things for the next rule book

[ColourSchemer]

Half-decent is still a ways away from decent. I'd rather type exactly what goes into the page and know it's right than use funky GUIs until it looks right, then hope it actually is.

Clearly your website clients pay you a lot more than mine do. Good on ya.

[Blitzen]

Clients? I'm just a kid who likes to type.

I actually have no idea what clients would pay, or whether it's worth the hassle, but I can respect valid code, and that is for what I strive. Maybe my viewpoint will change when I can actually make money. Maybe not.

But, whatever.

[ColourSchemer]

Clients? I'm just a kid who likes to type.

I actually have no idea what clients would pay, or whether it's worth the hassle, but I can respect valid code, and that is for what I strive. Maybe my viewpoint will change when I can actually make money. Maybe not.

But, whatever.

Ah that explains it. Kids have more time than they know what to do with. Wish I could buy it off you, so I had more. Yea, when you have a job, kids, responsibilities, in-laws, and all the other crap that comes with adulthood, we'll have this discussion about if WYSIWYG editors, okay?

Ages ago, I offered to help Mike write up the HTML for the 2001 rules. Then totally bailed on him. Sorry Mike!

[Rayhawk]

Exactly. You suck. You shouldn't have to type in those tags if you use CSS, which you are definitely not doing.

PS WYSIWYG editors are stupid, because their code is trash.

I'd thank you not to lump half-decent WYSIWYG editors like Dreamweaver in with total proprietary-code trash like Frontpage.

Half-decent is still a ways away from decent. I'd rather type exactly what goes into the page and know it's right than use funky GUIs until it looks right, then hope it actually is.

I have to agree with Blitzen on this one.  I used Dreamweaver for all of my websites, and I still have to go back in and hand-edit half the source code because the DW code is... only half decent, I guess.

Also I subscribe to the idea that doing the whole thing with CSS would be way more efficient.  But I'm too lazy to go back and convert all of the existing pages.

[piltogg]

K i will just post the superpowers supplement fully coded and if noone likes it enuff or it just isn't that mutch better I'll just leave it at that. K?

[Mr. Duck]

why doesn't somebody just make a big book of statcards? That seems to be waht all the additions are.

[TheRailwayMan]

Honestly, I'd prefer some better rules for weapons included in the next rule book: while I like the 2005 version, I'd prefer more depth; on the flip side, however, I really don't like the 2001 versions. The pistols were practically the exact same as the rifles, the only differences being range and the presence of 'auto-fire'. The people I play with generally just fudge all distances (a horrible way to play, I realize, and it might just be the cause of our problems) and we generally tend not to opt to use rules as, well, 'odd' (I suppose that would be the right word; its almost midnight over in Ireland as I type this) as autofire.

I know this does'nt *exactly* fit into the subject matter discussed in this thread, but I felt it nessecary to inform others of my problems: that there should be more differences between pistols and rifles in the next rule book.

[pesgores]

Honestly, I'd prefer some better rules for weapons included in the next rule book: while I like the 2005 version, I'd prefer more depth; on the flip side, however, I really don't like the 2001 versions. The pistols were practically the exact same as the rifles, the only differences being range and the presence of 'auto-fire'. The people I play with generally just fudge all distances (a horrible way to play, I realize, and it might just be the cause of our problems) and we generally tend not to opt to use rules as, well, 'odd' (I suppose that would be the right word; its almost midnight over in Ireland as I type this) as autofire.

I know this does'nt *exactly* fit into the subject matter discussed in this thread, but I felt it nessecary to inform others of my problems: that there should be more differences between pistols and rifles in the next rule book.

Are you sure you read the 2005 rules?

[IVhorseman]

He did, but he's asking for a little more diversity.

Personally, I like where things are. pistols take one hand, and have short range. Rifles take two hands, and have longer range. Do you need more than that in differences?

Although I will admit, adding a few extra guns couldn't hurt too much (Shotgun, heavy/sniper rifle, and machine-gun variants of pistols and rifles are really all that's needed). Even then, I think most of these should just be a quick property attached to a basic pistol or rifle (allowing for machineguns, assault rifles, and machine pistols just from the automatic fire category alone). Dig around on the rules section of the forums here if you want to find my home-made auto-fire rules

[pesgores]

Gunpowder and futuristic ranged weapons should be classified as:

Pistols
E. g. pistol

Light rifles
E. g. light automatic rifle (M-16, for instance)

Heavy rifles
E. g. bazooka, sniper rifle

[*CRAZYHORSE*]

Why was the range for the long ranged weapon reduced to 10"?
What was wrong with the 12" range?

[Greenkey15]

I'd like to see an easy to use and accurate weapons/equipment/trooper modification chart like in the 2001 rules. Some people don't exactly like going through the special creations chapter forever to create units, and the guns aren't really modifiable in the 2005 rules. Maybe a SP kind of chapter for troopers? The STAR CIVILIZATIONSwere the jewel of '98, and those would make a good addition.  I liked the 1998 rules because the Civs would allow people with differents styles of gameplay to be able to play like they would like to. I had an idea for campaigning, but since people don't generally like text walls...

[tahthing]

i would like to see rules on obital weaponry (exp: militry satlite)
maybe for every turn spent chargeing the laser it gains 1 attack power to a min of 5 and a max of +10 or so to the original
exaple
my satilite has 4 attack so it takes 1 turn to chage to a point it can be fired but i could charge it for 11 turns and get 14 attack
but they can only be shot by special anti-satalite guns on ground(must be sationary and same rule as the satalite weapon)

[Jaye Tea]

with orbital guns wouldnt you need to have somesort of remote fthat can be destroyed otherwise itd be unfair

[warman45]

i think there should be more funny pictures in the next rulebook. it would also be cool to have a minigame. HEY! I CAN CREATE THAT BRB!!!