Dart Mobius said:

True. I missed that at first.

"Damage from a Nova Cannon shell ignores armour."

Lukkai said:

Alas you point out the contradiction - which needs to be resolved....as it says BOTH THINGS. Sheesh.

it does not say both but some cargo space does not nesaserly mean enough to get a benifit in the scale of the game

Xerty said:

You seriously need to READ the whole description of the component.

i worded that badly. It does say there is cargo psace still but just like a ship that has no cargo bays, there is stil space for stuff, Just not sapce good enough to earn you achivment points. it is quit straight forward, and does not even hint that you should still get achivment points.

Xerty said:

And it doesn't say you shouldn't get a partial achievement bonus. My major complaint here is inconsistent writing which needs to be cleared up. Sorry. How hard is it to cover all the bases for the writers? I don't know but we can find all this in less than a month after publishing...I volunteer to proofread for free for the next supplement.

Not agreeing with you here bobh. The sentence with "is not entirely eliminated" is part of the general description of the component only, while the "replaces" is part of the actual rules of the component. That makes it crystal clear which one is actual rule and which one only introductionary text with no rule value.

And it is as Xerty said: Every ship has cargo space. You can successfully solve trade endeavours even with ships without any kind of cargo hold included. To have these cargo holds simply makes it easier. So a transport losing its Main Cargo Hold would lose a big part of its carrying capacity, yet not all. Hence the text in the general description. (Not to mention that on ships with several MCH, be they integral or added later, you'll only lose one of them, therefor still getting all the boni of the others.)

Lukkai said:

This, pretty much. The description might say stuff, but it's only the rules section that has any mechanical influence - which means you lose the Hold and gain the Landing Bay.

In any case my side of the argument is undone...I am sad:

Hello Bob,

Yes, that main cargo bay component no longer exists aboard the ship, so the entire Trade bonus is lost.

Sam Stewart
RPG Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

Just want to share a clarifications. I asked Sam concerning attack crafts (I use Fighters as an example) 'time' outside the carrier. It is written that Fighters can spend 4 turns outside the carrier.

And here's the answer:

Hi ***,

They return at their own speed at the end of four turns, so if they spent four turns flying in a direct line away from the carrier, it'll take four turns to get back. However, if they are close to the ship, it may take less time.

Hope this helps,

Sam

And something new surfaced:

- Moral loss through craftsmanship: It is written on page 17, that morale loss through installing inferior components as per table 1-4 is only temporary and may be regained as usual. But what about the moral loss through installing inferior macrobatteries or lances (which use table 1-5 instead)?

- Also table 1-5: It is said that two of the modifiers for Poor Craftsmanship should be chosen. One of the possible modifiers is however a positive one (lesser cost in ship points). Respectively negative in case of Good and Best craftsmanship.

I'm pretty sure that both morale modifier and SP modifier should always be applied. Unfortunately the text doesn't even give an indication as to whether that's the case or not.

Lukkai said:

Because the player can choose one or two modifiers they can easily avoid the moral loss and take the SP gain or any other modifier as the rules are worded now. Or choose both the sp boost and morale damage(not enough) and have a cheaper common quality weapon, Or for best quality weapon he can take the space boost and strenght or critical hit modifier and escape paying the SP price.

thor2006 said:

while i think the intent of these rules was to have the space, cost, and moral modifer alweas there, you are correct in that the rules do not say so. though i belive any gm worth any thing could make a very clear rulling on a matter that is confusing but then i have little understanding of why power gamers try so hard to bend or find mistakes and loop holes in the rules.(or why gm's let them get away with it.) alweas being the best is boring, i like a good chalange.

Try typing .

Pun aside. BTW My typing is as bad normally.

Why does FFG manage to produce so many books riddled with obvious mistakes? I mean everybody will look at tables like that and realize the way it is meant to be. I could even include the archeotech weapon tables with that. But still, stuff like that is so easy to see and it still gets missed.

I know stuff gets changed after the playtesters have seen it. But somebody should check the final version. But it apparently doesnt really happen. I can find general mistakes (the English, not even a rules part) in their books, if you keep reading long enough.

Voronesh said:

Buddy, I've played my first p&p rpg when I was about 7 or 8 years old and have been regularily playing at least every other week since I was about 15. And I'm 31 in a few weeks. Point being: I played a whole lot of games in that time from a good amount of different producers and one thing was certain to appear in every one of them: Mistakes in the books. Especially in those of the first print run. And quite honestly: If I take a look at how many pages this latest book is and how many mistakes we found so far, this one is not among the best, but not among the worst either.

Dats true.

But 40k has a tendency to be amongst the worse (not worst ) of publishers with book mistakes. Dire Avengers anyone?

Other companies at least keep obvious mistakes like that to a more managable level.

At least its not Orkish in every part of the book yet .

Jovian Nova Cannon

At the top of page 42 the Power Space SP requirements are listed as 6/7/5. At the bottom of the page they are listed again as 5/7/5. Which is correct?

>BANGS HEAD ON KEYBOARD<

>BANGS HEAD ON KEYBOARD<

>BANGS HEAD ON KEYBOARD<

I think this has already been mention in this thread.

Use the lower table, incidentally the one with the better stats.

Not that I could see. If you have seen it please cite a link.

bobh said:

If you cant read a thread from start to finish i cant help you.

Yes this is a hint.

Unfortunately I cannot also find the Jovian Nova Cannon in this thread. Well I only did a skimming and searching per page with keyword "Jovian" though.

There are several clarifications concerning Jovian Nova Cannon ignoring Armour, Jovian Macrobattery follow the table, and Jovian bays. But I cannot find "Jovian" Nova Cannon though. Maybe because I'm reading this thread just after I wake up this morning...

--- EDIT ---

apparently the very first of the post, HappyDaze asked about Jovian Macrobattery, but Sam replies about 'Nova Cannon'. Maybe that one?

Absolutely, since no other Nova cannon appears on that table.

All nova cannons ignore armour, so ignoring armour twice (once for Nova cannon and once for Vortex shells) shouldnt really do anything. You are free to think up something horrific though.

Beware of that component, its the first archeotech piece i have found that is always destroyed if damaged. At least the Archeotech torpedo system has the decency of having a lower chance of destruction compared to normal torpedo tubes.

Yay we got this archeotech weapon that probably all of the Calixis Sector wants to get their hands on. Oops we lost it to the first crit of some pirate raider. (Automatic find on any augury test, first crit, weapon goes boom)

I am dead sold on the torpedo system though. Torps are as good as Eldar ones (or better!!! once you buy seeking ones), get a huge speed boost during the first turn. Short Burn and you got a deadly first strike potential euqaling battlecruisers. I do not want to know what a spread of vortex short burn torpedoes does; *sticks fingers in ears and goes lalalalalala*

Sry for all the chatter past the actual information.

Voronesh said:

(That's why a warship should always have a tenebro-maze.)

Makes sense. Ruleswise.

Fluffwise i believe it hard to incorporate a Nova cannon into a tenebro maze, since it will still be on the belly of the ship. Hide a few hundred turrets yes, hide a 2 kilometre long barrel, not really.

Although shooting the barrel should not destroy the component, just damage it. The explosion comes from the ammunition store, which can easily be hidden with a tenebro maze. Would still damage the component though, without blowing it straight up.

I should stop contradicting myself within a single post. Maybe my Insanity points have reached a critical level.

Voronesh said:

Where the eldar torpedoes exist in BFK and how a rogue trader ship will go to aquire it?

What is a good torpedoe tubes system what torpedoes type are good?