Black Globe and Jump Drive

[Ishmael]

While the discussion seems to have overflowed a bit, I'd like to point out that this is the CT forum, and the inclusion of MT rules here is somewhat beyond the scope of the purpose of this forum (but with the realization that many people integrate their games with rules from many editions, although I do not).

I'm not the one to invoke MT, but merely clarifying a mis-statement.

I also feel discussion of space combat can allow for referencing MT as an example because many of the rules, 'to-hit' tables, and damage tables, etc are pretty much lifted verbatim from Bk5, so I don't think it derails the discussion too much.

If we're discussing canon, then I'm merely given extra canon references to how jump drive works. Thats something LBB's didn't go into detail about.
Canon does cut across multiple rulesets, doesn't it?

In any case, the word of the ref IS the rules.
( but that'd negate real discussion, wouldn't it. )

It works exactly as the ref says it works... the end.

 

[rancke]

Canon does cut across multiple rulesets, doesn't it?

Depends on who you ask. I think so. Others don't.


Hans

 

[dean]

I'm not the one to invoke MT, but merely clarifying a mis-statement.

I also feel discussion of space combat can allow for referencing MT as an example because many of the rules, 'to-hit' tables, and damage tables, etc are pretty much lifted verbatim from Bk5, so I don't think it derails the discussion too much.

Not complaining per se, mind you, just pointing it out. I don't visit the forums concerning the other rulesets because I don't own them, don't use them, and can't add to any discussions meaningfully.

If we're discussing canon, then I'm merely given extra canon references to how jump drive works. Thats something LBB's didn't go into detail about.
Canon does cut across multiple rulesets, doesn't it?

Not in my mind. I like CT because there is so much left explicitly unexplained and undescribed that it give me as the referee the opportunity to "make the call". If it can be looked up in a book somewhere, a rules lawyer will find a way to make my like miserable with a loophole.

In any case, the word of the ref IS the rules.
( but that'd negate real discussion, wouldn't it. )

It works exactly as the ref says it works... the end.

True. And again, I'm not really complaining. I personally believe that it might be more appropriate to say "in other versions, it works a particular way", but to invoke MT in the CT forum as an explanation of how something ought/does/should to work in the CT version of the OTU is not, IMHO. As you say, at least in CT where it remains "officially" unexplained, it works as the ref says it should.

 

[Ishmael]

....... I personally believe that it might be more appropriate to say "in other versions, it works a particular way", but to invoke MT in the CT forum as an explanation of how something ought/does/should to work in the CT version of the OTU is not, IMHO.........

It was a person in this forum who brought up a different ruleset ( incorrectly ) , not I.

A statement was made concerning what MT said that was incorrect, so I pointed the mistake out while stating my source and made a comment concerning the question of 'surface damage' not affecting jump drives, which is as applicable now as it was when first brought up a couple of decades ago. That question applies to CT bk5 from which the MT tables came.
The rest of the comments were clearly marked as 'mtu'.

The difference between "in other versions, it works a particular way" and "in MT, it works this way" escapes me. Especially when discussing the same body of canon.

oh well, so it goes

 

[mike wightman]

MT broke a few CT tropes - most important being the amount of jump fuel required.

Note that the guys at Digest got the way jump fuel is used wrong as well (they used the original CT 'all the fuel is used regardless of the size of the jump').

 

[dean]

It was a person in this forum who brought up a different ruleset ( incorrectly ) , not I.

A statement was made concerning what MT said that was incorrect, so I pointed the mistake out while stating my source and made a comment concerning the question of 'surface damage' not affecting jump drives, which is as applicable now as it was when first brought up a couple of decades ago. That question applies to CT bk5 from which the MT tables came.
The rest of the comments were clearly marked as 'mtu'.

The difference between "in other versions, it works a particular way" and "in MT, it works this way" escapes me. Especially when discussing the same body of canon.

oh well, so it goes

Fair Enough. Sorry to have caused a thread highjack.

 

[Hal]

For some odd reason, I can't find anywhere in any of the Traveller rules sets I own (CT, MT, TNE, T4, and recently, MGT) indicating that when a ship takes a given amount of hull damage, the ship has an increased chance of mis-jumping. I don't see anything on the surface table damage for HG for instance, that reads "Hull grid damaged, +1 to Mis-jump roll" or words to those effects. Jump drive damage, yes, Hull grid damage, No. If you want, you can rationalize the idea that damage to the Jump drive itself represents jump grid damage but for one minor little problem...

Why then, is it not possible to have a Jump-4 starshp in its pristine state, suffer a Jump-1 result, and have it such that the ship can still jump 4 parsecs, but have a +1 or +2 roll on the mis-jump table? Come to think of it? One could suffer a Jump-1 drive damage result in combat, and then temporarily fix the issue, only to need a roll of (iirc) 8+ for the system to work later on after the temporary fix.

What is perhaps even more interesting, is the concept of a jump-net. It grants the ability to emplace a grid system outside of an object, and then project a jump field around the grid of the net itself. While I've not bothered to point this out, in previous discussions, I'm wondering if anyone else has bothered to point out that a ship with spare engineroom hull space, can be easily converted from a non-starship into a starship with the simple expediency of wrapping the hull with the jump netting, and attaching it to the internal jump drive recently installed in the new ship.

Which brings me to another point <g>.

Why aren't the hulls specialized between "Jump capable" and "Non-jump capable"? One would think that a non-jump capable hull for a 1,000 dton ship would be cheaper to manufacture than one with the jump grid embedded within it. CT never did this, nor to my knowledge, has any other game system. Just little niggling details that crop up from time to time

 

[aramis]

Hal:

No rules besides TNE provide ANY chance of hull grid failure, and then it's an optional rule from a fanzine!

HG 1, HG 2, and HG-MT all have no jump hits on the surface tables
Bk2 and MGT CRB do not have a distinction between Surface and Interior damage.
TNE does differentiate for surface hits if one has a hull grid, but doesn't have hull grids
T4 might (I don't recall, and am too lay to check), but if it does have grids, it is an option.
T20 uses a totally different concept of surface vs internal damage; surface is all structural.