CT Errata Compendium

[DonM]

Alien Module 4

Page 45
Maximum Activity Level need clarification.
Replace the text with the text from Book 3 page 39.

That does look like errata. Noted!

Also a Question

Should non Zho Psionics have the chance to use Far Orbit range? As far as I can see it's only in AM4.

Also the psionic talents are easer to roll for in AM4. It's likely that they were adjusted because they are a psionic sociaty, but it might be worth a thought or maybe a clarification.

The talent rolls are easier in AM4 to reflect Zhodani society specifically. The range question is a different story... that could be a genuine addition. Discussion?

 

[far-trader]

Don't see it in the latest consolidation I could find, nor on a quick search, so maybe this is a new errata note:

HG (2nd printing) pg 35-36 there is a discrepancy in the cost of small craft staterooms. The text on pg 35 says "Cr 100,000" while the table on pg 36 says "Cr 50,000".

Apologies if this is already on your list and I missed finding it.

 

[far-trader]

Again unless I've missed it here's another:

Book 1 pg 19 - Gunnery skill - the text says:

"Gunnery: The basic skill is covered on page 13."

But it's not, in any of the Books 1-3, probably/maybe a left over reference from the first prining. This should probably be simply dropped as it is covered by the other text referencing Book 2.

 

[far-trader]

If you're still working on this, another clarification or errata fix has popped up. Again

I don't see it addressed and apparently it has been around for a while without an official note, and has even infected T20...

High Guard - pg24

Major Weapons:

The TL8 and TL9 Particle Accelerators can't be built in a ship at that TL due to the minimum computer limitation of hull size. They simply can't be fit into a hull that can be built with the computer model available at the TL.

Granted one can wiggle an imported computer of high enough TL but that seems weak. The simplest solution might be to drop the TL8 and TL9 PA Spinals. That would leave a hole in the USPs though. Perhaps simply make them TL10? I dunno.

 

[BlackBat242]

I had run into that starting with book 2 designs, and I simply noted the following... there is no rule that I have found that restricts a ship design to only one computer!

I have often had a dedicated "fire-control computer" that ran all the weapons (and only the weapons), and sometimes had larger ships with 3 or more computers... one for the drive/navigation functions, one for the weapons, one for all the other functions.

If there is such a rule, don't tell me where... just say there is, and I'll go back and look for it (If I missed it in the last 27 years, then obviously I really need to go back and re-read all the books).

 

[DonM]

If you're still working on this, another clarification or errata fix has popped up. Again

I am still working on it...

I don't see it addressed and apparently it has been around for a while without an official note, and has even infected T20...

High Guard - pg24

Major Weapons:

The TL8 and TL9 Particle Accelerators can't be built in a ship at that TL due to the minimum computer limitation of hull size. They simply can't be fit into a hull that can be built with the computer model available at the TL.

Granted one can wiggle an imported computer of high enough TL but that seems weak. The simplest solution might be to drop the TL8 and TL9 PA Spinals. That would leave a hole in the USPs though. Perhaps simply make them TL10? I dunno.

I have been told that this isn't errata: the "discrepancy" you have discovered is by design. Multiple times. Even for that other project that I dream of some day getting back to.

 

[far-trader]

"by design"

There's a phrase that's gonna haunt my curiosity chip

I can't imagine. Well, I am actually, but nothing is making much sense.

I'm hoping you can share at some point.

...other project? Oh... yeah I think I know what you're hinting at. It has been quiet, what with all the other projects you're juggling

 

[far-trader]

Hi again Don, maybe not an errata bit* but could use clarification I think. While looking a little closer at the low tech PAWS spinals, more specifically the minimum computer for hull rule, I was struck by a difference between HG and T20. At least the way I'd always interpreted HG. Andrew M-V (per his High Guard Shipyard) interprets it the same way I do for what that's worth as validation of the way I understood the RAW. For comparison:

      T20          Computer - TL        HG      

     1-600tons        m/1 - 5        600-999tons
   601-1000tons       m/2 - 7       1000-3999tons
  1001-4000tons       m/3 - 9       4000-9999tons
  4001-10,000tons     m/4 - A     10,000-49,999tons
10,001-50,000tons     m/5 - B     50,000-99,999tons
50,001-100,000tons    m/6 - C    100,000-999,999tons

   100,001tons+       m/7 - D      1,000,000tons +

Under this interpretation a TL9 Spinal PAWS ship is doable in HG, but not T20. The TL8 one is still a head scratcher though

* well, maybe for High Guard Shipyard

EDIT: I should really poke around in TCS for more clues but I need more time for that...

 

[E.D.Quibell]

[/code]Under this interpretation a TL9 Spinal PAWS ship is doable in HG, but not T20. The TL8 one is still a head scratcher though

* well, maybe for High Guard Shipyard

EDIT: I should really poke around in TCS for more clues but I need more time for that...

Just put in multiple computers.

Regards,

Ewan

 

[DonM]

Hi again Don, maybe not an errata bit* but could use clarification I think. While looking a little closer at the low tech PAWS spinals, more specifically the minimum computer for hull rule, I was struck by a difference between HG and T20. At least the way I'd always interpreted HG. Andrew M-V (per his High Guard Shipyard) interprets it the same way I do for what that's worth as validation of the way I understood the RAW.

Actually, this clarification should already be in the errata... yes, look under "High Guard", Page 26, Computer Models (clarification). I'm not all that knowledgeable about T20; you might want to look elsewhere for T20 errata.

 

[DonM]

Just put in multiple computers.

Regards,

Ewan

Other than for backups, what benefit does having multiple computers on a starship give you in HG (and please reference it)?

Unfortunately, I'm away from all of my HG copies (including the PDF from the CD) at the moment. I'll have it tomorrow, but not tonight. ARRGH!

 

[DonM]

I had run into that starting with book 2 designs, and I simply noted the following... there is no rule that I have found that restricts a ship design to only one computer!

I have often had a dedicated "fire-control computer" that ran all the weapons (and only the weapons), and sometimes had larger ships with 3 or more computers... one for the drive/navigation functions, one for the weapons, one for all the other functions.

If there is such a rule, don't tell me where... just say there is, and I'll go back and look for it (If I missed it in the last 27 years, then obviously I really need to go back and re-read all the books).

TCS's rule for "spare systems" (TCS p. 15) indicates that yes, you can have multiple computers, but ONE is the "main unit" (ALWAYS the higher-output device) and the others are backups, and the backups cannot be in operation while the main unit is. So that prevents usage such as you suggest (and is the answer for the other suggestion for using multiple computers as well).

I don't have HG with me, but I do have TCS. Weird world...

 

[far-trader]

Thanks Don

Actually, this clarification should already be in the errata...

DoH! No more trusting my memory. I was looking at the HG errata the night before and couldn't remember seeing it when I typed that. But there it is, all nice and neat...

...so, while TL9 will work, I still see no canon RAW solution for TL8

No hints spotted in TCS either, except for and not counting the TL import ability I had remembered. I'm feeling like if it was "by design" it was in the form of an IQ test along the lines of "Hey! This won't work!?" (no, I know that isn't the answer... )

(my only, decidedly MTU, solution is to allow m/2bis to be functionally m/3 for hull size requirement as well as jump)

The T20 errata I have doesn't show a change (for what that's worth). It was for comparison (supposed largely the same design rules) but more for the other discussion, which is where I should type it

 

[BlackBat242]

TCS's rule for "spare systems" (TCS p. 15) indicates that yes, you can have multiple computers, but ONE is the "main unit" (ALWAYS the higher-output device) and the others are backups, and the backups cannot be in operation while the main unit is. So that prevents usage such as you suggest (and is the answer for the other suggestion for using multiple computers as well).

I don't have HG with me, but I do have TCS. Weird world...

Except what I am discussing is NOT a "spare system" or "back-up system"!

What TCS is describing is multiple computers that handle the same duties... I am describing separate computer systems that handle different duties.


However, I'll just leave this in the category of "computer rules that are obsolete and completely contrary to how computers work and are used in the real world, and thus are replaced by house-rules for my game".

 

[DonM]

Except what I am discussing is NOT a "spare system" or "back-up system"!

What TCS is describing is multiple computers that handle the same duties... I am describing separate computer systems that handle different duties.

However, I'll just leave this in the category of "computer rules that are obsolete and completely contrary to how computers work and are used in the real world, and thus are replaced by house-rules for my game".

I'm in the computer software industry, and try not to let what I *KNOW* conflict with what I *know*...

It helps to be insane.

 

[BlackBat242]

Me: "I'm not insane."

Myself: "Yes you are."

I: "Shut up, you two... I'm trying to concentrate on this Aslan Combat Scout design mod!"

 

[DonM]

I posted v0.03 to my website this week, but forgot to announce it!
:nonono:

 

[far-trader]

Excellent Just the excuse I need* to goof off Review the latest and greatest errata and maybe actually find something that hasn't already been covered

* that'd be just about any excuse right now, but I really really shouldn't...

EDIT: Umm, am I looking in the right place? http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/trav.html All I see is 0.02 still. Or did it not get renamed? OK, yep, it just didn't get renamed on the webpage, it is 0.03

 

[far-trader]

Hey Don, are you still looking for a check on those ship designs listed in red in the errata doc? I thought we'd gone over them. Or I'm thinking of some other ones. Or I started on them and got... ohh! Shiney! SQUIRREL!!

 

[DonM]

Hey Don, are you still looking for a check on those ship designs listed in red in the errata doc? I thought we'd gone over them. Or I'm thinking of some other ones. Or I started on them and got...

Perhaps I missed them?