Sigtrygg wrote:And I will say it again.
In the playtest I pointed out some high tech stuff is baseline 3I setting and that some of the basic construction stuff does not appear in the 3I. Someone decided to ignore this and push ahead and as a result we have the confusion about what is 3I and what is not.
Correct - you're not owner/line editor. Even contributors, editors, and writers are in the same boat as you. You make a recommendation, it can be accepted or ignored.
Annic Nova and collectors are 3I - period. Mongoose have actually printed the adventure.
Yes - on a unique ship. Although as you pointed out, somehow there is a referee note in adventure, pointing out "Annic Nova TYPE" - ships. That does seem to run counter to what we were dealing with HG2.
Meson bays are 3I
Factually incorrect. It without the qualification of which 3I? 3I from CT? 3I from T4? 3I from T5?
I would also ask the question of Andrew as it seems Meson bays were removed from almost every ship except... Carriers?! That seems Odd.
I could make a list. It would take a sidebar at the most to explain which technologies are 3I and which are not - but if a referee wants to include them in their game there is no issue - canon is for authors, not referees.
Incorrect. You cannot make a list because you are not the authoritative source on what is 3I or what is not. No more than I am. The authoritative source is what Marc/Don/Matt/Whomever publishes. It may even change from day to day if they so wish it.
You can point out inconsistency - sure, but you cannot in any way state what is in 3I unless it a point-in-time-statement.
What you didn't do was take any notice of the playtest comments about clearly differentiating between 3I and wider options.
Incorrect. You have no factual way of differentiating between taking notice, actioning, agreeing with, or choosing to ignore.
You went ahead and mixed them up and caused the confusion.
Again - incorrect.
You fail to define who is "you", you have no evidence of "mixed them up", you have no basis by which to judge what "should be canon" vs "what was canon", or if there was any confusion at all. All of these decisions were out of our hands. I was most definitely not handed a carte-blanche (not by a long-shot).
The only confusion you can attest to, is your own, and any others' who confirm theirs as well.
You have been consistently incorrect because your base argument is invalid. Your base argument is that you are somehow aware of what should be 3I as some axioms/truths that have always been.
That is incorrect.This has been pointed out time and time again. Canon has changed before, it continues to change - one can even assume there is no interest in keeping it from changing.
We can only point out changes in canon from a previous edition
- and they will either be heeded or ignored.