Collected Car Wars Classic Errata

[Magesmiley]

I'd concur with Swordtart that the fire extinguisher item doesn't seem to meet the bar for errata. The item in the fire rules is really more a helpful note (and it is written acceptably IMO - 4 in 6 to me means a roll of 1-4). Any other thoughts?

[swordtart]

I am assuming the crash table section in CW Classic is the same one as in 2.5.

In the newer version of the crash table you can get a negative number as a crash result (once low speed, <D3 hazard and/or decent driver skill are taken into account). Crash table 1 accomodates this as it has an entry for results "2 or less". Crash table 2 however explicitely starts at "1-4" (crash table 3 starts at -1, and the others start at 0 but I don't think these are part of CW Classic).

Should the first result on Crash table 2 be amended to 4 or less to cover the effect of negative numbers, or should negative numbers result in no effect on both tables?

[kjamma4]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Should the first result on Crash table 2 be amended to 4 or less to cover the effect of negative numbers, or should negative numbers result in no effect on both tables?

Since the ones in Compendium have a variety of lowest number (including Table 1 which has no lower bound), I'd say leave them as is.

[Magesmiley]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Should the first result on Crash table 2 be amended to 4 or less to cover the effect of negative numbers, or should negative numbers result in no effect on both tables?

I'm kind of on mixed opinions here. On the one hand this isn't any worse than the Compendium. On the other hand, it (getting a result not on the table) is a problem with the crash table. And the Compendium isn't in print, but Classic is. Myself, I'm leaning towards that this should be errata. Any other opinions?

The discussion thread on the problems with the hazards section on page 15 in regards to linked weapons has wrapped up and been inactive for a week or so. The consensus seemed to be that this was indeed an errata item (as the section as written indicates an incorrect way of resolving the hazard). The additional sentence that was being put forth to correct this section was: "Damage from one firing action (linked weapons, for example) are totaled for computing the hazard." Last chance for comments and objections before this one goes in the list.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm submitting this as a possible errata, and I'll let you guys figure out whether it is for sure.

The formula for power use for cars should be:

(PU * Current Speed) / (Max Speed * 120)

It's currently:

(PU * Current Speed) / (Max Speed * 100)

I'm assuming this is errata because the note says that a power plant should have 200 miles of range at cruising speed, which is 60% of its maximum speed. The old formula puts that at 50% of its max.

If that's not going to be changed, then cruising speed should be changed to 50% of maximum speed.

(Edit: As has been pointed out to me, my math is off a bit. Still, I'll leave it to you all to decide.)

[JonnyP]

Need a statement explicitly stating that the PFE needs a firing action, but the normal and improved FEs do not.

[MiB1213]

I was just going through the section on Cycle design in the 2nd printing. For a cycle constructed with a heavy suspension the HC as listed on pg.53 says it should be "2". Now if you flip to page 61, under sample vehicles, the cycle "Shogun 100" is constructed with a heavy suspension but is listed with a HC of 3. Shouldn't this read HC 2?

[possumknavel]

Yes - The Shogun 100 should only have a 2 HC.

-John

[MiB1213]

Originally Posted by possumknavel

Yes - The Shogun 100 should only have a 2 HC.

-John

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

[Magesmiley]

I added the issue with the Shogun 100's HC to the list.

Any opinions on this one:

Originally Posted by JonnyP

Need a statement explicitly stating that the PFE needs a firing action, but the normal and improved FEs do not.