Rather than being rude and modifying other people's posts, I've collected the minor mod list into a single post. Some of these are formatting issues which need Tim's attention (as I'll only make them worse). Those will be marked Tim. Now for the vast list:
___ list starts here ________
P.145: Flame Repeater doesn't line up with the rest of Table 11.6 (Ranged Weapon Ranges). For that matter, the "Ranged" part in the title is probably redundant :-) Tim
On both P. 157 and 158: Holdout Gun appears in the Range Modifiers table, but not the base Weapon table. It is listed on Page 83 with the required info, of course. FIXED
On page 157: the Fumble ranges are "3-Jan" instead of "01-03". Tim to watch for on next pass
Page 162: is it worth copying the Frag. Grenade sizes from the "Futuristic Weapons" table on page 83 to the "Shrapnel Weapons" table on this page? Again, "Grenade" is listed in the Range Modifiers section. It might look silly to have "Mark I" through "Mark V" listed on this table, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. On the other hand, they are listed that way under the Vehicle criticals. DONE, though Tim may remove
I assume you know this, but some Critical tables have lines while some don't, the line sizes are different, and the fonts are different starting at "Shrapnel". Tim
p107: Drunkards rule: last sentence incomplete Problem not in manuscript, so Tim
p130: lower left corner: CRR(50): behaves as CRR(50) -> it should read as CRR(75) FIXED
p197: Extreme Cold Tolerance Lesser and Greater have the same minimum temperature FIXED
p202: table on left hand side is not properly formatted Tim
p202: table on right hand side for biological critical mapping: I would turn it around, i.e. robotic criticals on the right side and biological on the left.
Some talents titles in the Talents chapter (starting at page 60) seems to have differents font sizes.Tim
Xenoarcheologist tabulation error. Page 71. Tim
Encumbrance table tabulation errors. Page 72. Tim
The table on pg 232 for awarding experience points in Beta 0.1.1 is not aligned properly. Makes it hard to figure what headings are over what column, and the columns aren't aligned all that well. Tim
Page 28, Table 4.1 - the lines separating the table columns are in the wrong place. The table actually has two sets of three columns (Stat, Bonus, DPs), but the lines are drawn as though the table has three sets of two columns... Tim
1) We thought it might be good to number the section headings; it's hard to figure out where each section starts and ends otherwise. Probably more to do with minimal level of formatting. HARP has avoided section numbering up until now
2) p.43: Table 6.2 - there is a strange, unreadable font at bottom of table. Tim
4) p.67: Fate points: it wasn't entirely clear to one of my players that Fate Points are *used up* to get the effect; they seemed to think that it was more like a skill rank from the text. Perhaps a sentence to clarify? FIXED
5) p.92: STL Travel: distance from sun to *earth* is called an AU. Text has Sun to Moon, which doesn't really make sense Smiley FIXED
6) p.95: Land Vehicles: It's not entirely clear that GEM vehicles are land *and* sea; it's only really mentioned in the intro paragraph? DONE
7) p.106: There is a reference to "GM" instead of "SysOp" FIXED
p.109: resolution methods - 4th sentence "defender makes am open-ended", should be "defender makes an open-ended" FIXED
9) p.114: During the discussion of diseases and poisons, there is a reference to "poisons and poisons" Smiley FIXED
10) p.139: There's an inconsistent use of dashes vs. colons between the names and descriptions of each item. Tim to choose
11) p.140: "armor skill refresher" entire section should be in italics to be consistent with other examples in the text. DONE
12) p.141: Table 11.2 has asterisks but no footnotes? should probably copy them from the other armor table to be consistent. DONE
13) p.145: hunting laser example is inconsistent with chart for "Point Blank" bonus; +10 vs. +20. FIXED
14) p.145: Table 11.5 could have a "minium distance" column also for clarity? For Tim to consider as only relevant to archaic weapons
15) p.147: Fumble Table - "Use the condensed Fumble Table on teh facing page" looks like it is supposed to be mainline text, not part of the table. Tim
p171: vehicle weapon sizes are given in Tiny to Huge, but in the table on p167 there are only Mark numbers -> include also attacksizes on p167? FIXED
Vehicle Combat: in "attacking individuals" it is stated that MR and Piloting Bonus is not applied when vehicle is not moving. It is obvious, but not stated anywhere else -> state it also in the other descriptions? DONE
Integrated Equipment: cost is "x10 weapon cost" -> should be "x10 equipment cost" FIXED
Robots: they get -50 to Swimming. In my opinion this is a Species Limitation and should therefore get a name, suggestion is "High Body Density". DONE
Robots:
- BMR for Walker, Wheled and Tracked Locomotion is not given. FIXED
- What is the impact of terrain that "is severly difficuly". There are modifiers in the Vehicle Manuever Chart based on form of locomotion -> how are they applied to robots, if at all? Can be applied to moving maneuver rolls
Cybertech:
Radar/Sensor Sense: The description is only for sonar, but that it nowhere mentioned -> either also include a description of radar or mention more explicitely that the existing description is only for sonar? Separated and FIXED
Skills:
Aerial Combat: according to description it is not for flying by technical means. I wondered: what about e.g. an antigrav belt -> whould that require Combat Pilot or Aerial Combat? If the latter one, then pls. adapt the description. FIXED
Combat Driving: according to the description it must not be developed seperately for each vehicle class, not even for air/marine/... -> is this as intended or should it be developed seperately? If the latter, I suggest to adapt the skill description. manuscript and pdf already say It must be learned separately for each different class of vehicle.
Ranged Disarm: "weapon goes flying as desired by attacker" -> that is taken 1:1 from "Disarm Foe", but I think this is not realistic... If you can shoot a gun out of someone's hand, I'm prepared to let them have the extra finesse on this
Demolitions - description says "provides a bonus" -> to me this sounds as if it uses the Bonus Resolution Method, but that is not the case -> I think the desctiption is a little bit confusing -> change it? Tweaked
Swimming: Last sentence (- 3x maneuver penalty) -> I think this is only for archaic armor, otherwise the other rules do not make much sense, or? If yes, I suggest to make it clearer in the description.
It does what it says it does. The armor penalises your ability to swim by simply being constricting, any leftover maneuver penalties are then tripled to represent the extra difficulty of pushing oneself through water.
p137: Draw weapon action -> note missing that this can replace the action of press&melee (I think this was stated in HARP)? Can't find this
In my notes I found the possibility to "hold an action", i.e. if a character's initiative is high enough, he can wait for a trigger event and then act before anyone else. I don't know where this was published for HARP, but I did not find it in HARP SF -> include it? Can't find this
p112, right hand side: what is the role of Demolitions, I am a bit confused. In the text between the 2 examples it is stated that an attack must be made, taking the warhead critical table. In the last paragraph it is stated that a demolitions maneuver is made.... No action required.
Dodge: does it mean that the minimum DB from this maneuver is 50? Or 0? Because you get 50 + Bonus, but negative Bonus is ignored...(I know, HARP has the same description, but obviously I don't understand it there as well). Flagged to Tim
Knockdown: there was already a different ruling in ML, incl Knockdown Maneuver Size Modifier Table -> perhaps take the more sophisticated ruling from ML for HARP SF? Not needed at this time
Power strike: same as Knockdown. In ML there was a ruling "Cumulative -10 OB for every consecutive round beyond the first...." -> include more sophisticated ruling in HARP SF? Hack & Slash + Bazaar issue, not our problem
Fear and Invisibility rules are not included in HARP SF -> on purpose? (I don't think they are important, but am asking just for sake of completeness) Not needed
Subdual: it should only work with melee weapons, which is not stated -> refine description?Tweaked
Stun: I found in my notes rules concerning "What happens when a stunned character receives another stun result" and "When does he become uncoscious due to too much stun" (but I don't know from which HARP publication they are) -> include this also in HARP SF (or if it is stated somewhere, then pls. include it also in the description of the Critical Tables). That's a Hack&Slash ruling, too lethal for core rules particularly once firearms are in the game.
Water Vision: why is vision in freshwater shorter? I thought it should be the other way round, or? You might think so but actually it is harder to see in freshwater because there are more particles and organic material in it than in salt water
p.11 (Khayyam) and p.12 (Pasteur) The unit of measure (km) is missing from the diameter. FIXED
On all of the world descriptions:
The listing for Climate is indented more than the other listings. Is this intentional?
When the lines wrap on the data listings the indention is not maintained. Is this intentional? Tim
p.23-25 Some of the Favored Category rank numbers are bold; some are not. Tim
p.24 Outdoor under Scout Favored Categories has an extra return spacing it from the previous line.Tim
p.27 Under the stat descriptions Presence is neither bold or indented like the other stats.
Tim
p.27 Bottom of the first column. It seems to odd to have the d100 rolling convention put here. Shouldn't it be in the intro or somewhere like that? In HARP it's in a box out, Tim to format to taste
p.28 Under Increasing Stats the 101-105 table entry is indented incorrectly. Tim
p.28 Under Increasing Stats in the Note section, the second paragraph (beginning "Characters can also. . .") is indented where the previous paragraph is not. Not sure if that was intentional. Tim
p.36 The Pace table in the 2nd column: The table title looks odd "PacePace Normal Maneuver" and the 'S' for Sheer Folly is off. Tim
p.40 Table 5.5: The first column "Aristo Noble" has no colon after "Aristo" where the 2nd, 4th, and 5th columns all have colons on their abbreviated initial culture. Tim as he's the table meister
p.44-57 Following all of the skill descriptions: Most of the category-stats mods-resolution method listings are not all bold. Some are; some aren't.
The format should be the same for all and the last sentence on p.42 says they should be bold. I actually prefer them bold since it frames the skill description. Tim
p.46 Disarm Foe description: It states that the skill must be learned separately for each "weapon category." Should that be for each "weapon group" to maintain consistent terminology? Flagged to Tim
p.47 The first column: The entries in the first column look like they are not indented correctly. Should Ranged Disarm be indented or the others moved? Tim
p.48 Crafts: Weapon Smith is not indented correctly. Fixed
p.48 Demolitions example: The word "Example" is not bold as it is for other entries. Tim
p.48 Dirty Fighting: The title is not bold. Fixed
p.49 Engineering skills: The skills are not bold as the individual skill are when listed in other entries (e.g. Crafts). Fixed
p.52 Mundane Lore: As with Engineering above the skills aren't bold if they should be. Fixed
p.54 Resistance: The individual skills would be better presented by following the format for other entries (e.g. Mundane Lore, Engineering). Having them all describe within the paragraph makes it hard to parse and read. For Tim to consider if a reformat will help or confuse more
Active Defense against scanning: on a failure - does the one scanning know that he ran into ECM? On a fumble I would say no. Fumbles and failures explicitly
Magneto-gravitic cloaking: what is the penalty for scanning attempts? -40 for gravity/antigravity, impossible otherwise?yes - 40, DONE
Combat Condition "Starlight": Visibility 10m, all ranged attacks beyond blind fire, in HARP 10', all missile attacks blind fire -> not consistent -> make it consistent? Actually it looks like it should be ten yards, so 10m is sufficient per conversion
Heavy Fog: HARP: all missile fire blind fire, HARP SF: all ranged attacks beyond 5m blind fire -> not consistent? Tweaked to 3m; modern weapons have no minimum range, fantasy weapons do
Rules for Mounted and Flying Combat are missing (found them in my notes, so they are published for HARP) That's a Martial Law thing, up to Tim whether he believes it is sensible to include
High/Low Gravity: only gravity min. 0.25g higher/lower than normal has long term adverse effects -> what does this mean in terms of rules? That there is no CRR below that or pernanent CO damage is ignored? Or is this a reference to the Option to ignore the rules for gravity within +/-0.25g of normal gravity? It means that you don't bother making the CRR if the grav difference is less than a quarter-gee. Clarifying phrase inserted
Low pressure: altitude up to 5000m: why does the character not become euphoric? He becomes euphoric at lower and higher altitudes. Fixed
Low pressure, between 5000 and 8000m: -10 for each 1000m, but what does this mean in atu? -10 for each 0.05 atu below 0.49? Yes, added
High Pressure: only rules for adaption back to normal pressure given. What happens to characters in high pressure? How much can a normal character withstand? They asphyxiate at pressures 1 atm above native
Storms: -1 per kph -> what is kph? Should it be km/h? Same unit, different notation
Injury: in my notes there is a 4th wound severity: Mortally Wounded (0 Concussion Hits, -100 to all actions) -> this not included in HARP SF - on purpose? Hack & Slash
Death: in my opinion the description contains a few bits two times, i.e. how to stabilize a dying character -> I suggest to reformulate that chapter as to me it is abit confusing. Tim to consider adjusting section into smaller subsections
High pressure for Robots and Cyberware: Normal Robots have the critical limits at 10, 15, 35, 55, more than 55atu . Cyberware has 10, 20, 30, 50, more than 50 -> is it possiblt to align these? Aligned on Robot
Cyberare damage in combat: Is the roll on the malfunction table in addition to the original Critical or instead? I guess in addition...
This roll is instead of the normal critical if the cyberware fully occupies the body region (e.g. a full cyberarm), and in addition to the normal critical if the cyberware shares the location with organic body parts (a cyberfinger or cyberhand in an arm location).
Does magneto-gravitic shielding also completely protect against EMP (its also radiation...)? yes, note added
Microfusion generator (p78), Weapon Cells: "experimental version" -> I guess this is "Early" technology and not "Prototype"? Fixed
Weapons Cells: the way it is stated it seems that they recharge themselves. I guess this is not the case? No. Fixed
Warhead attack on an Individual: the conversion table says to take Shrapnel and/or Heat Critical Table.
What does and/or mean here? I did not find a rule when to use one and when both...Now just both
Terminal velocity: there is an approximative formula to calculate terminal velocity, but none to calculate how long it takes to reach this velocity -> include it? DONE
Dark Vision: description is as in HARP core book, but as far as I remember there was a change in a later publication (incl. things like no colour vision and so on) -> take the description from the core book or the updated one? Can't find a definitive version so am sticking with core
Low Light Vision: ...dimly vision with -40 an additional distance equal to the illumination of....
I think in HARP this rule was also for Night Vision (in a later publication). In HARP SF it exists for Low Light Vision but not for Night Vision -> I would suggest to include it also in Night Vision
p119 (vision): I suggest to include these rulings also in the respective Talents descriptions (and state here only Normwal Vision?). And a comparison table would be nice (I think I already mentioned that befre).
Would make talent descriptions very lengthy.
Telescopic Focusing:
a) Different than Telescopic Eyes (Sniping and Well-aimed Shot) -> on purpose? Yes
b) -20 to Perception of other features -> shouldn't it be -10(E)/-20(M)/-40(A) to Perception? No. If it were penalising, it would be -40(E)/-20(M)/-10(A), and I don't think they would design them such that other features were lost so severely
---- end of list ---
