Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Traveller 5 (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   5.10 Errata Thread? (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=40180)

Ackehece July 7th, 2019 10:08 PM

Errata T5.10
 
Book 3: Worlds and Adventures page 236.
Table labeled bulk

Assumed Textual Error

For example, a Virushi rolls Str= 5D Dex= 3D End= 2D
for a total of 10D. Because Str is 4D or greater, multiply 10D
by 120 = 1200 liters = 1200 kilograms (= a little over a ton).

+

Some sophonts have disproportionate Size (called Bulk)
Str Size= Size Range
1D (C1 Dice + C2 Dice + C3 Dice) * 12 24- 120
2D (C1 Dice + C2 Dice + C3 Dice) * 12 36- 132
3D (C1 Dice + C2 Dice + C3 Dice) * 12 48- 144
4D (C1 Dice + C2 Dice + C3 Dice) * 48 240- 624
5D (C1 Dice + C2 Dice + C3 Dice) * 60 360- 840
6D (C1 Dice + C2 Dice + C3 Dice) * 72 504-1080
7D (C1 Dice + C2 Dice + C3 Dice) * 84 672-1344
8D (C1 Dice + C2 Dice + C3 Dice) * 96 864-1632


First column is called str but to calculate bulk it appears that that column should be called nD = Size (size calculated in column two)
As that is how both examples are used on the page.
alternatively if it is str then the example is wrong as the example says the virushi is 5d strength. (Mechanic error) this is unlikely in context.

Possible Mechanic errata (derivation of the table)

Table does not explain how values are derived but the example uses a derived value outside the range of the table.

Derivation of values of the table are done as follows:

nD x 12 for the size multiplier
((nDx12) x (10+ (nD-1))) = maximum mass for that tier.


Submitted by : Nathan Brazil

Ackehece July 7th, 2019 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan159 (Post 603875)
Book 3 Page 126, Armor Stage Effects - Are the values for Improved and Modified correct? The Ar through Se numbers seem to be swapped.


Improved and Modified are closely linked but have different results. Modified is not necessarily better (see weapons where modified only weighs less but has more bulk than the improved model)
So we can provisionally mark it errata but I suspect it might be correct.


This chart is the same from 5.09 pg236 and was not flagged as errata afaik.
I will check the consolidated errata file to see if this has been answered before. Checking both the 5.0 and 5.09 errata files does not list this as previous errata (even though both version have this table) that doesn't mean it is right, just that if it is wrong it hasn't been flagged before.



Any opinions on this one gognards? I mean Modified is TL +2 but not as good overall as improved which is only TL+1 in some cases (armor maker) and in others it is marginally better.

Taythorian July 8th, 2019 01:45 AM

A quick question.

Once we have all this Errata etc, are there plans to put it into a Doc / PDF or if ok, I would be happy to update the Errata Section of the Wiki.

I am working (slowly at the mo due to work) on inputting the Errata from other Editions at the moment.

Cheers

Bryan

Ackehece July 8th, 2019 04:09 AM

Document form as well as errata on the wiki if you are willing to do the work.
Always better to have more access then less.

Taythorian July 8th, 2019 06:11 AM

Yeah, I kind of already volunteered to look after that part of the Wiki.

Once the Doc is at a Version 1, pass it over and I’ll upload to Wiki. If then moves to a Version 2, I’ll upload changes etc.

I’m assuming it will be in similar format to the CT Errata Doc.

Ackehece July 8th, 2019 08:21 AM

Book 1, Page 61, 2nd column, 5th paragraph:

Textual error / Mechanic error ( it is obviously textual, but the result is a mechanic error)

Sophomore Year 2: Check Edu (roll 6 or less; he rolls
5) and fails. He applies for Waiver

Edu check obviously passed and no waiver requires.

Submitted by John Myers

Wol July 8th, 2019 11:05 AM

Book 1 p.23. Textual. (nit)
Cubic yard described as .05 of a 'ton' but a 'ton' described as containing 18 cubic yards. The latter is closer. The former should be about .057.

stuartsmith183 July 8th, 2019 11:34 AM

Ship Shares Inconsistency.
 
Inconsistent ship share

Book 1 Pg 80 Merchant; Ship Shares ... a typical merchant ship is 10 to 20 shares
Book 1 Pg 90 Ship Shares; Shares are all less than 10

Instead of 50 tons per share, 10 tons per share? Then a Free Trader would be 20 shares.

And a question of clarification on purchase vs. loan. Why would getting a Ship on Loan cost as much in shares as purchasing a ship? Leasing a car is a bit cheaper than buying it outright.

Ackehece July 8th, 2019 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 603904)
Book 1 p.23. Textual. (nit)
Cubic yard described as .05 of a 'ton' but a 'ton' described as containing 18 cubic yards. The latter is closer. The former should be about .057.

Testing:

Ton is defined as 13500 ltrs
A cyard is defined as = to one yard = .05 ton = 765 ltrs.

If you take 765 x 18 you end up with 13770ltrs... so very close to the defined value for a displacement ton.

13500 18 is 750 rather than 765 but still close
~765 is the actual conversion of imperial cubic yards to metric liters...

Now let's test .05ton = cyard
13500 x .05 is 675... so drastically different.

The .05 ton is the wrong part.
I see where that value comes from.
.05 imperial ton is ~ 50kg which and a metric ton is 1000kg.
501000 gives .05 ton.
But we are using displacement tonnage not mass tonnage.

So let's flag .05ton as wrong and .057 does sound better.

Thanks for the errata . This had snuck through many generations of Traveller, not the least is T4, T5.0 , T5.9

Because the conversion is wrong and actually converts to the wrong type of ton is it textual or mechanic?

Ackehece July 8th, 2019 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartsmith183 (Post 603906)
Inconsistent ship share

Book 1 Pg 80 Merchant; Ship Shares ... a typical merchant ship is 10 to 20 shares
Book 1 Pg 90 Ship Shares; Shares are all less than 10

Instead of 50 tons per share, 10 tons per share? Then a Free Trader would be 20 shares.

And a question of clarification on purchase vs. loan. Why would getting a Ship on Loan cost as much in shares as purchasing a ship? Leasing a car is a bit cheaper than buying it outright.


Ship shares seem to be correct atv1 share per 50dton:
Page 90 is very clear in example and in text that specifically states it is 1 ship share per 50 ton displacement.
10 shares at 50ton is 500 dtonne, and 20 shares at 50 is 1000 dton.
The calculation seem right... the perception is wrong because you are only looking at low tonnage ships on the chart on page 90. the free trader on pg 90 is only 200 dton.
A subsidized merchant is 400 dton and would require 8 shares.
Class A merchants range from 100dton to 2499 dton in size and thus the need for much high numbers of ship shares.
That means from 2 to 50 shares to cover all conceivable class a merchants. 10 to 20 seems fair, as it covers the middle ground of adventure class ship, when considering that.

As for loan ... I think that is an errata issue. Scouts always previously were loan ships as well as lab ships. Merchants were purchased. I think the merchant ship loan was supposed to be scout.
The idea that loan ships are ships in the reserves. The value of the ship was lower but the utility was high. Scouts got loan shares, scholars got loan shares.


Mechanic errata
Book1, Pg 90 , ship shares

Loan placed on merchant ship and not scout ship

Fix

Scout ship is loan ship.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.