• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

CT Errata Compendium

Evening Donald,

No, 0.7 is the latest. I was referring to snrdg082102's "round" comment.



A complete revision of the Spinward Marches data is available in the T5 forum, but it's still under review. You are correct that the TL of that world cannot legally be less than TL 3.

Sorry about the odd comment, Carlobrand has been helping me with CT Striker Book 3. I was not awake when I made the comment which shows that once again I was not only on a different page but in a totally different book.
 
Evening Donald,



Sorry about the odd comment, Carlobrand has been helping me with CT Striker Book 3. I was not awake when I made the comment which shows that once again I was not only on a different page but in a totally different book.

:rofl:
Yes, lack of sleep usually explains a lot!
 
Imperium board game (2nd Edition 1990) clarifications

I noticed that your excellent CT Errata Compendium also includes Traveller board games, so hopefully I am posting this in the right area. There are 3 areas of the Imperium board game rules that I believe are in need of clarification/errata and can hopefully be included in a future version of the Compendium.

1. Maintenance (pg.12, 2nd Edition) - Do the players need to perform maintenance for their forces on the 1st game turn of the First War? Do they need to perform maintenance on the 1st turn of subsequent wars? The 1st edition of the game rules (1977) is silent on this, however in an article from Dragon magazine #20 (1978) it is stated in an editors note that Marc ruled that maintenance is not performed on the 1st game turn of the First War. Unfortunately the article does not clarify if this is the case on the 1st turn of subsequent wars. Later, Dark Nebula (1980), which uses the Imperium rules almost intact, also states no maintenance on the 1st turn. However the 2nd edition of Imperium (1990) is once again silent on the matter. So not sure if that was an omission in the 2nd edition rules, or if Marc reconsidered the no maintenance thing.

2. Imperial Replacements (pg.13, 2nd Edition) - When replacements for Imperial starships lost during a player turn are first put on the turn track as reinforcements, can the first one be placed on the current turn, or does the first replacement need to be placed on the turn track for the following turn? This situation only comes up if the Terran player goes first in the game turn and destroys one or more Imperial starships during his player turn.

3. Starting the First War, Imperial initial placement (pg.16, 2nd Edition) - Is the Imperial player required during his initial set up to place his outposts in such a way that there is an unbroken chain of them leading back to Gashidda, the provincial capital, or can there be empty systems (other than Sirius, see below) in between the placed outposts?

As an aside, in the same article from the Dragon magazine I referenced above, there is a ruling from Marc that you might want to also include in the errata that specifically prohibits the placement of an Imperial outpost on Procyon during the Imperial player's initial set up for the First War as the connection would be broken due to his inability to start with a tanker at Sirius, and that this situation was not made clear in the rules. Unfortunately, this same error/omission regarding Sirius and Procyon exists in the 2nd edition rules as well.
 
Revisiting the X-boat

Supplement 7 gives us an X-boat with no power plant - relic of an earlier set of book 2 rules (I think. Interesting that MegaTrav went back to that), and it doesn't add up well anyway. CT Errata 7 seeks to correct this by reintroducing the power plant and chopping fuel to 10 days, below the usual 4-week Book-2 norm but necessary under the circumstances and certainly consistent with the ship's mission, and it still came up 5 dTons over.

(I presume the 1 dT cargo bay is being preserved. Otherwise, I'm getting 104 dT.)

My first question is this: given that we're bending a bit to make the X-boat fit Book-2 rules, can we also substitute the 2 dTon small boat cabin for the 4 dTon stateroom? Later rules (Supplement 7, etc.) make clear that the 4 dTon allocation provides for, "...communal facilities such as galley, mess, and recreation lounges," in addition to the room. The 1-crew X-boat has no need for such, so the basic 2 dT (~10'x10') cabin should be adequate.

(It can arguably carry a passenger if they take turns using the cabin, as they do in Book-5, though the availability of jump-4 Tukera liners in Traveller Adventure suggests that more comfortable alternate transport is likely available.)

My second question is this: having done that, can we eliminate another 3 dT of fuel? Thoughts:

1. 11 dTons of fuel allow for the week in jump plus 16.8 hours at full power. MegaTrav introduces a variable jump time of 6 to 8 days, but I don't recall Book 2 having any hint of that (unless there was a misjump, in which case 10 days isn't going to do any more good than 7 2/3 days). At any event, 16.8 hours still ought to allow for several hours leeway (see 2 and 3 below).

2. If power plants are permitted to be throttled back to PPl-1 (not introduced until Trillion Credit Squadron, a High-Guard-based "adventure", but possibly applicable retroactively), then the boat can remain under power for 4 times longer than it would otherwise have, as long as 67 hours after exit from jump.

3. From close planetary orbit, a 1g Tender can reach an X-boat arriving at that world in a maximum 7 hours. It can cover 116 million miles in 60 hours.

On another topic:
Why is the tender using H drives and plant? I thought the E drives/plant were adequate for a 1000 dT ship. I see that occurring in a number of ships, and it puzzles me.
 
I suspect the 2Td cabins as well.

Doing the math using Bk2-81 (CT 2E)

100 hull
_20 Bridge
__4 Model 4
_15 JD B
__7 PP B
_40 JFuel
__1 Cargo
__8 2x SR
_40 PP Fuel
===
135 - over by 35

100 hull
_20 Bridge
__4 Model 4
_15 JD B
__7 PP B
_40 JFuel
__4 1x SR
_15 PP Fuel
===
105 - over by 5

Using Bk5 drives
100 hull
_20 Bridge
__4 Model 4
__5 JD 5
_10 PP 5 TL 12
_40 JFuel
__8 2x SR
__5 PP Fuel
__8 cargo
===
100 - On... JD is the same cost, PP costs more.
 
Curious...

Not sure this is the thread to be hashing this out but...

Supplement 7 gives us an X-boat with no power plant - relic of an earlier set of book 2 rules (I think. Interesting that MegaTrav went back to that)...

? MegaTrav doesn't need PP equal to JD? I don't recall that. Correct though on the early rules, yes first printing of the game the JD didn't need a PP or PP fuel. It was stand alone. You only needed a PP and PP fuel for a MD.

Anyway, on to the meat of the question...


I thought we'd worked out a very different fix for the X-Boat? Perhaps not mine, Aramis had some points as well iirc. My take on it was:

Express Boat (Supplement 7):

Ah, the X-Boat, “It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key.” But what is the key? Patience…

There are a couple (or more?) ships like it, caught between first and second printing of Book 2, not that I‘m telling you anything new but I feel verbose. Two clues point to it’s bastardization.

First there is the “Power Plant: None…” notation. That is clearly first printing where the Jump Drive had/was it’s own built in power plant.

Second is the “Electronics: ISMM Model/1bis…” note, again a first printing clue where jump wasn’t dependent on computer model, just fitting the programs needed into the slots. However in the text description the computer is a Model/4. So it seems there was a transition but changes were missed in editing.

So, how to “fix” it? I decided to work it up from scratch again and see if anything new came to me before looking up my old fix. And I think I stumbled on that key...

...I have a strong memory of some mention of X-Boats coming out of jump with precious little life support left, but still can’t find the reference. It might be something we came up with on our own as no one else has mentioned recalling it when I’ve asked around the boards and contacts. There is that note in the writeup though, “Range: One jump-4. Three days.” Three days? But a jump takes seven days! Problem. Ah, but wait! There are the Book 2 rules on page 6 for battery backup for life support and basic lighting! That gives 1D6 days. See what you think of this take:
Code:
+100tons Hull-Custom                            MCr10.000   *1
           Streamlined                              1.000   *2
 -15tons Jump Drive B4                             20.000
  -7tons Power Plant B4                            16.000   *3
 -40tons Fuel x4parsecs
  -5tons Fuel x3days                                        *4
 -20tons Bridge                                     0.500
  -4tons Computer Model/4                          30.000   *5
  -8tons Staterooms x2                              1.000
  -1ton  Cargo

=100tons Total                                  MCr78.500

Cost with 10% discount is MCr70.65                          *6
*1 Has to be custom to fit the drives, and make the cost match

*2 Another cost match measure, and it looks streamlined

*3 Power Plant 4 required of course

*4 Actually 3.5days, to match the note and fit the hull, of course on jumps of less than 4 parsecs there will be lots of fuel for longer endurance, but take it as 3.5days. Then add the battery backup of 1D6 days and figure the average of 3.5days. Total of 7days! Eureka! Makes X-Boat service risky (if you roll it) with some pilots relying on Vacc-Suits to make it or dying (that low survival roll has another reason). Of course the mail still gets through even if the pilot doesn’t. I like it.

*5 Includes the noted “extensive databanks” in my opinion

*6 Matches the cost in the writeup

I think it does a fair job of matching the description (all the features, correct price) while fixing the no power plant change.

I feel I should also mention the variants noted:

Variant 1 - With maneuver drive added:

I see no way to recreate the first one because J3 and M1 isn’t doable for a 100ton hull with Book 2. Unless you use larger drives but lower ratings. For example install a maneuver A for 1G instead of 2G due to running the power A at 1 instead of 2 to save fuel, and the jump being reduced to 3P because of lack of fuel. It really doesn’t add up in second printing, might work in first because of the power plant. In any case my take on variant 1:

Replace the cargo hold (picturing it being located at the tail of the ship) with a maneuver A for 2G, utilizing the power plant. Deemed impractical since it would be rarely needed and on any J4 leg there wouldn’t be any fuel left to fire it up anyway.

Variant 2 - With light sail replacing one stateroom:

Should work as written. And I like that it gives us (interpreted) stats for light sails that should be noted and included somewhere. That being 4tons per 100tons of ship. But we need a cost and performance. Cost equal to a stateroom (MCr0.5) might be reasonable and certainly convenient. Performance would just be a wag, maybe make it 1G for simplicity. I like this variant as it actually has a shot at being useful without impacting the utility of the boat. It could allow a GG fuel skim, using the light sail to set up a slingshot then pulling it in before the dive. Voila you come out with enough fuel for the power plant and jump drive to rescue yourself, or maybe live long enough to be found.

Update: I still think this works well, certainly better than the 105 ton single stateroom fix :confused:

On another topic:
Why is the tender using H drives and plant? I thought the E drives/plant were adequate for a 1000 dT ship. I see that occurring in a number of ships, and it puzzles me.

Quick answer(s), a bit of a guess, because that was what was originally stated in the design... or because there was room and nothing else to do with it :) ...or possibly because additional performance in some circumstances warranted the upgrade.
 
Update: I still think this works well, certainly better than the 105 ton single stateroom fix :confused:

I mean, seriously?! You've just broken it again making it 105tons without upgrading the drives to Ds because Book 2 clearly states "Use next larger size hull for intermediate tonnages." on the drive table. So you have to treat 105tons as 200tons for drives. In which case it might as well just be changed to a 200ton X-Boat with a Maneuver Drive, and more crew, and passengers, and cargo, and weapons, and...

...of course then we have to make the X-Boat Tender bigger too, to accommodate the larger X-Boats it has to service...

...sorry, feeling a little nutso-ranty there :(

I just don't understand the "fix" or where it came from :(
 
Umm...
__5 JD 4?
_12 PP 4 TL 12?

5Td for a Bk5 J4 drive for a 100Td hull
The PP doesn't shrink aain to TL15, but there's plenty of space...

Oh... DOH... that should be an 8Td PP4... I used a TL 9-11... DOH
 
Last edited:
Didn't we already go all the way down this road?

Apparently I left that discussion at some point for reasons I can't recall.

Maybe I figured it was done with Bill's excellent mod to my base presumption by cutting the extra stateroom for the added fuel. Though that does mess with the cost and the solar sail variant so I can't see being behind it 100%, maybe 90%...

Maybe I just had a really bad allergy attack and never got back to it since I honestly can't remember seeing any of it past page 1...

Maybe I threw up my hands and erased it from my memory when the discussion started circling into canon v this v that v handwaving...


I vaguely recall more discussions, and with Wil involved, and a different conclusion. Maybe they were PMs? Or emails? Or fevered brain delusions...

...in any case, having finally come back to it now I honestly still don't see a better fix than my original proposal. Not hubris but am I missing something obvious that rules it out as perfect? Certainly the other suggestions, as interesting as they are, aren't cutting it for me, for the goal as I understand it.

It fits the canon description exactly, yes? It uses Book 2 second printing rules without dancing around points, yes? (...or perhaps more honestly I think it dances quite cleverly around them). Isn't that all we're aiming for?

Please, if my brain is so addled that I'm blind to a huge flaw in the design, my understanding of the goal, or some basic rule or logic I've fumbled... slap a 10m neon sign in all known languages on it for me. It's about driving me crazy trying to figure this one out :(
 
Certainly the other suggestions, as interesting as they are, aren't cutting it for me, for the goal as I understand it.

Well, what precisely is the goal as you understand it?

I favor my fix from message #42 in that thread: the errata are the hull displacement (100 becomes 185) and the drive letters (B becomes D), and everything else remains as read and intended. Rationale: fix two problematic pseudo-typos, leave all the rules alone.

Simple and clean...
 
Well, what precisely is the goal as you understand it?

I favor my fix from message #42 in that thread: the errata are the hull displacement (100 becomes 185) and the drive letters (B becomes D), and everything else remains as read and intended. Rationale: fix two problematic pseudo-typos, leave all the rules alone.

Simple and clean...

Except that it's neither simple nor clean... as it means needing to alter the XBoat tender, as well.
 
I noticed that your excellent CT Errata Compendium also includes Traveller board games, so hopefully I am posting this in the right area. There are 3 areas of the Imperium board game rules that I believe are in need of clarification/errata and can hopefully be included in a future version of the Compendium.

1. Maintenance (pg.12, 2nd Edition) - Do the players need to perform maintenance for their forces on the 1st game turn of the First War? Do they need to perform maintenance on the 1st turn of subsequent wars? The 1st edition of the game rules (1977) is silent on this, however in an article from Dragon magazine #20 (1978) it is stated in an editors note that Marc ruled that maintenance is not performed on the 1st game turn of the First War. Unfortunately the article does not clarify if this is the case on the 1st turn of subsequent wars. Later, Dark Nebula (1980), which uses the Imperium rules almost intact, also states no maintenance on the 1st turn. However the 2nd edition of Imperium (1990) is once again silent on the matter. So not sure if that was an omission in the 2nd edition rules, or if Marc reconsidered the no maintenance thing.

2. Imperial Replacements (pg.13, 2nd Edition) - When replacements for Imperial starships lost during a player turn are first put on the turn track as reinforcements, can the first one be placed on the current turn, or does the first replacement need to be placed on the turn track for the following turn? This situation only comes up if the Terran player goes first in the game turn and destroys one or more Imperial starships during his player turn.

3. Starting the First War, Imperial initial placement (pg.16, 2nd Edition) - Is the Imperial player required during his initial set up to place his outposts in such a way that there is an unbroken chain of them leading back to Gashidda, the provincial capital, or can there be empty systems (other than Sirius, see below) in between the placed outposts?

As an aside, in the same article from the Dragon magazine I referenced above, there is a ruling from Marc that you might want to also include in the errata that specifically prohibits the placement of an Imperial outpost on Procyon during the Imperial player's initial set up for the First War as the connection would be broken due to his inability to start with a tanker at Sirius, and that this situation was not made clear in the rules. Unfortunately, this same error/omission regarding Sirius and Procyon exists in the 2nd edition rules as well.

This is under review. I'd not pushed on the Imperium errata because the 3rd edition was supposed to be definitive...
 
Well, what precisely is the goal as you understand it?

From the opening post in the thread for the X-Boat, which you linked, per Don's instructions iirc, and I think copied in each other "fix" thread I started, as well as repeated just above though perhaps less clearly...

The idea is (as I understand it) to seek the lowest possible change with the greatest possible match to the description while ensuring it works with the 1981 set of Book 2 design rules.

EDIT: No totally redesigned "better, faster, stronger..." versions of "the way it should have been done" ;)
 
Not really, the XT just carries fewer of them. On those exceedingly rare occasions when it needs to carry any of them at all.

Guys -- the Xboat issue is closed with the existing errata. If you want a fixed Xboat, use the MT design. :rofl:

:devil:
 
Guys -- the Xboat issue is closed with the existing errata.

You mean the one that's just as broken as the one it's supposed to fix?

This started a page back, you may have missed where I questioned the fact that B drives won't give a performance of 4 in a 105ton hull under Book 2 rules. I blame myself for flaking out on the assignment 2 years ago when for whatever reason I apparently failed to return to that thread :(
 
Back
Top