ULTRA Rules Typo Reporting

[Taluron]

Ultra_4_2009_Part2.zip
_ApxAA_Tech.pdf

Jc - Anti-Matter Drive Tree

The generational codes all start with {h}
example: {h} Jca

The opening SL 22 also has this {h}.

Should those be in the SL column as h making each level a Hazardous project?

Otherwise I can find no explantion for the {h} in the SL 22 entry and personally find them extraneous in the Code field.

Or am I missing something? Are you marking on the control sheet the drives as hazardous?

What this means is that both the SL project AND the tech project are hazardous projects. Since Jc is anti-matter technology, there is a hazard in both the scientific breakthrough to each SL, and to the actual development of the technology.

Kinda what I thought but shouldn't the {h} be in the SL box and not the Code box?
Is the DAC code for Anti-matter engines is intended to be:
({h} Jca)x5

[Cralis]

What this means is that both the SL project AND the tech project are hazardous projects. Since Jc is anti-matter technology, there is a hazard in both the scientific breakthrough to each SL, and to the actual development of the technology.

Kinda what I thought but shouldn't the {h} be in the SL box and not the Code box?
Is the DAC code for Anti-matter engines is intended to be:
({h} Jca)x5

No. Any modifier in the SL box affects ONLY the SL. The modifier has to be in the tech item box to affect the tech item.

Thus the {h}SL means the SL research is hazardous, and the {h}Jca means that the Jca tech item development is ALSO hazardous. If they were both in the SL box than only the SL research would be hazardous.

Not sure what you mean by the "DAC code"

[Taluron]

What this means is that both the SL project AND the tech project are hazardous projects. Since Jc is anti-matter technology, there is a hazard in both the scientific breakthrough to each SL, and to the actual development of the technology.

Kinda what I thought but shouldn't the {h} be in the SL box and not the Code box?
Is the DAC code for Anti-matter engines is intended to be:
({h} Jca)x5

No. Any modifier in the SL box affects ONLY the SL. The modifier has to be in the tech item box to affect the tech item.

Thus the {h}SL means the SL research is hazardous, and the {h}Jca means that the Jca tech item development is ALSO hazardous. If they were both in the SL box than only the SL research would be hazardous.

Not sure what you mean by the "DAC code"

DAC Code - sorry SFB on the brain - the Control Sheet Code for tracking damage to the ships systems.
I hadn't realized when reading through the R&D section that the {h} could go there.

[Omegalodon]

Compared to the other questions here, this seems overly nit-picky, but the answer will determine how I title my next new topic.

Is the printed spelling for 'Gravametric' intended, or was it supposed to be 'Gravimetric'? Google disagrees with the printed spelling.

[procyon]

the printed spelling for 'Gravametric' intended, or was it supposed to be 'Gravimetric'?

I can't say what was intended. I just don't know.

But as a former physicist (but not english major), the proper term is generally considered to be gravimetric if it has to do with any determination made by weight of an object - or when applied to instuments used to determine gravatic acceleration at a given point or location.

It has been applied to study of gravity fields, but is not always considered proper terminology for those areas of study or research.

EDIT

At least when I was involved. Which is getting to be on towards 20 years ago....

[Cralis]

Compared to the other questions here, this seems overly nit-picky, but the answer will determine how I title my next new topic.

Is the printed spelling for 'Gravametric' intended, or was it supposed to be 'Gravimetric'? Google disagrees with the printed spelling.

The proper term, as you've noted, it Gravimetric. However, I haven't gotten to that drive yet on my roll through the technologies by SL and it may change because that doesn't seem named very well. We are moving the drive to around SL18-20 anyway.

[Omegalodon]

The proper term, as you've noted, it Gravimetric. However, I haven't gotten to that drive yet on my roll through the technologies by SL and it may change because that doesn't seem named very well. We are moving the drive to around SL18-20 anyway.

Many thanks. I agree, if this drive type functions the way as described, the SL seems low, from my Ultra-inexperienced standpoint. One can do much more with gravity manipulation than just move ships. . .

Speaking of which, I'm working on some concepts directly related to the Gt drive, and was wondering where to post them, if/when I finish.

[Cralis]

The proper term, as you've noted, it Gravimetric. However, I haven't gotten to that drive yet on my roll through the technologies by SL and it may change because that doesn't seem named very well. We are moving the drive to around SL18-20 anyway.

Many thanks. I agree, if this drive type functions the way as described, the SL seems low, from my Ultra-inexperienced standpoint. One can do much more with gravity manipulation than just move ships. . .

Speaking of which, I'm working on some concepts directly related to the Gt drive, and was wondering where to post them, if/when I finish.

If you want to post suggestions feel free to start a topic. If you want to suggest them privately, you can private message one of us. But I've found that unless you have some uber-cool thing you want kept in secret, posting it as a topic lets you get ideas and input from the players...many of whom make some pretty awesome suggestions

[Omegalodon]

If you want to post suggestions feel free to start a topic. If you want to suggest them privately, you can private message one of us. But I've found that unless you have some uber-cool thing you want kept in secret, posting it as a topic lets you get ideas and input from the players...many of whom make some pretty awesome suggestions

Excellent. I would love opinions and the viability assessments/potential improvements they would bring. I was just wary of starting topics already started.

[TerryTigre]

In rule W5.05.5 on page 172 a note is added at the end of the section.

A race that has not previously detect a WP in a cluster

Detect would probably be better as detected.

The term cluster is not used in the preceding rule, so at first i was thinking the note was misplaced, and belonged in the clustered warp points section W8.06.

However it did not quite fit there either.

So perhaps it would be clearer if instead of cluster shroud was used (which is present in W5.05.5) or at least a cluster of astroids is used.

Possibly shroud was used in W5.05.5 to avoid confusion with W8.06 and the note still uses the old terminology?