T20 Only: T20 Traveller's Handbook 2002 3rd printing Spectral Classification & Habitable Zones

[snrdg082102]

T20 Traveller's Handbook 2002 3rd printing Spectral Classification & Habitable Zones

Hello all,

As usual I was working through another Traveller rule set, MgT 2e, when something in their World and Universe Creator rules seemed out of sorts. I started comparing the MgT rules with CT, MT, TNE, and T20 to see what was not meshing in my head.

While checking out T20's Universe/Worlds Development Step 3 Star Size p. 372 and Step 7 Place Main world, gas giants, and planetoid belts Habitable Zone table pp. 373-374 has me confused about White and Red Dwarfs.

Step 3:
If the star is a white dwarf, you may skip step 4, as the spectral class of the star is automatically W.

If the star is a red dwarf, you may skip step 4, as the spectral class of the star is automatically M.

Step 7 Habitable Zone Table p. 374 appears to indicates that White and Red Dwarfs place have requirements that determine the habitable zones based on spectral class.

Please can anyone spare sometime to clear this up for me?

 

[whulorigan]

While checking out T20's Universe/Worlds Development Step 3 Star Size p. 372 and Step 7 Place Main world, gas giants, and planetoid belts Habitable Zone table pp. 373-374 has me confused about White and Red Dwarfs.

Step 3:
If the star is a white dwarf, you may skip step 4, as the spectral class of the star is automatically W.

If the star is a red dwarf, you may skip step 4, as the spectral class of the star is automatically M.

Step 7 Habitable Zone Table p. 374 appears to indicates that White and Red Dwarfs place have requirements that determine the habitable zones based on spectral class.

Star Size
	B	A	F	G	K	M
White Dwarf	0	0	0	0	0	0
Main Sequence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Giant	1	2	3	4	5	6
Super Giant	2	3	4	5	6	8

[TC=7] Minimum Orbit [/TC] [TC=6] Spectral Class [/TC]

A White Dwarf is always spectral class "W" and size "D", hence stellar type "WD" . For White Dwarfs, the W replaces the B,A,F,G,K,M entirely. So every star in the White Dwarf row is spectral class "W". (i.e. the B,A,F,G,K,M can be ignored - a white dwarf is a white dwarf. Period.)

Red Dwarf is another name for a Red Main-Sequence Star of spectral type M.

 

[snrdg082102]

Late morning PDT whulorigan,

Thank you for the reply and

Star Size
	B	A	F	G	K	M
White Dwarf	0	0	0	0	0	0
Main Sequence	0	0	0	0	0	0
Giant	1	2	3	4	5	6
Super Giant	2	3	4	5	6	8

[TC=7] Minimum Orbit [/TC] [TC=6] Spectral Class [/TC]

A White Dwarf is always spectral class "W" and size "D", hence stellar type "WD" . For White Dwarfs, the W replaces the B,A,F,G,K,M entirely. So every star in the White Dwarf row is spectral class "W". (i.e. the B,A,F,G,K,M can be ignored - a white dwarf is a white dwarf. Period.)

Red Dwarf is another name for a Red Main-Sequence Star of spectral type M.

T20 HB 1st ed 3rd printing p. 372
Step 3: White Dwarf last sentence: "If the star is a white dwarf, you may skip to step 4, as the spectral class is automatically W."

Step 4: Second paragraph first sentence: "If the star size was White Dwarf or a Red Dwarf, this should be skipped."

Both of the above rules agree with what you wrote and is how I handled them until Step 7 pp. 373-374

Per my understanding of Step 7 Habitable Zones text on p. 373 and the table on p. 374 Habitable Zone orbits are determined by using spectral class. The table on p. 374 indicates that both white and red dwarfs have habitable zone orbits which appear to be determined using spectral classification.

Star Size
	B	A	F	G	K	M
White Dwarf	0	X	3	1d2	1d2-1	0
Red Dwarf or Main Sequence	8+1d4	5+1d2	3+1d3	1+1d4	1d4	0
Giant	9+1d3	6+1d3	5+1d3	6+1d2	5+1d3	7+1d3
Super Giant	10+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	10+1d2

[TC=7] Habitable Zone [/TC] [TC=6] Spectral Class [/TC]

The only T20 Errata I have available was provided by savage and is for T20 1st edition 1s printing and my hand book is the 3rd printing. The T20 Hand book 1st ed. 1st printing does not have any corrections, deletions, or clarifications on how to determine the habitable zones for White and Red Dwarf's.

On the Habitable Zone Table I do not see White Dwarf Star size with a WD column used in determining the habitable zone orbital position. For the Red Dwarf with the spectral class of M the habitable zone orbital position is 0 (zero).

My understanding, which is probably out to lunch, of the table gives the impression that both the White Dwarf and Red Dwarf have the following habitable zone orbital positions:

White Dwarf Habitable Zones from the table:
B = Orbit 0 (Zero)
A = None
F = Orbit 3
G = Orbit 1 or Orbit 2
K = Orbit 0 (Zero) or Orbit 1
M = Orbit 0 (Zero)

Red Dwarf Habitable Zones from the table:
B = Orbit 9 or Orbit 10 or Orbit 11 or Orbit 12
A = Orbit 6 or Orbit 7
F = Orbit 4 or Orbit 5 or Orbit 6
G = Orbit 2 or Orbit 3 or Orbit 4 or Orbit 5
K = Orbit 1 or Orbit 2 or Orbit 3 or Orbit 4
M = Orbit 0 (Zero)

I just noticed that I've taken about two hours to reply and I really hope the above makes sense.

 

[whulorigan]

Both of the above rules agree with what you wrote and is how I handled them until Step 7 pp. 373-374

Per my understanding of Step 7 Habitable Zones text on p. 373 and the table on p. 374 Habitable Zone orbits are determined by using spectral class. The table on p. 374 indicates that both white and red dwarfs have habitable zone orbits which appear to be determined using spectral classification.

Star Size
	B	A	F	G	K	M
White Dwarf	0	X	3	1d2	1d2-1	0
Red Dwarf or Main Sequence	8+1d4	5+1d2	3+1d3	1+1d4	1d4	0
Giant	9+1d3	6+1d3	5+1d3	6+1d2	5+1d3	7+1d3
Super Giant	10+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	10+1d2

[TC=7] Habitable Zone [/TC] [TC=6] Spectral Class [/TC]

.
.
.
On the Habitable Zone Table I do not see White Dwarf Star size with a WD column used in determining the habitable zone orbital position. For the Red Dwarf with the spectral class of M the habitable zone orbital position is 0 (zero).

My understanding, which is probably out to lunch, of the table gives the impression that both the White Dwarf and Red Dwarf have the following habitable zone orbital positions:

White Dwarf Habitable Zones from the table:
B = Orbit 0 (Zero)
A = None
F = Orbit 3
G = Orbit 1 or Orbit 2
K = Orbit 0 (Zero) or Orbit 1
M = Orbit 0 (Zero)

Red Dwarf Habitable Zones from the table:
B = Orbit 9 or Orbit 10 or Orbit 11 or Orbit 12
A = Orbit 6 or Orbit 7
F = Orbit 4 or Orbit 5 or Orbit 6
G = Orbit 2 or Orbit 3 or Orbit 4 or Orbit 5
K = Orbit 1 or Orbit 2 or Orbit 3 or Orbit 4
M = Orbit 0 (Zero)

OK. I see your issue now.

ISSUE #1: Red Dwarfs:

Star Size
	B	A	F	G	K	M
White Dwarf	0	X	3	1d2	1d2-1	0
Red Dwarf or Main Sequence	8+1d4	5+1d2	3+1d3	1+1d4	1d4	0
Giant	9+1d3	6+1d3	5+1d3	6+1d2	5+1d3	7+1d3
Super Giant	10+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	10+1d2

[TC=7] Habitable Zone [/TC] [TC=6] Spectral Class [/TC]

Red Dwarf Habitable Zones from the table:
B = Orbit 9 or Orbit 10 or Orbit 11 or Orbit 12
A = Orbit 6 or Orbit 7
F = Orbit 4 or Orbit 5 or Orbit 6
G = Orbit 2 or Orbit 3 or Orbit 4 or Orbit 5
K = Orbit 1 or Orbit 2 or Orbit 3 or Orbit 4
M = Orbit 0 (Zero)

The "Red Dwarf or Main Sequence" row is simply worded a bit confusing, I believe. I think the intent is simply that (since Red Dwarf stars are mentioned distinctly in the prior text) you are expected to understand that "Red Dwarf" is just an M-type Main Sequence Star. So if you have a "Red Dwarf" star result from prior stellar generation, you are to understand that you only look at the "M" column (i.e. you just ignore B, A, F, G, and K). You only look at B, A, F, G, K, M results individually if you had generated the star as "Main-Sequence" from the prior stellar generation procedure.


ISSUE #2: White Dwarfs:

Star Size
	B	A	F	G	K	M
White Dwarf	0	X	3	1d2	1d2-1	0
Red Dwarf or Main Sequence	8+1d4	5+1d2	3+1d3	1+1d4	1d4	0
Giant	9+1d3	6+1d3	5+1d3	6+1d2	5+1d3	7+1d3
Super Giant	10+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	9+1d3	10+1d2

[TC=7] Habitable Zone [/TC] [TC=6] Spectral Class [/TC]

White Dwarf Habitable Zones from the table:
B = Orbit 0 (Zero)
A = None
F = Orbit 3
G = Orbit 1 or Orbit 2
K = Orbit 0 (Zero) or Orbit 1
M = Orbit 0 (Zero)

OK. This one makes no sense at all, either from a rules or astrophysics standpoint, as far as I can tell.

Rules-wise, you are not generating B, A, F, G, K, M results for white dwarfs, you are assigning them as "W". So there is no guidance on what to do here.

Astrophysics-wise, if you were to assign a rough B, A, F, G, K value relative to color & surface temperature^* then the column results make no sense at all.

^*This is not how white dwarfs are actually classified in astrophysics; and if they were, there would be no "M-type" White Dwarfs at any rate as the universe is not old enough even for a very old white dwarf to have cooled to this temperature.
​

Realistically, they might be:

B = Orbit 0
A = Orbit 0 or None (X)
F = None (X)
G = None (X)
K = None (X)

So I can't help you with this one. Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello whulorigan,

Thank you again for trying to clear up my state of confusion.

OK. I see your issue now.

ISSUE #1: Red Dwarfs:

The "Red Dwarf or Main Sequence" row is simply worded a bit confusing, I believe. I think the intent is simply that (since Red Dwarf stars are mentioned distinctly in the prior text) you are expected to understand that "Red Dwarf" is just an M-type Main Sequence Star. So if you have a "Red Dwarf" star result from prior stellar generation, you are to understand that you only look at the "M" column (i.e. you just ignore B, A, F, G, and K). You only look at B, A, F, G, K, M results individually if you had generated the star as "Main-Sequence" from the prior stellar generation procedure.

I was leaning in the direction of the Habitable Zone for a Red Dwarf being in Orbital position 0 (zero), but I thought myself into not having a clue. Thank you for clearing that up.

ISSUE #2: White Dwarfs:

OK. This one makes no sense at all, either from a rules or astrophysics standpoint, as far as I can tell.

Rules-wise, you are not generating B, A, F, G, K, M results for white dwarfs, you are assigning them as "W". So there is no guidance on what to do here.

Astrophysics-wise, if you were to assign a rough B, A, F, G, K value relative to color & surface temperature^* then the column results make no sense at all.

^*This is not how white dwarfs are actually classified in astrophysics; and if they were, there would be no "M-type" White Dwarfs at any rate as the universe is not old enough even for a very old white dwarf to have cooled to this temperature.
​

Realistically, they might be:

B = Orbit 0
A = Orbit 0 or None (X)
F = None (X)
G = None (X)
K = None (X)

So I can't help you with this one. Your guess is as good as mine.

I've pulled out CT LBB 6 Scouts, MT Referee's Manual, MT World Builder's Handbook, TNE Core Rulebook Mk 1 Mod 0, and TNE World Tamer's Handbook to compare them with T20 White Dwarf.

CT LBB 5 Scouts 1983 7th Printing p. 29 has a Star Type (White Dwarf) Table that has four orbital positions and stellar classes of DB, BA, BF, DG, DK, and DM. Orbital position 0 for DB is marked as the habitable zone and the other three are in the outer zone. The remaining five are all marked as being in the outer zone.

Unfortunately, Consolidated CT Errata v1.1, which can be downloaded from http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/dmckinne/trav.html until May 01, 2016, has removed all Size D results in the Primary and Companion Star Tables.

MT Referee's Manual PDF and DGP MT World Builder's Handbook 1998 have Orbital Zone Tables for Star VI (White Dwarf) and and Star size D (Sub-Dwarf). The MT Size D table is the same as the CT White Dwarf table. Unfortunately Consolidated MT Errata also deleted Size size D in the Referee's Manual. The World Builder's Handbook has the Star Size D (Sub-Dwarf) table.

TNE Core Rulebook GDW 0300 Mk 1 Mod 0 p. 192 allows Class D as a companion star and has Orbit Zones Table with three orbital positions and the same data from CT LBB 6. TNE World Tamer's Handbook does have entries for Class D in table on pp. 83 and 84. Consolidated TNE Errata v0.03 has an entry that in one area removes Size D, but then indicates that if there is more than one Size D they are all changed to Class V.

At best I'd say the a T20 White Dwarf habitable zone is in Orbit 0 and everything else is in the Outer Zone. The T20 Red Dwarf's habitable zone is also in Orbit 0.

Thank you for the help. Now I have to go back and redo my spreadsheet .

 

[whulorigan]

I've pulled out CT LBB 6 Scouts, MT Referee's Manual, MT World Builder's Handbook, TNE Core Rulebook Mk 1 Mod 0, and TNE World Tamer's Handbook to compare them with T20 White Dwarf.

CT LBB 5 Scouts 1983 7th Printing p. 29 has a Star Type (White Dwarf) Table that has four orbital positions and stellar classes of DB, BA, BF, DG, DK, and DM. Orbital position 0 for DB is marked as the habitable zone and the other three are in the outer zone. The remaining five are all marked as being in the outer zone.

Unfortunately, Consolidated CT Errata v1.1, which can be downloaded from http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/dmckinne/trav.html until May 01, 2016, has removed all Size D results in the Primary and Companion Star Tables.

MT Referee's Manual PDF and DGP MT World Builder's Handbook 1998 have Orbital Zone Tables for Star VI (White Dwarf) and and Star size D (Sub-Dwarf). The MT Size D table is the same as the CT White Dwarf table. Unfortunately Consolidated MT Errata also deleted Size size D in the Referee's Manual. The World Builder's Handbook has the Star Size D (Sub-Dwarf) table.

TNE Core Rulebook GDW 0300 Mk 1 Mod 0 p. 192 allows Class D as a companion star and has Orbit Zones Table with three orbital positions and the same data from CT LBB 6. TNE World Tamer's Handbook does have entries for Class D in table on pp. 83 and 84. Consolidated TNE Errata v0.03 has an entry that in one area removes Size D, but then indicates that if there is more than one Size D they are all changed to Class V.

At best I'd say the a T20 White Dwarf habitable zone is in Orbit 0 and everything else is in the Outer Zone. The T20 Red Dwarf's habitable zone is also in Orbit 0.

Thank you for the help. Now I have to go back and redo my spreadsheet .

Be advised that Size/Type VI is "Sub-Dwarf" (i.e. a dwarf star that is somewhat smaller than a normal Main-Sequence Dwarf), and Size/Type D (sometimes called Size/Type VII) is a White Dwarf (otherwise known as a Degenerate Dwarf). You have the two reversed in your above statements.

The problem with all of the CT/MT/TNE generation procedures as originally published is that they all generate FAR too many white dwarfs (particularly as companion stars). Red Dwarfs are abundant (about ~ 75-80% of all observed stars), whereas white-dwarfs represent ~ 6% of all stars observed (which is represented well by T20's 1 in 20 chance).

I suspect that part of the White Dwarf confusion in T20 is that the author was remembering the earlier systems' generation tables where DB, DA, DF, DG, and DK were possible results, forgetting that in T20 all were assigned to class "WD". If you tie White Dwarf surface temperature to the OBAFGKM notation, then probably most White Dwarfs would be DA or DF, with DB and DG being the next most common, and DK the least common (and no DMs at all).

At best I'd say the a T20 White Dwarf habitable zone is in Orbit 0 and everything else is in the Outer Zone. The T20 Red Dwarf's habitable zone is also in Orbit 0.

That is what I would go with for both Red Dwarfs and White Dwarfs. Although you might choose (as an option) to give a WD a 1 in 6 (or 1 in 10) chance of having a habitable zone in orbit "0", otherwise all zones being outer-zone w/ no habitable zone.

EDIT: ADDITIONAL NOTE: Also keep in mind that a white dwarf is the dead cinder of a former star that went through the Red Giant phase, so it would have likely swallowed up and vaporized any worlds of its own that had been in Orbits #0-#3 at the least, and probably orbit #4 as well. So a white dwarf might easily be argued to have no indigenous planets inside Orbit #4 or #5 (though it could have captured one at some later date). So a habitable zone might be a moot point except perhaps for the construction of artificial habitats.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello whulorigan,

Something extremely odd is happening to my reply posts, some of they seem to disappear after I see them appear in the forum.

In your reply post on [FONT=arial,helvetica]April 13th, 2016, 11:47 AM tou mentioned that: "Be advised that Size/Type VI is "Sub-Dwarf" (i.e. a dwarf star that is somewhat smaller than a normal Main-Sequence Dwarf), and Size/Type D (sometimes called Size/Type VII) is a White Dwarf (otherwise known as a Degenerate Dwarf). You have the two reversed in your above statements."

I believe that the statement that you believe is table titles are reversed is from CT LBB 6 Scouts 1983 7th printing p. 29. Below is my attempt at describing the tables as they appear in my source document.

1. CT LBB 6 Scouts 1983 7th printing has at the top of and spanning the width of p. 29 is the Table of Zones which has eight rows and sixteen columns.

Row 1: Table of Zones appears to be centered in the middle of the tables body.
Row 2 Column 1: Orbit
Row 2 Column 2: Blank
Row 2 Column 3: Blank
Row 2 Column 4: Five dashed lines
Row 2 Columns 5 through 8: Star Type (Sub-Dwarf)
Row 2 Columns 9 through 11: Six dashed lines
Row 2 Columns 12 through 16: Star Type (White Dwarf)
[/FONT]
Row 3 Column 1: No.
Row 3 Column 2: F5
Row 3 Column 3: G0
Row 3 Column 4: G5
Row 3 Column 5: K0
Row 3 Column 6: K5
Row 3 Column 7: M0
Row 3 Column 8: M5
Row 3 Column 9: M9
Row 3 Column 10: Blank
Row 3 Column 11: DB
Row 3 Column 12: DA
Row 3 Column 13: DF
Row 3 Column 14: DG
Row 3 Column 15: DK
Row 3 Column 12: DM

Rows 4 through 6 Column 1 have the digits of 0-4 listed.

The Consolidated CT Errata link on FFE is no longer valid since the host of the page has removed the path for Donald McKinney's Trav site. I checked my saved with the link that Michael McKinney provided and they both have the same date and version number. I did not find any indication that the table titles have been reversed.

2. In the MT Referee's Manual GDW 0212 1987 1st Printing p. 27 right column the last two tables are titled Orbit Zones for Star Size VI which has the same, with the exception of the gap between column 1 and the first star type, star types as CT LLB 6 I described above for Star Type (Sub-Dwarf). MT Referee's Manual Orbit Zones for Star Type D is, in my opinion, a copy and paste of the CT LBB 6 Star Type (White Dwarf) table.

I compared my copy of the Consolidated MT Errata with the one on FFE's errata page they appear to be the same. Again there is no mention of the two titles being swapped, however they do change Type VI and D stars to Type V in all the tables

3. TNE Core Rulebook GDW 0300 Mk 1 Mod 0 (December 1993) pp. 192-195 does not have list Star Type VI, but the Orbit Zones for Luminosity Class D appears to be a copy and paste from CT LLB 6's Star Type (White Dwarf) table with the exception that there is no orbit 4 row.

The difference between TNE and CT/MT is that in TNE the Primary Star type cannot have a Luminosity Class of D, while one of the companion stars table a roll of 14 gives the option of being Type V or D. A result of 4-6 on a roll of 1d6 is for the Luminosity Class D.

The Consolidated TNE Errata Link on FFE and my copy again appear to be the same document.

I will admit that until you mentioned the reversed tables issue I had not noticed the difference between CT, MT, and TNE. My guess is that MT reversed the titles which really does not matter since they, per the errata documents with Marc Miller's approval, have been deleted from the star system generation rules.

After looking at how CT/MT/TNE used die modifiers I have to agree that the results tends to over populate star systems with White Dwarfs. Which is probably why Star Size VI and D where replaced by Size V. TNE appears to have minimized the number of Size D stars compared to CT and MT.

After reading the comments you made about the more likely place for a Size D (White Dwarf) habitable zone in either orbits 4 and 5 I did a little more research. My conclusion is to leave the Red Dwarf's habitable zone as Orbit 0 (zero) per THB p. 374. For Size D I'm leaning towards another die roll in which there is a good chance of there not being a habitable and if there is the zone will be in either Orbit 4 or 5. I'm still pondering the die to roll.

Thank you again for the help.

 

[whulorigan]

After reading the comments you made about the more likely place for a Size D (White Dwarf) habitable zone in either orbits 4 and 5 I did a little more research. My conclusion is to leave the Red Dwarf's habitable zone as Orbit 0 (zero) per THB p. 374. For Size D I'm leaning towards another die roll in which there is a good chance of there not being a habitable and if there is the zone will be in either Orbit 4 or 5. I'm still pondering the die to roll.

Actually, I believe you have slightly misunderstood my comments about White Dwarf habitable zones. My suggestion was that a Size D star would either have no habitable zones at all (i.e. they would all be outer-zone), or possibly a habitable zone in Orbit #0. But since the star would have previously destroyed all planets in Orbits #0-#4 when it was a red giant, there would currently be NO planets in a habitable zone of the White Dwarf at Orbit #0. And if it did have a remaining planet in orbit #4 or #5, it would be an outer-zone planet, not a habitable zone one. Anything found in a habitable zone at Orbit #0 would be artificial or a captured body.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening PDT whulorigan,

Actually, I believe you have slightly misunderstood my comments about White Dwarf habitable zones. My suggestion was that a Size D star would either have no habitable zones at all (i.e. they would all be outer-zone), or possibly a habitable zone in Orbit #0. But since the star would have previously destroyed all planets in Orbits #0-#4 when it was a red giant, there would currently be NO planets in a habitable zone of the White Dwarf at Orbit #0. And if it did have a remaining planet in orbit #4 or #5, it would be an outer-zone planet, not a habitable zone one. Anything found in a habitable zone at Orbit #0 would be artificial or a captured body.

Thank you for clarifying the earlier explanation and for saying that I slightly misunderstood what was posted, in my opinion I am so far out in left field I'm playing in a different baseball stadium.

 

[aramis]

Actually, I believe you have slightly misunderstood my comments about White Dwarf habitable zones. My suggestion was that a Size D star would either have no habitable zones at all (i.e. they would all be outer-zone), or possibly a habitable zone in Orbit #0. But since the star would have previously destroyed all planets in Orbits #0-#4 when it was a red giant, there would currently be NO planets in a habitable zone of the White Dwarf at Orbit #0. And if it did have a remaining planet in orbit #4 or #5, it would be an outer-zone planet, not a habitable zone one. Anything found in a habitable zone at Orbit #0 would be artificial or a captured body.

Note that it's entirely possible for there to be captured worlds inside the melted zone.

Further, those inner captures may have been outer planets that (for any of a number of reasons) fell inward after the collapse.

And also possible is a naked core that survived the red giant phase; this is extremely unlikely, but for a large enough mass solid body, and a small enough dwarf or subdwarf, the actual evaporation may not be complete... (The problem here is that such a star shouldn't have had both planets and time enough to have gone red giant yet...)

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

Note that it's entirely possible for there to be captured worlds inside the melted zone.

Further, those inner captures may have been outer planets that (for any of a number of reasons) fell inward after the collapse.

And also possible is a naked core that survived the red giant phase; this is extremely unlikely, but for a large enough mass solid body, and a small enough dwarf or subdwarf, the actual evaporation may not be complete... (The problem here is that such a star shouldn't have had both planets and time enough to have gone red giant yet...)

I have gone back to the stellar section of my spreadsheet and corrected my out to lunch understanding to match the rules that [FONT=arial,helvetica] whulorigan cleared up. Hopefully, I'm finally on the right track.

Thank you for the additional information.
[/FONT]

 

[aramis]

Hello aramis,



I have gone back to the stellar section of my spreadsheet and corrected my out to lunch understanding to match the rules that [FONT=arial,helvetica] whulorigan cleared up. Hopefully, I'm finally on the right track.

Thank you for the additional information.
[/FONT]

Essentially, for WD's, if you have empty orbits, they should start inside orbit 5.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

Essentially, for WD's, if you have empty orbits, they should start inside orbit 5.

I can not seem to find references to empty orbits and captured planets in T20 THB 1e 3rd printing.

Which page or pages are empty orbits and captured planets covered in T20 THB 1e 3rd printing?

I know that CT, MT, and TNE detail empty orbits and captured planets.

 

[aramis]

Hello aramis,



I can not seem to find references to empty orbits and captured planets in T20 THB 1e 3rd printing.

Which page or pages are empty orbits and captured planets covered in T20 THB 1e 3rd printing?

I know that CT, MT, and TNE detail empty orbits and captured planets.

Not called such, but present - see p. 374, step 8.

# worlds = 2d6–GG–PB

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

The web gremlins are picking on me again by blocking the quote feature again, hopefully by efforts at getting the quote in works.

Thank you for the clarification.

Hello aramis,

I can not seem to find references to empty orbits and captured planets in T20 THB 1e 3rd printing.

Which page or pages are empty orbits and captured planets covered in T20 THB 1e 3rd printing?

I know that CT, MT, and TNE detail empty orbits and captured planets.

Not called such, but present - see p. 374, step 8.

# worlds = 2d6–GG–PB

Drat, I should have made the connection that any orbital position that did not have a world or other body was empty.

What about captured planets?

 

[aramis]

Hello aramis,

The web gremlins are picking on me again by blocking the quote feature again, hopefully by efforts at getting the quote in works.

Thank you for the clarification.



Drat, I should have made the connection that any orbital position that did not have a world or other body was empty.

What about captured planets?

not covered; can be added from CT bk 6 if desired. ISTR Hunter claiming they were too common. OTOH, modern data shows pretty well that the Titus-Bode relationship is not a valid orbital model...

The tables needed:

1d6	Presence	Quantity
1	No	1
2	No	1
3	No	2
4	No	2
5	Yes	3
6	Yes	3
7	Yes	3
Placing:
Deviation:

[tc=3]DM +1 on each roll if Types OBA[/tc] [tc=2]place in orbit number 2d6[/tc] [tc=2](2d6-7)*10% of orbit distance[/tc]

 

[whulorigan]

The web gremlins are picking on me again by blocking the quote feature again, hopefully by efforts at getting the quote in works.

Don't feel bad. I sometimes get a blank text-field when I hit quote as well. I haven't figured out a pattern yet.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello whulorigan,

Don't feel bad. I sometimes get a blank text-field when I hit quote as well. I haven't figured out a pattern yet.

At least I know that I am in good company, however I would rather the web gremlins pick on some one else on a forum I never go on.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening PDT aramis,

Thank you for the information.

not covered; can be added from CT bk 6 if desired. ISTR Hunter claiming they were too common. OTOH, modern data shows pretty well that the Titus-Bode relationship is not a valid orbital model...

The tables needed:

1d6	Presence	Quantity
1	No	1
2	No	1
3	No	2
4	No	2
5	Yes	3
6	Yes	3
7	Yes	3
Placing:
Deviation:

[tc=3]DM +1 on each roll if Types OBA[/tc] [tc=2]place in orbit number 2d6[/tc] [tc=2](2d6-7)*10% of orbit distance[/tc]

TNE Core Rulebook Mk I Mod 0 (Dec. 1993) p. 194, and I imagine the MT Referee's Manual does too, appears to use same information.

 

[aramis]

TNE Core Rulebook Mk I Mod 0 (Dec. 1993) p. 194, and I imagine the MT Referee's Manual does too, appears to use same information.

Yep. Sure does.