CT: The Errata Compendium

[RKFM]

WORLDS AND ADVENTURES (Traveller Book 2, 1977 edition)
World Generation: The Hydrographics formula should be 2D–7+atmosphere, not 2D–7+size.

WORLDS AND ADVENTURES (Traveller Book 3, 1981 edition)
World Generation Checklist, p. 12: While the World Creation section (p. 7) shows the Hydrographics formula as 2D–7+atmosphere, the checklist incorrectly shows the Hydrographics formula as 2D–7+size.


THE TRAVELLER BOOK (1982)

World Generation Checklist, p. 85: While the World Creation section shows the Hydrographics formula as 2D–7+atmosphere, the checklist incorrectly shows the Hydrographics formula as 2D–7+size.

STARTER TRAVELLER (1983)

World Generation Checklist, p. 15: While the World Creation section shows the Hydrographics formula as 2D–7+atmosphere, the checklist incorrectly shows the Hydrographics formula as 2D–7+size.

This is quite a surprise, and something I've never noticed in 30 years. Even Scouts, MT, TNE, and T4 have Hydro as 2D-7+Size in the checklists.

I've always gone by the checklist and at this point I might as well just keep it +size.

All those worlds....

 

[tbeard1999]

Ty: the difference between a 8" and an 12" blade in fighting technique is well overcome by the skill of the user.

The difference is between a 4" blade and an 8" blade (your lengths include the hilt).

And sufficient skill can almost always compensate for inferior weaponry. Fortunately, CT has weapon skills which allow that to be shown.

But that's not the issue here.

The issue is whether the Book 1/Snapshot modifier is correct or whether the Traveller Book/Starter Traveller modifier is correct. And I think that a dagger should be inferior to (or no better than) a blade at 1m-5m engagement range, which is consistent with the -1 modifier in Book 1/Snapshot.

 

[tbeard1999]

There's a game design reason to retain the Book 1/Snapshot ratings.

See the attachment in the files section for reference. The number is the "to hit" number on 2D (without skill or other modifiers).

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/attachment.php?attachmentid=394&d=1245164438

Thread - http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=321127#post321127

As you can see from the chart, in Book 1/Snapshot, the dagger is inferior or equal to the blade at most combinations of range and armor. The sole exception is Ablat at Close range (dagger is 1 point better). In general, the blade is a preferable weapon--exactly what we'd expect given a 4" difference in blade length, more mass and more expense.

But in The Traveller Book, the dagger is equal or better than the blade at almost all combinations of Short Range and armor. Yet the dagger is inferior to the blade at Close range half the time.

So...why would a much shorter weapon be better at longer range?

In my opinion, Book 1/Snapshot does the better job of modeling daggers and blades. The dagger is a cheap, light, holdout weapon that's better than nothing. The blade is like a Bowie Knife (or Mick Dundee knife) and is designed for serious fighting.

 

[skyth]

This is quite a surprise, and something I've never noticed in 30 years. Even Scouts, MT, TNE, and T4 have Hydro as 2D-7+Size in the checklists.

I've always gone by the checklist and at this point I might as well just keep it +size.

All those worlds....

Especially since there are modifiers for different atmosphere types on the table.

I believe it is supposed to be +size, not +atmosphere.

 

[DonM]

Especially since there are modifiers for different atmosphere types on the table. I believe it is supposed to be +size, not +atmosphere.

I've been assured by multiple Ancients that the checklist is completely wrong, and they all missed it... (IE, it's +atmosphere, just as in the main text).

Apparently, no one ever noticed the discrepancy between the text change and the checklist (which wasn't modified to match). And it's just sat there for every edition since.

That's official, confirmed errata. Sorry....

But it's not like the Traveller police are going to come to your house and take your game away if you play the other way.

"Throw out your Traveller materials and come out with your hands in the air, you Size-modifying would-be world-builder..."

 

[DonM]

Ok, a zip containing the latest pdf draft is now in the file library, link in the first post.

Please comment here...

 

[beowulf2044]

I just looked over the list. Wasn't there supposed to be a notation stating in Book #3 that the Tech Levels of Cloth and Mesh were reversed? Or did I miss that?

 

[aramis]

Note that your draft includes pulse lasers on the type T, and you said it should be beam in the ship design thread. (The numbers are there for it... just in the text below the design grid.)

 

[DonM]

Note that your draft includes pulse lasers on the type T, and you said it should be beam in the ship design thread. (The numbers are there for it... just in the text below the design grid.)

Yes, I hadn't edited that yet... darn it. Let me see if you edited the costs, and I'll go fix that.

 

[DonM]

I just looked over the list. Wasn't there supposed to be a notation stating in Book #3 that the Tech Levels of Cloth and Mesh were reversed? Or did I miss that?

No, the last draft had that, but I have been informed that errata was only for the 1977 edition, and the TLs are different for the 81/TTB/ST edition.

So, you should see a note about the change in the Book 3 '77 errata, and then a further explanation in the Mercenary-Book 4 errata:

The corrections noted on page 43 apply as written to the 1977 edition books. These corrections are noted in the entries above. Note that the TL changes to Mesh and Cloth armor were handled differently in the 1981 edition and later rules sets.

So, yes, that errata applies at one point, and then they changed it again.