Subsidized Merchant

[phavoc]

(1) There are now 19 stateroom present, when the design (originally) calls for only 13. Unless the rules have fundamentally changed on something, or 24 tons has been removed from the cargo portion, this design won't work.
(2) No hardpoint access is listed.

 

[AKAramis]

(1) There are now 19 stateroom present, when the design (originally) calls for only 13. Unless the rules have fundamentally changed on something, or 24 tons has been removed from the cargo portion, this design won't work.
(2) No hardpoint access is listed.

The design rules have changed, much reducing fuel use, and slightly reducing PP tonnage, plus allowing MDrives to 22, and JDrives to 9, in the last HG draft I got.

 

[phavoc]

(1) There are now 19 stateroom present, when the design (originally) calls for only 13. Unless the rules have fundamentally changed on something, or 24 tons has been removed from the cargo portion, this design won't work.
(2) No hardpoint access is listed.

The design rules have changed, much reducing fuel use, and slightly reducing PP tonnage, plus allowing MDrives to 22, and JDrives to 9, in the last HG draft I got.

The rest of us haven't seen them, so to us they don't exist as far as our reviews go. Not until HG rules are released.

Those of you who have seen them need to stop talking about them in that way. The CRB needs to be able to stand on it's own with the information contained within it. So if we make a comment on something that says "this is missing" or "this doesn't make sense" then a NEW player picking up the CRB may have the very same questions and ask "how does this make sense?"

 

[-Daniel-]

.... in the last HG draft I got.

The rest of us haven't seen them, so to us they don't exist as far as our reviews go. Not until HG rules are released.

Those of you who have seen them need to stop talking about them in that way. The CRB needs to be able to stand on it's own with the information contained within it. So if we make a comment on something that says "this is missing" or "this doesn't make sense" then a NEW player picking up the CRB may have the very same questions and ask "how does this make sense?"

I have to say while I understand rules are not all in the CRB, it would be wise to at least give the basic information and then point to the HG for rules to adjust or change that basic information.

As a playtester, I will see the lack of information as an error in the CRB even if I had the HG rules in hand.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Hopefully we will get to see HG 2 fairly soon so we can beta that one and start to make sense of ship rules that seem odd in the core rule book.

 

[Reynard]

If the design is actually correct for ships in the CRB then the ship is fine and playable. You don't need to know the detail as to how the ship was created if the stat sheet supplies all relevant data for players and referees. The problem right now is veteran player unlearning the old design rules, new player will only know what's written. This is where comments about playtesting are useful. Pointing out there seems to be a discrepancy should receive a reply stating this is a rule or design change like the power point rule. There's no need to bloat the CRB with every detail that doesn't impact actual basic play.