Traveller errata

[sideranautae]

Ah, right, THAT section. Easiest errata is to remove the reference to specific shapes under "Standard". More involved correction is possible, as long as the fundamental simplicity of the Core book is maintained.

Nope. That would leave lifting bodies in 2 categories of hulls. Not a good idea at all. And not what was intended if you read the rest of the rules. Needs to be reverted to original text that was submitted by the writer to the editor.

 

[GypsyComet]

Ah, right, THAT section. Easiest errata is to remove the reference to specific shapes under "Standard". More involved correction is possible, as long as the fundamental simplicity of the Core book is maintained.

Nope. That would leave lifting bodies in 2 categories of hulls. Not a good idea at all. And not what was intended if you read the rest of the rules. Needs to be reverted to original text that was submitted by the writer to the editor.

Which says what?

 

[sideranautae]

Ah, right, THAT section. Easiest errata is to remove the reference to specific shapes under "Standard". More involved correction is possible, as long as the fundamental simplicity of the Core book is maintained.

Nope. That would leave lifting bodies in 2 categories of hulls. Not a good idea at all. And not what was intended if you read the rest of the rules. Needs to be reverted to original text that was submitted by the writer to the editor.

Which says what?

Something totally different. I found a thread on another forum about a year ago. The part about needing launch facilities, standard hulls being difficult to maneuver on and off a planet is not what was written, etc. The editor mangled the original rules. That's why the existing text is nonsensical.

 

[donm61873]

Updated errata document (0.3) posted!

 

[GypsyComet]

Which says what?

Something totally different.

On a chance, I came up with one of the draft versions (v3.2) still hiding on the Mongoose site. It has only the cost differences in the construction section, and then the same text in Atmospheric Operations as made it into the published book (page 137).

As such, the simplest fix is "remove the second part of the first sentence, and all of the second sentence under "A standard hull" on page 106, column 1".

A more radical reversion like you suggest would require someone with an honest copy of the earlier playtest document.

With that in mind, more errata reveals itself:

page 121: The Laboratory Ship has no stated Configuration except to say "not streamlined" in the color text.
page 126: The Yacht has no stated Configuration. Legacy editions described this ship as unstreamlined.
Page 127: The Mercenary Cruiser has no stated Configuration. Legacy editions described this ship as unstreamlined.
page 129: The Corsair has no stated Configuration. Legacy editions described this ship as unstreamlined.

These could all be replaced by:
page 106: add "A ship with no stated configuration is considered Standard configuration."

This one, however, appears to be a genuine mistake:
page 133: The Shuttle has no stated Configuration. Legacy editions described this spacecraft as streamlined.

 

[donm61873]

I need some assistance with the errata...

I need a Robots expert (someone who can fix a few messed up robot designs)...
And a High Guard ship design expert (again, fixing a few messed up ship designs)...

Contact me at travellererrata@gmail.com...

 

[sideranautae]

A more radical reversion like you suggest would require someone with an honest copy of the earlier playtest document.

They just need to go to the original person assigned to write that section. It was a paid author. It was changed when submitted for final to the editor.

 

[donm61873]

I've asked the credited author, and he claims no idea as to what the two of you are discussing about that section getting confused. Sideranautae, who should I be contacting for the specific section?

 

[sideranautae]

I've asked the credited author, and he claims no idea as to what the two of you are discussing about that section getting confused. Sideranautae, who should I be contacting for the specific section?

The author who responded a couple years ago on either COTI or here.

Here is the text I copied last year.

"Mytholder wrote:
Also, for those arguing about hulls, I checked my original manuscript. I'm not sure when the text got changed, or who changed it, but the hulls were originally broken down as follows:


"A ship may have any of three configurations – standard (a wedge, cone, sphere or cylinder), streamlined (a wing, disc or other lifting body allowing it to enter the atmosphere easily) or distributed (made up of several sections, and incapable of entering an atmosphere or maintaining its shape under gravity)."

As I said - I can't recall writing that section (gliding or needing launch facilities), and it's not in the final manuscript I sent in, so it must have been added in editing. I'd ignore it - standard-hull ships are pretty unaerodynamic, but can take off if they've got a working m-drive and enough hull integrity to hold together (Structure >0)."

 

[donm61873]

I've asked the credited author, and he claims no idea as to what the two of you are discussing about that section getting confused. Sideranautae, who should I be contacting for the specific section?

The author who responded a couple years ago on either COTI or here.

Here is the text I copied last year.

"Mytholder wrote:
Also, for those arguing about hulls, I checked my original manuscript. I'm not sure when the text got changed, or who changed it, but the hulls were originally broken down as follows:


"A ship may have any of three configurations – standard (a wedge, cone, sphere or cylinder), streamlined (a wing, disc or other lifting body allowing it to enter the atmosphere easily) or distributed (made up of several sections, and incapable of entering an atmosphere or maintaining its shape under gravity)."

As I said - I can't recall writing that section (gliding or needing launch facilities), and it's not in the final manuscript I sent in, so it must have been added in editing. I'd ignore it - standard-hull ships are pretty unaerodynamic, but can take off if they've got a working m-drive and enough hull integrity to hold together (Structure >0)."

Ok, I'll go jar Gareth's memory...

 

[sideranautae]

Not sure if the following should be errata'ed.

Pg. 102 CRB. PGMP paragraph: "It is powered by a built-in micro-fusion generator ..."

This is a TL 12 weapon listing. Not sure if rules REALLY intended to have man portable fusion generators at this TL or, this is an inadvertent cut and paste from an earlier rule set...

 

[donm61873]

Pg. 102 CRB. PGMP paragraph: "It is powered by a built-in micro-fusion generator ..."

This is a TL 12 weapon listing. Not sure if rules REALLY intended to have man portable fusion generators at this TL or, this is an inadvertent cut and paste from an earlier rule set...

We'll have to go look at the old definitions...

 

[sideranautae]

Another that depends on how the rules are intended in MGT version.

Pg. 97 CRB; Thruster Pack entry (was Long Range Thruster Pack in earlier editions) "The TL 14 version of the long-range pack is much smaller as it uses grav-thruster plates instead,"

Again not sure if intent is to have man portable, deep space capable, grav propulsion modules in the game. If so, Air/rafts and the like become capable of inter-planetary travel... :shock:

 

[donm61873]

Another that depends on how the rules are intended in MGT version.

Pg. 97 CRB; Thruster Pack entry (was Long Range Thruster Pack in earlier editions) "The TL 14 version of the long-range pack is much smaller as it uses grav-thruster plates instead,"

Again not sure if intent is to have man portable, deep space capable, grav propulsion modules in the game. If so, Air/rafts and the like become capable of inter-planetary travel... :shock:

Not clear what the intention was, but I cannot imagine that being a popular form of interplanetary travel. Strap a pack on your back and fly to Mars?

 

[sideranautae]

Another that depends on how the rules are intended in MGT version.

Pg. 97 CRB; Thruster Pack entry (was Long Range Thruster Pack in earlier editions) "The TL 14 version of the long-range pack is much smaller as it uses grav-thruster plates instead,"

Again not sure if intent is to have man portable, deep space capable, grav propulsion modules in the game. If so, Air/rafts and the like become capable of inter-planetary travel... :shock:

Not clear what the intention was, but I cannot imagine that being a popular form of interplanetary travel. Strap a pack on your back and fly to Mars?

I have no idea either. But, should be eliminated if not intended to have anything but small craft and above sporting interplanetary capable grav drives. IMO

 

[GypsyComet]

Another that depends on how the rules are intended in MGT version.

Pg. 97 CRB; Thruster Pack entry (was Long Range Thruster Pack in earlier editions) "The TL 14 version of the long-range pack is much smaller as it uses grav-thruster plates instead,"

Again not sure if intent is to have man portable, deep space capable, grav propulsion modules in the game. If so, Air/rafts and the like become capable of inter-planetary travel... :shock:

Not clear what the intention was, but I cannot imagine that being a popular form of interplanetary travel. Strap a pack on your back and fly to Mars?

I have no idea either. But, should be eliminated if not intended to have anything but small craft and above sporting interplanetary capable grav drives. IMO

Older Canon separates "Grav" (needs a gravity well) from "Thruster" (doesn't), a distinction that could be useful here. Grav can be made very small, but drops to about 1% of rated performance much past the equivalent of LEO. Enough to do a bit of EVA, but not enough to get really ambitious.

 

[sideranautae]

I have no idea either. But, should be eliminated if not intended to have anything but small craft and above sporting interplanetary capable grav drives. IMO

Older Canon separates "Grav" (needs a gravity well) from "Thruster" (doesn't), a distinction that could be useful here. Grav can be made very small, but drops to about 1% of rated performance much past the equivalent of LEO. Enough to do a bit of EVA, but not enough to get really ambitious.

Oh yes. I remember now. You & I can draw on our knowledge of older editions. Mgt needs to include rules covering for new players or, eliminate these little things from older editions that aren't spelled out.

 

[boronwe]

Hello, in the TCR there is an inconsistency with the Central Supply Catalog. In the page 89 of the Rulebook, the prices of the Physical Characteristic Augmentation are different from the page 186 of the Catalog, there seems to be an extra zero in the Rulebook or one of less in the Catalog.

Which is the correct price?

Thank you and greetings.

 

[GypsyComet]

Mgt needs to include rules covering for new players or, eliminate these little things from older editions that aren't spelled out.

Because the core rulebook is intended to be settingless, I would rather it used neutral terms when it can. In this case "gravitic" and "thruster plates" are specific tech terms, while the more generic "anti-gravity" would convey the necessary "magical technology that doesn't need reaction mass" explanation without linking back to 35 years of esoterica. That isn't really an errata thing, though.

 

[sideranautae]

Mgt needs to include rules covering for new players or, eliminate these little things from older editions that aren't spelled out.

Because the core rulebook is intended to be settingless, I would rather it used neutral terms when it can. In this case "gravitic" and "thruster plates" are specific tech terms, while the more generic "anti-gravity" would convey the necessary "magical technology that doesn't need reaction mass" explanation without linking back to 35 years of esoterica. That isn't really an errata thing, though.

Right. Your changes wouldn't be but I agree on the settingless angle. They need to decide what exists drive wise and at what scale (personal, vehicle, ship) and correct equipment types lists.