T5 Errata Thread
- Thread starter DonM
- Start date
- Status
Apparent Error in DRIVE POTENTIAL Table example
Hope I have not missed something obvious but this looks error-like to me.
pg 340. Bottom of the page. It says:
"For example, achieving Jump-6 (row 4) in a 1000-ton Hull-K (column K) requires Jump Drive-V."
The example is correct in that the intersection of the 4th row with the K column is "V" ... but that is Potential 4. It is nowhere made clear why the ship is able to achieve Jump 6 with a drive potential of 4. Even an Ultimate Jump-4 would only be able to acheive Jump 5 by the rules and table on pg 322.
v/r
feld
Hope I have not missed something obvious but this looks error-like to me.
pg 340. Bottom of the page. It says:
"For example, achieving Jump-6 (row 4) in a 1000-ton Hull-K (column K) requires Jump Drive-V."
The example is correct in that the intersection of the 4th row with the K column is "V" ... but that is Potential 4. It is nowhere made clear why the ship is able to achieve Jump 6 with a drive potential of 4. Even an Ultimate Jump-4 would only be able to acheive Jump 5 by the rules and table on pg 322.
v/r
feld
Missing Training.
p. 84 Scholar (ommission): Continue is Edu (Mod +1 per Pub). Should be Continue Edu or Tra (Mod +1 per Pub).
p. 84 Scholar (ommission): Continue is Edu (Mod +1 per Pub). Should be Continue Edu or Tra (Mod +1 per Pub).
9D and 10D probability tables, p. 29
On the 9D (NINE DICE) and 10D (TEN DICE) probability tables, there is an arbitrary use of the word "no" in the % probability columns. With all the other tables, "no" is used only when there is absolutely no chance to roll that number N, the number or less N-, or the number or more N+. At the other end, "100%" is used only when all rolls will turn out to that result.
However in these two tables, "no" is appearing when there is still a finite chance for that result, better shown as "<1%" as in the other tables, and "100%" appears where it is better shown as ">99%" as in the other tables. This is an inconsistency.
Also, the bottom text is missing from the 10D table. In analogy with the others it should give the basic overall facts of the roll: "There are 60,466,176 possible outcomes from 10 to 60. The most probable roll is 35 (7%)."
On the 9D (NINE DICE) and 10D (TEN DICE) probability tables, there is an arbitrary use of the word "no" in the % probability columns. With all the other tables, "no" is used only when there is absolutely no chance to roll that number N, the number or less N-, or the number or more N+. At the other end, "100%" is used only when all rolls will turn out to that result.
However in these two tables, "no" is appearing when there is still a finite chance for that result, better shown as "<1%" as in the other tables, and "100%" appears where it is better shown as ">99%" as in the other tables. This is an inconsistency.
Also, the bottom text is missing from the 10D table. In analogy with the others it should give the basic overall facts of the roll: "There are 60,466,176 possible outcomes from 10 to 60. The most probable roll is 35 (7%)."
The last errata mentioned that Beam Laser should be Space Range 5, but in the actual Weapons chart for designing weapons for starships it has a range of R-7 along with most of the weapons on the table, while a few including missiles have S-7 for their ranges.
The only way i can see to get beam lasers to S-5 is to modify the mount up 3 tls to R-10 (G) which x4 weight and x8 cost.
The only way i can see to get beam lasers to S-5 is to modify the mount up 3 tls to R-10 (G) which x4 weight and x8 cost.
Jump Out-System Scatter example, p. 375
On p. 375 right column, an Out-System Scatter example was written incorrectly,
"For example, the !#%& succeeds in its 700,000-parsec Bound-7 from Andromeda and arrives somewhere near the core of this galaxy..."
But Bound Drive only produces jumps from 10,000 - 90,000 parsecs. If it is 700,000 parsecs, it should be a Vault-7 drive and the scatter example would have Flux x Scatter Multiplier (not Occlusion multiplier) 5D in parsecs.
On p. 375 right column, an Out-System Scatter example was written incorrectly,
"For example, the !#%& succeeds in its 700,000-parsec Bound-7 from Andromeda and arrives somewhere near the core of this galaxy..."
But Bound Drive only produces jumps from 10,000 - 90,000 parsecs. If it is 700,000 parsecs, it should be a Vault-7 drive and the scatter example would have Flux x Scatter Multiplier (not Occlusion multiplier) 5D in parsecs.
p. 271 ArmorMaker Table 03
The ArmorMaker 03 table is missing some text compared to the old Master Text p. 243 found on the CD-ROM. There is also one or more footnotes missing for unexplained asterisks used in the Comment column.
The missing table section seems to be on p. 243 of the old Master Text, "Weapon 3" table:
"HazMat and HazSit Equipment
Thermal Blanket 8 1 12 50
Fire Shield 8 2 18 only vs KHQ 100
Rescue Ball 10 200 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 immobile 9000
Desert Cloak 3 1 5 5 200
*Some protections only operate against specific Effects (K= Burn)."
This information may need to be correctly integrated into the table.
The ArmorMaker 03 table is missing some text compared to the old Master Text p. 243 found on the CD-ROM. There is also one or more footnotes missing for unexplained asterisks used in the Comment column.
The missing table section seems to be on p. 243 of the old Master Text, "Weapon 3" table:
"HazMat and HazSit Equipment
Thermal Blanket 8 1 12 50
Fire Shield 8 2 18 only vs KHQ 100
Rescue Ball 10 200 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 immobile 9000
Desert Cloak 3 1 5 5 200
*Some protections only operate against specific Effects (K= Burn)."
This information may need to be correctly integrated into the table.
The errata 0.71 mentions that Beam was incorrectly printed as S=5 (p. 41) but it should be S=7. The range for Beams is correct as S=7 on p. 342 Weapons (for starships). In fact, most weapons work up to that range. You may want to read it again.
Weapons table (A), p. 342
p. 342, Weapons table (A): There is an asterisk on the two ranges for A-Particle Accelerator that is not explained. In the old Master Text, the asterisk footnote is given as "*Particle Accelerator uses S= in Space Attacks." so this text should be added.
An explanation of how a Particle Accelerator should be handled differently on a world (in atmosphere, R=7) is on p. 388.
p. 342, Weapons table (A): There is an asterisk on the two ranges for A-Particle Accelerator that is not explained. In the old Master Text, the asterisk footnote is given as "*Particle Accelerator uses S= in Space Attacks." so this text should be added.
An explanation of how a Particle Accelerator should be handled differently on a world (in atmosphere, R=7) is on p. 388.
Last edited:
Defenses table, Defense notes, p. 343
In the middle of the left column of the Defenses (15) table, p. 343, Defense Notes, there are footnotes ** and *** which do not correspond to any entries in any table. Asterisks were not added to the rows where they are relevant.
In the middle of the left column of the Defenses (15) table, p. 343, Defense Notes, there are footnotes ** and *** which do not correspond to any entries in any table. Asterisks were not added to the rows where they are relevant.
Last edited:
- Status
