Maintenance issues and penalty caps

[Condottiere]

The jump drive creates the bubble, or, is involved in it's creation.

Take a monkey wrench to the jump drive during transition, and see what happens.

 

[swordtart]

The jump drive creates the bubble, or, is involved in it's creation.

Take a monkey wrench to the jump drive during transition, and see what happens.

Can't, they don't exist

 

[Condottiere]

And, while you're at that, programme the jump through the centre of a nearby sun.

If only to resolve the issue if gravity wells actually have an effect in jumpspce.

 

[Vormaerin]

Even if the Jump Drive isn't used, it requires maintenance. Components for machinery decay even just existing. There's a reason why prepping vehicles for long term storage is a thing.

But, again, this gets into the realm of the hypothetical. Traveller's ship's maintenance is, especially in mongoose, pretty abstract and basically a tiny line item in a ship's budget that is handled 'off screen'.

To get back to the original point, CT (where the 'months past maintenance' rule starts) actually assumed it was months past your annual maintenance, because it only tracked the two weeks a year you needed to spend in the shipyard. The monthly maintenance was accumulated towards that big expense. So it had to be 13 months since your last overhaul before you had a penalty rather than the current "oops, didn't pay my pocket change costs last month" like the current rules.

 

[Saladman]

To make matters worse, after 7 months of lack of maintenance, you will accrue a critical hit automatically once per month. It seems to me that this rule should have had a cap to it to preclude automatic maintenance related issues.

For some of us that's not "matters worse," that's "as intended."

A fix I might endorse is each critical knocking something back off the penalty. Representing the knocking sound you've been ignoring for weeks has finally manifested into something specific, but with that in pieces now you might have a breather.

But even that I'd rather see in the realm of house rules or Companion options, not a change to the core rules.

 

[HalC]

For some of us that's not "matters worse," that's "as intended."

A fix I might endorse is each critical knocking something back off the penalty. Representing the knocking sound you've been ignoring for weeks has finally manifested into something specific, but with that in pieces now you might have a breather.

But even that I'd rather see in the realm of house rules or Companion options, not a change to the core rules.

Using rules as written means that a derelict found after zero maintenance for ten years, can not ever be made operational in any meaningful way - or am I missing something here?

 

[Vormaerin]

I'm not sure why you think that? You could repair the ship and do the maintenance if you have the resources. A few pages later it takes about repairing the very damage you are referring to. There's some debate about the pricing of the spare parts because it changed substantially between editions, but it's just Engineering and Mechanics work with the necessary supplies.

It's also kind of twisting the rules to apply rules intended to showcase the effects of deliberately not maintaining your operational ship to derelicts. I don't think that's an intended application.