aka Sarah

  • I live in Rio Piedras, PR
  • I was born on June 7
  • My occupation is Legal Mercenary Paper-Pusher
  • I am Female
  Loading editor
  • I've been worried ever since the hurricane. (This is Mindfire/ChrisDonovan.)

      Loading editor
    • Still around.

      Power still wonky, so online time is limited.

        Loading editor
    • We hear all sorts of horror stories here on the mainland. Stay safe.

      Oh, and be careful about how much you do around here. You may not know this, but Wizards dropped the hammer on fan activities recently. Tom had to stop both fanzines and take down the Remastered edition. I'm hoping the wiki manages to stay under the radar for a good while to come, but if it's too active Malcadon may get a C&D.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Just thought I would leave this here...

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Can you name the three known homages in the art for the game?

      Loading editor
    • There is a definite influence from Star Wars/Battlestar Galactica not only in some clothing, but in the ubiquitous red stripe on vehicles.

      The classic Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers aesthetic can be clearly seen in the early art and fashion, with a good dose of 1950s/60s classics like Forbidden Planet and Lost in Space; the robot art is particularly influenced by this.

      Then there is the Old West aesthetic that can be found in some of the very early artwork.

      Later modules have a strong Space: 1999 influence in their artwork (particularly the UK ones), as well as from Alien... but most sci fi of the era was heavily influenced by that aesthetic.

        Loading editor
      • waves white flag*
      I surrender!  Actually, I didn't know about those or hadn't consciously processed  them.  I was talking about the homages to Space Academy (the Plannarion asteroid belt pirate base), The Gil Gerrard Buck Rogers (same image) and Gene Roddenberry's failed Planet Earth pilot.
      Homage 1

      Space Academy and Thunderfighter

      The other influence I detect (though I'm not 100% certain of is a bit of Heavy Metal (the magazne/movie) in some places.  Oh, and DSOTM feels a lot like a Bond movie.
      Homage 2

      needler pistol

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • you should consider re-doing it with the proper proportions.

      Loading editor
    • The "proper proportions" depend on your definition of "about the size of a cigarette pack"; is it a pack of standard cigarettes? unfiltered? 100's? 120's? 20-pack? 25-pack? 14-pack? half-pack (10)?

      My definition is reflected in the image; close to the size of a half-pack of filtered cigarettes. It is compact, ergonomic and closer to the proportions of the magazines of real-world pistols.

      A "common cigarette pack"-sized item simply is not viable as a device that fits in the handle of a pistol; the weapon would be practically unusable by human hands, and there is absolutely no way that it could ever fit in the handle of the canon artwork of a laser pistol or sonic sword.

        Loading editor
    • Depends on the type.  Look at the canon artwork for Col Jamison, or the woman in the bubble-head space suit.  Is the power pack in the grip, or is it in the "mag well" seen on both weapons?

      But I'm not in the mood to fight over it.  Moving on.

        Loading editor
    • Quote:

      "Depends on the type.  Look at the canon artwork for Col Jamison, or the woman in the bubble-head space suit.  Is the power pack in the grip, or is it in the "mag well" seen on both weapons?"

      Don't you mean Garlus Tylappar, owner/operator of CS Gullwind in Dramune Run? I am not aware of any canon pic of Col. Jameson (Volturnus saga).

      Notice that the pistol in the pic in question has the power cable coming out of the bottom of the grip (where the power clip would go), and what you call "the well" has a rounded bottom, indicating that it is likely the housing for machinery/electronics, not a receptacle for a power source.

      The girl (who appears with the same weapon in the same module on more than one occasion) has a rifle that, if not for the "bubble" at the end of the barrel would be identifiable as a gyrojet or auto rifle.

      A better argument might be had with the laser weapons carried by the Malthar's robots, with power cables (going to power backpacks) coming out of the assembly forward of the trigger.

      But there are two fundamental problems with pointing at these as canon for purposes of powerclip sizes:

      1) These would be outliers; the 100% canon example of a laser pistol seen all over AD and in early modules simply has no place where it can accommodate a 20-pack of filtered cigarettes.

      2) The art is by Clyde Caldwell, who is (or was, I have not seen his work in a while) notoriously bad at weapon design and other equipment (I could literally write a scholarly paper on the subject). Notice the space battle scene in Dramune Run pp. 28; the three assault scouts have bubble cockpits as if they were fighters, they have the "thrust trails" of three engines (not two), including one from the cargo bays, and are armed with forward-firing beam weapons.

      I'd simply suggest giving the Clyde Calwell art the same treatment as is given to the Zeb "equipment diagrams"; accept that they exist, but ignore them otherwise because they violate written canon.

      My artwork does not violate canon; it has the proportions of a half-pack of cigarettes and can be seen to be in proportion to canon descriptions and artwork of weapons in the setting. This would not be the case if it were literally the size of a pack of Newports.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Did you ever find a workable template?

      Loading editor
    • I honestly forgot. I'm swamped at work and will remain so until at least next week.

        Loading editor
    • Darn new format won't let me import the old.

      I did manage to keep the Kg line clear; as we find any pages, all we need to do is add "kg" text to the mass line and it should be clear in context.

      I'd hate to lose the whole thing, so I'll see if I can tweak it a bit to fix the issue, but it will have to wait until I have a bit more free time.

        Loading editor
    • That will help on the single boxes.  Tables are still gonna be "ugh", but it's not like this wiki gets THAT much traffic, so the bad formatting isn't gonna get noticed a lot.

      I'd say just "redo" them, but with the old infobox overwritten woudn't it just be the same as it is now?

        Loading editor
    • The problem is that the template page is not like the old version and can't simply be overwritten (I tried).

      For now, I don't think it will be much of an issue. I'll get on it (hopefully) some time this weekend.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I think I may have inadverftently broken the Weapons Template.

    I vaguely remember being asked to "approve" something awhile ago and I said "yes" w/o thinking.  Now ALL the weapons pages that have the weapons template seem to  be using that format...which is problematic on the pages that had a table of weapons.  See "Archaic Weapons" for an example of the result.  I don't know how to fix it.  I hope you do.

    My apologies for the screw up.  I do like the non-scrolling format though.  Is there a way to make a template that keeps that but has a table instead of a column of entries?

      Loading editor
  • You need to undo all those tags, or at least not object in the event I do.  I specifically limited myself to what the canon descriptions said in the main text.  And they are canon.  The article makes it explicitly clear that these were developed for the game itself, and would have been published there if more game books had been forthcoming.  They are in no way "fan pro".

      Loading editor
    • Be specific. What tags?

        Loading editor
    • I don't think they should be stuck with a "Dragon Article" tag, Yes, that was where they wound up after it was decided that there would be no more AD books, but they were explicitly designed for AD.

        Loading editor
    • But regardless of what their original intent may have been, they were published in Dragon Magazine, ergo, "Dragon Magazine source".

      Some people consider Dragon Magazine articles to be 100% canon across the board, others consider only those by official developers, and still others consider them all apocryphal (i.e. "house rules").

      If we are talking about "A Fistful of Credits", it is indisputably a Dragon Magazine source.

      I also don't see where it says that it was oficially developed "for the game"; The article itself only says that it is developed for the AD rules, not for Zeb. We have no indication that it underwent review or not.

      To wit:


      "Editor’s introduction - We've received a lot of requests for more equipment that can be used on star-faring expeditions, and this article will hopefully fill in some of the gaps. The following material was produced before SFAC 3, Zebulon's Guide to Frontier Space, was released. It fits in with the original STAR FRONTIERS® game system, and it may be used by gamers who do not have access to the former product. Some modifications will be required if the Zebulon’'s Guide revisions are being employed in a campaign."

      Emphasis mine. The highlighted sentence does not indicate if it was developed for official inclusion in the game or not.

      --Sings-With-Spirits (talk) 21:09, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • This would be a huge project, and I don't know how much time I'd be able to devote to helping actually do it, but I did come up with a format I think works.  What do you think (see below):

    H2 { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }H2.cjk { font-family: "WenQuanYi Micro Hei"; }H2.ctl { font-family: "Lohit Hindi"; }P { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }A:link { }

    Very brief statement of planet (system, primary, etc)

    Planetary Data (heading)








    Climate Range:

    Average Surface Temperature:

    % Water:


    Artificial Satellites:





    Colonizers (heading)

    Who first came here and when.

    Native Life (heading)

    Native life, if any

    Planetary Description (heading)

    Geography/Climate (sub-heading)

    More verbose description of planetary geology/climate

    Politics/Culture (sub-heading)

    Government type, societal peculiarities

    Economy (sub-heading)

    What they trade (specifically) and with whom

    History (heading)

    Important moments in planet history (wars, invasions, plagues, etc)

    Notes/Trivia (heading)

    any special notes such as the Clarion naming controversy, etc

    References (heading)

    footnotes for above

      Loading editor
    • View all 22 replies
    • Don't worry about it.  I basically played along with the joke.

      It's not important.

      I've managed to do several of the simpler planets using the unified format we came up with.

        Loading editor
    • Found it! wrote: LOL!  Well if we're going to use alloys... *snifs in an uppity fashion*...have you considered a 80/20 mix of becauseIsaidsoium and asspulloutium? :D

      Asspulloutium is to rare; sometimes we must dig deep to find it... ;)

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Yank 'em all.  They're from either GURPS or Traveller.  Just found that out.

      Loading editor
  • Actually, it can go either way.  It depends on how you diagram the sentence.  I've been checking a number of grammar sites and they all agree that both usages are acceptable, with Americans tending towards the plural, treating "a variety of" as a modifier of "positions" rather than the reverse.

      Loading editor
    • "...there is a variety of positions within Star Law..."

      The subject of the sentence is "a variety of positions" in the context being discussed.

      One could say "there are many/multiple" positions, where these modify "positions".

      The alternative would be "there are varieties of positions", which would indicate that there are several distinct groups of positions of positions, which is somewhat ambiguous without qualifying context.

        Loading editor
    • Not always.  It can also be diagrammed as I described with positiond being the subject.I'm

      just going by what the grammar sites say.  "Are" is perfectly acceptable in American English.

        Loading editor
    • I direct your attention to this answer at the English Language and Usage Stack Exchange, where a user acutally looked up the BNC and COCA stats (as of 2013):


      10 down vote Here are the actual usage stats from the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA):
                                      BNC      COCA
      a variety of [n*]/[nn2] is     15/11     47/15
      a variety of [n*]/[nn2] are    26/26     83/82
      ratio plural:singular         1.7/2.4   1.8/5.5

      For those unfamiliar with the query syntax, [n*] stands for any noun form, while [nn2] stands specifically for "plural common noun".

      An important thing to note is that this has nothing to do with the verb immediately following the plural noun. We can move the verb directly in front of "a variety", but the preference for plural agreement doesn't change:

                                               BNC           COCA
      there is a variety of /[n*]/[nn2]     23/16/12      17/  9/  6
      there are a variety of /[n*]/[nn2]    56/37/34     260/187/172
      ratio plural:singular               2.4/2.3/2.8  15.3/20.8/28.7

      In short, plural is the agreement of choice on both sides of the pond, though interestingly considerably more so in the US.

      And as you pointed out yourself in comments elsewhere on this page, this is not really surprising, but in fact perfectly in line with how similar constructions such as a number, a lot, a total, etc. behave. This is sometimes referred to as notional agreement or notional concord: As Quirk et al. 1985 explains it, notional agreement (called notional concord by Quirk and others) is agreement of a verb with its subject or of a pronoun with its antedecent in accordance with the notion of number rather than with the presence of an overt grammatical marker for that notion. Another way to look at the matter is that of Roberts 1954, who explains that notional agreement is agreement based on meaning rather than form. In Wikipedia, the corresponding entry is to be found under synesis: Synesis [...] is effectively an agreement of words with the sense, instead of the morphosyntactic form. [...] Such use in English grammar is often called notional agreement (or notional concord), because the agreement is with the notion of what the noun means, rather than the strict grammatical form of the noun (the normative formal agreement). The term situational agreement is also found[.]

      Notional agreement for collective nouns is very common in British English. It is less customary in American English, but may sometimes be found after phrases of the type "a collective noun of plural nouns", e.g.,

      • ... a multitude of elements were intertwined. (New York Review of Books)
      • ... the majority of all the shareholdings are in the hands of women. (Daedalus)
      • ... a handful of bathers were bobbing about in the waves. (Philip Roth)

      close quote

        Loading editor
    • "sometimes" being the operative word.

      I'm not going to be arguing a point that is internationally subjective, so I simply replaced the relevant text with something clearer.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.