List of flawed ships

[commander]

Had just a very quick look at the rules 1.1.
Something I noticed: pg 23, middle column, the object "Torpedo salvoes" is placed too high and hides some text.

[RCgothic]

(I'm currently on my 5th page of notes for v1.1!)

[Plaxor]

Thanks guys. I noticed that my pagecount was off, and somehow I completely missed turret suppression.

[Taggerung]

I was wondering if you had just completely gotten rid of turret suppression lol.

[Plaxor]

It didn't exist in the rulebook that I was copying from, pretty easy to fill in blanks when you have the subject listed out. Nope, still exists, will have to try to fit it at the end of 'Ordnance Waves'.

[RCgothic]

I've got a re-write of that section planned that saves a bit of space. Doesn't really change the content, just for clarity.

OK, I've finished reviewing up until 'The End Phase'. Will try and do more tomorrow, but will need to be more restrained at work!

[Plaxor]

Yeah RC, anywhere that you think that wording could be better please feel free to let me know. It's a little difficult as I know how it's supposed to happen so I miss things.

I would love it if you could stand behind me as I make these 'final' revisions, I've gotten good enough with photoshop/acrobat that they are quite a breeze, and have figured out how to properly do everything. So hopefully I will be completely done with 'fleets' by the end of the month. Although I suppose that there is some need to talk about Tyranids. Haven't thought of them at all.

I'm working on the IN document now, pretty easy to go through. Hopefully I'll have it 'done' by tomorrow night.

[Sigoroth]

I haven't read the document, just picked a couple of pages to read. Page 39, right column, under Reserves rules:

 "... these vessels are often press-ganged into fervice or forced ..."

Also, you say that anything with the Bombard rule also has the Hunter rule. What is Hunter?

[RCgothic]

I'm still not convinced of the need for that entire section. I think it just takes the information away from where you need it (the ship profile) to somewhere more centralised.

[Plaxor]

Did I miss writing in Hunter?

Weapons with hunter hit Ordnance on a 4+

[RCgothic]

Argh! I've lost all of my notes from the last 5 days!

I'd e-mailed myself the file from work, and I must have had it open as an e-mail attachment only whilst I've been modifying it. I finished my editorial pass, definitely clicked 'save', but just as I was about to e-mail it I now can't find the file anywhere!

I'll re-do it as soon as possible, but I'm absolutely gutted! I'd used all my free time for days commenting.

[Plaxor]

I'm surprised it was so long.... Sorry about the trouble.

[Plaxor]

Just posted IN 1.2, Its kind of a working copy, but I did a lot of changes. Also remembered how my work was so 'frankenstien' with this document, as I tried to fix everything.

So yes, I'll work on it more tomorrow, but I figured I would put up what I had.

[RCgothic]

Invincible is missing.
Victory 's profile just a placeholder - we need to decide if we're going for a focus of 2L&FP21, 4L&FP15 or 5L&FP12. Personally I would go for 5L&FP12.
Vanquisher at 325pts and HA Profile with 20cm speed.
The Apocalypse's fluff sounds a bit harsh relative to the new drawback. 'all lances kept to medium range'.
Gothic class CB is missing. But perhaps an HC like the Ignis would be more appropriate given the 30cm broadside range?
Siluria Profile we need to quibble over.
Viper class missile destroyer is missing. I quite like it.

I'll just point out that 'XXX class battleships are subject to the massive quality' Is the exact same number of words as 'XXX class battleships may not come to new heading.'

Now I'm having a busy weekend, so I'll have another look over early next week.

[Plaxor]

Yeah, still a WIP, just posted what I had so far. Will get back to it sunday.