Errata...please?

KamokaziUK

Mongoose
I know that i have heard about a second printing of the core book...but is there going to be an online PDF before....

also on a side note, not that i rushed out to get 'The coming of shadows' but has it been proof-read? i have spotted more than one mistake. The most obvious one being that Sheridan blew up the 'Dark Star' during the Earth/Minbari war...

Its no wonder Londo got so annoyed with him sometimes....
 
KamokaziUK said:
also on a side note, not that i rushed out to get 'The coming of shadows' but has it been proof-read? i have spotted more than one mistake. The most obvious one being that Sheridan blew up the 'Dark Star' during the Earth/Minbari war...


The funny thing is, that same problem was in the main rulebook, and was pointed out no more than a week after it was in the hands of the general public. And yet, it slipped into yet another book two months later. Needless to say, if The "Dark Star" manages to weasel it's way into the Minbari book, there are going to be some irritated people.

Hey Mongoose, here's a tip. Make sure your editors aren't friends. Don't RP with them, don't invite them over for dinner or a friendly poker game. Because SOMEBODY is /NOT/ proofreading these books. And it's likely because there are "no hard feelings" between friends. You have a writer in Kentucky, why not get an editor in the States too? That way there is no connection, and the sole evaluation will be on job performance.

If /I/ spot grammatical errors, then they are blatantly obvious. And I have seen my share of Sepakers(Speakers) and Dark Stars in these books released so far. Just a tip. And I second the notion for a errata PDF. We had a nice long error thread going on the old board, I hope somebody was paying attention to it.
 
saberj said:
And I second the notion for a errata PDF. We had a nice long error thread going on the old board, I hope somebody was paying attention to it.

The error thread seems to have gone the way of Babylon 4. :)

Seriously, the B5 book suffers far less than any of the other new RPGs I've bought recently. It doesn't have missing ranges for weapons (Buffy), a mass combat system that doesn't work (Lord of the Rings) or worst of all a character creation system that is difficult to understand and has a fundamendtal error in it (Star Trek).

My biggest gripe is the index. Anything that begins with 'The...' is under T in the index. Where do you find 'The Centauri Republic'? Under T.

And I looked up IPX. The index said pp292-304. Pages 292-304 are the Glossary and Index. Boy was that helpful. :roll: But IPX is mentioned in 'Infection' (pp183-187) and there is a section on running an IPX campaign on p273.
 
Greg Smith said:
Seriously, the B5 book suffers far less than any of the other new RPGs I've bought recently. It doesn't have missing ranges for weapons (Buffy), a mass combat system that doesn't work (Lord of the Rings) or worst of all a character creation system that is difficult to understand and has a fundamendtal error in it (Star Trek).

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who has those gripes about LotR and Trek, although I would point out that there's more than one fundamental errors in the Trek character creation system. :)

I agree wholeheartedly, B5 is far better on the accuracy and quality scales.
 
Greg Smith said:
It doesn't have ... a mass combat system that doesn't work ...

It does have a starship combat system that does not (in my opinion) work.

===== Issue #1: The Sensors, the Acquire Target bonus and Firing my weapons
For example, on page 73, it states that a character may take any of the following combinations of actions in a turn:
  • a standard action
  • a standard action and a move-equivalent action
  • a full round action
In actuality, there are a couple of other options under the standard d20 rules:
  • a move-equivalent action
  • two move equivalent actions
But no matter... the actions that appear to be required for combat (in my many readings of the rules involved), seem to make combat impossible for a one-man fighter. For example, on page 73, it indicates that a ship may use its sensors to detect the enemy. The Narn Frazi Heavy Fighter has a sensor rating of +3. So... our esteemed pilot flies in, uses his standard action use the sensors to make acquiring the target (his next step) easier. Fair enough. He rolls and detects the Delta-V sitting some 60 squares away. No problem. My question: how long does this last? If it lasts only a round, he will have lost his target before he can fire, and will need to acquire again; if it is continuous, it is impossible to lose track of the ship once it is acquired. No rules cover this, that I can find.

Still, this rule seems straight forward enough -- so lets move on.

Closing with the Delta-V, the Narn Pilot now has to make an acquire target check. This is also a standard action (which as we discuss above, is limited to one per turn). OK... he closes, rolls and makes it. He has acquired his target. But, since attacking is a standard action, he cannot attack this turn. My question here: does the target need to be in the arc of a given weapon or weapons in order to be acquired, or is this no needed at this stage of the game?

So, in our next turn, the Delta-V has moved, making a turn to avoid the closing and targeting guns of the Narn. Unfortunately, this makes firing with the bonus of this targeting computer impossible for the Narn, because as soon as he turns, he will have made an action, which according to page 74, means he has lost his acquisition of his target. Now, he still has a standard action he can take after his turn maneuver... so he can fire without the bonus... but, if he wants this +2, he will need to acquire the target again... and because turns are DC 0 maneuvers, he will never be able to get this little Delta-V in line, acquired, and fired upon...

This appears to be because the actions acquire target, attack, evasive action, and targeting run are all standard actions (and thus limited to one per turn) and they end as soon as the next action is taken (meaning it is possible for me to acquire a target, and then make a turn maneuver to get into firing position -- thus losing the acquisition in the process).

Next... let us assume that the "until the operator's next action" is supposed to read "until the end of the operator's next turn" instead.

If this is the case (assuming that sensors are not needed every turn) then it appears that it would work. Allow me to illustrate:
  • Pre Turn 1: I have used sensors to detect the Delta-V.
  • Turn 1: I maneuver in and acquire target
  • Turn 2: The Delta-V makes a turn maneuver, and so I maneuver in to match and fire. I have now lost the acquisition, and will need to re-acquire target before I fire again if I want the +2 bonus.
This seems odd, and against the grain of the show, if you assume that even the fastest and most rapid-firing fighter-based weapon in the game is limited to once per two turns (every 10 seconds) if they want the full effect, assuming that all maneuvers to keep the target in arc are successful. As I would need to repeat the sequence of events above over and over, getting to fire at the enemy with my bonus at most once every two turns.



===== Issue #2: The Sharlin War Cruiser and the Immelmann Turn
The Narn Heavy Fighter has a handling bonus of +3. This means, prior to taking any piloting bonuses into account, this little guy can perform a Sharp Turn successfully 8 times in 20, or about 40% of the time. Additionally, it can successfully perform an Extreme Turn (or a loop) 3 times in 20, or about 15% of the time. Strangely, the Immelmann turn, which may or may not be a much more drastic change of direction, has exactly the same DC as the extreme turn (even though its only purpose would be to make a 180, as all other angles are covered in Turn, Sharp Turn and Extreme Turn).

The Minbari Sharlin Class Heavy Cruiser has a handling bonus of +2 -- just ever so slightly below that of our esteemed fighter above. So, if I am reading this correctly, we are dealing with a ship that no more that 32 feet in length (by size class) and has only a +1 handling rating over a ship that is somewhere between 256-512 feet in length (by size class) [1]. Evidently, the Sharlin is rather nimble. It can pull off Sharp Turns (before any piloting bonuses are applied) 7 times in 20, or about 35% of the time. It can make Extreme Turns 2 times in 20, or about 10% of the time. This Heavy Cruiser can even pull of a Loop or a Immelmann turn 10% of the time as well. Give the Sharlin an elite crew, and it can pull of a show that would amaze the trainers of the Lipizzaner stallions.

I would say that three things are off in these rules: the handling bonuses are far too low for the fighters and other small craft; the handling bonuses are far too high in some of the larger ships (the War Saucer has a +8!); and the DCs for the maneuvers are not consistent with what the maneuver is. For example, the extreme turn DC should be high enough that (typically) only the bonus afforded by a fighter or small craft could even hope to pull it off. If a Heavy cruiser can do it, then the handling bonus and DC combination needs to reflect the relative ease at which this is happening. Granted, there is no weight in space, but he mass remains and needs to be taken into account.

[1] Think about this for a second, before I go on. A cruiser has a 5% shift down in maneuverability from a fighter. And we build fighters because...??? Actually, the Sharlin is more like 1600 meters in length... but as will go with the size classes as presented.
 
I have to admit that I haven't gone into the Starship rules in that much detail. But I have to agree with your issues. Cruisers on screen are definitely big and slow, while the fighters whiz around the outside.

I did run a Starfury/Raider fighter combat in my first session, but I used more of an RPG approach than a table-top one (ie describing the turns and relative positions rather than showing them on a map). I did note that neither side used aquire target, since it always seemed better to shoot without the moddifier.
 
Personally I wouldn't bother the acquire target step. Just let the pilot shot at his opponent. I think I would only use the acquire target rule if the pilot wanted to target a specific part of a ship, say hitting the engines or the weapon systems.
 
Eryx said:
Personally I wouldn't bother the acquire target step. Just let the pilot shot at his opponent. I think I would only use the acquire target rule if the pilot wanted to target a specific part of a ship, say hitting the engines or the weapon systems.

I do not plan to bother with it either (or I will make it a free action, instead of a standard action). We can house rule the book all we want.

I just want to know how the rules, as written, were intended to be used. Because, as they are written right now, they fail in many areas for anything other than broad-stroke description system that one can improvise their way through.
 
personally I would apply the DV Modifier from size to all manouvers to fix that problem.

I think the target lock is suppost to last until the next Non-manouver action, so you can turn and fire and still have the bonus. In the fights i have one so far people do not bother with aquire target in fighters.
 
jadrax said:
personally I would apply the DV Modifier from size to all manouvers to fix that problem.

I think the target lock is suppost to last until the next Non-manouver action, so you can turn and fire and still have the bonus. In the fights i have one so far people do not bother with aquire target in fighters.

I treat lock like most Space Combat Flight Sims. You do a sweep of the area (Sensor Sweep: Sensor roll) and thats the objects that pop on your HUD. Then you can select and lock onto one. (Aquire Target: Sensor roll) Ignoring the lock is held until the next action is easy. Since most fighters are Bore Sight, it is easy to force the players to make pilot rolls to get into position, befrore they fire. Not to mention stealth scores practacly disappear when doing a sweep so more than likely you will see any fighters that have engaged in combat.

KDLadage said:
I do not plan to bother with it either (or I will make it a free action, instead of a standard action). We can house rule the book all we want.

I know you dislike having to make 'House Rules' KDLadage. But in this since you just put a period after the "Chapter 4". And delete "until the operator's next action." Consider it a Typo, not a House Rule. :lol:

Psyjack
 
psyclonejack said:
I know you dislike having to make 'House Rules' KDLadage. But in this since you just put a period after the "Chapter 4". And delete "until the operator's next action." Consider it a Typo, not a House Rule. :lol:

You know that? Funny, because you are wrong. I love house rules -- I have rarely played any game without a few. I'll play about with any and all role-playing rules-systems that I play with.

But I always, ALWAYS, ensure that I understand the INTENT of the rules I am modifying before I make any house rules. Right now, I cannot tell what the intent was in many of the rules for starship combat.

If I cannot figure that out, I have no trouble replacing them all together with the B5Wars rules, the Role-Playing Space Comabt Rules from GURPS SPACE, Full Thrust or STARMADA.
 
KDLadage said:
psyclonejack said:
I know you dislike having to make 'House Rules' KDLadage. But in this since you just put a period after the "Chapter 4". And delete "until the operator's next action." Consider it a Typo, not a House Rule. :lol:
You know that? Funny, because you are wrong. I love house rules -- I have rarely played any game without a few. I'll play about with any and all role-playing rules-systems that I play with.

Wrong, darn, I hate it when that happens. But very Intresting, from my reading of your posts with various rule discussions in the past I have gotten the image that you almost resented the fact that you were forced to make a house rule to correct a feel of the game. Sorta like, "I paid x amount for this book and now I have to create rules to make it work?"

My apologies for reading your posts with a bit of negative note to them. Its hard to get the 'tone' of a post, but I was sure I had yours down. Let me just say from now on I will read your posts with a 'I am curious to know' tone. Not a 'what are they trying to pull on me now' tone.

KDLadage said:
If I cannot figure that out, I have no trouble replacing them all together with the B5Wars rules, the Role-Playing Space Comabt Rules from GURPS SPACE, Full Thrust or STARMADA.

I understand where you are coming from, but I have a question. I have tried Full Thrust, GURPS SPACE, as well as a few others I can't think of. (Silent . . . Something is on the tip of my brain.) Anyway, these work for epic space battles where you have the time to run an 8 hour or more miniture space combat. For an RPG I feel you need combat to be quick and over. That way you are not bogged down in the mechanics of monotonous dice rolling.

Do you know of a system that has quick, fast, slam, bam, thank you mamm, feel? Everything I have seen or heard of tends to break down and get clunky when you have more than 10 combantants.

Always curious and open,
Psyjack
 
No problems. And I fully understand the problems with figuring out the emotions behind a given post.

As far as space combat systems go (Silent Death, by the way), I would say the best one I have encountered for fun and fast and does not get bogged down in STARMADA from Majestic 12 Games (www.mj12games.com). They have a demo version of the rules available for dowload from their site. Their messageboards include conversions of all of the B5Wars ships to Starmada rules.

Tell them K. David Ladage sent you.
 
I agree that the space combat system has a major flaw: It was designed for capital ship fights. It is a good system (It worked for me anyway), allowing for speedy, efficient running of space fights. :D
"What? A heavy laser has just dropped a hundred hit points of my 300HP hull? Hump... I think I will run for the jumpgate!" :?
You can just feel the shockwave and the hull plating being shred apart by explosions and such... :p :p :p
Anyway, back to the task at hand. I am in agreement that we should house rule some of the things in the book. We must understand that capital ships use armor, sheer size and firepower to overcome their enemy while fighters use the piloting skill of their pilot and the maneuverability of their craft to gain the upper hand. The system, as of now, is perfect for firepower fights. However, I don't see the importance of the pilot skill.
I (writer bow head in disapointment) did not have the chance to actually test the space rules yet. So, I'm going to ask you: does a better pilot have an advantage or does the ability of executing higher levels maneuver is totally useless? Does an expert pilot in a Delta-V will be able to outmaneuver a crapy pilot in a starfury? Higher level characters does not augment the DV of fighters so a 20th level pilot could be blasted out of the sky by a 1st level rookie in one shot... :?:
I think the system of acquiring target and targeting runs are useless in fighter combat. I would like to house rule something just a little different. I DO like the system as of now but I would perhaps implement a variant of the pursuer/pursued maneuver in Star Wars to B5. At a certain difference of speed between the targets, one pilot can try to beat another on a pilot roll to engage pursue. Once purused, the target can try to break the lock of the other with another pilot roll. The pursuer would have the usual +2 bonus for a targeting run but, moreover will automatically follow the pursued without any further maneuver rolls.
Moreover, I would have liked for the agility bonus of fighters (Only fighters damn it) to be dependent on the pilot skill of the pilot and the level of technology of the craft.
Just a thought... :)
 
Please, Only print the errata to cover the more serious errors, not spelling and grammer, as some anally retentive folk seem to have a obession with picking out.
 
hassanisabbah said:
Please, Only print the errata to cover the more serious errors, not spelling and grammer, as some anally retentive folk seem to have a obession with picking out.

Well said. Errors only. If I want correct english, I look it up in my dictionary.
 
Back
Top