Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Classic Traveller (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=56)
-   -   CT Errata Compendium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=20051)

DonM July 25th, 2009 09:51 AM

CT Errata Compendium
 
1 Attachment(s)
It's been forever since I updated this. The most recent update to the CT Errata Compendium is 3/23/2015 (1.2).

What's really hanging up the errata is a good validation for starships. Andrea is no longer maintaining HGS, and I've got nothing else.

DonM August 18th, 2009 06:07 PM

Open issues:

1001 CHARACTERS Do the Scout characters need to be given the extra skills to match the 1981 edition? Any changes needed because of the skill table changes (Army, Marine, Merchant, Scout and Other have minor skill table changes in the 1981 edition)?

ANIMAL ENCOUNTERS Need to review for updating from 1977 to 1981 edition of Animal Encounter rules?

LIGHTNING CLASS CRUISERS Are the designs in this supplement correct for High Guard ‘80?

TRADERS AND GUNBOATS Are the Book 2 designs in this supplement revised for the 1981 edition? Are the HG designs in this supplement revised for High Guard ’80?

FIGHTING SHIPS Are the Book 2 designs in this supplement revised for the 1981 edition? Are the HG designs in this supplement revised for High Guard ’80?

THE SOLOMANI RIM Under review to match master UPPs.


THE KINUNIR The Kinunir design in High Guard lacks the drop capsules – do we need a High Guard ’80 fix? Verify Regina Subsector (p. 12) UPPs against the masters.

LEVIATHAN Verify the Leviathan (p. 22), Gazelle (p. 40), Kinunir (p. 41) and Shivva (p. 42) designs for High Guard ‘80?

TRILLION CREDIT SQUADRON Verify the Regal (p. 20) and Gnat (p. 22) designs for High Guard ‘80?

EXPEDITION TO ZHODANE Verify the Rock (p. 25) and other (p. 38-39) designs for High Guard ‘80?

BROADSWORD Verify modular cutter, Broadsword and fighter designs for High Guard ’80 and/or Book 2. Verify opposing ships (p. 37) under High Guard '80.


SAFARI SHIP Verify Safari Ship (p. 17) against Book 2.


SIGNAL GK Verify Ad Astra against Book 2. Verify the Solomani Border (p. 33) UPPs against the masters.

ARGON GAMBIT/DEATH STATION Verify Lab Ship (p. 10, 25) against Book 2.

THE CHAMAX PLAGUE/HORDE Verify Shaarin Challenger (p. 21) against Book 2.

THE TRAVELLER ADVENTURE Are the Book 2 designs in this supplement revised for the 1981 edition?

ASLAN Verify various Book 2 designs (p. 32-33)


VARGR Verify various Book 2 designs (p. 12-13)

ZHODANI Verify various Book 2 designs (p. 40-41)

DROYNE Verify various Book 2 designs (p. 42-43)

SOLOMANI Under review to match master UPPs. Verify ship designs (p. 42-43) against Book 2.

HIVERS Verify ship designs (p. 38-39) against Book 2. Gruffty has verified the Hiver Explorer.

DARRIANS Verify UPPs (p 22-24, 32) with masters.



SPINWARD MARCHES CAMPAIGN Verify ship designs (p. 31, 44) against Book 2. Verify ship designs (p. 35) against High Guard ’80. Verify character generation (p. 42-49) against Supplement 4.

ALIEN REALMS Verify explicit locations for adventures.

E.D.Quibell August 18th, 2009 07:36 PM

Dom,

Just throught I'd mention that there are differences between the UPP data in the Introductioany Adventure in the Delux Traveller eddition and the UPP in supplement 3 (and thus the SMC).

There are only a few, around three IIRC, and I sent the differences to Hans for some project he was doing. I'll see if I can't find the email.

Regards,

Ewan

DonM August 19th, 2009 01:08 AM

That would be great. It would save me a LOT of time. The UPPs are certainly going to be the most annoying part of what's left. Especially since they will impact MT (Imperial Encyclopedia) and TNE (Regina is in the core book, and of course, RSB).

Can you e-mail that to me at don.mckinney@gmail.com (with a subject of "CT errata" or similar?)...

And to everyone else, remember, this is a first draft. Still. If there's anything in here which looks like a major change to anyone, odds are I've messed something up.

tbeard1999 August 19th, 2009 09:55 AM

You might want to add the rules for Tranq to Mercenary. There are multiple contradictory rules from apocrypha, but I suggest that Snapshot's rule is most canonical:

Gas will only affect an individual who is not protected by a vacc suit, combat
armor, battle dress, or breathing masks. It imposes 1D hits on the turn it hits and
on the two succeeding turns.

Tranq is a drug injected by a special cartridge and may or may not be in
sufficient dosage to affect an individual. The target, when hit, must throw his
endurance or less to avoid being affected. If the throw fails, the target is immediately
rendered unconscious.

DonM August 26th, 2009 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 328540)
You might want to add the rules for Tranq to Mercenary. There are multiple contradictory rules from apocrypha, but I suggest that Snapshot's rule is most canonical:

Hmm... my understanding is that the canonical treatment on Tranq is JTAS #23, pages 46-48, by Mike Metlay. It's on my MT list because that article was horribly abused by the MT editing treatment, and I have an e-mail from Metlay in 1992 where he embellished on this.

Could you review the JTAS and Snapshot material and drop me a note at don.mckinney@gmail.com? Thanks!

DonM August 26th, 2009 06:44 PM

Please review the open list, I've updated it above (see second post).

Major B August 31st, 2009 03:41 PM

RE: Striker Book 3 Page 43.

Reviewing the costs for radar and ladar and comparing between Striker and MT, it appears that the costs for radar in Striker are too high by a factor of 10.

In MT, ladar costs 10 times a radar set that weighs the same. In Striker, the two cost the same.

Recommend:

Page 74: Under Target Acquisition Radar change "Price: Cr10,000 times weight. All weather radar costs Cr15,000 times weight." to read "Price: Cr1,000 times weight. All weather radar costs Cr1,500 times weight."

This change will give the same results as the tables in the MT RM.

aramis September 19th, 2009 11:02 AM

Querey:
Admin crew salaries under Bk2? (TTB 59 requires them on large ships, but doesn't say what they get paid. )
Similarly, Marine Salaries?

E.D.Quibell September 21st, 2009 12:32 PM

Hi Dom,

Just came across this while surfing:

http://traveller.downport.com/ct/errataB8robots.shtml
http://traveller.downport.com/ct/strikererrata.shtml

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Ewan

DonM September 22nd, 2009 03:20 AM

Think we have all of that which is official and confirmed in the version already up on the web.

DonM September 22nd, 2009 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 330882)
Query:
Admin crew salaries under Bk2? (TTB 59 requires them on large ships, but doesn't say what they get paid. )
Similarly, Marine Salaries?

Good questions. I know we used to treat a "guard" position like a "gunner" position, but that was house rules, no official guidance. Anyone know of anything similar published in any edition?

aramis September 22nd, 2009 05:55 AM

MT and TNE both provide salaries, but those are incompatible with CT/T20/MGT salaries...
Tho troops are gunner rate but no skill bonus. Admin are in maintenance, also at gunner rate of Cr500/mo, with 10% per surplus skill level past 1.

DonM September 22nd, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major B (Post 329429)
RE: Striker Book 3 Page 43.

Reviewing the costs for radar and ladar and comparing between Striker and MT, it appears that the costs for radar in Striker are too high by a factor of 10.

In MT, ladar costs 10 times a radar set that weighs the same. In Striker, the two cost the same.

Recommend:

Page 74: Under Target Acquisition Radar change "Price: Cr10,000 times weight. All weather radar costs Cr15,000 times weight." to read "Price: Cr1,000 times weight. All weather radar costs Cr1,500 times weight."

This change will give the same results as the tables in the MT RM.

I must have missed this earlier... I'll look into it.

DonM September 22nd, 2009 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 331132)
MT and TNE both provide salaries, but those are incompatible with CT/T20/MGT salaries...
Tho troops are gunner rate but no skill bonus. Admin are in maintenance, also at gunner rate of Cr500/mo, with 10% per surplus skill level past 1.

Do you have where you found that at? I'll try and do some comparisons.

aramis September 22nd, 2009 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonM (Post 331210)
Do you have where you found that at? I'll try and do some comparisons.

Imp. Encyclopedia.

DonM September 23rd, 2009 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 331211)
Imp. Encyclopedia.

ARGGH... It's a big book, do you have a page number?

:oo:

aramis September 23rd, 2009 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonM (Post 331210)
Do you have where you found that at? I'll try and do some comparisons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 331211)
Imp. Encyclopedia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonM (Post 331228)
ARGGH... It's a big book, do you have a page number?

:oo:

Page 92. It's in the Trade flowcharts...
the only relevant section in MT IE...:rofl:

Gruffty September 23rd, 2009 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don
HIVERS Verify ship designs (p. 38-39) against Book 2.

Don: was this looked at? If not I'd be happy to work through the ships for errors.

Gruffty September 23rd, 2009 06:14 PM

OK, I did the Hiver Explorer: it is borkne. Question: should I be using 1st or 2nd edition LBB2, or TTB?

Using CT Book 2 2ed:

1. The drives given in AM7 won't fit into the allocated 15 dTon drive section of the 200 ton hull. The drives total 40 tons (J-D=25 + M-D=5 + PP=10 = 40).
2. The ship build time in LBB2 2ed for a 200 dTon hull is 12 months; CT AM7 states 11 months.
3. By my calculations, the ship comes out at MCr 123.1; CT AM7 says MCr 113.1.
4. There are 10 staterooms; 5 for crew + 5 for passengers. CT AM7 says that double occupancy allows 15 total onboard - incorrect? Should be 20? Not sure.

I also still need to apply all the changes for Hiver ships listed on p. 38.

More to come.

Gruffty September 23rd, 2009 07:05 PM

OK, here are the final two designs:

The file "HIVER EXPLORER" shows the ship stats as per CT LBB2 2ed, unmodified by the Hiver ship design rules in CT AM7. The bridge costs for this design are the standard MCr 0.5 per dTon which is the same cost in CT AM7 for a multi-species bridge.

The file "HIVER EXPLORER Adjusted" shows the ship stats as per CT LBB2 2ed, but with the modifications from CT AM7 to the bridge cost (MCr 0.4 per dTon for Hiver-only operated ships) and the halving of the cost of the Model/3 computer and the doubling of the computer's program capacity.

Both designs still exceed the allocated space in the hull for the drives, and both designs exceed the hull capacity of 200 dTons.

Gruffty September 23rd, 2009 08:08 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is the "HIVER EXPLORER" file.

Gruffty September 23rd, 2009 08:08 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is the "HIVER EXPLORER Adjusted" file.

aramis September 23rd, 2009 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gruffty (Post 331304)
OK, I did the Hiver Explorer: it is borkne. Question: should I be using 1st or 2nd edition LBB2, or TTB?

Using CT Book 2 2ed:

1. The drives given in AM7 won't fit into the allocated 15 dTon drive section of the 200 ton hull. The drives total 40 tons (J-D=25 + M-D=5 + PP=10 = 40).
2. The ship build time in LBB2 2ed for a 200 dTon hull is 12 months; CT AM7 states 11 months.
3. By my calculations, the ship comes out at MCr 123.1; CT AM7 says MCr 113.1.
4. There are 10 staterooms; 5 for crew + 5 for passengers. CT AM7 says that double occupancy allows 15 total onboard - incorrect? Should be 20? Not sure.

I also still need to apply all the changes for Hiver ships listed on p. 38.

More to come.

1: use a custom hull. It's a Bk2 option.

Gruffty September 25th, 2009 04:15 PM

Good point. That might make the price closer to the cost quoted in CT AM7.

Gruffty September 25th, 2009 04:26 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is the Hiver Explorer with a custom hull to solve the "drives won't fit" problem (without Hiver-only modifications).

Gruffty September 25th, 2009 04:33 PM

1 Attachment(s)
And here is the Hiver Explorer ship, built using a 200 dTon custom hull and with the Hiver-only modifications from CT AM7 (38, 39).

Gruffty September 25th, 2009 04:43 PM

1 Attachment(s)
OK, this is the final variant of the Hiver Explorer: a custom hull (MCr 20, 12 months build time), multi-species bridge (MCr 0.5 per dTon, instead of MCr 0.4 for a Hiver-only bridge) and a Hiver computer (computer cost is halved, capacity is doubled).

The final price is very close to the price shown in CT AM7 - this design is MCr 111.1, the price shown in CT AM7 is MCr 113.1 - a difference of a mere MCr 2.

However, the total dTonnage of all the components is still 204 dTons in a 200 dTon hull. This applies across all of the designs I've posted.

Gruffty September 25th, 2009 06:17 PM

OK, I forgot to include streamlining in all of the above designs, and CT AM7 specifically states that all the designs in the book have multi-species bridges. :o

Taking that into account, the final design is the one above this post with MCr 2 of streamlining added - bringing the final cost to MCr 113.1...... which is the same as in the book :o :D

DonM December 3rd, 2009 04:01 PM

Working on putting a new release together... I'll be going through these again (and Gruffty, thanks for the Hiver ships!!!).

DonM December 3rd, 2009 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major B (Post 329429)
RE: Striker Book 3 Page 43.

Reviewing the costs for radar and ladar and comparing between Striker and MT, it appears that the costs for radar in Striker are too high by a factor of 10.

In MT, ladar costs 10 times a radar set that weighs the same. In Striker, the two cost the same.

Recommend:

Page 74: Under Target Acquisition Radar change "Price: Cr10,000 times weight. All weather radar costs Cr15,000 times weight." to read "Price: Cr1,000 times weight. All weather radar costs Cr1,500 times weight."

This change will give the same results as the tables in the MT RM.

I was looking at this...

Page 74?

DonM December 3rd, 2009 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 328540)
You might want to add the rules for Tranq to Mercenary. There are multiple contradictory rules from apocrypha, but I suggest that Snapshot's rule is most canonical:

Gas will only affect an individual who is not protected by a vacc suit, combat
armor, battle dress, or breathing masks. It imposes 1D hits on the turn it hits and
on the two succeeding turns.

Tranq is a drug injected by a special cartridge and may or may not be in
sufficient dosage to affect an individual. The target, when hit, must throw his
endurance or less to avoid being affected. If the throw fails, the target is immediately
rendered unconscious.

I responded to this above... How does this detail (from Snapshot) vary from the article in JTAS #23?

DonM December 3rd, 2009 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 330882)
Query: Admin crew salaries under Bk2? (TTB 59 requires them on large ships, but doesn't say what they get paid. ) Similarly, Marine Salaries?

Unfortunately, the IE salary list and the CT salary list have no relation...

The CT list is:

Position Minimum Skill Monthly Salary
Pilot Pilot-1 Cr6,000
Navigator Navigation-1 Cr5,000
Engineer Engineering-1 Cr4,000
Steward Steward-1 Cr3,000
Medic Medical-1 Cr2,000
Gunner Gunnery-1 Cr1,000
Crew members who have skill levels greater than that shown are generally paid an additional 10% per skill level greater than 1.

and the MT list is:

Bridge Crew: Cr500 times Basic Rank plus 10% for each level of Pilot or Navigation or Leader skill.
Engineering Crew: Cr500 times Basic Rank plus 10% for each level of Engineering skill.
Maintenance Crew: Cr500 plus 10% for each level of Admin or Mechanical skill.
Command Crew: Cr1000 times Rank plus 10% for each level of Pilot or Leader.
Gunners: Cr500 plus 10% for each level of any applicable Gunnery skill.
Flight Crew: Cr1000 plus 10% for each level of Pilot or Ship’s Boat skill.
Ship’s Troops: Cr500
Stewards: Cr500 times Steward skill.
Frozen Watch: Cr500.
Medical Crew: Cr500 times Medical skill.

So while MT does cover more the subject in more detail, it doesn't mesh with the CT numbers at all. Suggestions?

aramis December 3rd, 2009 06:51 PM

I'd suggest
Troops paid as per gunners.
Admin paid as per medics

DonM January 1st, 2010 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gruffty (Post 331494)
OK, I forgot to include streamlining in all of the above designs, and CT AM7 specifically states that all the designs in the book have multi-species bridges. :o

Taking that into account, the final design is the one above this post with MCr 2 of streamlining added - bringing the final cost to MCr 113.1...... which is the same as in the book :o :D

So no errata for the Hiver explorer, is that what I understand?

DonM January 1st, 2010 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major B (Post 329429)
RE: Striker Book 3 Page 43.

Reviewing the costs for radar and ladar and comparing between Striker and MT, it appears that the costs for radar in Striker are too high by a factor of 10.

In MT, ladar costs 10 times a radar set that weighs the same. In Striker, the two cost the same.

Recommend:

Page 74: Under Target Acquisition Radar change "Price: Cr10,000 times weight. All weather radar costs Cr15,000 times weight." to read "Price: Cr1,000 times weight. All weather radar costs Cr1,500 times weight."

This change will give the same results as the tables in the MT RM.

MajorB -- I still don't know what "page 74" refers to...

DonM January 1st, 2010 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbeard1999 (Post 328540)
You might want to add the rules for Tranq to Mercenary. There are multiple contradictory rules from apocrypha, but I suggest that Snapshot's rule is most canonical:

Gas will only affect an individual who is not protected by a vacc suit, combat armor, battle dress, or breathing masks. It imposes 1D hits on the turn it hits and on the two succeeding turns.

Tranq is a drug injected by a special cartridge and may or may not be in
sufficient dosage to affect an individual. The target, when hit, must throw his endurance or less to avoid being affected. If the throw fails, the target is immediately rendered unconscious.

tbeard -- had a chance to compare this to JTAS #23 yet?

DonM January 1st, 2010 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 337032)
I'd suggest
Troops paid as per gunners.
Admin paid as per medics

I don't suppose T4 or Mongoose shed any light on this particular subject?

aramis January 3rd, 2010 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonM (Post 339707)
I don't suppose T4 or Mongoose shed any light on this particular subject?

MGT
Marines: KCr2, same as gunners. (CRB)

Admin, no help.

E.D.Quibell January 10th, 2010 07:17 PM

Alien Module 4

Page 45
Maximum Activity Level need clarification.
Replace the text with the text from Book 3 page 39.

Also a Question

Should non Zho Psionics have the chance to use Far Orbit range? As far as I can see it's only in AM4.

Also the psionic talents are easer to roll for in AM4. It's likely that they were adjusted because they are a psionic sociaty, but it might be worth a thought or maybe a clarification.

Regards,

Ewan

DonM March 15th, 2010 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E.D.Quibell (Post 340688)
Alien Module 4

Page 45
Maximum Activity Level need clarification.
Replace the text with the text from Book 3 page 39.

That does look like errata. Noted!

Quote:

Originally Posted by E.D.Quibell (Post 340688)
Also a Question

Should non Zho Psionics have the chance to use Far Orbit range? As far as I can see it's only in AM4.

Also the psionic talents are easer to roll for in AM4. It's likely that they were adjusted because they are a psionic sociaty, but it might be worth a thought or maybe a clarification.

The talent rolls are easier in AM4 to reflect Zhodani society specifically. The range question is a different story... that could be a genuine addition. Discussion?

far-trader March 20th, 2010 03:44 PM

Don't see it in the latest consolidation I could find, nor on a quick search, so maybe this is a new errata note:

HG (2nd printing) pg 35-36 there is a discrepancy in the cost of small craft staterooms. The text on pg 35 says "Cr 100,000" while the table on pg 36 says "Cr 50,000".

Apologies if this is already on your list and I missed finding it.

far-trader March 22nd, 2010 05:51 PM

Again unless I've missed it here's another:

Book 1 pg 19 - Gunnery skill - the text says:

"Gunnery: The basic skill is covered on page 13."

But it's not, in any of the Books 1-3, probably/maybe a left over reference from the first prining. This should probably be simply dropped as it is covered by the other text referencing Book 2.

far-trader April 25th, 2010 12:52 AM

If you're still working on this, another clarification or errata fix has popped up. Again :)

I don't see it addressed and apparently it has been around for a while without an official note, and has even infected T20...

High Guard - pg24

Major Weapons:

The TL8 and TL9 Particle Accelerators can't be built in a ship at that TL due to the minimum computer limitation of hull size. They simply can't be fit into a hull that can be built with the computer model available at the TL.

Granted one can wiggle an imported computer of high enough TL but that seems weak. The simplest solution might be to drop the TL8 and TL9 PA Spinals. That would leave a hole in the USPs though. Perhaps simply make them TL10? I dunno.

BlackBat242 April 25th, 2010 01:46 AM

I had run into that starting with book 2 designs, and I simply noted the following... there is no rule that I have found that restricts a ship design to only one computer!

I have often had a dedicated "fire-control computer" that ran all the weapons (and only the weapons), and sometimes had larger ships with 3 or more computers... one for the drive/navigation functions, one for the weapons, one for all the other functions.

If there is such a rule, don't tell me where... just say there is, and I'll go back and look for it (If I missed it in the last 27 years, then obviously I really need to go back and re-read all the books).

DonM April 25th, 2010 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by far-trader (Post 347682)
If you're still working on this, another clarification or errata fix has popped up. Again :)

I am still working on it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by far-trader (Post 347682)
I don't see it addressed and apparently it has been around for a while without an official note, and has even infected T20...

High Guard - pg24

Major Weapons:

The TL8 and TL9 Particle Accelerators can't be built in a ship at that TL due to the minimum computer limitation of hull size. They simply can't be fit into a hull that can be built with the computer model available at the TL.

Granted one can wiggle an imported computer of high enough TL but that seems weak. The simplest solution might be to drop the TL8 and TL9 PA Spinals. That would leave a hole in the USPs though. Perhaps simply make them TL10? I dunno.

I have been told that this isn't errata: the "discrepancy" you have discovered is by design. Multiple times. Even for that other project that I dream of some day getting back to.

far-trader April 25th, 2010 03:06 AM

"by design"

There's a phrase that's gonna haunt my curiosity chip :)

I can't imagine. Well, I am actually, but nothing is making much sense.

I'm hoping you can share at some point.

...other project? Oh... yeah I think I know what you're hinting at. It has been quiet, what with all the other projects you're juggling :)

far-trader April 25th, 2010 02:15 PM

Hi again Don, maybe not an errata bit* but could use clarification I think. While looking a little closer at the low tech PAWS spinals, more specifically the minimum computer for hull rule, I was struck by a difference between HG and T20. At least the way I'd always interpreted HG. Andrew M-V (per his High Guard Shipyard) interprets it the same way I do for what that's worth as validation of the way I understood the RAW. For comparison:

Code:


      T20          Computer - TL        HG     

    1-600tons        m/1 - 5        600-999tons
  601-1000tons      m/2 - 7      1000-3999tons
  1001-4000tons      m/3 - 9      4000-9999tons
  4001-10,000tons    m/4 - A    10,000-49,999tons
10,001-50,000tons    m/5 - B    50,000-99,999tons
50,001-100,000tons    m/6 - C    100,000-999,999tons

  100,001tons+      m/7 - D      1,000,000tons +

Under this interpretation a TL9 Spinal PAWS ship is doable in HG, but not T20. The TL8 one is still a head scratcher though :confused:

* well, maybe for High Guard Shipyard :(

EDIT: I should really poke around in TCS for more clues but I need more time for that...

E.D.Quibell April 25th, 2010 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by far-trader (Post 347701)
[/code]Under this interpretation a TL9 Spinal PAWS ship is doable in HG, but not T20. The TL8 one is still a head scratcher though :confused:

* well, maybe for High Guard Shipyard :(

EDIT: I should really poke around in TCS for more clues but I need more time for that...

Just put in multiple computers.

Regards,

Ewan

DonM April 26th, 2010 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by far-trader (Post 347701)
Hi again Don, maybe not an errata bit* but could use clarification I think. While looking a little closer at the low tech PAWS spinals, more specifically the minimum computer for hull rule, I was struck by a difference between HG and T20. At least the way I'd always interpreted HG. Andrew M-V (per his High Guard Shipyard) interprets it the same way I do for what that's worth as validation of the way I understood the RAW.

Actually, this clarification should already be in the errata... yes, look under "High Guard", Page 26, Computer Models (clarification). I'm not all that knowledgeable about T20; you might want to look elsewhere for T20 errata.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:49 PM.

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