Traveller errata

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Dracous
Stoat
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Traveller Core Rulebook errata

Postby Dracous » Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:52 pm

From the Errata dcoument

"Page 150, Space Combat, Damage (clarification): Personal damage and vehicle damage both add effect to damage rolls, but starship damage does not"

This clarification bothers me. Why does the starship combat system not use the MGT effect system that the rest of the rules include?
In High Guard Barrage Damage, the higher the die roll the more damage is done, that seems to be a reflection of how a higher die roll Core Rulebook space combat would do more damage due to effect (how else can the 500% barrage weapon damage be explained?).

This will no doubt annoy my players, makes the situation with starship armour vs weapons worse. Beam lasers and standard missiles under this rule are trivial to stop with armour, where as a well placed shot (a good roll with effect) could overcome the issue.

Three questions:
Is this a final ruling?
Can it be reconsidered?
What breaks if we allow effect to be added to damage?
Dracous
donm61873
Stoat
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:40 pm
Location: Saint Joseph, IL

Re: Traveller Core Rulebook errata

Postby donm61873 » Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:16 am

At the moment, everything in the errata can be 'reconsidered', at least to some extent. And like all of the Traveller legacy errata, not everyone is going to agree that one item might even be a problem.
Zhodani author and FFE minion
Dracous
Stoat
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Traveller Core Rulebook errata

Postby Dracous » Fri Aug 15, 2014 12:28 am

donm61873 wrote:At the moment, everything in the errata can be 'reconsidered', at least to some extent. And like all of the Traveller legacy errata, not everyone is going to agree that one item might even be a problem.
All good. If there is a good explanation of reasons behind a descision I tend to be satisfied.

I am hoping all this fine work you are doing well make it into a revised rule set one day.
Dracous
Dracous
Stoat
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Traveller Core Rulebook errata

Postby Dracous » Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:38 am

Errata needs errata :P

The errata for High Guard states the following
"Page 74, Barrage Attacks, Example (correction): The missile barrage example should read 10-Missile-Long-1d6*1d6."

However, I don't think this is correct.

I believe it should be

120*1d6 -Missile-Long-1d6

My Reasoning?

Barrage Damage description is as follows
  • (Number of Dice)–(Weapon Type)–(Range)–(Individual Weapon Damage In Dice)
We have 10 * 50 ton bays, which is 12 missile per bay, each doing 1d6 Dice of Damage. So 120*1d6 for the Number of Dice.

And individual Weapon Damage in Dice is as per page 51.
Dracous
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Traveller Core Rulebook errata

Postby sideranautae » Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:28 pm

Dracous wrote:Errata needs errata :P

The errata for High Guard states the following
Wrong book. This is a Core Rulebook errata thread only.
Image
donm61873
Stoat
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:40 pm
Location: Saint Joseph, IL

Re: Traveller Errata review

Postby donm61873 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:31 pm

Actually, at the time I created it, the errata document only had errata for the Traveller Core Rulebook (TCR). However, since then the errata document has been expanded, so the title should probably change...
Zhodani author and FFE minion
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Traveller Errata review

Postby sideranautae » Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:49 pm

donm61873 wrote:Actually, at the time I created it, the errata document only had errata for the Traveller Core Rulebook (TCR). However, since then the errata document has been expanded, so the title should probably change...
In that case. A total rewrite of the Barrage rule explanation is in order [High Guard]. It is mind numbingly written. I have yet to meet a player that could comprehend it in only one or two reads.
Image
donm61873
Stoat
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:40 pm
Location: Saint Joseph, IL

Re: Traveller Errata review

Postby donm61873 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:51 pm

sideranautae wrote:
donm61873 wrote:In that case. A total rewrite of the Barrage rule explanation is in order [High Guard]. It is mind numbingly written. I have yet to meet a player that could comprehend it in only one or two reads.
Ok, is there a generally accepted rewrite of the rule available?
Zhodani author and FFE minion
Annatar Giftbringer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden

Re: Traveller Core Rulebook errata

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:13 pm

Not sure if this is within the scope of this thread, but:

I'd like to see clarification on software in ship computers. Can they only contain software up to their rating, or run that much at once? Assuming they can store 'any' number of programs but only use up to rating at once, how long does it take to swap active programs, and what is required to do so?

Since a ship-scale game turn is 6 minutes long, could different programs be loaded for different phases without trouble, such as fire control during the combat phase and repair software during the action phase?
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Traveller Errata review

Postby sideranautae » Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:22 pm

donm61873 wrote:
sideranautae wrote:
donm61873 wrote:In that case. A total rewrite of the Barrage rule explanation is in order [High Guard]. It is mind numbingly written. I have yet to meet a player that could comprehend it in only one or two reads.
Ok, is there a generally accepted rewrite of the rule available?
I've heard tell that MGT Trillion Credit Squadron is good on those rules. I personally don't know as I haven't read that one yet. BUT, if not there, it doesn't exist in a formal MGT product. And, I haven't seen a single write up by a fan that fits the bill.
Image
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4620
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Traveller errata

Postby phavoc » Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:56 am

For missile racks you might want to specifically call out each launcher can have one in the tube and 2 more in the feed system, they displace 0 tons and are considered stored in the turret. Any additional missiles must have space/tonnage allocated.

Not sure how to define the same with missile bays. Those and torpedo's should be addressed as they cause endless arguments about their makeup and configuration.
BBiggar
Cub
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Midland TX

Re: Traveller errata

Postby BBiggar » Sun Aug 24, 2014 10:30 pm

Page 138 of the core rule book under repairs and it states that maintenance cost 0.1% (1/1000). I'm guessing it should read .001%.

Cheers
We have a saying in Air Traffic, "There is no problem so bad, you can't make it worse!"
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Traveller errata

Postby sideranautae » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:19 am

BBiggar wrote:Page 138 of the core rule book under repairs and it states that maintenance cost 0.1% (1/1000). I'm guessing it should read .001%.

Cheers
.01% = 1/1000

.01 = 1/100
Image
BBiggar
Cub
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Midland TX

Re: Traveller errata

Postby BBiggar » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:30 am

Doh! I yield to your math skills sir, I completely misread that.

Carry on, nothing to see here. :D
We have a saying in Air Traffic, "There is no problem so bad, you can't make it worse!"
Annatar Giftbringer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Uddevalla, Sweden

Re: Traveller errata

Postby Annatar Giftbringer » Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:53 pm

phavoc wrote:For missile racks you might want to specifically call out each launcher can have one in the tube and 2 more in the feed system, they displace 0 tons and are considered stored in the turret. Any additional missiles must have space/tonnage allocated.

Not sure how to define the same with missile bays. Those and torpedo's should be addressed as they cause endless arguments about their makeup and configuration.
What? You can store extra missiles within the turret? Cool, I did not know that :-)
So, a triple missile turret can store up to 9 missiles, 3 of which are loaded and ready to fire?

In that case, yes, it would be a very good idea if this was stated clearly in the rules, for both turrets and bays - and torpedoes. Rail guns are clear with this, make it happen with other projectiles also :-)
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Traveller errata

Postby sideranautae » Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:43 pm

Annatar Giftbringer wrote:
What? You can store extra missiles within the turret? Cool, I did not know that :-)
So, a triple missile turret can store up to 9 missiles, 3 of which are loaded and ready to fire?
No. That isn't per MgT RAW. It is on a wish list.

Here is the rule in MGT: "Missile racks are launchers for small anti-ship missiles. The damage of a missile depends on the type of missile used. Missile racks need ammunition – twelve missiles take up one ton of space."

Missile racks in turrets hold no extra missiles in MGT.
Image
Infojunky
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2201
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: North of Center California

Re: Traveller errata

Postby Infojunky » Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:33 pm

sideranautae wrote:
No. That isn't per MgT RAW. It is on a wish list.

Here is the rule in MGT: "Missile racks are launchers for small anti-ship missiles. The damage of a missile depends on the type of missile used. Missile racks need ammunition – twelve missiles take up one ton of space."
The RAW are not explicit, as what you quoted departs from the turret to the storage volume of spare missiles.

Now if you hit that after years of playing traveller you read it as status quo for the launcher and the 12 missiles that could be in ready storage in the turret as well are now in their own magazine.

Add into the question the hit and miss proofreading, editing and layout choice of the manuscript the RAW become vastly subjective.
Evyn
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Traveller errata

Postby sideranautae » Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:38 pm

Infojunky wrote: The RAW are not explicit,
The RAW lists NOTHING for spare missile turret storage. Pretty explicit. If there was a grav bike that listed no additional storage space, that would also be explicit...

Infojunky wrote:as what you quoted departs from the turret to the storage volume of spare missiles.
??? Please quote the rule it departs from.
Image
Infojunky
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2201
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: North of Center California

Re: Traveller errata

Postby Infojunky » Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:41 pm

sideranautae wrote:
Infojunky wrote:as what you quoted departs from the turret to the storage volume of spare missiles.
??? Please quote the rule it departs from.
I quote;
sideranautae wrote: "Missile racks are launchers for small anti-ship missiles. The damage of a missile depends on the type of missile used. Missile racks need ammunition – twelve missiles take up one ton of space."
While they are declarative sentences they don't completely cover the topic, especially in light of earlier weapon descriptions in the book as well as the mass of History of the game.
Evyn
sideranautae
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1412
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

Re: Traveller errata

Postby sideranautae » Wed Aug 27, 2014 12:19 am

Infojunky wrote:
sideranautae wrote:
Infojunky wrote:as what you quoted departs from the turret to the storage volume of spare missiles.
??? Please quote the rule it departs from.
I quote;
sideranautae wrote: "Missile racks are launchers for small anti-ship missiles. The damage of a missile depends on the type of missile used. Missile racks need ammunition – twelve missiles take up one ton of space."
While they are declarative sentences they don't completely cover the topic, especially in light of earlier weapon descriptions in the book as well as the mass of History of the game.
Nothing earlier in the book says anything about excess storage in the turret that I've read. (cite please)

History? If you go that route you will rewrite most of the rules to match earlier versions. That isn't what errata is about.

It is a WISHED for change in the MGT RAW. The game works just fine with out changing the existing rule.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests