OGOPTIMUS · Post by **OGOPTIMUS** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:53 pm

Steve Cole wrote:I hope I have a list of these "new wordings" that I need to write.

Yesterday, the ADD gained an offensive fire capability (against drones and shuttles/fighters) and the ability to shoot at suicide shuttles.

Awesome! Can't wait to see the new book finished!

Is the format going to be the same, with new sections marked with a star, or will everything be re-written and integrated so that no sections will be marked for attention?

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:12 pm

OGOPTIMUS wrote:Is the format going to be the same, with new sections marked with a star, or will everything be re-written and integrated so that no sections will be marked for attention?

New items (which I believe will include both rev5 items and newer rev6 items) will again be marked with a star.

That said, I have tried to go back and identify situations where the "starred" item changed something in the original rule. In those cases, I have sent line items that would hopefully integrate the new note into the original rule, eliminating any potential contradiction. Two examples are (5L3) and (5D6b). I expect that even in such cases, the star will be wedged in somehow.

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:18 pm

storeylf wrote:Just out of interest why the ADD change, it was only 6 months ago that most people posting here thought ADDs were fine vs drones - though some were concerned about BoM fighters.

What happened in those months to result in the change?

Well, first, the change being made here is very different from the change requested in the linked thread. While I am sure Hod will like the change (as ADDs can now fire at shuttles), it still falls short of his request.

Second, ADDs, while working fine in their original role, are extremely limited. The point of this change is to make ADD racks into more of a useful weapon so that they are a "real" secondary system, rather than serving primarily as "padding" for drone racks.

As for why now? I don't know. I guess it just seemed like a good time.

gar1138 · Post by **gar1138** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:43 pm

I posted a few items awhile ago from the RRB that I want to be sure are at least looked at for the Rev6 version. They can be found in this thread: http://www.starfleetgames.com/federatio ... php?t=2930

Thanks,

Garrett

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:12 pm

Actually, I had missed two of them. I have sent them in, so they should get addressed.

gar1138 · Post by **gar1138** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:57 pm

mjwest wrote:Actually, I had missed two of them. I have sent them in, so they should get addressed.

Great, thanks! Can't wait for the new revision (I'll be buying both an e23 and a printed copy)!

Garrett

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:09 am

I sure wish those starred items could be integrated more normally into the text.

I'm wondering if there is any other easy way to let the user know the changes without breaking the continuity of the rules with those starred sentences.

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:20 am

Mike wrote:I sure wish those starred items could be integrated more normally into the text.

I'm wondering if there is any other easy way to let the user know the changes without breaking the continuity of the rules with those starred sentences.

Most of the "stars" are pure additions (meaning additional information/clarification, not new rules). As such, putting them on the bottom is as good a place as any. There really are not that many spots where the "star" needs to be more fully integrated. (About a half dozen or so.)

And I think I have noted all of them for Steve. It is still up to him to agree/disagree with my suggestions. But I have noted them.

Post by **Steve Cole** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:54 pm

I don't have an email with two new items, Mike.

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:13 pm

Steve Cole wrote:I don't have an email with two new items, Mike.

I just resent them.