5.10 Errata Thread?

[Ackehece]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
50÷1000 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]

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.

 

[whulorigan]

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.

In T5.09, it was 25 tons per share, not 50 per share. However, it seems that the shares given out in CharGen have not been altered to reflect the change.

I already brought this up to Marc in an e-mail that I sent to him along with other potential errata or clarification issues (which was unfortunately after the documents were sent to the printers ). Note that Book 1, p.80 says that the average Merchant Ship is 10-20 shares. At 25 tons/share this is 250-500 tons; at 50 tons/share, that is 500-1000 tons.

 

[Wol]

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.
50÷1000 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?

Given 20cwt to the ton that explanation would fit.

Probably more mechanc as it might result in some distortion in dimensions.

regards

 

[Wol]

book 1 p.31 charts o5 clarification.

No MD is effective around a dwarf star (inside orbit 0).

BOTE , from Book 6 scouts, a dwarf is about .01 Diameter Sun (+/-), and 1000D is thus about 8 million miles or 13 million km. Orbit 0 is .2 Au or 29 million km. So you can jump into such a system, just outside the 100 D distance from a planet in orbit 0, use the MD within 1000D of the planet and that is about it, intra system travel will need to be by jump or another method.

regards

 

[Wol]

Book 1 p27 bottom example textual
Terra is Orbit O= 3; Jupiter is Orbit O= 5. They are about 4.2 AU apart at their closest; or 6.2 AU apart at their greatest separation. They are, in either case, in the same Range Band S= 12. A ship capable of 2G (Table 8b) can make the journey in about 3 hours.

Jupiter is in orbit 6 not 5, at S=13, and Terra is in S=11. Band for travel is indeed S12. Table 8b is speed not time - which are 9a&b. Start stop time is 3 days not hours according to table 9a, so hope they brought more than a packed lunch.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

Looks like an error (list from T5.09, p236):

STAGE          TL    Mass    Ar   Ca   Fl   Ra   So   Ps   In   Se      Cr
Basic           0     1.3    -5   -5   -5   -5   -5    0   -5   -5    × 0.7
(blank)         0     1.0     0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    × 1.0
Standard        1     1.0     0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    × 1.0
Alternate       1     1.1     5    5    5    5    5    0   15    5    × 1.1
Enhanced        1     2.0     3    3    3    3    3    0    9    3    × 4.0
Improved        1     1.0     6    6    6    6    6    0   18    6    × 1.1
Modified        2     0.9     3    3    3    3    3    0    9    3    × 1.2
Advanced        3     0.8    10   10   10   10   10    3   20   10    × 2.0
Obsolete        4     0.7     3    3    3    3    3    0    9    9    × 0.5

Why would anyone ever want to use Enhanced or Modified?

 

[Ackehece]

Looks like an error (list from T5.09, p236):

STAGE          TL    Mass    Ar   Ca   Fl   Ra   So   Ps   In   Se      Cr
Basic           0     1.3    -5   -5   -5   -5   -5    0   -5   -5    × 0.7
(blank)         0     1.0     0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    × 1.0
Standard        1     1.0     0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    × 1.0
Alternate       1     1.1     5    5    5    5    5    0   15    5    × 1.1
Enhanced        1     2.0     3    3    3    3    3    0    9    3    × 4.0
Improved        1     1.0     6    6    6    6    6    0   18    6    × 1.1
Modified        2     0.9     3    3    3    3    3    0    9    3    × 1.2
Advanced        3     0.8    10   10   10   10   10    3   20   10    × 2.0
Obsolete        4     0.7     3    3    3    3    3    0    9    9    × 0.5

Why would anyone ever want to use Enhanced or Modified?

I am sure your right... just surprised that it wasn't flagged before as being to weak (or too strong depending on which is incorrect)
It does seem that inverting Ar to Ps would resolve the TL difference.

 

[whulorigan]

ERRATA - T5.10 - Book 1 (1st of 2 Posts)

... I already brought this up to Marc in an e-mail that I sent to him along with other potential errata or clarification issues (which was unfortunately after the documents were sent to the printers ). ...

I'll type up a errata doc tomorrow with what has been found so far.

Attached are the errata documents for Book 1 that I sent to Marc AFTER T5.10 went to print. I may have made some mistakes myself, if I misinterpreted something.

Take a look over them and see if you concur.

 

[whulorigan]

ERRATA - T5.10 - Book 2 (2nd of 2 Posts)

... I already brought this up to Marc in an e-mail that I sent to him along with other potential errata or clarification issues (which was unfortunately after the documents were sent to the printers ). ...

I'll type up a errata doc tomorrow with what has been found so far.

Attached are the errata documents for Book 2 that I sent to Marc AFTER T5.10 went to print. I may have made some mistakes myself, if I misinterpreted something.

Take a look over them and see if you concur.

 

[TWTP]

you have obviously misunderstood what I meant.
Mapping the gas giants surface. not placing the gas giant in the system.
How do you place the Gas Giant terrain symbols found on page 73 of book 3. IE "G31 Vortex".

Book 3 page 29 is used for determining planetary orbits. This is where you will find how to place gas giants.


Starting page 56 to page 73 world building is planetary surfaces and not related to the design of the star system on a orbital level.

Page 74 refers designing space habitats not habital zones.

The placement of that chart is ok but your understanding of the section is a bit wrong. Pg 73 is informational to generating the map on pg 72 of your gas giant if you so desire to map the gas giant,
it is not referencing the orbits at all but the planetary "surface".

If you want the orbits for gas giants please see Book 3 page 29

 

[Ackehece]

you have obviously misunderstood what I meant.
Mapping the gas giants surface. not placing the gas giant in the system.
How do you place the Gas Giant terrain symbols found on page 73 of book 3. IE "G31 Vortex".

Ah yes then I did misinterpret. This is why I explain back. I'll look at it again and make sure i understand it then.