AHL deckplans officially retconned?

[Condottiere]

Just ignore the new blueprints.

But engineering decks have to be recalculated, to fit in with the new formulas.

 

[whartung]

Yes it IS A FRIKKIN' GAME, but a game with a lot of history and iconic subject matter. The new AHL deckplans smack of being a lazy attempt by someone not familiar at all with extant canon just producing any old tosh to fill a page.

And, frankly, it's not just "a game".

It started as a game.

But it is, in fact, a fictional universe within which games are emplaced.

Thus the passion for canon.

Canon is not, and never really has been, about mechanics. That's what a game is, mechanics.

It's about the Imperium, the galaxy it portrays, and the personalities within that galaxy.

And the AHL is one of those characters. It's been a central participant in several core story lines within canon.

So, yea, it is egregious for the current "keepers of canon" to retcon such fundamental characters so lazily and whimsically. it's not a different point of view, not a minor adjustment, it's a dramatic change.

And it's unnecessary.

But the true crime is it simply shows the lack of respect the current keepers have for canon. 40 years of development. It presents an attitude and character that I don't care for.

A simple statement "when someone shows you who they are, believe them."

They've shown us, and this is not the first example of such.

 

[flg]

And, frankly, it's not just "a game".

It started as a game.

And it still is a game. Good grief, this really is not in the slightest bit important. I think some people are taking this rather more seriously than it deserves.

So big whoop, some deckplans changed in a book. If you prefer the old ones, keep using them - nobody's stopping you. If you don't, then use the new ones. It's not going to shatter the universe or anything if you do.

 

[McPerth]

Jeez people.

I liked the old Frontier cruiser when the boxed game came out. It was an experiment in ship design by Traveller, a huge ship with maps for every 80+ decks. You just need to make some decks multiples needing the same map. It worked. It was unique but, for addition in any other book with deck plans, it was a horror to display. Suddenly just showing the representative decks was page count waster.

I always found the game quite playable.

I accept the new deck arraignment, however, if I were to run a game involving some special need or just wanted to use the old design, I would have no issue switching to it because I have the sheets. I could also use the new decks and not blink too.

Frankly, I'd have a problem on playing on those belly sitting maps, as I already told:

From the purely gamer's (and probably game designer's too) POV:

The AHL is 84 deck long.

Assuming 3 m/deck, that makes it about 252 m long

At the scale the game is (1.5 m per 1/2" square), it eould need an about 84 inches (about 2.1 m) map (a litle more, as it must have some margin). And still you probably would need more than a single deck map in a game...

How many of us have a table where it could be played it at home? Not me, for sure...

This aside, the shape of the plans shown by Mongoose don't match with the original AHL.

And the Spinal mount should be all the spine long, not just less than half the ship long. That's what spinals are, using all the length of the ship to accelerate the particles.

This is not, in any way (not only the internal layout) our Azhanti. it's another cruiser. As I already said, should they not have used the Azhanti name will have avoided the rage of the old grognards, while will have no effect (neither good nor bad) on newbees...

 

[Vargas]

x-boat tender springs to mind immediately, there may be others.

X-boats themselves.

 

[mike wightman]

And it still is a game. Good grief, this really is not in the slightest bit important.

It is important to me, and to many others who have posted about it.

If MgT wants to set it's game in the Third Imperium then the least the authors could do is learn about the Third Imperium

I think some people are taking this rather more seriously than it deserves.

It's an internet forum frequented by people who are very passionate about the game and setting.

 

[flg]

If MgT wants to set it's game in the Third Imperium then the least the authors could do is learn about the Third Imperium

And yet this material was published with the approval of Marc Miller, was it not? So perhaps you should be asking him why he approved something that was different to what came before? (he's changing things wholesale himself in T5 after all.)

It's an internet forum frequented by people who are very passionate about the game and setting.

Yes, and perhaps some would be better off stepping back a little and getting some perspective here. This is a ship plan in a book, it's not like the entire setting has been turned upside down (again, many of the changes in T5 are far greater than this and yet people don't complain because it's OK for MWM to change everything but not anybody else to make far smaller changes?).

At worst, just think of it as the plans being different in the MGT universe. Big deal.

 

[Nightwind1]

And yet this material was published with the approval of Marc Miller, was it not? So perhaps you should be asking him why he approved something that was different to what came before? (he's changing things wholesale himself in T5 after all.)



Yes, and perhaps some would be better off stepping back a little and getting some perspective here. This is a ship plan in a book, it's not like the entire setting has been turned upside down (again, many of the changes in T5 are far greater than this and yet people don't complain because it's OK for MWM to change everything but not anybody else to make far smaller changes?).

At worst, just think of it as the plans being different in the MGT universe. Big deal.

Or, y'know, since you really don't give a flying fig, you don't need to join our little bitch-fest.

 

[flg]

Or, y'know, since you really don't give a flying fig, you don't need to join our little bitch-fest.

So you'd rather rant about it than accept the possibility that MWM decided to accept this change, which is why it was published? (and apparently DonM was involved in some of these changes too, if the mongoose boards are to be believed).

Excuse me for trying to inject a little logic, reason, and perspective into all the wailing and gnashing of teeth here, I guess.

 

[aramis]

So you'd rather rant about it than accept the possibility that MWM decided to accept this change, which is why it was published? (and apparently DonM was involved in some of these changes too, if the mongoose boards are to be believed).

Excuse me for trying to inject a little logic, reason, and perspective into all the wailing and gnashing of teeth here, I guess.

Don did NOT review deck plans; they weren't done before he died.

Further Mongoose doesn't actually get everything reviewed. By labelling it a general product, rather than OTU specific, Mongoose avoids the whole approvals process.

Which Don and I commiserated about well before the MGT2 project got rolling at Mongoose.

The only canonical for the OTU materials from Mongoose are those that are labeled "Third Imperium" label. I fear Rob and I will wind up having to go through those with a fine tooth comb...

 

[MongooseMatt]

Further Mongoose doesn't actually get everything reviewed. By labelling it a general product, rather than OTU specific, Mongoose avoids the whole approvals process.

This is just completely untrue. Completely. High Guard went through the same process as everything else.

 

[mike wightman]

And yet this material was published with the approval of Marc Miller, was it not? So perhaps you should be asking him why he approved something that was different to what came before? (he's changing things wholesale himself in T5 after all.)

I am - that's why I made this thread.
I want to know if Marc has authorised this or is it a slip up - like the Ancient ancible network in MgT Secret of the Ancients which MWM had said on many occasions is not permitted at any TL in the setting.

Yes, and perhaps some would be better off stepping back a little and getting some perspective here. This is a ship plan in a book, it's not like the entire setting has been turned upside down (again, many of the changes in T5 are far greater than this and yet people don't complain because it's OK for MWM to change everything but not anybody else to make far smaller changes?).

Actually 'we' stopped complaining about T5 because 'we' were threatened with forum sanctions and bans for doing so. Look at some of the threads for evidence of this

The reason why I have maintained an interest in T5 is Marc's novel, all the tech in the novel is in T5 and oddly enough can be found hidden away in MgT 2e if you know where to look for it.

At worst, just think of it as the plans being different in the MGT universe. Big deal.

It is a big deal, it is indicative that MgT can change prior canon, introduce new canon, retcon iconic designs, introduce cinematic ship combat to a setting universe that didn't have such things. The MgT 3I setting is canonical as I understand it and thus overwrites previous.

This has implications for authors of new products and TAS contributors.

 

[mike wightman]

This is just completely untrue. Completely. High Guard went through the same process as everything else.

So who authorised the changes to the AHL deck plans? Aramis has stated that Don had sadly passed away before the plans were done.
Is this a MWM authorised retcon to an iconic design yes or no?

That was my original question.

And once again can I publically state that I like what you have done in the new HG2e book - while I have some quibbles - it offers a giant toolbox for ship designs for a variety of settings:
early TL space exploration with reaction engines, railguns and missiles - check
standard 3I space technology - check
variant drives for settings that use warp drives, hyperdrives and the like - check
new weapon systems for a range of setting possibilities - check
space station construction, belt mining, fleet combat are all just icing on the cake, oh and every single CT ship from LBB2 up to S:9 fighting ships.

I have the pdf (obviously) and I will be buying the hardback the day it hits the shelves.

 

[creativehum]

And it still is a game. Good grief, this really is not in the slightest bit important. I think some people are taking this rather more seriously than it deserves.

So big whoop, some deckplans changed in a book. If you prefer the old ones, keep using them - nobody's stopping you. If you don't, then use the new ones. It's not going to shatter the universe or anything if you do.

Flg,
If I may, there's no good that will come from this line of posting.

When I first came to this site, I came to ask questions about the rules of Classic Traveller, about how people played, what people did with the rules, and how they built settings.

What I discovered is that this site is very focused on the house setting GDW created for Traveller, that has been built up over 40 years. (The name of the site should have probably tipped me off... but I'd didn't realize it didn't mean more than "People who love Traveller.")

The lens through which most posts are made are through the setting material. So, even if one is posting on the Classic Traveller sub-forum, people will arrive and answer questions and make comments in the context of the setting materials available in the 70s and early 80s -- even if you originally post that's you are not interest in using the official setting material. It is simply reflexive for most of the board members.

This is not a criticism, and I'm not finding fault in it. But it is what it is. This is the point of view of the board. The way I came to think of it is that for a lot of people The Third Imperium and the Official Traveller Universe is a hobby unto itself.

This was a new perspective to me. Until I came to this board, I never would have thought that would be a thing. For me the setting material is there to use, or not use, to support RPG adventure gaming sessions. I find the rules of Classic Traveller compelling -- while GDW's OTU, after a while, left me cold.

My point of view on these matters isn't better than any other point of view. Just different. And because it was different it took me a while to realize the underlying focus this site. I see it now as this amazing model train set being built by all these hands, with everyone making sure the guage of all the models are the same, all the pieces make sense together, that the environment on the table makes sense and is pleasing to the eye.

It isn't my hobby, if you will allow me the metaphor. But I have come to see it is the hobby for many of the people here. It's their pleasure. And continuing to poke at it isn't going to be productive in any way. You are telling people, "Don't get worked up about the consitancy of this fictional setting," when, for most people here, the consistency of the setting material is the point.

For myself, I curtailed my posting, and when I post I'm very specific about what I'm after. I ended up starting up a blog to talk about the Traveller-things I wanted to hash out because, ultimately, they are not the focus of this forum. Just as I don't understand the focus of setting-as-hobby, there are a jillion Traveller players who don't understand how I can have an interest in Traveller without the setting. For them the setting is the game, and that's that.

Now, this site is filled with really smart people with really smart ideas about the rules and mechanics, which is why I continue to hang out here. When I have a question or idea I want to bounce around, I'll come here first when it comes to Classic Traveller. But, again, I ask in a very narrow, specific way, making clear the paremeters I'm working within.

So, I suggest, as someone whose point of view is similar to your own, drop it. There's nothing her that needs to be fixed, no point of view that needs to be corrected. This is this site, with a focus on these issues of cannon and setting. It is the fun and pleasure of many of the people here. To battle that makes no sense; to come close to belittling the pleasure of other people makes little sense.

It's a hobby. Life is hard. Hobbies distract us and refresh us from those difficulties. There's nothing to be gained by telling people these pleasures are wrong.

 

[flg]

So who authorised the changes to the AHL deck plans? Aramis has stated that Don had sadly passed away before the plans were done.
Is this a MWM authorised retcon to an iconic design yes or no?

Are there any AHL deckplans presented in T5 at all? I guess not, because if it had appeared in there in its altered form then people would have just shrugged and went "oh well, it's changed". Or maybe there are and they're just the same as the old ones?

I would assume it is different in MGT because MWM has decided it's different now, but since MGT presented the change first there's a huge hullaballoo about it here because people think it's Mongoose "disrespecting the canon". Maybe this is a problem that is caused by people thinking that T5 is the only version that matters and MGT isn't, when it appears that they actually both matter because they're reflections of the same thing. MGT can get things out of the door first because T5 is still a work in progress, so it appears that they're changing things when actually they're "previewing the change" which will appear in T5 later. (maybe. This is just a theory).

Though again, MWM should be the one confirming or denying the change. We shouldn't have to rely on mouthpieces, delegates or third parties to know what's new and what's not. There really needs to be better communication from him about what is or isn't canon.

 

[Condottiere]

The answer is original intent, delivered by second hand.

 

[McPerth]

The answer is original intent, delivered by second hand.

Could you please explain better what do you mean? Original intent by who?

 

[flg]

Could you please explain better what do you mean? Original intent by who?

Unless Condotierre is really MWM, he wouldn't be in a position to state what "the answer" was.

We really don't need people chiming in and claiming to be authoritative when they're not in a position to know for sure. We need a firsthand source - either Matt or MWM. No enigmatic statements, just a clear "this was authorised by MWM" or "this was not authorised by MWM".

 

[whartung]

And it still is a game. Good grief, this really is not in the slightest bit important. I think some people are taking this rather more seriously than it deserves.

So, yea, you pretty much missed the point.

You may as well say that a "Star Wars" roleplaying game is "just a game" when they come out with the "Yavin Encounter" module that talks about the that scrappy bush pilot, Biggs Darklighter, from Tatooine that blew up the Death Star in his B-Wing. Moff Tarkin had him in the sites of his pursuing TIE fighter when Lando Calrissian distracted him with a laser blast from his XS-1200 freighter, the famed "Sky Princess". But with the pressure off him, the B-Wing pilot was able to use his computer to get the torpedo in to the heat duct, thus destroying the Death Star.

I mean, that's how it happened, right?

Doesn't really matter. Just a game.

 

[Condottiere]

It's been stated a number of times that the original intent for the Azhantis was longitudal decks, rather than a pancake stack.

This answer has always been delivered indirectly, and taken on faith.