CT: The Errata Compendium

[DonM]

"The original edition of Classic Traveller was released by Game Designers’ Workshop over thirty years, and enthusiastic play using the Classic editions (1977, 1981, 1982’s The Traveller Book, and 1983’s Starter Traveller) is still running strong. Far Future Enterprises wants to support this by collecting errata for these materials and making it available to the Traveller internet community."

This project has been approved by Marc, and he's already approved my first draft. The scope of it covers basically all items on the original FFE CT CD.

 

[DonM]

I'd like to encourage folks to point me at additional items, and I'm aware of the Book 2 errata discussion. This is approved by Marc for FFE, and will be available for public download once completed.

Thanks for the assistance.

 

[Mithras]

I am shocked and depressed that there are so many mistakes in my LLB 1-3 collection. I generally use errata, but with so many mistakes on the combat tables, they would have to be completely rewritten.

 

[DonM]

Or play without the errata. Certainly enough people have played with the LBBs as is for almost 30 years?

 

[saundby]

Thanks, Don!

This project has been approved by Marc, and he's already approved my first draft. The scope of it covers basically all items on the original FFE CT CD.

Should this also include data from pages that were left out of the original CT CD? Or are they going to be available separately?

I also see info for the 77 edition. I appreciate these since that's what I have in print, but it wasn't on my CT CD.

 

[beowulf2044]

Just a question as it relates to Striker personal armor. I've never understood why Cloth and Flak Jacket and the Combat Enviroment Suit were dropped one level of protection from their Azanthi High Lightning levels (the CES does not appear in AZL, but with its original description of Cloth-1, AZL would have been at armor value 7, as opposed to Striker value 6), while every other armor remained the same as AZL. Was this done with intent? Or are we at that point in time where we'll never know?

 

[DonM]

Should this also include data from pages that were left out of the original CT CD? Or are they going to be available separately?

I also see info for the 77 edition. I appreciate these since that's what I have in print, but it wasn't on my CT CD.

No... this project is errata for the actual printed items, as originally released. Missing pages go to the CT CD topic.

And as far as making those pages available separately, if what you are looking for is NOT on http://www.farfuture.net/errata.html, let me know at don.mckinney@gmail.com, and I'll get with Marc on that issue.

But not in this Thread, please?

 

[DonM]

Just a question as it relates to Striker personal armor. I've never understood why Cloth and Flak Jacket and the Combat Enviroment Suit were dropped one level of protection from their Azanthi High Lightning levels (the CES does not appear in AZL, but with its original description of Cloth-1, AZL would have been at armor value 7, as opposed to Striker value 6), while every other armor remained the same as AZL. Was this done with intent? Or are we at that point in time where we'll never know?

We may be at the point where we will never know, but I can ask Marc, and I can also ask the opinion of the fine folks on the ct-striker list, where I go for my Striker advice.

 

[beowulf2044]

Additional errata for The Traveller Book (1982): On page #46, the modifier for Dagger at Short Range is listed as +2. I believe this should be -1 as per its Book 1 1977 listing. If the modifier is raised to +2, then that makes the 200 mm Dagger more effective at Short Range than the 300 mm Blade.

On the same page, the damage for Body Pistol is listed as 3D. It should be 2D.

 

[Vargas]

Any chance that all the CT errata could be compiled into a single PDF downloadable from FFE?

 

[tbeard1999]

Just a question as it relates to Striker personal armor. I've never understood why Cloth and Flak Jacket and the Combat Enviroment Suit were dropped one level of protection from their Azanthi High Lightning levels (the CES does not appear in AZL, but with its original description of Cloth-1, AZL would have been at armor value 7, as opposed to Striker value 6), while every other armor remained the same as AZL. Was this done with intent? Or are we at that point in time where we'll never know?

Two reasons come to mind.

First, a game design decision. In AHL, Cloth is 6 points; it's 5 points in Striker. A Striker rifle has a penetration of 3 at effective range.

Here are the chances of wound in each system:

EDIT: Original chart had percentages reversed and fouled up further. Twice...

[b]	AHL	Striker[/b]
None	0.42	0.27
Light	0.50	0.55
Serious	0.8	0.17
Dead	0	0

So the change doubles the chance of a serious wound from a Rifle. And it decreases the chance of a "no effect". Reasonable, given the fact that modern armor has to be much heavier than Traveller Cloth armor to resist Rifle bullets. Of course, other weapons may have been the issue. (Text edited to conform with chart).

Second, Striker actually has an "equivalency" scale for armor (in cm of steel armor). 5 points is 1.25cm, 6 points is 1.50 cm. Maybe they just revised the ratings to comport with their new scale.

 

[DonM]

Additional errata for The Traveller Book (1982): On page #46, the modifier for Dagger at Short Range is listed as +2. I believe this should be -1 as per its Book 1 1977 listing. If the modifier is raised to +2, then that makes the 200 mm Dagger more effective at Short Range than the 300 mm Blade.

On the same page, the damage for Body Pistol is listed as 3D. It should be 2D.

Hmm... the Dagger change is consistent across three of the four editions (81/TTB/ST). I wonder what it is in Snapshot/AHL/Striker. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm looking for collaborative evidence.

And the Body Pistol item should be there (I have it for 81, and it should be there for TTB. I'll add it. Thanks!

 

[DonM]

Any chance that all the CT errata could be compiled into a single PDF downloadable from FFE?

That's sort of what this is working towards. I'd have posted the draft as a pdf if I could. But I could not, so I posted it as best allowed.

 

[DonM]

Two reasons come to mind.

First, a game design decision. In AHL, Cloth is 6 points; it's 5 points in Striker. A Striker rifle has a penetration of 3 at effective range.

Here are the chances of wound in each system:

EDIT: Original chart had percentages reversed and fouled up further. Twice...
 
[B]    AHL    Striker[/B]
None    0.42    0.27
Light    0.50    0.55
Serious    0.8    0.17
Dead    0    0

So the change doubles the chance of a serious wound from a Rifle. And it decreases the chance of a "no effect". Reasonable, given the fact that modern armor has to be much heavier than Traveller Cloth armor to resist Rifle bullets. Of course, other weapons may have been the issue. (Text edited to conform with chart).

Second, Striker actually has an "equivalency" scale for armor (in cm of steel armor). 5 points is 1.25cm, 6 points is 1.50 cm. Maybe they just revised the ratings to comport with their new scale.

Beautiful research. I think that clarifies that issue. I wish that kind of detail were available somewhere as "Striker Design Notes".

 

[far-trader]

Beautiful research. I think that clarifies that issue. I wish that kind of detail were available somewhere as "Striker Design Notes".

hint hint?

 

[beowulf2044]

On the Dagger change from -1 to +2, you will see in its first change in The Traveller Book that the entry for Club right above shows the Club with a +2 at Short range. The Dagger entry below fell victim to someone repeating the Club entry for Short range on the next line.

The initial -1 that appeared in 1977 is correct. The fact the the mistake was repeated throughout subsequent editions is just a result of the cut-and-paste method of using the flawed Weapons Matrix that carried over the initial mistake.

Again, if we were to simply use logic to make the point, as I stated before, it makes no sense that a weapon with a shorter length blade (200mm) is more effective at Short Range than a weapon with a longer length blade such as the Blade (300mm).

I also just checked and saw that the Short Range entry for Dagger is listed as -1 in the 1981 Characters and Combat Book 1.

Comparing Blade and Dagger in Snapshot, the Blade enjoys an equal or greater advantage against all Armor types with the one exception of the Dagger having a one point advantage over the Blade against Ablat at Close range. If the Dagger had a +2 vs the Blades +1 at Short Range than this would not be the case.

Also, I just compared the weapon matrix page in the Traveller Book witht the weapon matrix page in Starter Traveler. They look to be the same page, so its no surprise that the same mistake would appear.

 

[tbeard1999]

Hmm... the Dagger change is consistent across three of the four editions (81/TTB/ST). I wonder what it is in Snapshot/AHL/Striker. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm looking for collaborative evidence.

Striker and AHL are of no use; they have a completely different combat system.

Book 1 (1981) and Book 1 (1977) have a -1 for daggers at short range.

The Traveller Book and Starter Traveller have a +2 for daggers at short range.

Shapshot's weapon chart shows a dagger needing a 9+ to hit an unarmored target at short range. This is consistent with a -1 to hit at short range, rather than a +2. (So does the Judge's Guild Referee's screen, FWIW).

So 3 of 5 editions have -1 at short range.

I agree with Beowulf that -1 is correct and that the Traveller Book entry is erroneous (likely a layout/pasteup error as Beowulf speculates). Starter Traveller appears to use the same typeset galleys as The Traveller Book, so it repeats the error.

The 1981 Book 1 rating makes more sense IMHO. A 12" blade will be *more* useful at 1m-5m range than an 8" dagger.* Using a +2 modifier for short range produces the opposite result -- an 8" dagger is more useful than a 12" blade. Using -1 modifier for short range produces the logical result -- the blade is more useful.

*If you assume about 4" (100mm) for the handle, a blade has twice the reach (8"/200mm) of a dagger (4"/100mm).

 

[DonM]

Striker and AHL are of no use; they have a completely different combat system.

True enough...

Book 1 (1981) and Book 1 (1977) have a -1 for daggers at short range. The Traveller Book and Starter Traveller have a +2 for daggers at short range.

Shapshot's weapon chart shows a dagger needing a 9+ to hit an unarmored target at short range. This is consistent with a -1 to hit at short range, rather than a +2.

Right... Snapshot would have the same information...

(So does the Judge's Guild Referee's screen, FWIW).

Ok, please don't use that. Some of it is interesting, and some of it is a real mess. The combat stuff is probably ok, but the starship stuff...

So 3 of 5 editions have -1 at short range.

I agree with Beowulf that -1 is correct and that the Traveller Book entry is erroneous (likely a layout/pasteup error as Beowulf speculates). Starter Traveller appears to use the same typeset galleys as The Traveller Book, so it repeats the error.

The 1981 Book 1 rating makes more sense IMHO. A 12" blade will be *more* useful at 1m-5m range than an 8" dagger.* Using a +2 modifier for short range produces the opposite result -- an 8" dagger is more useful than a 12" blade. Using -1 modifier for short range produces the logical result -- the blade is more useful.

*If you assume about 4" (100mm) for the handle, a blade has twice the reach (8"/200mm) of a dagger (4"/100mm).

I accept your argument... I just wish we had some GDW item post-1981 which agreed with you.

 

[aramis]

Ty: the difference between a 8" and an 12" blade in fighting technique is well overcome by the skill of the user. Given the range of short (1.5-5m), the difference in reach is negligible. it's under 3% of the distance at closest for the range band.

I honestly can't see the short blade being better, but the longer of the two isn't significanty enough longer given the scale of the to-hit roll, to be a point different.

The shorter blade is handier, and harder to disarm, but again, not enough to justify the positive modifier. We're talking lunging range with a rapier... they both should suck equally.

 

[beowulf2044]

Don, sir, it's not post 1981 information that would help, the fact is that the information was presented correctly in the 1977 and 1981 Book 1 versions, and the mistake occurred when the Traveller Book was published. A mistake that was simply re-posted in Starter Traveller.

Later versions that simply re-stated the one mistake made in the Traveller Book would be of no significance.

So if the position is that the Dagger should be at +2 rather than -1 at Short Range, then the question becomes: How do you explain a weapon getting a three point boost in performance at one particular range from its previous incarnations in both 1977 and 1981?