IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> SR4A Clairification
Daedelus
post Jul 13 2009, 02:07 AM
Post #1


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 13-July 09
Member No.: 17,386



So I have found some differences between the SR4A book and the SR4A changes document. Specificallly the max strength for bows is 12 in SR4A and 8 in the changes doc. Also the ultrasound vision enhancement says it takes up 2 slots in the changes doc, but there is no reference to that in SR4A. I am wondering if one of the Devs can give me some guidance on which document takes precidence.

Thank You for your feedack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Jul 13 2009, 04:40 AM
Post #2


Street Doc
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,508
Joined: 2-March 04
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 6,114



First, Welcome to Dumpshock, Daedelus.

Second, do you have the most current SR4A file? They rereleased a corrected version shortly after the first to fix a bunch of typos and whatnot.

My copy of SR4A (corrected) has bows at 8 and US vision at 2 capacity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Daedelus
post Jul 13 2009, 05:02 AM
Post #3


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 170
Joined: 13-July 09
Member No.: 17,386



Thank You that would explain the differences
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Jul 13 2009, 05:05 AM
Post #4


Street Doc
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,508
Joined: 2-March 04
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 6,114



No problem. You should contact the distributor (Battlecorps or Drivethru) that you bought your .pdf from about getting a free replacement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
crizh
post Jul 13 2009, 11:01 AM
Post #5


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,666
Joined: 29-February 08
From: Scotland
Member No.: 15,722



Hey Method, is the Cyberlimb Armour nerf in the updated SR4A pdf?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Jul 13 2009, 01:30 PM
Post #6


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (crizh @ Jul 13 2009, 02:01 PM) *
Hey Method, is the Cyberlimb Armour nerf in the updated SR4A pdf?

Damn, one more stupid rule change. i think i like the original SR4A pdf more.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Method
post Jul 14 2009, 03:13 AM
Post #7


Street Doc
*******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,508
Joined: 2-March 04
From: Neverwhere
Member No.: 6,114



crizh: nerfed in what sense? Their capacity cost, avail and (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) cost are the same as SR4.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mäx
post Jul 14 2009, 05:57 AM
Post #8


Prime Runner
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 3-February 08
From: Finland
Member No.: 15,628



QUOTE (Method @ Jul 14 2009, 06:13 AM) *
crizh: nerfed in what sense? Their capacity cost, avail and (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) cost are the same as SR4.

They added a really stupib statement that that half-limbs armor only counts at half rating.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
McAllister
post Jul 14 2009, 05:59 AM
Post #9


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 509
Joined: 16-June 09
Member No.: 17,282



That... doesn't make any sense, really. In that case, armour in half-limbs should take up half capacity. Which I'd be ok with. Just means you can only put 2 armour in a half-limb, and it costs twice as much (which is peanuts). That makes perfect sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Prime Mover
post Jul 14 2009, 01:41 PM
Post #10


Shooting Target
****

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 1,755
Joined: 5-September 06
From: UCAS
Member No.: 9,313



Synthetic Skull replaced in updated document?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 07:38 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.