Soo.... Airlock freebies

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

The smart thing to do, would be to design and build a hundred tonne shuttle.

I'm working on a 134 ton shuttle will that do?

 

[Condottiere]

For said freebie airlock, yeah.

 

[Sigtrygg]

With the bridge size change the shuttle should be built to 100t...

 

[Condottiere]

The line is ninety nine tonnes.

You cross that, and you need to allocate another four tonnes for a default ten tonne bridge.

Cost of the bridge remains the same.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Not according to the new revised updated revise core rulebook, the line is at 100t.

 

[Condottiere]

And yet, no one's bothered to alter the bridge volumes in the related canon spacecraft.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other, just that the design rules are consistent.

But, if confirmed, means you could jump with a three tonne bridge.

 

[Terry Mixon]

With the bridge size change the shuttle should be built to 100t...

That actually makes sense.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Amazing really that 48 years of smallcraft canon can be swept away by one line in a table...

 

[Terry Mixon]

Amazing really that 48 years of smallcraft canon can be swept away by one line in a table...

It’s the wave of the future!

 

[Condottiere]

Ti(de)po(ol).

 

[hopsnbaer]

And yet, no one's bothered to alter the bridge volumes in the related canon spacecraft.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other, just that the design rules are consistent.

But, if confirmed, means you could jump with a three tonne bridge.

That could mean they were just made with bigger than needed bridges. I don't expect Mongoose to retcon every ship as I don't think it makes a difference for my narrative. As long as it stays consistent moving forward I am happy and will accept any discrepancies as differences in design or tech.

 

[hopsnbaer]

Although I will say, I understand the desire. My personal ships are usually recreated to be rules legal with the current errata.

 

[Condottiere]

For a hundred tonne starship, those seven tonnes represent cargo space for someone trading on the margins.

And, in theory, something the Scout Service could have imposed on its Express Boats.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Although I will say, I understand the desire. My personal ships are usually recreated to be rules legal with the current errata.

They should redo all of the published ships to meet what their rules say. The rules don't exist if even the company that makes the rules can't use them right. Obviously though, that would be whenever they update the books that have those ships in them.

 

[Terry Mixon]

They should redo all of the published ships to meet what their rules say. The rules don't exist if even the company that makes the rules can't use them right. Obviously though, that would be whenever they update the books that have those ships in them.

And have them vetted at the same time. Seriously, the broken designs deserve to be fixed.

 

[Sigtrygg]

1. does everyone editing Mongoose Traveller books have an indepth knowledge of every single book? If no then you need a bible to check against, or get an AI, feed in every book, and use that to fact check.

2. does every author have an in depth knowledge of the setting they are writing for as described by Mongoose and a comprehensive understanding of the current rules? If no then you need a bible to check against, or get an AI, feed in every book, and use that to fact check.

Or start a private group and invite volunteers to do this for you.

My opinion is that not every Mongoose author knows the latest editions of Mongoose Traveller rules well enough to apply them consistently, they certainly don't read each other's books as they appear unaware of what other authors have written in other books, I have given up commenting on their lack or prior setting canon knowledge, but the issue is now inconsistency and contradiction in purely Mongoose sources.

As I have said, the game is now very complicated, setting details, rules, variant rules, and construction details are widely scattered, there are contradictions aplenty, plus rules that have quite important unintended consequences.

 

[MasterGwydion]

1. does everyone editing Mongoose Traveller books have an indepth knowledge of every single book? If no then you need a bible to check against, or get an AI, feed in every book, and use that to fact check.

2. does every author have an in depth knowledge of the setting they are writing for as described by Mongoose and a comprehensive understanding of the current rules? If no then you need a bible to check against, or get an AI, feed in every book, and use that to fact check.

Or start a private group and invite volunteers to do this for you.

My opinion is that not every Mongoose author knows the latest editions of Mongoose Traveller rules well enough to apply them consistently, they certainly don't read each other's books as they appear unaware of what other authors have written in other books, I have given up commenting on their lack or prior setting canon knowledge, but the issue is now inconsistency and contradiction in purely Mongoose sources.

As I have said, the game is now very complicated, setting details, rules, variant rules, and construction details are widely scattered, there are contradictions aplenty, plus rules that have quite important unintended consequences.

Why bother? No one here even wants to define the stuff that is already in use like Tech Level and UWP Codes. Stupid people like to keep things vague so they can feel smart. It is stupid participation trophy crap. They aren't creative enough to work in a universe structured by rules, so they make the rules meaningless and then they can feel creative.

 

[tytalan]

Personally I think that whoever did the re-edit for the CRB looked at the table and changed it because they thought it was a error (not necessarily understanding that Jump ships have at least 3 crew stations on a bridge and need room to move unlike fighter cockpits) and Mongoose is afraid to admit that it’s a error. But there’s no way if a two person cockpit needs 2.5 dt that a bridge which you have to have room to move in and on a jump ship has at least 3 stations (Pilot, Astrogator, and mics ‘depends on the ship captain, sensor, etc’) even if you feel you only need two stations you still need room to move in and a half dt just doesn’t work.

 

[Prodromoi]

Has a consensus been reached on the actual way to interpret this? (At the risk of dusting off an old thread.)

My interpretation (and question) is as below (based on comments from ResslynHalvik and others:

1. At least one airlock per 500dT (or part thereof) - minimum, mandatory
2. Per 100dT of hull volume you get 1 airlock at a zero credit cost - maximum, optional
3. Per 100dT of hull volume you get 1 airlock at a zero dTon cost - maximum, optional - THIS IS THE QUESTION. IS THE VOLUME FREE OR ASSUMED INCLUDED?

To clarify the bit I'm puzzling over: Let's say, for example, we make a 300 dTon ship. It gets one airlock free of Credit or dTon cost (although I can't find an actual source to cite this, sadly). We'll call this Airlock 1.
It must have one airlock minimum (because of the one per 500 dTons - very clear) (Airlock 1)
It may have up to three 'normal' airlocks (because of the one per 100 dTon rule). One might read HG2022 page 58's "assumption" to mean it must have three. (Airlocks 2 & 3)
Airlock 2 & 3 have no Credit cost for their installation (HG2022 page 25)
BUT - do Airlock 2 & 3 (which might be mandatory, depending on interpretation) have their cost of 2 dTons each or not? (See citation HG2022 page 25 below).


Sources for each point above:

CRB2022, page 152
"A ship has at least one airlock per 500 tons."
Very clear, this is a minimum though more allowed.

HG2022, page 25 (Step 13, final design)
"A ship may have one airlock for every full 100 tons at no additional expense. Additional airlocks may be purchased as described in the Spacecraft Options chapter."
Clear this is a maximum per dTonnage. "No additional expense" very much seems clear about Credit cost. Is not clear if the "expense" does or does not include dTonnage - could be interpreted either way.

The "Spacecraft Options" chapter referred to states (HG2022, page 58)
"ADDITIONAL AIRLOCK
A ship is assumed to have one airlock for every full 100 tons or part of. However, additional airlocks of any size may be added to a ship.
Airlocks consume a minimum of two tons and cost MCr0.1 per ton. Larger airlocks can be used for cargo bays."
This contradicts the previous entry in HG2022 somewhat; page 25 says "MAY have one per 100 dTons", while page 58 says "assumed to have one per 100dTons". Page 25 means "optional", while page 58 implies the airlock is present (effectively mandatory).
The cost (in Credits and dTons) mentioned on this page apply specifically to Additional Airlocks - so it doesn't apply to the basic "one airlock per 100dTons" which is assumed, or mandatory (depending how one interprets page 25 or 58). So for the point I'm pondering, this last bit is not relevant.


The ship "stat-blocks" never mention airlocks unless they're specific or unusual, e.g. cargo airlocks.
The deckplans are a bit "artist's impression" so I don't think we can use them as evidence.

 

[Arkathan]

The latest interpretation I read was that the free airlocks fall into the +/- 10% for ship deck plans.
We'll have to see if that changes in the upcoming HG review.