Dungeon #103 Millenium Falcon Typos

[Katowice]

Did anyone catch the typos in the Millenium Falcon's stat block in Dungeon #103? The weapon entries for the quad laser cannons and the concussion missile launchers reads "6d10<<ts>>2" and "9d10<<ts>>2" for damage instead of "6d10x2" and "9d10x2". Also the Attack Bonus for the concussion missile launcher hasn't been properly written. It currently reads "Attack Bonus: +xx (+x size, +xx fire control, +xx equipment)". I also thought that individual starship weapons would not have range modifiers listed per the Revised Core Rulebook 2nd Printing.

 

[Mapmaker]

Funny how things can go so wrong with a goal as seemingly straightforward as reproducing stats from the core rulebook...

The <<ts>> are editorial marks for times signs, which somehow didn't get converted to the appropriate symbol when those in the others statblocks did. The Attack Bonus "+xx" notations shouldn't be there at all, though, because it's a missile launcher. That's my fault; I should have caught those and deleted them before sending in the file.

As for the range modifiers: the stats in the RCR have a note of "see table 11-8". I just tried to fill in the blanks to save GMs from having to refer to the book during gameplay.

The stats are playable and accurate as-is; just remember <<ts>> is a times sign, and ignore the "XX" parts. If it's cumbersome, though, just refer to the RCR. The official stats have not changed from the revised core rules; they're just relisted for convenience.

One additional typo you didn't mention: a line in the text refers to the ship's complement of 6 missiles. It should actually be 8, which is correctly listed everywhere else it is mentioned.

Aside from those trivial quirks, though, what did you think of the article? Did you find the materials useful?

 

[Katowice]

I didn't have my RCR with me when I pointed out the typos. Thanks for the clarification.

Trivial typos aside, I thought that the article was thoroughly researched and very informative. I plan on using the Falcon in my Rise of the Empire campaign, minus some of the modifications (the ones that were obviously Han and Lando's).

The one thing this article reminded me of was the "Stock Ships" book that WEG put out a few years back. The authors provided a "stock" configuration with deckplan and then provided an example ship with a history and adventure hooks. I wouldn't mind seeing more articles like this in the magazine. How about covering Dash Rendar's Outrider or Slave I in a future issue?

Funny how things can go so wrong with a goal as seemingly straightforward as reproducing stats from the core rulebook...

The <<ts>> are editorial marks for times signs, which somehow didn't get converted to the appropriate symbol when those in the others statblocks did. The Attack Bonus "+xx" notations shouldn't be there at all, though, because it's a missile launcher. That's my fault; I should have caught those and deleted them before sending in the file.

As for the range modifiers: the stats in the RCR have a note of "see table 11-8". I just tried to fill in the blanks to save GMs from having to refer to the book during gameplay.

The stats are playable and accurate as-is; just remember <<ts>> is a times sign, and ignore the "XX" parts. If it's cumbersome, though, just refer to the RCR. The official stats have not changed from the revised core rules; they're just relisted for convenience.

One additional typo you didn't mention: a line in the text refers to the ship's complement of 6 missiles. It should actually be 8, which is correctly listed everywhere else it is mentioned.

Aside from those trivial quirks, though, what did you think of the article? Did you find the materials useful?

 

[Mapmaker]

I'm glad you liked it! If the reader response is positive and the editor gets asked for more articles of this sort, I wouldn't be surprised to see other ships (or locations) get a similar treatment.

The Outrider is one I've had my eye on for a while, but it's close enough to the Falcon in concept that I'd be inclined to wait a few months before covering it.

I actually did create a deck plan of the Slave I back in the days of Star Wars Gamer. It never got printed in that magazine with the rest of the bounty hunter ships, though. I'm not sure if Polyhedron inherited the rights to print it, but I'd be quite happy to see it made available.

 

[shadowlight]

...
Aside from those trivial quirks, though, what did you think of the article? Did you find the materials useful?

I loved it! I've been wanting some good starship maps and this article had 3! Of course, I'll be photoshopping out the numbers and printing it out larger for gameplay...

Thanks for the great article! Keep `em coming!

 

[Severion]

I loved it. I'm thinking about using the YT-1300f as the Minerva in my possible Iron Lords of Jupiter campaign. (if only for the time).

 

[Mapmaker]

Cool! When the time comes, I'd love to hear how you guys put the ships to use in your campaigns.

 

[johnnype]

Am I the only one who has not received this issue yet? Anyone else living in the San Francisco Bay Area who has not received this issue?

 

[Katowice]

What I'm planning right now is that the PC's, shortly after the Battle of Naboo, find Maul's Sith Infiltrator and are requested by the Jedi Council to deliver it from Coruscant. Along the way, they are attacked by Aurra Sing, who is piloting the Falcon.

Cool! When the time comes, I'd love to hear how you guys put the ships to use in your campaigns.

 

[Kenpo Wolf]

Despite a couple of minor flaws, I thought the article and maps were great. Is there a chance that we can see a few sci fi maps down the road?

Hey Chris, since we got your attention, do you have a web site that we can check out?