A few more rules questions

[hemulen]

Hi,

I've been reading the rules for a while and keeping an eye on the errata. I've noticed a few things which I'm not sure if they should be errata or not! Any illuminating comments/explanations are welcome:

p 165-166: Combat. Text says that a vehicle suffers internal damage on a critical hit: attacker ignores AR and inflicts full damage versus the chassis SI rating plus an internal hit, rolled on the table. For Small Craft and Starships it says that any SI damage after AR reduction causes internal damage. Is that really correct? Why do vehicles need a critical, whereas Spacecraft only need a penetrating hit to take internal damage?

p 241: Batteries. The values in the table don’t match with those in the text i.e.:

Crude Cr2 or Cr200
Basic Cr0.25 or Cr35
Modern Cr0.30 or Cr30
Advanced Cr0.50 or Cr50

Almost a factor of 100 out, except for Basic, which could be a typo for 25.

p 277: Vehicle Prices Table. Prices don’t match with those given in later tables or the errata.

Example Spacecraft: The USPs for their weapons do not seem to include the bonus for their TL as per the table on p272.

p 340: Travel Formulas. Time Required. The text is different to the formula, and, if I remember correctly, given that:

s (distance) = ut + (at^2)/2

if u = 0, should not t = sqrt(2d/a), which doesn’t fit with either the text or the formula?

Similarly, for calculating distance travelled, if

u = 0, then s = (at^2)/2.

cheers,

Mark

 

[DrSkull]

I can answer one of the questions.

The reason that vehicles require a critical hit to take internal damage, and spacecraft do not, is that the vehicle internal hits typically wipe out an entire system, while a spacecraft internal hit typically only degrades the effectiveness of a system (compare the effects listed in the texts next to each table).

Also, Starships are big expensive things and players are more willing to track various ibts of damgae on them, whereas on vehicles you just want to know if it's "dead" or not.

 

[hemulen]

Ok, that seems fair enough - just wanted to check that was correct!

cheers,

Mark