Chaos Earth Errata (PDF) posted at jasonrichards.net

[Jason Richards]

New site, once again. For Chaos Earth errata (as well as the resources file and other goodies), visit http://www.jasonrichards.net and click the link listed under "Downloads."

[Jason Richards]

The font on the corrections tables is a bit small, but not that bad.

Yeah, I tried it at 9 (it's at 8 right now), but I was trying to keep it at 2 pages so that it could be printed front/back on a single sheet if you wanted to stick it in your book. Even upping the font size by a point pushes me to a third page, and more than I can make up by fooling with other things.

I'll see if I can fiddle with anything to get it to come out right, but I think that's probably as big as I can get it.

[NMI]

Very well done Jason.

[maasenstodt]

Very well done Jason.

Indeed. It's nice that even if Palladium is woefully incapable of publishing its own errata, there are fans & freelancers willing to pick up the ball from time to time.

Thanks for your efforts.

[Jason Richards]

Nice looks like they upped the MDC on armor and weapons damage.

Not on the armor, really. There were just some places that the vest was listed as 25 when it should have been 30. The weapon upgrades were all on vehicle or robot/power armor weapons, boosted to make them more powerful than hand-held weapons. They are still too close, in my opinion, but it's a major improvement.

[maasenstodt]

Not on the armor, really. There were just some places that the vest was listed as 25 when it should have been 30. The weapon upgrades were all on vehicle or robot/power armor weapons, boosted to make them more powerful than hand-held weapons. They are still too close, in my opinion, but it's a major improvement.

Given the final decision on the power of those weapons, what would you have choosen for them?

[Jason Richards]

Not on the armor, really. There were just some places that the vest was listed as 25 when it should have been 30. The weapon upgrades were all on vehicle or robot/power armor weapons, boosted to make them more powerful than hand-held weapons. They are still too close, in my opinion, but it's a major improvement.

Given the final decision on the power of those weapons, what would you have choosen for them?

I think that the damages given are fine for the game as it is, given how everything works in Chaos Earth, Rifts, Splicers, and other Mega-Damage settings. If I were to start completely over with a new game, I would probably scale things back such that a suit of body armor could withstand a few shots from an assault rifle at most, large vehicle-to-vehicle weapons (like the main gun of a tank) could destroy other armored vehicles in one or two shots, and the odds are slim of a character in body armor surviving a shot from a large vehicle-mounted cannon.

I actually think that the best situation may be of restricting M.D.C. to vehicle-scale weapons and armor, but doing so would change Rifts/Chaos Earth into a mecha game rather than the game of wild variety that it is now.

That's all just personal preference, mind you. The system in Rifts and Chaos Earth achieves the level of gaming that it is supposed to, so I've got nothing against that. The changes made just make weapons more consistent in damage for their size and such.

[maasenstodt]

I actually think that the best situation may be of restricting M.D.C. to vehicle-scale weapons and armor, but doing so would change Rifts/Chaos Earth into a mecha game rather than the game of wild variety that it is now.

In other words, you'd like to see something more akin to how things worked in the setting where MDC was introduced - the Macross portion of Robotech.

I'd be hard pressed to argue with that if the goal were a greater sense of realism, and for a long time, I thought Rifts would have been a better game had it stuck to that paradigm. Nowadays, even if I would still emphasize the importance and presense of SDC tools and structures in my games, it would be pretty tough to seperate personal MDC armor and weapons from these games. They are just too tightly associated with each other, even if the result is that the notion that even minor MDC tools are tremendously powerful has been lost.

I think, especially when one looks at a game like Splicers, it can be truly said that nowadays MDC is just the new SDC. Moving away from that Macross paradigm was what precipitated the shift, and it has ultimately affected the character of all of Palladium's MDC-involved settings since.

[Jason Richards]

I actually think that the best situation may be of restricting M.D.C. to vehicle-scale weapons and armor, but doing so would change Rifts/Chaos Earth into a mecha game rather than the game of wild variety that it is now.

In other words, you'd like to see something more akin to how things worked in the setting where MDC was introduced - the Macross portion of Robotech.

I'd be hard pressed to argue with that if the goal were a greater sense of realism, and for a long time, I thought Rifts would have been a better game had it stuck to that paradigm. Nowadays, even if I would still emphasize the importance and presense of SDC tools and structures in my games, it would be pretty tough to seperate personal MDC armor and weapons from these games. They are just too tightly associated with each other, even if the result is that the notion that even minor MDC tools are tremendously powerful has been lost.

I think, especially when one looks at a game like Splicers, it can be truly said that nowadays MDC is just the new SDC. Moving away from that Macross paradigm was what precipitated the shift, and it has ultimately affected the character of all of Palladium's MDC-involved settings since.

More or less. The issue to me isn't so much SDC vs MDC, but that the gap is awfully small between hand-held weapons, and those that weigh thousands of pounds and are nuclear powered. The edits in the second printing do a great deal to balance that out.

[Carl Gleba]

Quality work as usual Jason

Carl

[Jason Richards]

Quality work as usual Jason

Carl

Great praise from a great man!

[Jason Richards]

Hey, maybe this could be stickied in a new Errata thread? I think the old issues were handled.

[NMI]

Stickified!!!!

[Jason Richards]

Has there been a reprint of this book to include the changes? I did not do so well on my contact paper covering of this book, and need an excuse to buy another.

Yep. These changes were all taken from the 2nd printing.

[glitterboy2098]

as i've pointed out in another thread, the GB's 1000 round ammo drum can be traced to a incorrectly errattad typo in WB22 1st and 2nd printing, and thus should be the 100 rounds with 40 in an extra drum of the RMB, WB8 and MiO.

[Shawn Merrow]

as i've pointed out in another thread, the GB's 1000 round ammo drum can be traced to a incorrectly errattad typo in WB22 1st and 2nd printing, and thus should be the 100 rounds with 40 in an extra drum of the RMB, WB8 and MiO.

Actually it started in Spokane, WA back in 98 at Incon where a fan made an argument to Kevin that based on the picture it should hold more ammo. It eventually made it into the books. So yes the greater rounds was done on purpose and is not a typo.

[Jason Richards]

as i've pointed out in another thread, the GB's 1000 round ammo drum can be traced to a incorrectly errattad typo in WB22 1st and 2nd printing, and thus should be the 100 rounds with 40 in an extra drum of the RMB, WB8 and MiO.

Actually it started in Spokane, WA back in 98 at Incon where a fan made an argument to Kevin that based on the picture it should hold more ammo. It eventually made it into the books. So yes the greater rounds was done on purpose and is not a typo.

Shawn is right. The 1000 rounds is canon.

[Dustin Fireblade]

as i've pointed out in another thread, the GB's 1000 round ammo drum can be traced to a incorrectly errattad typo in WB22 1st and 2nd printing, and thus should be the 100 rounds with 40 in an extra drum of the RMB, WB8 and MiO.

Actually it started in Spokane, WA back in 98 at Incon where a fan made an argument to Kevin that based on the picture it should hold more ammo. It eventually made it into the books. So yes the greater rounds was done on purpose and is not a typo.

Shawn is right. The 1000 rounds is canon.

I wonder if it's possible to convince Kevin to change it back then? Or let's go really crazy and multiply all the other rail gun's ammo supply by a factor of 10 as well.

(I would like to know why/how that fan thought it should hold more though)

[Shawn Merrow]

I wonder if it's possible to convince Kevin to change it back then? Or let's go really crazy and multiply all the other rail gun's ammo supply by a factor of 10 as well.

(I would like to know why/how that fan thought it should hold more though)

I belive it was based on the size of the ammo belt.

[R Ditto]

Okay...
2in diameter and 7in long cartridges (based on the technical diagrams), each with 200 slugs that are possibly a quarter ounce each (estimated mass based on size of flechettes in technical diagrams), so 3+ pounds of slugs per cartridge... and it is not 100 rounds anymore, but now 1,000 of them, and it's canon?

So, will the art be updated to include a refridgerator size ammo drum and the stats updated with a greater weight to reflect at least an additional ton or more of weight from ammo?

Perhaps also training wheels or secondary legs on the new ammo drum so the new GB doesn't fall onto its back all the time from the weight...

And why the increase?

Actually it started in Spokane, WA back in 98 at Incon where a fan made an argument to Kevin that based on the picture it should hold more ammo. It eventually made it into the books. So yes the greater rounds was done on purpose and is not a typo.

I wonder if it's possible to convince Kevin to change it back then? Or let's go really crazy and multiply all the other rail gun's ammo supply by a factor of 10 as well.

(I would like to know why/how that fan thought it should hold more though)

I belive it was based on the size of the ammo belt.

Because of the ammo belt?
You mean the ammo feed belt that's only purpose is to transport ammo from an ammo container (the ammo drum) to the weapon (the Boom Gun)

Last I checked, with many weapons, ammo does not even enter into an ammo feed belt until such a time a weapon is being readied for battle, until then, the ammo is entirely within its container, in this case, the ammo drum.
This is partly due to different reasons, keeping the ammo protected outside of battle, preventing debris and other stuff from getting into the ammo/ammo feed belt during times it might be sitting outside for weeks or months at a time without being used, etc.


I did number crunching, I can only figure out maybe 26 rounds within the ammo feed belt itself...
But seriously, you could probably fit a half dozen belts in that drum, why the heck crank up the ammo capacity 10 fold?
Seriously, what the is up with that?!
What's next, making e-clips hold 10 times more because someone complains to Kevin in person that the Rifts ATL-7 doesn't hold more than one shot per e-clip?

I have done a lot of estimates with the old GB, measuring the pic and technical diagram in the old RMB, and doing a lot of number crunching. Others did similar number crunching, also showing the GB was fine the way it was (some before CE even came out)
The only obstacle in my number crunching? One pic showed the ammo belt might not be 'big' enough to handle the BG ammo, while a close up part of the casing ejector showed it was big enough...
Other than that, the ammo size, the size of the fletches, even the damage of the weapon (using the mach 5 muzzle veloocity) fit like a glove with the GB.

All the people mentioning positive stuff and info that proves the GB is perfectly fine the way it was...
and it is for not, because of a lone fan that complained in person?

To me, Kevin let a lone fan that was displeased about the ammo supply to destroy near perfection of design, one of the few weapons that actually makes perfect sense in many ways.

I will not use a GB with flechettes made of handwavium, loaded into an applied phlebotinum ammo drum that has just become nothing more than a bag of hold in the shape of an ammo drum...
If I ever get CE (or my RMB gives out and I have to get RUE), the first thing I will do is take a permanent marker and black out a 0 from both ammo numbers on the GB.


If anyone is interested, I will post the mega block of text of figures and estimates I have, which show Kevin took what did work, and threw it out the window because of a single fan was not happy with the fact the GB not having enough of its already powerful ammunition...

If the GB comparable to a (small) walking tank, it just got the ammo capacity comparable to that of a warship...

[glitterboy2098]

i suspect it was more than just an argument with a fan. as i've shown, the point of change occurs after a typo in WB22, and said entry ('corrected') is reprinted in total in CE and RUE. and yet entries post dating CE and within RUE itself conflict with this entry.

it may be that when the typo was pointed out, a previous discussion with a fan encouraged the editor (who may or may not have been kevin) to merely add a zero to the primary ammo bin instead of removing the errant zero from the secondary bin. and since then the same entry has been cut and pasted into newer books.


Book: Rifts main book
Date: 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990
my Printing: Sixth printing 1993
Proofreader: Alex Marciniszyn, Thom Bartold
Page #: 218-223
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary- 40
Other Information: Large Technical detail chart. specifies 7inch long projectiles.

Book: Mutants in orbit
Date: 1992
my Printing: First printing 1992
Proofreader: Maryann Siembieda
Page #: 67-68
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary- 40
other information: RG-14 used on USA-G13 Glitterboy.

Book: World Book 5: Triax and the NGR
Date: 1994
my Printing: third printing 1996
Proofreader: Alex Marciniszyn, James A. Osten, Thom Bartold
Page #: 45-48
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary - no secondary
other information: only T-550 listed, using a Triax duplication of the RG-14 system.

Book: World Book 8: Japan
Date: 1995
my Printing: Fourth printing 2000
Proofreader: Alex Marciniszyn, James A. Osten, Kevin Kirsten, Jlius Rosenstein
Page #: 136
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary- 40
other information:

Book: World book 22: Free Quebec
Date: 2000
my Printing: second printing 2001
Proofreader: Julius Rosenstein
Page #: 82-84
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 100 Secondary- 400
other information: mach velocity of shell increased to mach 5. underwater capabilities added to write up. T-550 included on Pg 84-87. ammo supply of duplicate boomgun is 100 rounds.

Book: Chaos earth
Date: 2003
my Printing: first printing 2003
Proofreader: Julius Rosenstein
Page #: 88-91
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary- 1000 Secondary- 400
other information: aside from alteration to primary ammo supply and removal of Rimouski weapon package, this entry is a copy of the GB entry from WB22.

Book: Game master Guide
My printing: fourth printing 2004
proofreader:
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary-100 Secondary- not listed
other information: reduced stat entry, as per all GMG entries.

Book: Rifts ultimate edition
Date: 2005
my Printing: first printing 2005
Proofreader: Julius Rosenstein
Page #: 71-74
Glitterboy ammo supply: Primary-1000 Secondary- 400
other information: Technical diagrams included on pg73, specifies 7inch long shells, also specifies a 100 round drum. stats are copy of entry from CE.



note the single point of fault. WB22 second printing establishes the GB as having 100 rounds, and 400 rounds in the secondary drum. as the writer of this book is not the same person proofreading and errataing (Kevin S and Julius R respectively), it seems highly probable that during the updating of the GB entry a typo occured increasing the secondary drum amount by an extra zero, and that in later printings the amounts were errattad by a well meaning proofreader who failed to double check previous books to determain the actual error made.

note also that leaves 6 entries on the USAG10 and T-550 (which use the same RG14/15 weapon) as having 100 rounds in it's main ammo bin, and only two (both cut and pastes of the erratad WB22) listing more than 100.

i have not listed examples from WB22 and others with glitterboys packing standard railguns that use 1000+ slugs or fletechettes individually in bursts, and not the shotgun like RG14/15. though these indicate that GB ammo cannot be smaller, since otherwise there would be no advantage to using individual slugs doing one dice of MD each fired in large bursts.

also note that there have been two instances of the technical diagram (one in RMB, one in RUE), which indicate 7 inch long shells and 100 round drums. this means RUE is inconsistent with it's own ammo listing.

[glitterboy2098]

and of course, mathmatical evidence from a friend.
i wish i was this good at math...

Take one Glitter Boy Technical Diagram (old RMB, and also in RUE from what I have heard), plus a ruler (metric side for better accuracy), a calculator, and of course, a site that has assorted stuff for converting and calculating assorted mathematical problems and forumla, such as the volume of a cylinder.

Starting off...

Main GB picture: 167mm tall (including from gun in stowed position)

Ammo Drum: 17mm tall, 40mm wide

Since the GB is listed as 3.1m tall, that comes out to 18.5 to 1 scale. 1mm in the drawing = roughly 18.5mm at 1-1 scale

Ammo Drum estimates.
Estimated 31cm diameter, estimated 2.5cm thickness for armor material (based on cross sections, the armor is only 2.5cm/1 inch thick, not bad considering it is likely 100 stronger than steel and likely equal to over 8ft thick armor plate steel), which puts 5cm of diameter as being accounted for by armor, allowing for 26cm internal diameter.
Estimated length is 74cm, estimated 69cm internal length accounting for 5cm thickness in the ammo drum wall.

Estimated internal volume is 36,634 cubic cm, (or 2235.5 cubic inches.)
Looking at a single BG cartridge., it is 3.5 times longer than it is wide, and the length is listed at 7in, which gives it a roughl diameter of 2in.
The volume of a 50mm (2in) diameter and 177.8mm (7in) long cylinder comes to 360.37 cubic cm (21.99 cubic inches), multiplied by 100 comes to 36037 cubic cm (2199 cubic inches) which is VERY close to the estimated internal volume of the ammo drum.
Due to figures I discovered, a 'circles in a circle' diagram, I estimated that round things such as a circles filling up a circle, using up 70-80% of the area of the large circle. This unfortunately makes the ammo drum a little 'small' to hold 100 rounds itself.

If drum thickness were just 2cm thick (4cm of its diameter), volume increases to 40,000 cubic cm.
If it is just 1.5cm thick (3cm of its diameter), it goes up to 43,000 cubic cm.
If it is just 1cm thick (2cm of its diameter), it goes up to 47,000 cubic cm.
So, if the ammo drum has walls 1-1.5cm thick (2-3cm of its diameter), it accounts for sufficient space to hold 100 cylinders that are 50mm by 177.8mm.

Looking at the ammo belt.
There is an estimated length of 70mm on the pic, translating to 1.3m total length at 1-1 scale.
That's possibly enough space for up to 26 rounds (not including any 'links' between rounds).
If we stick with the basic idea of 2.5cm thickness walls of the ammo drum, there would be roughly enough space in the drum for 75 rounds, plus another 25 rounds.

Although, if height is to the 'crown', and not the end of the stowed gun, then the scale changes to 21.2 to 1.
In this case, the ammo drum becomes 36cm diameter and 85cm long.
Sticking with the basic idea the walls are 2.5cm thick, there is a new interior space of 31cm diameter and 80cm long.
The new internal volume becomes 60,000 cubic cm, or roughly 42,000 that could be used up by ammo. This also actually leaves enough space for internal systems that help to feed the ammo into the ammo belt that feeds ammo to the BG. If 8,000 cubic cm was used for ammo feed systems, it leaves 52,000 cubic cm, which is roughly enough for 36,000 cubic cm of BG rounds (100 rounds total)

This new estimate also figures in that the standard weapon system will not have any ammo in an ammo feed belt until such a time the ammo feed belt is actually attached to an ammo source, as ammo would possibly be exposed to the elements and to possible damage when not in battle. There is nothing worse in battle then having a gun jam because of fod (foriegn object debris) has got into the 'links' of the ammo feed belt, since I doubt it is fully sealed since it is flexible.


Looking at the ammo itself.

First, lets look at the flechettes themselves, and if they will fit within the BG cartridge.
5mm diameter fletchettes, area of 19
50mm diameter cartridge, based on the drawing, and the 'thickness' in the picture (13mm exterior, 11mm interior), gives it an interior diameter of 42mm, which comes out with an area of 1385.
Trying to estimate space usage of round objects in a circle (using previously mentioned circles in a circle diagram, of 7 4cm radius circles in a 12cm radius circle), I come up with the following.
50 x 19 = 950
70% of 1385 = 969.5
It seems there is roughly enough 'space' there than is needed for 50 x 5mm diameter fletchettes within the diameter of the BG cartridge.

Again, it seems the technical diagrams, their measurements, and the math, still makes sense.

Except maybe that a 7in long cartridge has space for 75% more flechettes, but I account the extra space as being used for the mother of all hybrid flashbangs/aquatic rocket motors (exhibit A: The excessively loud noise of the boom gun, probably louder than even a 120mm tank cannon, unconfirmed. Exhibit B, WB 22 Free Quebec, the GB apparently gets some air, er, water time when firing underwater unanchored, despite the fact that water is 600 times denser than air, the GB flies back hundred of yards over a period of an apparent minute or more... this is from WB 22 first printing.)

How about the damage?
Would it surprise you if the math shows the damage is perfectly suited, if we take the basic figures and updated muzzle velocity of mach 5?

As everyone knows, the BG does 30-180 MD via 200 flechettes.
That's only 15-90 SDC per individual fletchette.
The flechettes are comparable in size/diameter to a 5.56mm round.
Looking into CoCW, and trying to find the heavy hitters of the 5.56mm rounds...

A baseline is a 5.56mm round that does 5D6, muzzle velocity of mach 3.3 (1,000m/s). Old notes show an average mass of a 5.56mm NATO round is around 4 grams.
Doubling the mass of the 5.56mm will effectively double the to 10D6 damage.
Increasing the muzzle velocity by 50% brings it from mach 3.3 (1,000m/s) to mach 5 (1,500m/s), upping damage again, to 15D6 damage, or 15-90 SDC per round, equal to a BG flechette..

The doubled mass comes to 8 grams, which interestingly enough, comes very close to estimates others had done, estimated if the flechettes (based on the 5x25mm size shown in the technical diagram) were made of Depleted Uranium or Tungsten, the result came out to just shy of 8 grams.

Either way, there are 1.6kg/3.5 pounds of flechetes, a perfectly senesible number for a '50mm' weapon, especially considering a 40mm cannon round (just the projectile) is about 2 pounds, and that an old 47mm cannon (just the projectile) weighed 3.3 pounds.

This helps to further backup that the original 100 shot capacity is accurate and sensible, and that the gun is actually balanced and sensible in terms of damage based on said ammo size, and with updated muzzle velocity of mach 5.
Also, at 867 pounds, if 350 pounds was ammo, and maybe 20 pounds was ammo drum, that leaves almost 500 pounds for the gun itself, which, surprise surprise, is close to weight of some older 40mm and 47mm cannons, which are also around 500 pounds. Also of note, an old 47mm round weighs 3.3 pounds. Again, the ammo weight seems spot on.

Possible problems.
The ammo belt measures 2mm thick and 5mm wide, that's 37-42mm thick and 92.5-105mm wide with the 1-1 scale estimates.
With all of the other data listed and everything shown in the technical diagrams, this is one of the only things that does not really fit with everything else.
Although, in the diagram of the casing ejector in the technical diagrams, the scale of the ammo feed belt seems larger, close to half of the cylindrical portion it is attached to, while the main pic shows the belt to closer to 1/4 the width of the clyndrical section it is attatched to. So, according to the diagram of the casing ejector, it does appear to be large enough to still handle the width of the ammo, the length is still questionable, except for the small section of ejected cartridge shown in the diagram, which gives a basic comparison for the size of the ammo feed belt, if it was 'thin skinned', it might have barely enough space for a 7in long round.

one point of interest:

Again, it seems the technical diagrams, their measurements, and the math, still makes sense.

Except maybe that a 7in long cartridge has space for 75% more flechettes, but I account the extra space as being used for the mother of all hybrid flashbangs/aquatic rocket motors (exhibit A: The excessively loud noise of the boom gun, probably louder than even a 120mm tank cannon, unconfirmed. Exhibit B, WB 22 Free Quebec, the GB apparently gets some air, er, water time when firing underwater unanchored, despite the fact that water is 600 times denser than air, the GB flies back hundred of yards over a period of an apparent minute or more... this is from WB 22 first printing.)

there exist designs of Hybrid railguns and coilguns that use an explosive charge to start the projectile down the barrel, and that use charged rails or magnetic coilds as an accellerator stage to increase the velocity of the projectile beyond that it could reach using just the explosive charge. these systems are marked by louder report, increase recoil, lower energy useage than a straight railgun or coilgun of the same velocity, and the ability to fire larger, heavier projectiles than a similarly sized conventional gun...

the boomgun seems to be an example of such.

and of course it is likely some of the space would be a "wad", like in a shotgun, to protect the projectile fro mthe explosive shells, and the sabot casing surrounding the fletchettes...

[Jason Richards]

Boys! Boys!

Great discussion, but this thread is for errata. Valid though all opinions may be, the 1000 rounds is canon, so it is not an errata.

Thanks.

[R Ditto]

Boys! Boys!

Great discussion, but this thread is for errata. Valid though all opinions may be, the 1000 rounds is canon, so it is not an errata.

Thanks.

That's the problem, it is canon.
It makes no sense at all (like the canon length of a Star Wars A-Wing, or of the damage of a 16in battleship gun in Rifts Underseas, or that 4th ed D&D apparently 'remade' an old setting using a chipper shredder...).
Yet, no matter how absurd and nonsensical it is, it is canon... even if it gets retcon'd beyond the realm of common sense, it remains canon.
Which in turn reduces my respect of such things.

As the old saying goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it...
and the ammo amount wasn't broke before, it is now...
Someone needs to retcon the retcon...
100 rounds needs to be here as errata, not 1000 rounds as canon.

[Princedarkstorm]

Thank you !

[Jason Richards]

That's the problem, it is canon.
It makes no sense at all (like the canon length of a Star Wars A-Wing, or of the damage of a 16in battleship gun in Rifts Underseas, or that 4th ed D&D apparently 'remade' an old setting using a chipper shredder...).
Yet, no matter how absurd and nonsensical it is, it is canon... even if it gets retcon'd beyond the realm of common sense, it remains canon.
Which in turn reduces my respect of such things.

As the old saying goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it...
and the ammo amount wasn't broke before, it is now...
Someone needs to retcon the retcon...
100 rounds needs to be here as errata, not 1000 rounds as canon.

Well, disagreements aside, the fact is that it is NOT errata. This thread is for discovered errors that need to be addressed by Palladium. This issue has, in fact, been addressed, even if not to the result that you would prefer.

I encourage you to change the stat for your own games, though. Not a thing wrong with that!

[Princedarkstorm]

That's the problem, it is canon.
It makes no sense at all (like the canon length of a Star Wars A-Wing, or of the damage of a 16in battleship gun in Rifts Underseas, or that 4th ed D&D apparently 'remade' an old setting using a chipper shredder...).
Yet, no matter how absurd and nonsensical it is, it is canon... even if it gets retcon'd beyond the realm of common sense, it remains canon.
Which in turn reduces my respect of such things.

As the old saying goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it...
and the ammo amount wasn't broke before, it is now...
Someone needs to retcon the retcon...
100 rounds needs to be here as errata, not 1000 rounds as canon.

Well, disagreements aside, the fact is that it is NOT errata. This thread is for discovered errors that need to be addressed by Palladium. This issue has, in fact, been addressed, even if not to the result that you would prefer.

I encourage you to change the stat for your own games, though. Not a thing wrong with that!

Well some game writers or companies always do rewrites or updates .

[Jason Richards]

Updated for the new site. Visit http://www.jasonrichards.net and click "Downloads."

[Princedarkstorm]

Cool !

[Jason Richards]

Man, was it really only a year ago last time I changed the site?

Well, I have, so check it out and update your links. I've edited it a little bit so hopefully it's a bit easier to read.

[TechnoGothic]

Yeah I'd change the GB's BG ammo back down to 100 rounds. Its way more than enough ammo for those damages.

[glitterboy2098]

Yeah I'd change the GB's BG ammo back down to 100 rounds. Its way more than enough ammo for those damages.

what, you don't think the ability to fire for an hour non-stop and destroy 4 Ticonderoga Class super-carriers without reloading isn't a good idea?

[Xar]

Yeah I'd change the GB's BG ammo back down to 100 rounds. Its way more than enough ammo for those damages.

what, you don't think the ability to fire for an hour non-stop and destroy 4 Ticonderoga Class super-carriers without reloading isn't a good idea?

Well, one solution is simply to limit the ammo available to the players. Jason did just that at his Open House 2009 game and it worked just fine...there were no complaints. Read about it here at Jason Richards cannot be trusted

[Jason Richards]

<slips Xar a dollar>

[Xar]

*pockets bill and walks away while humming nonchalantly*