ERRATA - It Begins!
- Thread starter Rikki Tikki Traveller
- Start date
Stormraven
Mongoose
A little clarification please. On page 35, under Scout Ship, it says 'The first receipt provides use of the ship, but the ship is still the property of the Scout Service...'
My question is, there's nothing to indicate what you get with multiple receipts, unless the player chooses to take 1d6 shares, instead - which would give them 1d6 per receipt.
But what if they player wants a Scout ship, and gets multiple receipts?
My question is, there's nothing to indicate what you get with multiple receipts, unless the player chooses to take 1d6 shares, instead - which would give them 1d6 per receipt.
But what if they player wants a Scout ship, and gets multiple receipts?
Stormraven said:
I'd say the first receipt gives the player a new scoutship owned by the Scout Service. Any additional receipts change the ownership over to the player but the ship is aged with a mortgage based on applied ship shares. Applied ship shares would be 1d6 per receipt.
All IMO, of course.
Classic Traveller takes the following view:
So multiple receipts get you nothing. However, you could assume that multiple receipts get you a newer ship that the default one.
Then again, five receipts of a ship roll for a Free Trader would get you it without a mortgage, fully paid off but 40 years old. (The first gets the ship, each subsequent one gets another 10 years paid off).
So multiple receipts get you nothing. However, you could assume that multiple receipts get you a newer ship that the default one.
Then again, five receipts of a ship roll for a Free Trader would get you it without a mortgage, fully paid off but 40 years old. (The first gets the ship, each subsequent one gets another 10 years paid off).
-Daniel-
Emperor Mongoose
I think I am going to stick to the idea that multiple receipts just get you the ship shares the second time. Ship Shares do have value regardless of the fact the scouts have loaned you a ship to use.BITS Dom said:
These items (or cash) represent what you have saved, earned, been awarded, etc over the time served not some super lotto your last day on the job. The idea a scout was given ship shares as a reward etc at some point and was assigned a scout ship on loan as well is not that unbelivable to me.
Daniel
p109 - Fission Plants.
Although the rules as presented say that a fission plant only produces half as much power as a fusion plant of the same type, it is not possible to produce a fission plant with a rating higher than 3 because of the way the drive potential table tops out. In principle this seems wrong, as a fission plant can generate the power as such.
Effectively, the rule is saying the energy density of a fission plant is half that of a fusion. As a result, a simpler way to implement this rule would just be to say that fission plants are double the tonnage of the fusion plant for the same rating. I'd suggest keeping the cost similar though.
Although the rules as presented say that a fission plant only produces half as much power as a fusion plant of the same type, it is not possible to produce a fission plant with a rating higher than 3 because of the way the drive potential table tops out. In principle this seems wrong, as a fission plant can generate the power as such.
Effectively, the rule is saying the energy density of a fission plant is half that of a fusion. As a result, a simpler way to implement this rule would just be to say that fission plants are double the tonnage of the fusion plant for the same rating. I'd suggest keeping the cost similar though.
p113 - Crew Requirements
The requirement for someone with steward skill to be in place to carry passengers is hidden in the passage section (p142) rather than in the crew section. This impacts the number of staterooms needed for a ship design so should also be stated in the crew requirements table.
The requirement for someone with steward skill to be in place to carry passengers is hidden in the passage section (p142) rather than in the crew section. This impacts the number of staterooms needed for a ship design so should also be stated in the crew requirements table.
Bay Weapons - p112
50dT bays previously used to have no fire control tonnage (as High Guard actually integrated the turret to be 1 ton) and required 10 hard points not 1 hard point.
This moves heavily away from the Classic Traveller System than Mongoose Traveller has stayed very close to the original.
50dT bays previously used to have no fire control tonnage (as High Guard actually integrated the turret to be 1 ton) and required 10 hard points not 1 hard point.
This moves heavily away from the Classic Traveller System than Mongoose Traveller has stayed very close to the original.
BITS Dom said:
Because everyone knows there are fewer data centres today and they're all much smaller than the ones in the 70s.....er....
It's fair enough as a technological assumption I suppose. Freebie backups (in terms of space, anyway) is a bit of a hiccup. The text could be a lot clearer about this as well, as it's currently a bit misleading.
I just went through the design process for a 1000 ton ship. So far, so much like old Traveller really. The crew requirements are i think a little higher than Bk2, but a tad less than Bk5 largely because they don't fully consider military vessels (no Security personnel) and it doesn't explicitly mention crew for small craft. All super-minor points. It does require (or at least strongly suggest) manning for crew rotations on warships which will bump up the crew requirements on big military vessels a lot due to the extra gunners.
The provision for things like self-sealing hulls, repair drones, etc does make it all feel much more up to date and science-fictiony.
Simon Hibbs
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
I wouldn't use rotating crew requirements for gunners. They don't work that long! Their main job is maintenance which can be done by the basic crew. They don't actually man their weapons until combat.
This is similar to Gunners Mates in the Navy today. They are there to man a weapon. I am not aware of any weapon system that has 2 or more full crews assigned to it. Fire Control and Sensors are another matter. On a warship, these stations will be manned 24/7 during normal space operations.
This is similar to Gunners Mates in the Navy today. They are there to man a weapon. I am not aware of any weapon system that has 2 or more full crews assigned to it. Fire Control and Sensors are another matter. On a warship, these stations will be manned 24/7 during normal space operations.
Internal Inconsistencies / Ambiguities:
pg. 38 Character Creation Example: Jamison should have begun his first term at rank 0, and the First Term promotion should have made him rank 1 (“Senior Crewman” according to the Merchants table in page 22). Similarly, the rest of the Merchant Marine ranks he achieves on subsequent terms are one high.
pg. 35 It is not clear whether the Ship Shares benefit can be used for any of the ship types in the table on page 36 at the choice of the player. I suspect it is, however, even if the player can choose any type of ship, a Scout should either available only to former scouts (on loan), or be a Scout class ship which is now privately owned, an not subject to being called to active duty.
(Are there any situations where the Scouts relinquish their ownership of a Scout? I think there must, otherwise they would not the basis for the Seeker.)
pg. 57 Pilot skill includes the specialty “Spacecraft”. Per the definitions on page 105, “spacecraft” includes Small Craft. While not strictly inconsistent, I suggest using “ship” instead of “spacecraft” for the Pilot specialty to stay consistent with the ship definitions up to 5,000 tons.
pg. 102 Erik’s Custom Gun: The gun is described as having “no Dexterity (effective Dexterity 0)”, but the corresponding DM is identified as -2, which disagrees with the table on page 6 and the character sheet in the back, which list the DM for a characteristic of 0 as -3.
pg. 106, 110 The Streamlining paragraph says it includes fuel scoops; the Fuel Scoops paragraph on page 110 includes a cost for fuel scoops; is it sufficient to pay just the Streamlining cost or the Fuel Scoops cost or do both cost need to be paid to scoop? (The Common Spacecraft appear to only pay the Streamlining premium.)
Do the streamlined small craft include fuel scoops?
pg. 107 Do system ships require a computer or is there a Model 0 ship computer? Starships appear to require one to run the appropriate Jump Control software, but it only appears a system ship needs to run Manoeuvre/0, so it could use a Model 0 (if one were available).
pg. 108 Electronics. The text says a ship comes with “a basic communications, sensor and emissions control electronics suite”; however the following table includes two “basic” systems (Civilian and Military) for additional tonnage and cost. The first entry is a “Standard” system whose tonnage and cost are included in the bridge. I suspect the “Standard” system is the one referred to in the text; it could be clarified by rephrasing…
pg. 108 Does reserved tonnage need to be allocated to a specific purpose (fire control or sensor upgrades) so that it can be used for the purpose later? Can it be used for cargo in the interim?
pg. 111 Are fixed mountings limited by the number of hardpoints?
pg. 115 to 131 The Comon Spacecraft tables appear to include tonnage for turrets. Is the tonnage in the Common Spacecraft labelled "Hardpoint #1", etc. for the associated fire control to operate a turrent on that hardpoint, or does the hardpoint itself require 1 ton?
Where no tonnage is allocated for a hardpoint, does that preclude allocating a ton later to use a turret?
Where one ton is allocated, does that preclude allocating another ton to use a pop-up turret?
pg. 132 to 136 Does mounting of weapons on small craft reduce the cargo space available (e.g. by the tonnage listed on page 111 for ships)? Can turrets be mounted on small craft (if space is allocated to fire control), or only fixed mounting weapons? (Do small craft include a hardpoint?)
pg. 133 The Shuttle data does not say it is Streamlined, but it appears to be; is it?
There does not appear to be a tonnage or cost for an acceleration couches or freshers (for short duration use while transporting passengers on the shuttle or other small craft), have these been relegated to the supplement to include the small craft design rules?
Inconsistencies with “Classic” Traveller:
pg. 35 The Gun and Weapon benefit as worded allow characters to select Plasma Rifle, Grenades, and Heavy Weapons (e.g. FGMP-16). I submit this is an excessive deviation from CT rules. Book 1 did not includes these weapons; most of them are introduced in Mercenary (Book 4), which referred back to Book 1 for mustering out benefits (which I interpret to keep the Book 4 weapons unavailable as mustering out benefits).
pg. 107 The M-Drive A tonnage of 2 tons diverges from the classic Traveller (CT) Book 2 Starships tonnage of 1 ton. While the 1 ton was an anomaly (in that it had 1/3 the tonnage while producing 1/2 the potential), I recommend retaining it to avoid invalidating heritage designs that used the M-Drive A. Even if the new value of 2 is used, does that indicate that the minimum M-Drive size tonnage is 2 tonns, or is some other value used for the <A M-drives of the Launch and Light Fighter? I suspect it will be made moot when the Mongoose Traveller (MGT) version of High Guard is released.
pg. 107 Fuel. The Fuel required by a power plant is 40% of that required by CT Book 2 rules, but double that required by CT Book 5 High Guard, making designs based on either set of rules inconsistent with MGT. I suspect the MGT version of High Guard will have is own rule, but allow the Core Rulebook designs as well (like original High Guard). I would be content with either staying consistent with Book 2 or changing the fuel use to be consistent with CT High Guard.
nits:
pg. 114 The artwork shows the classic triangular planform of the Scout Courier / Seeker, but the deckplan on page 116 indicates the nose and aft outboard tips are clipped; they should agree. (I personally prefer staying consistent with the classic
Although I do recognize that this does allow it to fit in the Corsair cargo bay.
I suggest revising the deckplan slightly to include the points, but include a comment that a clipped variant exists to facilitate carriage in larger ships, and indicate their planform with phantom/dotted lines.
pg. 124 The Gazelle deck plan includes large Fuel tanks to either side of the staterooms, in the classical design these are drop tanks, so the necking-in at the Crew Common Area (4) should be avoided. I suggest simply making the common area as wide as the cargo bay.
pg. 133 The illustration shows the classic shuttle planform; the deckplan on page 134 is similar but could be improved. I suggest the miniature be used as the model.
I have not examined the Common Spacecraft designs in detail, has anyone else?
Has a cutoff date been set for identifying errata that will be addressed in the first official list?
pg. 38 Character Creation Example: Jamison should have begun his first term at rank 0, and the First Term promotion should have made him rank 1 (“Senior Crewman” according to the Merchants table in page 22). Similarly, the rest of the Merchant Marine ranks he achieves on subsequent terms are one high.
pg. 35 It is not clear whether the Ship Shares benefit can be used for any of the ship types in the table on page 36 at the choice of the player. I suspect it is, however, even if the player can choose any type of ship, a Scout should either available only to former scouts (on loan), or be a Scout class ship which is now privately owned, an not subject to being called to active duty.
(Are there any situations where the Scouts relinquish their ownership of a Scout? I think there must, otherwise they would not the basis for the Seeker.)
pg. 57 Pilot skill includes the specialty “Spacecraft”. Per the definitions on page 105, “spacecraft” includes Small Craft. While not strictly inconsistent, I suggest using “ship” instead of “spacecraft” for the Pilot specialty to stay consistent with the ship definitions up to 5,000 tons.
pg. 102 Erik’s Custom Gun: The gun is described as having “no Dexterity (effective Dexterity 0)”, but the corresponding DM is identified as -2, which disagrees with the table on page 6 and the character sheet in the back, which list the DM for a characteristic of 0 as -3.
pg. 106, 110 The Streamlining paragraph says it includes fuel scoops; the Fuel Scoops paragraph on page 110 includes a cost for fuel scoops; is it sufficient to pay just the Streamlining cost or the Fuel Scoops cost or do both cost need to be paid to scoop? (The Common Spacecraft appear to only pay the Streamlining premium.)
Do the streamlined small craft include fuel scoops?
pg. 107 Do system ships require a computer or is there a Model 0 ship computer? Starships appear to require one to run the appropriate Jump Control software, but it only appears a system ship needs to run Manoeuvre/0, so it could use a Model 0 (if one were available).
pg. 108 Electronics. The text says a ship comes with “a basic communications, sensor and emissions control electronics suite”; however the following table includes two “basic” systems (Civilian and Military) for additional tonnage and cost. The first entry is a “Standard” system whose tonnage and cost are included in the bridge. I suspect the “Standard” system is the one referred to in the text; it could be clarified by rephrasing…
pg. 108 Does reserved tonnage need to be allocated to a specific purpose (fire control or sensor upgrades) so that it can be used for the purpose later? Can it be used for cargo in the interim?
pg. 111 Are fixed mountings limited by the number of hardpoints?
pg. 115 to 131 The Comon Spacecraft tables appear to include tonnage for turrets. Is the tonnage in the Common Spacecraft labelled "Hardpoint #1", etc. for the associated fire control to operate a turrent on that hardpoint, or does the hardpoint itself require 1 ton?
Where no tonnage is allocated for a hardpoint, does that preclude allocating a ton later to use a turret?
Where one ton is allocated, does that preclude allocating another ton to use a pop-up turret?
pg. 132 to 136 Does mounting of weapons on small craft reduce the cargo space available (e.g. by the tonnage listed on page 111 for ships)? Can turrets be mounted on small craft (if space is allocated to fire control), or only fixed mounting weapons? (Do small craft include a hardpoint?)
pg. 133 The Shuttle data does not say it is Streamlined, but it appears to be; is it?
There does not appear to be a tonnage or cost for an acceleration couches or freshers (for short duration use while transporting passengers on the shuttle or other small craft), have these been relegated to the supplement to include the small craft design rules?
Inconsistencies with “Classic” Traveller:
pg. 35 The Gun and Weapon benefit as worded allow characters to select Plasma Rifle, Grenades, and Heavy Weapons (e.g. FGMP-16). I submit this is an excessive deviation from CT rules. Book 1 did not includes these weapons; most of them are introduced in Mercenary (Book 4), which referred back to Book 1 for mustering out benefits (which I interpret to keep the Book 4 weapons unavailable as mustering out benefits).
pg. 107 The M-Drive A tonnage of 2 tons diverges from the classic Traveller (CT) Book 2 Starships tonnage of 1 ton. While the 1 ton was an anomaly (in that it had 1/3 the tonnage while producing 1/2 the potential), I recommend retaining it to avoid invalidating heritage designs that used the M-Drive A. Even if the new value of 2 is used, does that indicate that the minimum M-Drive size tonnage is 2 tonns, or is some other value used for the <A M-drives of the Launch and Light Fighter? I suspect it will be made moot when the Mongoose Traveller (MGT) version of High Guard is released.
pg. 107 Fuel. The Fuel required by a power plant is 40% of that required by CT Book 2 rules, but double that required by CT Book 5 High Guard, making designs based on either set of rules inconsistent with MGT. I suspect the MGT version of High Guard will have is own rule, but allow the Core Rulebook designs as well (like original High Guard). I would be content with either staying consistent with Book 2 or changing the fuel use to be consistent with CT High Guard.
nits:
pg. 114 The artwork shows the classic triangular planform of the Scout Courier / Seeker, but the deckplan on page 116 indicates the nose and aft outboard tips are clipped; they should agree. (I personally prefer staying consistent with the classic
Although I do recognize that this does allow it to fit in the Corsair cargo bay.
I suggest revising the deckplan slightly to include the points, but include a comment that a clipped variant exists to facilitate carriage in larger ships, and indicate their planform with phantom/dotted lines.
pg. 124 The Gazelle deck plan includes large Fuel tanks to either side of the staterooms, in the classical design these are drop tanks, so the necking-in at the Crew Common Area (4) should be avoided. I suggest simply making the common area as wide as the cargo bay.
pg. 133 The illustration shows the classic shuttle planform; the deckplan on page 134 is similar but could be improved. I suggest the miniature be used as the model.
I have not examined the Common Spacecraft designs in detail, has anyone else?
Has a cutoff date been set for identifying errata that will be addressed in the first official list?
Pop said:
Page 110 makes it clear that streamlined craft include fuel scoops for free, but unstreamlined craft must have fuel scoops fitted at extra cost in order to be able to gather unrefined fuel.
I would assume the same rules apply for small craft. Previously in Traveller a ship without fuel scoops could use small craft with them to gather fuel.
Simon Hibbs
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
Ship design issue:
Seems like all weapons are mountable in multiple turrets, and take up the same space. Particle accelerators thus can be triple mounted in a ship as small as 100dt - and using a fixed mount, a 10dt fighter can similalry have three Particle weapons.
This is somewhat terrifying.
The old CT/HG limits were that a PA took a special mount (the ever elusive "barbette") and couldn't even fit in a triple mount.
If this is intentional, it will work, but it really skews military ship design to smaller and more numerous craft or big barges that can hold massive amounts of armor. (IMO) - a small ship fighteresque universe...(Galactica) ; possibly a fun idea, but a bit different from old style traveller.
FWIW, the above, coupled with the lack of power points requirements, does support the idea that the energy for weapons use is trivial compared to the needs of the the M & J drives - which, actually is a fine thing for those of us who dislike power point calculations in ship design.
Seems like all weapons are mountable in multiple turrets, and take up the same space. Particle accelerators thus can be triple mounted in a ship as small as 100dt - and using a fixed mount, a 10dt fighter can similalry have three Particle weapons.
This is somewhat terrifying.
The old CT/HG limits were that a PA took a special mount (the ever elusive "barbette") and couldn't even fit in a triple mount.
If this is intentional, it will work, but it really skews military ship design to smaller and more numerous craft or big barges that can hold massive amounts of armor. (IMO) - a small ship fighteresque universe...(Galactica) ; possibly a fun idea, but a bit different from old style traveller.
FWIW, the above, coupled with the lack of power points requirements, does support the idea that the energy for weapons use is trivial compared to the needs of the the M & J drives - which, actually is a fine thing for those of us who dislike power point calculations in ship design.
Similar threads
