The ranges of the artillery weapons could do with a good review and rationalisation. I don't know if that is the type of thing you'd class as a minor fix (and you'd need actual subject matter expertise brought to bear on the matter - i.e. what actually is a reasonable firing range to put down for a medium mortar, as opposed to a light mortar, as opposed to a field gun, etc, etc).
That plus some spy shit, though I suppose half the fun of refereeing that type of scenario is you get to be your own Q.
Is FF&S two books or one book?
Who the hell typeset that junk? It's not even wrong.
Me suspects this is the reason there isn’t a Mongoose version of FF&S.View attachment 5328
But both are full of crap like this - which is gibberish if you're math-challenged like - or just can't be arsed...
You've posted what was the pre-errata formulas for T4 FF&S. They quickly acknowledged that through a publisher error all the formulas in the book were printed with <--> instead of the correct multiplication sign. If you mentally replace each instance of "<-->" with "x" then all is well.View attachment 5328
But both are full of crap like this - which is gibberish if you're math-challenged like - or just can't be arsed...
Except then your brain still melts from all the maths.
the one on the right is the original TNE one the one on the left is the stripped down T4 one
Thats in the T4 monstrosity which is as unusable as everything else published for T4View attachment 5328
But both are full of crap like this - which is gibberish if you're math-challenged like - or just can't be arsed...
We'll have to agree to disagree I'm sure, but it is perfectly useable if you replace the <--> with the multiplication sign. It designs ships, craft and weapons in a consistent and replicable fashion.
the book in general, not the formula, like most T4 books it as obviously not allowed within 100 miles of an editor
View attachment 5328
But both are full of crap like this - which is gibberish if you're math-challenged like - or just can't be arsed...
