JTAS5 Security Profile Example

[Yenaldlooshi]

I may have found a minor typo on page 40 of JTAS Volume 5 in the example given.

I only care because it is causing me fits to be sure whether it is a typo or whether I am making my own mistake. I am trying to build a calculator in Excel that will automatically generate one of these profiles and I want to catch any problems before I use it. In this case, I think it found a problem with the text.

On page 40 in the example it reads:
"A roll of 9-7+8 (Law Level) for Planetary Presence gives a result of 10(A) (no applicable modifiers)."
But Albe has a Trade Code of Hi which gives a -2 and Ht which gives a+1 per the chart on page 33 for a total of -1
thus, I show that the sentence should read:
"A roll of 9-7+8 (Law Level) for Planetary Presence is modified by -1 for combined modifiers, to 9."

Also on page 34, the table indicates there should be a -1 due to this having a Po Trade Code, thus reducing the Orbital Presence to 10 instead of 11.
This in turn means that System Presence in this example drops to 6-7+10 and with "Po" giving -2, this should total 7.

Security Stance seems to be the only value in the example I seem to be able to match with my calculations.

To in sum, I show with the rolls in the example the Security Profile should be S9A73. With possible security codes of Fa (10+)Ip (5+)Te.


Am I correct or am I missing something?

Also, I am curious too why in this example they gave the UWP without the trade codes used listed. It seems that would be key in making a good and readable example. I found them in Pirates of Drinax, Book Two as: De Hi In Po Ht

 

[MasterGwydion]

As much as I love the PoD Campaign and it's expanded information on the Trojan Reach, quality control was non-existent as far as making sure the material presented in the campaign matched pre-existing published information. UWP changes and Trade Code changes are only a few of the things that are inconsistent. So, take it all with a grain of salt. As far as inaccuracies in the JTAS article, I do not feel qualified to answer your question. (I do not have that JTAS.) My apologies.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

As much as I love the PoD Campaign and it's expanded information on the Trojan Reach, quality control was non-existent as far as making sure the material presented in the campaign matched pre-existing published information. UWP changes and Trade Code changes are only a few of the things that are inconsistent. So, take it all with a grain of salt. As far as inaccuracies in the JTAS article, I do not feel qualified to answer your question. (I do not have that JTAS.) My apologies.

Point taken. I am going to build a Trade Code generator in Excel with the help of Copilot to verify if those codes are correct per Core. Will advise.

UPDATE: The codes for this system in PoD are sound per latest Core rules. So that part of the example is ok, they should have entered the trade codes used to make the example more clear.

 

[Yenaldlooshi]

I am judging that by all the responses I have to my other posts and the absolute crickets I hear on this one, that I must be the only player in all of Mongoose Traveller, who thinks the Security Profile mechanic in JTAS5 was a cool thing to implement into their game.

Feeling kinda lonely here, guys...