Cargo costs

[mike wightman]

Then why does the example say you need three tickets? :devil:

By the way I do agree with you, the correct interpretation of LBB2 77 and 81 is that passage is paid per jump.

I think your deconstructed explanation of the 81 example is elegant and correct.

The example can be misinterpreted because of that silly "requires three separate tickets" add in that is not in the original.

The example in LBB2 '81 edition should have that bit taken out and everything would make perfect sense.

I can understand Straybow and others over the years coming to a per parsec model because of those four words that contradict the weight of other evidence.

To my mind if every other bit of evidence is per jump and only those four words can infer per parsec then those four words are misguided and the per parsec model is incorrect.

 

[creativehum]

[You just edited your post... I'm not going to change everything... but I'm going to add something.]

Wow... we are really just missing each other on this. Like a fundamental, completely-different-universes-reading of the same text.

Because my first question back would be "How can it not?"

So, I'll continue. But I need you to know I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply trying to express my view on this as best I can. Here is what I've got.

• Every passage is one jump, and one jump alone. (I don't see how anyone can read the text and come away with a different conclusion. If you want to debate that conclusion, awesome, but know that is one of my first principles that leads me to the answer to your question.)
• Every passage (jump) must be paid for separately, per the passage prices we all have committed to memory. Distance does not matter, only the jump. (Again, per the text littering the book.)
• Every destination is one jump from whatever world you are sitting on. We know this from the instruction about determining destinations about cargo.
• Distance of a jump does not affect passage price. (Again, we know this from the rules.)

So, by definition, every time you get on a ship to travel to another world (a destination) you need to buy a passage.

If your final destination is three jumps away (given the points above) you need to buy a new ticket for each jump. Because you will be traveling to three destinations. Two "intermediate destinations" and the final destination world. (I suppose you could pay Cr30,000 up front if the captain guaranteed he'd be taking you to that world three jumps away... but it would still be based on jumps.)

Again, the ticket prices for that J1 are not per parsec. The phrase "per parsec" is never mentioned in the text. The tickets are for a passage per jump. Three jumps, three tickets. In my reading the three jumps are not scooped up into one trip. They are three distinct jumps, with three distinct destinations (per the text "additional destinations"), with one passage for each of the three jumps.

***

I offered an example of this in play earlier, and out of desperation (not rudeness or presumption) I'll post it again because it walks us through my view on the matter step by step. This, to me, is why there are three ticket purchases and it still remains a per jump model.

So -- a PC X needs to travel to a world three parsecs away. There are no J3 ships that service this world so he is going to have to work his way toward it with a J1 ship to the next closest world. The Beowulf is heading to that next world over and he pays his fare and boards it.

The Beowulf arrives in this next system over and unloads cargo and passengers -- including PC X. The Beowulf crew check for cargo and sets a destination. It turns out this destination is in fact the next leg on the journey PC X needs to travel. He pays his passage for this jump and travels a second parsec closer to the world he wants to get to.

Again, the crew unloads cargo and passengers and checks for cargo lots with its range of jump capability. It chooses to go to the world PC X is trying to reach. He buys a final ticket for the passage type of his choosing.

The ship arrives in system and PC X has arrived at his destination with "three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations)."

 

[Timerover51]

The following quote comes from the 1981 Edition of Book 2: Starships, page 7.

In addition, the bank will insist that the purchaser submit an economic plan detailing the projected activity which will guarantee that monthly payments are made.

Emphasis added.

That bottom line, that payments, including ship expenses, MUST be paid should govern how the rules are interpreted. If it is not possible for a commercial ship to cover monthly purchase payment cost, along with all ship's expenses, and turn a small profit, then that ship is not going to operate for any length of time. That does include subsidized ships as well, as a government is only going to support a loosing proposition for so long before dropping the subsidy. The only exception would be if a planet's survival was dependent upon regular shipping arrivals.

A Free Trader, basically operating as a Tramp cargo liner, has a bit more leeway, as forgoing the standard personnel salary and accepting working passage are options for the crew expenses. I am using "Tramp" in the Real World sense of the term, that being a cargo ship that does not have a fixed route of travel, but goes where the cargo and passengers are.

Remember as well that one major expense for Real World shipping is not listed, that being insurance on the ship itself, which would be a fairly large cost, while the maintenance set-aside is extremely low at one-tenth of one percent. A much more reasonable set-aside would be 5% of the ships initial cost every year, or at least 5% of the cost of the ship's drives every year.

 

[creativehum]

If I may.... no.

(And timerover, I know you have strong ethical standards, and so it brings me no pleasure to bring this up to contradict you.)

Here is another quote from the text of the rules. This quote begins on page 5 of the 1981 edition of Book 2 and the rule is included in every edition of the Basic Traveller rules:

Skipping: Most starships are purchased against a mortgage or loan, and the monthly payments required against the multi-million credit debt are staggering. The owner or captain may decide to steal the ship himself instead of remaining under that load. Passengers have no way themselves of determining if a specific ship is in such a status. The referee should throw 12 exactly to determine that a commercial ship is of this type.

Ships which have skipped are subject to repossession attempts if they are detected by the authorities or by collection agencies. Such attempts may range from the formal service of papers through legal injunctions to armed boarding parties. A repossession attempt will occur under the following conditions: On each world landing, throw 12+ to avoid such an attempt, apply a DM of +1 per 5 hexes distance from the ship’s home planet, to a maximum of +9. If the ship has called on the same world twice within the last two months, apply a DM of –2. This procedure also applies to
ships owned by player characters who have skipped.

In other words the rules assume ship payments will not be made. The rules take the time to make the point bank loans on ships will fail. The rules make it clear that there's a good chance ships will, in fact, not turn a profit. The rules assume a ship's crew (even a crew of player characters) might sail off with a ship beyond its normal shipping lanes in an attempt to not make the guaranteed monthly payments.

The thing is... there is no comfort to be had in the Basic Traveller rules as written.

The underlying assumption of the Basic Traveller rules is that things go wrong. There are rules imagine an implied setting that dwells on combat, animal encounters, run-ins with the law, hijackings pirates, skipping, hostile encounters in space in on planets, ship holds that don't fill up, misjumps can occur because refined fuel is not easily available, jump drives can fail because refined fuel is not easily available, many worlds lack the parts or technology to repair anything from firearms to starships.

This doesn't mean that any given setting has to be like this. Everyone should make the setting they want. And certainly even in a particular setting there might be stretches of civilized space where refined fuel is freely available and trade is plentiful enough that merchants aren't always sweating every jump.

But the implied setting of RPG play -- based on the rules alone -- assumes things fail, things go bad, things are always on the cusp of turning into the next disaster.

The trade rules are only part of this. But they are part of it.

The implied setting of play is that travellers deal with trouble. They put themselves in harms way, go to extraordinary places, live lives most people would not risk. The rules make this clear.

This means that in the patch of space that the rules assume play will take place in (the patch defined by the World Generation System with depressed population levels on many planets and sub-starship technology on many planets) trade will be difficult. Profit margins will not be met. Making payments might be a problem. This is by design.

So, yes... the crew of a ship should be making their mortgage payments, and if they can great. It will be one less source of trouble if they don't have people after them to repossess the ship. On the other hand, the rules take the time to explain how one bolts from that responsibility in case one decides not to make payments. The rules then explain how one can get into trouble and avoid trouble by doing this.

The soil of the Basic Traveller rules is science-fiction adventure fiction. The rules of the game are designed to create stress, conflict, trouble -- the kinds of things one finds in rousing science-fiction adventure fiction.

Putting the screws to crews of ships -- which includes tough times in a tough market -- is part and parcel of this. It helps drive the player characters to bold choices. It might drive them to skip, become pirates, or lead them to encounter pirates or end up on a skipped ship. This is all part and parcel of the implied environment of the game and the kind of adventure driven encounters, situations, and play that underlies the rules.

No interpretation of the rules demands that trade in the implied section of space created by the rules works efficiently. In fact, if one looks at the expectations of the rules one finds the opposite.

 

[Timerover51]

If I may.... no.

(And timerover, I know you have strong ethical standards, and so it brings me no pleasure to bring this up to contradict you.)

Here is another quote from the text of the rules. This quote begins on page 5 of the 1981 edition of Book 2 and the rule is included in every edition of the Basic Traveller rules:



In other words the rules assume ship payments will not be made. The rules take the time to make the point bank loans on ships will fail. The rules make it clear that there's a good chance ships will, in fact, not turn a profit. The rules assume a ship's crew (even a crew of player characters) might sail off with a ship beyond its normal shipping lanes in an attempt to not make the guaranteed monthly payments.

The thing is... there is no comfort to be had in the Basic Traveller rules as written.

The underlying assumption of the Basic Traveller rules is that things go wrong. There are rules imagine an implied setting that dwells on combat, animal encounters, run-ins with the law, hijackings pirates, skipping, hostile encounters in space in on planets, ship holds that don't fill up, misjumps can occur because refined fuel is not easily available, jump drives can fail because refined fuel is not easily available, many worlds lack the parts or technology to repair anything from firearms to starships.

This doesn't mean that any given setting has to be like this. Everyone should make the setting they want. And certainly even in a particular setting there might be stretches of civilized space where refined fuel is freely available and trade is plentiful enough that merchants aren't always sweating every jump.

But the implied setting of RPG play -- based on the rules alone -- assumes things fail, things go bad, things are always on the cusp of turning into the next disaster.

The trade rules are only part of this. But they are part of it.

The implied setting of play is that travellers deal with trouble. They put themselves in harms way, go to extraordinary places, live lives most people would not risk. The rules make this clear.

This means that in the patch of space that the rules assume play will take place in (the patch defined by the World Generation System with depressed population levels on many planets and sub-starship technology on many planets) trade will be difficult. Profit margins will not be met. Making payments might be a problem. This is by design.

So, yes... the crew of a ship should be making their mortgage payments, and if they can great. It will be one less source of trouble if they don't have people after them to repossess the ship. On the other hand, the rules take the time to explain how one bolts from that responsibility in case one decides not to make payments. The rules then explain how one can get into trouble and avoid trouble by doing this.

The soil of the Basic Traveller rules is science-fiction adventure fiction. The rules of the game are designed to create stress, conflict, trouble -- the kinds of things one finds in rousing science-fiction adventure fiction.

Putting the screws to crews of ships -- which includes tough times in a tough market -- is part and parcel of this. It helps drive the player characters to bold choices. It might drive them to skip, become pirates, or lead them to encounter pirates or end up on a skipped ship. This is all part and parcel of the implied environment of the game and the kind of adventure driven encounters, situations, and play that underlies the rules.

No interpretation of the rules demands that trade in the implied section of space created by the rules works efficiently. In fact, if one looks at the expectations of the rules one finds the opposite.

I am well aware of the rules governing ships skipping. I view trying to skip with a ship with Jump-1 capability as somewhat of a limited exercise. More likely would be the case of finding an asteroid belt with limited law enforcement, stripping the ship of drives and equipment, and then selling the pieces. Or the possibility that one of the skipping ships crewman will be more than happy to sell his or her colleagues down the road to collect the likely very lucrative reward for alerting the Imperium authorities to the illegal action. As ship skipping damages the economy of the Imperium, I assume that the Imperium is going to take a very dim view of it. Besides that, I am discussing the issue of getting the money to buy the ship in the first place.

What I am thinking of is the larger companies, not individuals seeking to acquire their own ship. Multi-ship companies like Tukera or Oberlindea Lines where their ships are highly unlikely to skip, but have to be able to show the loaning banks that the vessel is going to generate positive revenue. Those companies have lots of nice assets that can be seized and sold for non-payment of debt, including other ships.

I repeat, unless your interpretation of the rules allows the standard ships to generate positive revenue in the form of a profit on a yearly basis, your interstellar economy is going to break down very quickly.

 

[creativehum]

I am well aware of the rules governing ships skipping. I view trying to skip with a ship with Jump-1 capability as somewhat of a limited exercise. More likely would be the case of finding an asteroid belt with limited law enforcement, stripping the ship of drives and equipment, and then selling the pieces. Or the possibility that one of the skipping ships crewman will be more than happy to sell his or her colleagues down the road to collect the likely very lucrative reward for alerting the Imperium authorities to the illegal action. As ship skipping damages the economy of the Imperium, I assume that the Imperium is going to take a very dim view of it. Besides that, I am discussing the issue of getting the money to buy the ship in the first place.

What I am thinking of is the larger companies, not individuals seeking to acquire their own ship. Multi-ship companies like Tukera or Oberlindea Lines where their ships are highly unlikely to skip, but have to be able to show the loaning banks that the vessel is going to generate positive revenue. Those companies have lots of nice assets that can be seized and sold for non-payment of debt, including other ships.

I repeat, unless your interpretation of the rules allows the standard ships to generate positive revenue in the form of a profit on a yearly basis, your interstellar economy is going to break down very quickly.

I, uh... sure.
I keep thinking of the game in terms of RPG play.
The rules on mortgages are there for the Player Characters.
The concerns for skipping are there for the Player Characters.
The rules for trade -- and the difficulty of trade -- are for areas serviced not by large corporations but subsidized merchants and tramps.
The setting of the Basic Traveller rules are not about "the interstellar community" but about fringe locations where the risk is high, populations often low, and trade is often limited.

You are talking about things that are outside of the scope and concerns of the actual rules of Basic Traveller.

Not that's not a problem if that's what you want to do. You should make rules for that setting and make that setting happen. But the rules, as written in Basic Traveller, are not there to support that. So the rules, as written, have no obligation to serve these particular concerns and definitely do not.

 

[kilemall]

I repeat, unless your interpretation of the rules allows the standard ships to generate positive revenue in the form of a profit on a yearly basis, your interstellar economy is going to break down very quickly.

Might be the business model is get the cream for as long as the loanee can service it, repo, and loan it again.

Even with say a 10% per year loss rate of unrecoverable ships out of those repoed, banks could be getting a nice income always making loans for ships that never get clear title.

BTW, I figure the ship insurance is baked into the purchase price and the banks put out the insurance policy, with no provision for paying equity or improvement compensation, just making sure the loan and/or ship loss is covered for the bank.

 

[pendragonman]

Might be the business model is get the cream for as long as the loanee can service it, repo, and loan it again.

The essence of a "Buy Here. Pay Here" car lot.

 

[Straybow]

If a jump-1 ship charges per parsec, then a jump-3 ship charges per parsec. You are absolutely correct and I would never say otherwise.

However, I do not think a jump-1 ship charges per parsec. I think a jump-1 ship charges per jump. So I obviously draw the conclusion that a jump-3 ship charges per jump.

You read the text and draw the conclusion that a jump-1 ship charges per parsec. I don't understand how you can do that. I read the text and draw the conclusion a jump-1 ship charges per jump. You don't understand how I can do that.

And there we are.

A J1 always moves per parsec, as each jump is limited to one parsec. Whether the accounting is per jump or per parsec makes no difference. If you can't understand that you aren't trying. More importantly, I'm not debating what you think. I'm debating what the words are and mean.

The paragraph begins with a definitive statement: "Differences in starship jump drive capacity have no specific effect on passage prices." If passage were charged per jump regardless of distance, then starship jump drive capacity has a specific effect on the passage price. Going anywhere farther away than 1 parsec costs a different amount based on drive capacity.

Where drive capacity doesn't affect price is if the ship is jumping short of maximum distance. If jumping one parsec, the J2+ doesn't get to charge more. If jumping two parsecs, a J3+ doesn't charge more than a J2. That is, beyond doubt, the intent of the second sentence of the paragraph in question. That doesn't change, whether per jump or per parsec. But again, that at least fully allows (if not directly implies) per parsec pricing.

If that were all the paragraph was intended to explain, the example of one J3 being equal to 3×J1 would have no bearing. It is that equivalence, in the context of "drive capacity has no specific effect on passage price" that leads to a logical conclusion of per parsec pricing.

It's the "three separate tickets bit". The example clearly states the destination is 3 pc distant - quite why the jump 1 ship is offering passage to a world 3 pc away and charging three times is the mystery.
I think the example is badly worded and /or badly thought out and contradicts the earlier rule (on page 4) that the passage is per jump.
I can see how it can be interpreted as per parsec pricing; I disagree with this interpretation by the way due to the earlier statement in the rules and the way it works in '77 edition.

Under '77 rules the jump 1 ship would never offer passage to a world 3 pc away, while a jump 3 ship could - they both charge Cr10,000 for a high passage for the jump, regardless of distance. Hence pricing is per jump.

It isn't a limitation in '77 nor in any other rules cited so far. That particular passage in '77 (presumed identical in '81) is only a suggestion to the referee to prepare a selection of loads for the worlds the players' ship can reach in one jump. It never says to bar any ship from booking passengers or cargoes for more than one jump, or to bar any shipmaster from inquiring about destination more than 1 jump away.

Note, however, that the correction in 1981 doesn't remove the ambiguity of the J3 = 3×J1 sentence. Nowhere is the meaning of "ticket" defined. "Ticket" could just mean that you've booked all three jumps ahead and been given tickets for transferability. No need to wait at the first layover. If another ship is departing your direction you could use your ticket to transfer. If a J2 is heading to your ultimate destination, you could use both remaining tickets to secure passage under per parsec pricing.

A present day air passenger can book a trip with a layover and a change of planes, and separate tickets are issued for the legs. The number of tickets has no direct effect on trip price. You may end up on a different plane than originally booked for the the second leg, for a number of reasons. Heck, you could get bumped on your original flight and end up on a direct flight. They would exchange your two issued tickets for one ticket on the direct flight.

As I pointed out to creativehum, nowhere is "destination" defined. Its use in the ambiguous paragraph is an example of a destination three jumps away on a J1 ship. If booking a multijump destination were prohibited, then why mention it? That implies, rather strongly, that multijump destinations would be normal.

I agree that the writing in the whole passenger/cargo section thoroughly confuses the matter for anyone picking up the book and reading it without context of the way the writers were playing it.

In the example the Jump-1 ship travels to three destinations, and thus charges three distinct passages if a passenger travels on that ship to each of the three destinations.

Not one passage, three passages. (Which is why the 1981 edition's addition of the word "tickets" is a clarification of the rules, not a muddying.) The ship is not offering passage to a world three parsec away. (You are correct! It can't!) But it could offer three separate passage to that world. (Hence the need to buy three separate tickets.)

There is a final destination the passenger wishes to reach. But he'll be paying for two addional passage to get there if he goes by a J1 ship. Total cost at High Passage is Cr30,000. (Three high tickets for each of the three jumps, as the text makes clear.)

Per this quote then, "Passage is always sold on the basis of the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance." For the J1 ship there will be three announced destinations. (This, I think is the crux of where you and I differ on this. You are seeing only one destination, whereas I read the call-out of "two intermediate destinations" and see... well, two additional announced destinations.)

No, there is no logical requirement for the 3×J1 to declare the intermediate destinations. There can be multiple possible routes, and the specific route might make no difference to the passenger. "Ticket" is not defined; see above explanation to Mike.

A J2 will require two jumps, a J3 only one. If priced per parsec, the passage is sold on the basis of the destination. But if priced per jump, then it is sold on the basis of jump distance, since different capacities get there in a different number of jumps.

Again, the words and their meanings do not actually settle the per parsec/per jump quandary, but rather militate against per jump.

Technical writing is harder than people think it is.

 

[pendragonman]

It is becoming clear that no one is going to change anyone else's opinion. And when you are not taking the RAW, but attempting to parse the meaning behind the words you are injecting opinion, because Marc is silent on the subject.

As is always allowable, run it the way you want in your TU. This argument has been going on from minutes after the first release in 1977 for sure, and probably came out in prerelease playtest. Forty years, and Marc has not made a clarifying statement. After 40 years you have to believe that Marc considers the RAW sufficient.

If you don't think the RAW is clear, run it the way you want in YTU.

 

[mike wightman]

I already posted up thread the side by side comparison lf the passage in 77 and 81 edition.

77 doesn't mention requiring three separate tickets.

Both version agree that interstellar travel is measured in jumps.

Interstellar travel is priced on the basis of accommodations; prices cover a trip
from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length.

81 edition page 4

Interstellar distance is calculated on the basis of jumps

77 edition page 1.

So there you have the origin of the per jump model, it is in both editions.

 

[Straybow]

It is becoming clear that no one is going to change anyone else's opinion. And when you are not taking the RAW, but attempting to parse the meaning behind the words you are injecting opinion, because Marc is silent on the subject.

Sorry, my point seems to be elusive, no matter how carefully I write.

My point is that if rules are not only unclear, but flatly contradictory, then RAW doesn't exist.

In this specific case, the author could have edited unclear parts to remove confusing language but didn't. Anyone picking up the text and reading what the words say can come up with RAW that disagrees with official RAI.

But we have people saying, "How can you possibly interpret those words to mean that?" Words have meaning, and can mean the opposite of what an author intended.

Interstellar distance is calculated on the basis of jumps

77 edition page 1.

So there you have the origin of the per jump model, it is in both editions.

Here, again, the statement is far less clear than you think it is. You are interpreting the statement based on RAI, but the words don't say as much.

It says that distance is calculated based on jumps, but it also says, "Passage is always sold on the basis of the announced destination, rather than on the basis of jump distance." Destination is here contrasted against jump distance, leading to a logical conclusion that the price is based on map distance rather than jump distance. Only per parsec pricing is equipotentially independent of jump distance.

For example, if there is a small void a J1 might have to travel 4 parsecs to reach the destination, whereas a J3 can reach it in one jump. The distance to the destination for the J3 is 3, but the distance to the destination for the J1 is 4. That is one way to calculate distance on the basis of jumps.

Interstellar travel is priced on the basis of accommodations; prices cover a trip
from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length.

Except that canon ship designs can break that rule. A J1 ship could easily carry enough fuel for two jumps. A destination two parsecs away with a void between could be covered starport to starport, but not in one jump. There is nothing forbidding double jumps, and nothing clarifies what would be charged for such a trip. For that matter, an uninhabited system could lie between, and the ship could stop and scoop fuel for the second jump.

 

[mike wightman]

If they carry fuel for two jumps they are not obeying the one jump clause...

Encompassing one jump

is pretty clear to me.

One jump, not one route, not one trip, not one parsec, one jump.

Jump distance has no effect on pricing, you pay the same for one jump regardless of distance.

Hence per jump pricing.

 

[mike wightman]

You are also missing conveniently omitting the bit that says the referee checks for cargos based on the jump number of the ship - not the total distance a ship can make due to fuel tankage.

Under the rules as written the example of a jump 1 ship announcing a destination three jumps away breaks this - hence the example is in error.

 

[pendragonman]

Let us examine what you wrote:

My point is that if rules are not only unclear, but flatly contradictory, then RAW doesn't exist.

In this specific case, the author could have edited unclear parts to remove confusing language but didn't. Anyone picking up the text and reading what the words say can come up with RAW that disagrees with official RAI.

If there is printed words that make a complete sentence contained in a rulebook that is, by definition, the Rule As Written (RAW).

Since the author has had 40 years to make any correction that the author thinks are necessary, and didn't, then the author believes it to be completely clear. That makes it your opinion that the rule is unclear.

That means the Rules As Interpreted (RAI) are, quite literally, the letters printed on the page. No interpretation necessary. Further, the fact that you believe that those rules need interpretation makrs that belief your opinion.


If I am mistaken, please find a quote anywhere in all of the literature from the author that claims that his words as written require interpretation.

 

[Straybow]

No, not ignoring a rule, following a different and conflicting rule. It could be equally said that per jump pricing is ignoring the rule that my analysis is following.

There is the paragraph that describes what the rule means and how to apply the rule. That paragraph gives the specific example of a passage booked for a destination 3 jumps away. It would appear that multi-jump is allowed. No revision of the rule book removed that conflict.

The same paragraph says that whether you get there by J3 or J1 you pay the same price. It is a fully logical reading of the first sentence, and of the example that seems to focus on the time of travel and convenience of making a single jump as the primary benefits of the single J3 jump.

Kinda like Captain Jack Sparrow saying the pirate rules are "more like guidelines," you end up having to navigate through the text to a conclusion.

Part of the navigation is, "Does it make sense?" Per jump pricing doesn't make economic sense. Reading the '77 rules in that light would lead to a logical conclusion that the rules aren't clearly written, and the interpretation that makes sense is per parsec.

Even in the '81 rules with added clarifications, the example of the triple J1 being equated with the J3 is retained and the conflict in the rules remains. Who know how many people read the rules and interpreted them as per parsec, and were fully convinced they were playing RAW.

 

[Straybow]

If I am mistaken, please find a quote anywhere in all of the literature from the author that claims that his words as written require interpretation.

The fact that revisions were made in '81 in an attempt to clarify the rules, but the language used ended up being no more clear than the original language.

If booking across three jumps were not permitted, the the revision could have read, "but the J1 can't book across three jumps to the same destination." Instead he added that the J1 required "three tickets." That leaves the part of the rule about multi-jump still unclear.

Unfortunately, the definition word "ticket" isn't used anywhere else in the rules. It could have been rewritten, "Taking three J1 jumps would be three times the cost." Without that specificity, it leaves open the idea that charge is per parsec, and the J1 needing three separate purchases instead of one big purchase is a trivial difference that doesn't effect the price.

 

[Straybow]

You are also missing conveniently omitting the bit that says the referee checks for cargos based on the jump number of the ship - not the total distance a ship can make due to fuel tankage.

Under the rules as written the example of a jump 1 ship announcing a destination three jumps away breaks this - hence the example is in error.

Except "the referee should" isn't a rule about pricing or requirements, it is a suggestion for general practice. The ref doesn't have to check cargoes for any worlds at all if the characters haven't asked about cargoes. It doesn't say they can't ask about cargoes farther away, for example, if they're on a subsidized route and are required to go to particular ports of call. If anything, they would be required to check for cargoes or passengers going anywhere on their subsidized route.

 

[pendragonman]

The fact that revisions were made in '81 in an attempt to clarify the rules, but the language used ended up being no more clear than the original language.

If booking across three jumps were not permitted, the the revision could have read, "but the J1 can't book across three jumps to the same destination." Instead he added that the J1 required "three tickets." That leaves the part of the rule about multi-jump still unclear.

Unfortunately, the definition word "ticket" isn't used anywhere else in the rules. It could have been rewritten, "Taking three J1 jumps would be three times the cost." Without that specificity, it leaves open the idea that charge is per parsec, and the J1 needing three separate purchases instead of one big purchase is a trivial difference that doesn't effect the price.

Do those revisions, anywhere, say "Interpret my written words as necessary to satisfy your desires"?

Do those revisions DIRECTLY, word for word, contradict the 1977 version? If so, the revision is correct. If things are still unclear, the author has had ~36 years (since 1981) to update the rule if he thought it unclear and didn't. Thus the author thinks the written word is sufficient.

If those black and white words are not sufficient for you then you are inserting your opinion via your personal interpretation.

Clearly you are unwilling to consider anyone else's opinion as worth considering as a truth since it differs with your own, you are arguing for arguing's sake and not to improve your understanding or to improve the group's understanding of the rule.

Therefore, I return to run it the way you want in YTU, since you aren't willing to accept the word of the author as written.

 

[Supplement Four]

Anybody else think that Straybow is really just Marc screwing around with us? :rofl: