I believe we can settle the argument about whether or not Traveller ships have antigrav/contragrav lifters (you may dispute the definitions further but that's for another thread). You mad a statement about assumptions and a "YTU". I recently received my copy of Flatlined. Since this is an official MGT publication, the statement given in it makes it canon. On pg 8 there is a description of a craft, "the pilot managed to use residual energy in the ships lifters..." Checking the ship stats there is no mention of any special function or feature other than the standard M-drive that is on every ship profile.AnotherDilbert wrote: ↑Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:52 pmThey can: the Starship Operators Manual, Vol. 1 explains this in detail. I believe it is canon. Explicitly ships do not have anti-gravity drive in MT.
I have noticed that many want to make that assumption, and you can of course do as you wish in your game. It is not necessary for Traveller to work.
I believe MgT2 avoids these details to allow players to play as they wish which is why I noted that it is you can assume it or not:They are two different technical systems with different functional details, even if the names are similar.
All of this is clearly defined in editions that care about detail, e.g. MT, TNE, and T5.
So it would seem that without another mention of ships that specifically preclude the installation of a antigrav/contragrav lifters, that the default would be ships capable of landing on a world do, in fact, have them.
I am still interested in how you define antigrav and contragrav to be different systems. Which rule set are you pulling this from?