TL 14 Collectors In High Guard

[Nerhesi]

You are correct fusor. They want to change canon, they may - of course there are impacts/groans/moans/etc. But we should consider the impact in-universe.

If the Annic Nova a.k.a collector is unique enough, then there isn't a problem. It definitely isn't bigger then the sudden appearance of 9G capital ships or suddenly powerful missiles or torpedoes, or virtual gunners, or enlarged crew requirements, or or or or.....

Now, if we have the availability of collectors as common technology, then absolutely we need to start thinking about how SDBs, freighters, traders, battle-riders, etc... would absolutely leverage them! Thankfully, if you disregard the weird statement about Annic Nova types in signs and portents, you dont have to worry. But who knows - tomorrow there may be a supplement release with Energy Shields, Collectors that only take 1 day to charge, and plasma pulse canons.

I understand the frustration as we've grown to love the 3I setting (some of us), but I dont think blaming any particular publisher or edition is accurate nor useful. Make a case, make a recommendation - pitch an idea, it is either accepted, or not. If not - learn to live with the fact that the setting changes from time to time...

 

[AndrewW]

Factually incorrect. It without the qualification of which 3I? 3I from CT? 3I from T4? 3I from T5?

I would also ask the question of Andrew as it seems Meson bays were removed from almost every ship except... Carriers?! That seems Odd.

The only ships that use stuff from the High Technology section are those that where converted over (mostly from S9 Fighting Ships) that already used the items.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Factually incorrect. It without the qualification of which 3I? 3I from CT? 3I from T4? 3I from T5?

I would also ask the question of Andrew as it seems Meson bays were removed from almost every ship except... Carriers?! That seems Odd.

Are the tractor bays a mistake as well then - they are also high tech chapter and yet included on 3I ships in the book.

Incorrect. You cannot make a list because you are not the authoritative source on what is 3I or what is not. No more than I am. The authoritative source is what Marc/Don/Matt/Whomever publishes. It may even change from day to day if they so wish it.
You can point out inconsistency - sure, but you cannot in any way state what is in 3I unless it a point-in-time-statement.

I can make a list - in fact I have one right here - but I may not include it because I am not one of the authors.

Incorrect. You have no factual way of differentiating between taking notice, actioning, agreeing with, or choosing to ignore.

The fact it has been ignored when it was actually replied to as being something to include proves the facetiousness of your statement. It hasn't been done- therefore it has been ignored. There may be good reasons for this, but it has still been ignored.

Again - incorrect.
You fail to define who is "you", you have no evidence of "mixed them up", you have no basis by which to judge what "should be canon" vs "what was canon", or if there was any confusion at all. All of these decisions were out of our hands. I was most definitely not handed a carte-blanche (not by a long-shot).

It is a quick way of saying the authorial team - and again the fact that there is confusion in your - sorry - the HG2e authors - ship examples in the book shows this to be the case.

The only confusion you can attest to, is your own, and any others' who confirm theirs as well.

Which is what I , and others, have been doing on more than one thread now.

The authors of HG2e have mixed up the technologies in the standard designs in the books so it is not clear what is and is not baseline 1105 OTU specific. Not what the 3I can construct at TL15 in 1105 but what any race in the setting can construct in 1105.

You have been consistently incorrect because your base argument is invalid. Your base argument is that you are somehow aware of what should be 3I as some axioms/truths that have always been.
That is incorrect.This has been pointed out time and time again. Canon has changed before, it continues to change - one can even assume there is no interest in keeping it from changing.
We can only point out changes in canon from a previous edition - and they will either be heeded or ignored.

[/quote]So are you telling me that ion canon and tachyon canon are now baseline for 3I ship construction?

 

[-Daniel-]

Then it seems the only way that anyone is going to stay sane over this is to say that canon is unique to each edition. We should stop attempting to make a coherent, unified setting from all the editions because each universe is totally different.

Wouldn't you expect canon to be different in the various editions? I mean are they not set in different eras of time? Thus what is true in one edition may not have happened in another. Some are based on the Fourth Imperium, some various time frames in the Third Imperium, The Long Night, etc. So in a sense what would be canon for one could be "the future" for another. And thus I would expect technology would/could be different as the years, heck centuries apart some editions could be. Right? Or an I confused again?

 

[Reynard]

"No, be cause the collector is collecting exotic particles needed to open the rift to jump space the extension to this is that the fusion reaction part of the normal jump procedure also generates these particles. At sufficiently high TLs matter/antimatter can be used to generate the jump conditions."

From a few sources, the power plant, from a fission reactor to the a/m reactor, creates the energy and those exotic particles then feed them into the same jump capacitors as do Globes. The Collectors use a technology that extracts these particles directly from the surrounding spacial ether into the capacitors. Of course the original source never mentions what happens to the hydrogen normally needed to form the bubble holding those particles. Globes also don't produce hydrogen for the bubble. It could be the majority of the hydrogen normally creates the energy and particles and only a small amount of hydrogen is needed for the bubble itself. Just a guess. The point is for now the collectors do their job firing up a jump engine.

The original Accumulators were not the most thought out Traveller invention. I thank Mongoose for giving them a nod in MgT by putting it in the alternate tech section. It can be a 3I item but with a science that will take a long time to understand as well as understanding the sentients who use it. Maybe it's an adaption of one of Grandfather's toy projects rediscovered and engineered by an old slave species from outside the territories of the major races. Traveller is flexible, use your imaginations! The players got their Nautilus.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The only ships that use stuff from the High Technology section are those that where converted over (mostly from S9 Fighting Ships) that already used the items.

So the following from the HIgh Technology chapter: meson bays, tractor bays, particle turrets, fusion gun turrets and the collector tech - since they all appear in the HG2e ships guide section - are all available to one race or other in the 1105 setting. This needs to be made obvious.

My offer of my list - which I can and have made - still stands.

 

[fusor]

The Imperium was unaware of collector technology until it started to encounter Annic Nova type vessels, which first occurred in 1103. None of the major races used this technology , they had all gone the fusion powered jump drive route instead.
...
I am flat out stating that in the setting the major races of the OTU circa 1103 are unaware of collector technology.

Yes, agreed.

No, I am not. Just because the rules say something is available at a certain TL even within the setting it does not necessarily mean a culture discovers that technology.
Ever hear of Sabmiqys - TL17 but never invented the jump drive.

Agreed. Though Sabmiqys is IIRC inhabited by AI androids that also can't be constructed with 3I tech either.

They are not - but they are available to the race that exits in the 1105 setting that builds them .

Which is exactly what I said and what you quoted. And yes, apparently that race exists in the setting... somewhere. Where? Nobody knows. Has anyone else encountered them? No. Even after years of expansion of the setting? No. For all practical purposes, they have been forgotten about in the 40 years since they appeared in Annic Nova. I think it's probably safe to assume that such a race lives in some far unexplored reach of the maps covered by Charted Space that hasn't been encountered yet (or even beyond).

I think the fundamental problem here is that we're taking a ship that appeared in a single adventure right at the start of Traveller's history, before there was even really a developed 3I, and we're saying "well, it's there, that technology exists and is potentially buildable" - despite the fact that every edition since that first one has ignored that technology completely. It was clearly intended to appear only in a one-off weird mystery adventure since it never appeared since even in CT - even on canonical map sources like travellermap there isn't a system that says "this is the Annic Nova homesystem, inhabited by whoever the heck built it". It makes me wonder why the hell anyone is wasting space including them here at all.

That's up to the referee - see my post on the last page.

No, I don't think it is up to the referee. If the tech exists in the 3I, and if Imperial, Vargr, Droyne or whatever ships can be built using them, then the effect of that technology should be described. It shouldn't be left for the GM to figure out for themselves.

But it does mean someone did and another race with sufficiently advanced technology to reverse engineer them could.

Sure. But that doesn't mean we need to waste space on it in a design system, does it?

 

[fusor]

Then it seems the only way that anyone is going to stay sane over this is to say that canon is unique to each edition. We should stop attempting to make a coherent, unified setting from all the editions because each universe is totally different.

Wouldn't you expect canon to be different in the various editions? I mean are they not set in different eras of time? Thus what is true in one edition may not have happened in another. Some are based on the Fourth Imperium, some various time frames in the Third Imperium, The Long Night, etc. So in a sense what would be canon for one could be "the future" for another. And thus I would expect technology would/could be different as the years, heck centuries apart some editions could be. Right? Or an I confused again?

They are, but it's supposed to be the same setting. In terms of in-setting timeline, it goes (from past to future):

GT: Interstellar Wars > T4 > T20 > CT/MGT > MT > TNE > 1248.

(GT branches off from CT/MGT into an alternate timeline where the Rebellion didn't happen).

All of those (even GT, up to the point where Strephon's assassination didn't happen there) describe the same history. So it should darn well all be consistent. The emperors described as ruling in the year 700 should be the same in T20 and beyond (GTIW and T4 were set before that era though). The technologies used should have evolved the same way in all those too (though TNE annoyingly went in a different direction there and rectonned HEPLaR as the M-drive system instead of the Thruster Plates that everyone else had). And so on.

Theoretically though it's not unreasonable to assume that the history and technological evolution of the setting should be the same in all editions (just reaching different points depending on when/where they're set).

 

[Sigtrygg]

If you go back to the early days of the 3I setting there were a lot of things introduced that were left for the referee to develop as their campaign developed.
GDW got caught up in the FFW storyline which took over the setting for a while and little things like:
who built the Shadow pyramids
where did the Annic Nova come from
who are the intelligent psionic aliens from outside the Imperium kidnapped by INI, where is their homeworld
did the Forboldn colony ever get established
how did the colonisation of the water world with biologically altered humans play out
did the TL5 world terraforming by crashing comets into it succeed
and many many more
were never mentioned again, but they are a treasure trove of adventure idea and plots.

I'm glad they were never answered, because my players get to find out the answers as we discover them together.

 

[Nerhesi]

Factually incorrect. It without the qualification of which 3I? 3I from CT? 3I from T4? 3I from T5?

I would also ask the question of Andrew as it seems Meson bays were removed from almost every ship except... Carriers?! That seems Odd.

The only ships that use stuff from the High Technology section are those that where converted over (mostly from S9 Fighting Ships) that already used the items.

I would have thought the ships converted from the MgT Fighting Ships (supplement 3 - Fighting Ships). Some cruisers, and most of the battleships have meson-bays in MgT1.

I think this further reinforces the fluidity of canon - and some decisions should be made if canon consistency is important enough.

 

[-Daniel-]

Then it seems the only way that anyone is going to stay sane over this is to say that canon is unique to each edition. We should stop attempting to make a coherent, unified setting from all the editions because each universe is totally different.

Wouldn't you expect canon to be different in the various editions? I mean are they not set in different eras of time? Thus what is true in one edition may not have happened in another. Some are based on the Fourth Imperium, some various time frames in the Third Imperium, The Long Night, etc. So in a sense what would be canon for one could be "the future" for another. And thus I would expect technology would/could be different as the years, heck centuries apart some editions could be. Right? Or an I confused again?

They are, but it's supposed to be the same setting. In terms of in-setting timeline, it goes (from past to future):
[snip]
Theoretically though it's not unreasonable to assume that the history and technological evolution of the setting should be the same in all editions (just reaching different points depending on when/where they're set).

Good Point. One setting just care to define the time range for the setting and thus the available information and technology. Sounds like a great way to organize a background document. :wink:

 

[AndrewW]

I would have thought the ships converted from the MgT Fighting Ships (supplement 3 - Fighting Ships). Some cruisers, and most of the battleships have meson-bays in MgT1.

The desire was to do the ships as they where in Classic so that's what was done.

 

[fusor]

I think this further reinforces the fluidity of canon - and some decisions should be made if canon consistency is important enough.

When is it not important? The point of canon is to establish what is and isn't possible in a setting, and what did or didn't happen. Otherwise what's the use of having a setting that's shared across all these editions of Traveller? Or again, are we to assume that they're not in fact a shared setting but are all alternate universes? The 3I setting is what people like about Traveller - if you want to change that all the time then all you're going to do is lose fans of the game who get fed up with all the changes (regardless of how trivial they may seem, like the AHL deckplans).

Canon shouldn't be "fluid", it should be reasonably solid so that people who are interested in it (particular authors of official products) know what's what in the setting.

 

[Nerhesi]

Are the tractor bays a mistake as well then - they are also high tech chapter and yet included on 3I ships in the book.

Yes - and Tachyon weapons are not in high technology but not on the existing ships.
Also 9G is now kosher yet not on any ship.

Collectors. We are discussing collectors. As I've stated several times before - yes lots of things have changed. This is my point.
I was answering, very clearly, that Collectors are:
(a) In the High Technology Chapter.
(b) Only appeared on one ship, and therefore meet the unique/rare description found in the high technology chapter when discussing the Imperium.

I can make a list - in fact I have one right here - but I may not include it because I am not one of the authors.

This is exactly why you are probably confused and upset. You can make the list - but it is not canon. It is what you feel 3I should be, based on your personal preference from different times in it's history. Obviously you have a problem with collectors being canon for example (I would/do too!). Obviously they are now (even more so given the setting rules published by Marc himself reinforce this even more than MgT2).

It is a quick way of saying the authorial team - and again the fact that there is confusion in your - sorry - the HG2e authors - ship examples in the book shows this to be the case.

You've highlighted the issue here. There is no authorial team - perhaps Andrew can correct me here. But when we were working on systems, we would be informed by Matthew that "decision came from the powers above".

Let me give you an example (semi-theoretical):

I lead a lot of the effort on the rules and systems (Much more so in HG obviously). I am balancing, building tables, running test scenarios, comparing effectiveness and numbers, and suddenly - Meson Bays are gone!
Hey Matt what happened?
Direction from above - mesons are now spinal only.

Argue, negotiate, offer compromise with Matt - not directly with whomever the powers are, but ultimately continue to improve the game regardless of constraints/decisions

The only confusion you can attest to, is your own, and any others' who confirm theirs as well.

Which is what I , and others, have been doing on more than one thread now.

You are correct - I misunderstood thinking you said we (the peons on this) were confused. Just had to deal and keep on contributing

So are you telling me that ion canon and tachyon canon are now baseline for 3I ship construction?

Yup. Unless/until we get a definitive book on 3I, this is a safe assumption.
Otherwise, there is no clear indication that anything is in, or out of, the OTU.
Please keep in mind this is the MgT2e OTU. Which of course is different than T5 OTU, CT OTU, TNE OTU, T4 OTU.
After all - according to T5, MgT2/HG2, and I believe Fire/Fusion/Steel, 7, 8 and 9G have always been canon!

Sigtrygg - I understand what you're asking for. Consistency and peace of mind.

Several of us have recommended that we consider a 3I sourcebook or putting those guidelines in an upcoming product. Regardless - that wont address root cause. Root cause is not about creating a baseline in one edition of the game, it is getting buy-in from whomever to make sure that across all versions, you have rules and guidelines for people to stick to.

Blaming authors on a particular publication is completely incorrect - until there is a 3I bible for us to stick to

 

[AndrewW]

Also 9G is now kosher yet not on any ship.

Existing ships that where converted didn't have them. But it's not entirely true that they aren't on any ship, the Troop Transport (which was not a converted ship) has a 9G drive. None of the ships of 100+ tons have them though.

You've highlighted the issue here. There is no authorial team - perhaps Andrew can correct me here. But when we were working on systems, we would be informed by Matthew that "decision came from the powers above".

Pretty much what happened, wheren't really given a choice.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think this further reinforces the fluidity of canon - and some decisions should be made if canon consistency is important enough.

When is it not important? The point of canon is to establish what is and isn't possible in a setting, and what did or didn't happen. Otherwise what's the use of having a setting that's shared across all these editions of Traveller? Or again, are we to assume that they're not in fact a shared setting but are all alternate universes? The 3I setting is what people like about Traveller - if you want to change that all the time then all you're going to do is lose fans of the game who get fed up with all the changes (regardless of how trivial they may seem, like the AHL deckplans).

Canon shouldn't be "fluid", it should be reasonably solid so that people who are interested in it (particular authors of official products) know what's what in the setting.

You are correct on the definition of Canon. But it does not logically follow that Canon cannot change.

Now, please follow this part closely gents:

While I personally may have feelings about how Canon should be, I am simply defending the logic and direction we worked under. The drive and direction for "This is Canon, you shall abide" has to come from above the authors in this case. Dont blame the authors for lack of Canon/fuild canon which has been a consistent experience through many traveller versions.

 

[Nerhesi]

Also 9G is now kosher yet not on any ship.

Existing ships that where converted didn't have them. But it's not entirely true that they aren't on any ship, the Troop Transport (which was not a converted ship) has a 9G drive. None of the ships of 100+ tons have them though.

You've highlighted the issue here. There is no authorial team - perhaps Andrew can correct me here. But when we were working on systems, we would be informed by Matthew that "decision came from the powers above".

Pretty much what happened, wheren't really given a choice.

Correct Andrew - I meant on any ship in HG above 100 tons (because in previous MgT - smaller ships had 9G+).

Honestly, not sure if it would have been easier to say the military 6G ships are now 9G - considering according to COTI it is a retcon and 9G has always been there (indicated in T5 and Fire/fusion/steel whatnot). Anyways - you had a huge task Andrew - and not an enviable one

 

[Nerhesi]

I would have thought the ships converted from the MgT Fighting Ships (supplement 3 - Fighting Ships). Some cruisers, and most of the battleships have meson-bays in MgT1.

The desire was to do the ships as they where in Classic so that's what was done.

I'm befuddled - even confused now (joining the club with Strig). Of course - once again, I guess proves the point. No committee (and not expected) to hand down commandments. So my personal opinion would have been recreate ships while matching to rules in HG2. I would have been wrong!

 

[fusor]

You are correct on the definition of Canon. But it does not logically follow that Canon cannot change.

Thinking about it, maybe the problem here is that it's suddenly changed within an edition (MGT1 to MGT2) - previously canon's been different between editions. Now suddenly we've got a new edition of Traveller that apparently is being forced to hew to another version of the game that frankly nobody outside a tiny group of cultists actually even cares about (and one that isn't even completed, and isn't playable by any reasonable standard either for that matter). If T5 itself was a coherent, finished product then maybe it'd work better but the damn thing is still being developed, corrected, updated, and clarified, years after it was supposedly "published" (maybe that's where HG2 got the precedence from). So if the source material is in such a state of flux then what hope does anything that has to stick to it have? It's a complete bloody shambles.

And people just sit there and shrug about it? If I was Matt I'd be wondering how the hell I got into this mess and trying to find a way out of it.

While I personally may have feelings about how Canon should be, I am simply defending the logic and direction we worked under. The drive and direction for "This is Canon, you shall abide" has to come from above the authors in this case. Dont blame the authors for lack of Canon/fuild canon which has been a consistent experience through many traveller versions.

Thing is, I have no confidence that whoever is telling authors what is or isn't canon even knows what it is or should be (whether that's MWM or anyone else). None of this debacle inspires any confidence, and it just means the setting is build on very shaky ground. Why should anyone invest in the setting if everything might just change in the next book? It just makes me feel more like MWM doesn't have a consistent "vision" at all, which is only causing a lot of confusion down the line.

 

[fusor]

If the ships presented in HG2 (and in the new edition of the corebook?) haven't been created using HG2 rules then they're a complete waste of space. What is the point of a design system if you're not going to use it in the official products (or even in the book that presents the system)?!