Bridge tonnage discrepancy

[Sigtrygg]

The rules are a mess right now thanks to... the rule of unintended consequence.

Changing two lines on a table in the revised updated revision of the core rule book invalidates dozens of extant designs at a stroke, includeing the designs in the same book.

Only Traveller can break its own rules in the rulebook itself lol.

And yet we all still love this game

 

[tytalan]

But, you get to customize the bridge.

Are there even official rules for work stations and where are they?

 

[Terry Mixon]

The rules are a mess right now thanks to... the rule of unintended consequence.

Changing two lines on a table in the revised updated revision of the core rule book invalidates dozens of extant designs at a stroke, includeing the designs in the same book.

Only Traveller can break its own rules in the rulebook itself lol.

And yet we all still love this game

You’re not wrong.

 

[Condottiere]

Are there even official rules for work stations and where are they?

There were, in a previous edition.

Fire Fusion Steel being their godparent.

 

[Arkathan]

I’d also like to point out that even the ships in this 2024 core rule book do not follow this rule change both the scout courier and the seeker have 10 ton bridges listed

Yes, I've ranted about this in a few different threads in the last week.

 

[rinku]

As there is exactly ONE 100 ton design plus one variant of it in High Guard, and THAT one has good reason to install a robust bridge to support its scouting role, I don't think we need to replace the 10 ton bridge on the Scout/Courier. You can always install a larger bridge than minimum if you want. Not that there's any stated benefit.

But put me down as one that thinks 6 tons might be a bit tiny for a starship. I'll continue to use the HG22 thresholds.

 

[tytalan]

As there is exactly ONE 100 ton design plus one variant of it in High Guard, and THAT one has good reason to install a robust bridge to support its scouting role, I don't think we need to replace the 10 ton bridge on the Scout/Courier. You can always install a larger bridge than minimum if you want. Not that there's any stated benefit.

We are not talking HG we are talking the CRB. It just seems to me if this was a thought out rule change than those two ships would reflect it.

But put me down as one that thinks 6 tons might be a bit tiny for a starship. I'll continue to use the HG22 thresholds.

I agree it’s an unneeded change that’s only going to cause problems and confusion. Mongoose already has enough errors in its ship designs throughout the whole line without forcing a major change (and 3 to 4 tons is a major change in a 100dt ship) to ships across the whole product line.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I think when the minor High Guard Update comes out next year, I might give in to temptation and work my way through the published ships to create two versions of each: one where whatever minor tweaks are needed to make it legal are put in, and a second where I look at the role and make larger changes to address any shortcomings. With, of course, a sheet for the book design with no changes.

That would be a long-term project, but a fun one.

 

[tytalan]

2024!

This change is a very bad idea, It crosses the entire line and there literally no reason for it. It’s a major change to every 100dt ship that’s been published causing changes to both the deck plans and the write up. To make matters even worse the ships affected in the CRB do not reflect this change. Mongoose already has a problem with its ship write ups and deck plans not matching each other, the rules, or their total tonnage adding this to the mess especially since you just produced 3 books that are only ships is only going to cause even more problems.

This is a bad ideal please tell the rest of the team this

 

[Sigtrygg]

I agree with tytalan and others who have expressed a dislike of this change...

it doesn't just invalidate HG and CRB designs but every 100t ship scattered through numerous adventures and supplements. Will they all be getting an update and free pdf of the new design and deck plan?

 

[Condottiere]

There are more than one way to skin an Aslan.

What you want are consistent design rules.

 

[Terry Mixon]

As the change is in the updated print versions, it’s likely not going away. Now they just need to look at every ship and fix them once and for all. Oh, and check them in new publications.

It’s not hard. Really. Have someone that actually uses the build rules to double check the designs before you do the deck plans.

 

[hopsnbaer]

As the change is in the updated print versions, it’s likely not going away. Now they just need to look at every ship and fix them once and for all. Oh, and check them in new publications.

It’s not hard. Really. Have someone that actually uses the build rules to double check the designs before you do the deck plans.

It can be annoying. You could just assume that there are different bridge versions and leave them the same. It doesn't really affect anything narratively. I change the size of ship components all the time. Some ship bridges have more leg room.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I don't use deckplans 95% of the time, so this changes nothing for Me.

 

[Doctor Crunch]

Given that this results in ships being a little under weight I'm not worried. In a universe as big as traveller some ships with less efficient components seems reasonable. Heck, I'll probably work it into the narrative.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

It can be annoying. You could just assume that there are different bridge versions and leave them the same. It doesn't really affect anything narratively. I change the size of ship components all the time. Some ship bridges have more leg room.

Just say it is a combined bridge and studio as the "Captains" office.

 

[Condottiere]

There is the option for the virtual bridge, solely run by a computer programme.

So, you could set up shop in the biosphere.

 

[tytalan]

I don’t think any of you are looking at the larger picture. 60% of mongoose’s ship design/deck plans are already a mess because of poor editing on mongoose’s part. This ranges from minor issues to major one depending on the GM and the campaign. If they don’t fix this it will kick things up to 70 or 80 percent of the ships being in error. And this isn’t a consistent design rules issue we have this is poor editing which has been point out repeatedly yet now they are going to change the rule set even if you consider it a minor thing it still shows lack of forethought and professionalism. Now if the driving force behind this was none jump craft it could have and still can be fixed with a single sentence ‘Jump drive ship have a minimum of 10dt for standard bridge and 6 dt for small bridge’. Either way mongoose needs to revamp their editing especially for ship designs and deck plans.

I love Traveller but its changes like this and the high percentage of Ship write ups/ deck plan errors that have made me holding off on getting the 3 ship book( I’m actually after this bit strongly considering not getting them). Why buy books like these if I have to rewrite a large percentage of the ships? And to be clear these are not cases of systems and rules from books I don’t own these are things like deck plans with things missing are the wrong size, write ups whose tonnage doesn’t add up or is missing information, crew size that don’t work (we are a merc ship but don’t have quarters for our gunners or marines that’s listed we have) the latter I generally fix by replacing the staterooms for Enlisted men and jr NCO’s to barracks since this is what real ships do but I shouldn’t have to do this. It’s one thing to modify a existing plan for aspects of my game it’s another to get plans that already need editing

 

[Condottiere]

It's a known issue, and goes back to ... wow, way back.

Why the spacecraft designs never have been audited before publication is rather mysterious, or, if they were, I'd stop using that asset.

Current attempt at sticking a finger in the dike is surprising, and suspect, probably a time consuming and thankless task.

 

[tytalan]

It's a known issue, and goes back to ... wow, way back.

Why the spacecraft designs never have been audited before publication is rather mysterious, or, if they were, I'd stop using that asset.

Current attempt at sticking a finger in the dike is surprising, and suspect, probably a time consuming and thankless task.

Considering hosted on this very forum is an excel spreadsheet that could be used as an editing tool simply enough.

Let be honest the published ship in the three ship books and High Guard should be as error free as possible. Not only are they an example of ship designs but they are also or at least should be a plug and play source and in some cases these details are necessary. I have less issues with ships in campaigns in general especially when they are specific ships in the campaign but those are generally singular ships not the plug and play mass produced ships.