Errata - that difficult subject
- Thread starter vraymond
- Start date
Thread Reurrect
New questions:
Imperial Encyclopedia,
page 52: Airlock, portable. The deflated portable airlock at 2000 liters weighs more than 6 kg. I would contend that it weighs on the order of 500kg but am willing to accept any valid weight. (2kl of lhyd weighs 140 kg)
Air tanks, Underwater: From my research on SCUBA gear, the underwater air tanks are designed to be neutrally buoyant. That is a 5 liter tank should weigh on the order of 5kg.
New questions:
Imperial Encyclopedia,
page 52: Airlock, portable. The deflated portable airlock at 2000 liters weighs more than 6 kg. I would contend that it weighs on the order of 500kg but am willing to accept any valid weight. (2kl of lhyd weighs 140 kg)
Air tanks, Underwater: From my research on SCUBA gear, the underwater air tanks are designed to be neutrally buoyant. That is a 5 liter tank should weigh on the order of 5kg.
Those aren't questions, those are suggestions 
I'll take a look...
Also, yes, for about 24 hours, the errata document was gone. Winter War moved from winterwar.prairienet.org to winterwar.org, and so my pages moved from winterwar.prairienet.org/dmckinne to dmckinne.winterwar.org.
I've updated my sig to the new site, if anyone has links to update.
I'll take a look...
Also, yes, for about 24 hours, the errata document was gone. Winter War moved from winterwar.prairienet.org to winterwar.org, and so my pages moved from winterwar.prairienet.org/dmckinne to dmckinne.winterwar.org.
I've updated my sig to the new site, if anyone has links to update.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Drop Capsules
Don,
On page 35 of the consolidated errata v2.14 you have the following entry for drop capsule launchers:
I thought that the power, volume, and weight for that were too small when I went to add launchers to the Kinunir redesign. I couldn't find any other workups for drop capsules, other than an entry in the Wiki drawn from GT and descriptions of the capsule types and launcher stats in Striker Book 2.
I took the Striker data as a baseline then designed systems from scratch using the RM design sequence and errata corrections. I've worked out four types of drop capsules and the necessary shipboard equipment. The data is in the Fleet forum in this thread. So far it hasn't generated any comments so I hope that the data I've posted is pretty plausible.
I'm not sure what the source was for your entry in the errata on page 35 but I recommend changing or deleting it. Please take a look at my posted work and let me know if you feel this is good data for the errata or better left as just a house rule. If you want it, I'll re-format it to match the errata format for you.
Don,
On page 35 of the consolidated errata v2.14 you have the following entry for drop capsule launchers:
I thought that the power, volume, and weight for that were too small when I went to add launchers to the Kinunir redesign. I couldn't find any other workups for drop capsules, other than an entry in the Wiki drawn from GT and descriptions of the capsule types and launcher stats in Striker Book 2.
I took the Striker data as a baseline then designed systems from scratch using the RM design sequence and errata corrections. I've worked out four types of drop capsules and the necessary shipboard equipment. The data is in the Fleet forum in this thread. So far it hasn't generated any comments so I hope that the data I've posted is pretty plausible.
I'm not sure what the source was for your entry in the errata on page 35 but I recommend changing or deleting it. Please take a look at my posted work and let me know if you feel this is good data for the errata or better left as just a house rule. If you want it, I'll re-format it to match the errata format for you.
I believe those numbers come from some of the DGP materials I have access to... However, having reviewed your work, I think your work is based on more solid research. Could you format it for the errata and post it here?
I want to get back into the errata more seriously, but I'm in the middle of two other Traveller things at the moment...
I want to get back into the errata more seriously, but I'm in the middle of two other Traveller things at the moment...
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Will do. I'm in the middle of packing for the move to Texas. It will be a week or two before I get the post done. If I can I'll try to make a disposable version using the rocket engines from COACC, so there is more choice for the buyers.
I would like some thoughts on errata for the DGP books...
Keep it in the existing errata document, or in its' own errata document?
I'm going to start collecting errata for the DGP MT releases (other than the TD/MTJ issues), and want suggestions for its presentation.
Keep it in the existing errata document, or in its' own errata document?
I'm going to start collecting errata for the DGP MT releases (other than the TD/MTJ issues), and want suggestions for its presentation.
Scuba Tanks
Scuba Tanks, from my Scuba training, do not strike me as being neutrally bouyant. I am quite certain if I dropped a full one in, it would sink like a stone. Is an empty tank neutrally bouyant? You try never to find out because a tank totally devoid of dry air will allow water inside and that's bad for the tank.
http://www.huronscuba.com/equipment/scubaCylinderSpecification.html
Take a look: There are tanks on here that are negatively bouyant up to 62 lbs! And I tell you, the bouyancy does not dictate surface weight. I see an 87 pound *empty* weight for the biggest set.
So you need to figure out how much air you figure the ones in the book are for, guestimate the material of construction, and then come up with a reasonable number. I'm not sure if the book number is reasonable or not.
Long live MT!
Scuba Tanks, from my Scuba training, do not strike me as being neutrally bouyant. I am quite certain if I dropped a full one in, it would sink like a stone. Is an empty tank neutrally bouyant? You try never to find out because a tank totally devoid of dry air will allow water inside and that's bad for the tank.
http://www.huronscuba.com/equipment/scubaCylinderSpecification.html
Take a look: There are tanks on here that are negatively bouyant up to 62 lbs! And I tell you, the bouyancy does not dictate surface weight. I see an 87 pound *empty* weight for the biggest set.
So you need to figure out how much air you figure the ones in the book are for, guestimate the material of construction, and then come up with a reasonable number. I'm not sure if the book number is reasonable or not.
Long live MT!
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Don, sorry for the delay - my time estimate was a little too ambitious. I'm just about settled in Austin now and will have more time for posting in the near future. I'll have something for you on the drop capsules soon.
hammerquill
SOC-8
New to MT using only the CD. Going through the grand and ambitious and extremely valuable errata 2.14. So far I'm only looking at the character generation section:
Have some missed errata and some errata of errata.
Errata p.3:
- Players' Manual p. 13
- World Profile Code Equivalents Table:
- line 10 of Law Code column in errata is highlighted as if changed, but it's the same (Ext Law) as in the book (and matches the Referee's Manual p.22).
Errata p.4:
- PM pp. 20, 22, 24:
- Mustering Out Benefits:
- you say "References to a DM of +1 if retired below the Cash Table are incorrect and should be disregarded." If you eliminate this DM for retirees on the Cash Table, then Bureaucrats, Scientists, and Hunters should have their Cash Table line 7 eliminated, because none of these careers can learn Gambling (or Prospecting). Personally, I like the retirement DM better...
Errata p.6:
- PM p.49 left column, Skills (correction):
- a minor matter, but you might want to call this an addition rather than a correction, because it seems not to be correcting anything already there.
- PM p.54:
- Assignment Resolution Tables:
- DMs for Assignment Resolution on the Line/Crew and Gunnery tables, it says "For survival, DM +1 if any MOS skill 2+." Here in the Navy, that should read "...if any Branch skill 2+."
- But in general, what it looks like is those DM notes were copied from the tables for Mercenary on MT PM p.50 (Inf/Cav/Arty=Line/Crew, Support=Flight/Eng/Med, & Commando=Gunnery), and though you can make a case for any of them, none makes a lot of sense in the Navy context. I would take a look at replacing the DMs for each branch with those from High Guard, which make more sense, and are more interesting.
- Parentheses around the Promotion throw are mentioned on p.53 (left column, under Promotion). But the only case they appear is in the table you've inserted for Tech branch Training. Presumably the other branches' Training, and some branches' Shore Duty columns should also have parentheses around the Promotion throw, just like in High Guard.
- Technical branch assignment table:
- Note that there are no DMs listed for this table you've inserted. If that is correct, it should still be noted, since every other branch has a DM or two listed. Probably, though, it should have the High Guard "For promotion, DM +1 if any branch skill 3+."
I'd like to review (and maybe comment on) all the work you've done on Enhanced Merchant Character Generation, but the CD is missing the second page of tables for this.
Oh, and I think sfchbryan's new edition is a grand idea. I hope MWM is open to including it on future CDs... I had thoughts of starting making such a thing myself (mostly just for me), once I get access to all the pages from the actual book.
Have some missed errata and some errata of errata.
Errata p.3:
- Players' Manual p. 13
- World Profile Code Equivalents Table:
- line 10 of Law Code column in errata is highlighted as if changed, but it's the same (Ext Law) as in the book (and matches the Referee's Manual p.22).
Errata p.4:
- PM pp. 20, 22, 24:
- Mustering Out Benefits:
- you say "References to a DM of +1 if retired below the Cash Table are incorrect and should be disregarded." If you eliminate this DM for retirees on the Cash Table, then Bureaucrats, Scientists, and Hunters should have their Cash Table line 7 eliminated, because none of these careers can learn Gambling (or Prospecting). Personally, I like the retirement DM better...
Errata p.6:
- PM p.49 left column, Skills (correction):
- a minor matter, but you might want to call this an addition rather than a correction, because it seems not to be correcting anything already there.
- PM p.54:
- Assignment Resolution Tables:
- DMs for Assignment Resolution on the Line/Crew and Gunnery tables, it says "For survival, DM +1 if any MOS skill 2+." Here in the Navy, that should read "...if any Branch skill 2+."
- But in general, what it looks like is those DM notes were copied from the tables for Mercenary on MT PM p.50 (Inf/Cav/Arty=Line/Crew, Support=Flight/Eng/Med, & Commando=Gunnery), and though you can make a case for any of them, none makes a lot of sense in the Navy context. I would take a look at replacing the DMs for each branch with those from High Guard, which make more sense, and are more interesting.
- Parentheses around the Promotion throw are mentioned on p.53 (left column, under Promotion). But the only case they appear is in the table you've inserted for Tech branch Training. Presumably the other branches' Training, and some branches' Shore Duty columns should also have parentheses around the Promotion throw, just like in High Guard.
- Technical branch assignment table:
- Note that there are no DMs listed for this table you've inserted. If that is correct, it should still be noted, since every other branch has a DM or two listed. Probably, though, it should have the High Guard "For promotion, DM +1 if any branch skill 3+."
I'd like to review (and maybe comment on) all the work you've done on Enhanced Merchant Character Generation, but the CD is missing the second page of tables for this.
Oh, and I think sfchbryan's new edition is a grand idea. I hope MWM is open to including it on future CDs... I had thoughts of starting making such a thing myself (mostly just for me), once I get access to all the pages from the actual book.
Last edited:
hammerquill
SOC-8
Two small matters on COACC enhanced flyer character generation:
COACC p.92 left column under Draft: second sentence reads "A throw of 5+ (1D) results in the individual being drafted into his homeworld COACC." Should obviously be "A throw of 5 (1D)..."
The erratum for the Assignments table on p.94 (errata p.59) is a much-needed clarification, but with this version of the correction it results in another confusion. On p. 93 (left column, under Survival), Purple Hearts are awarded on exact rolls of the survival throw "If the character's assignment was combat or base defense..."
Two solutions suggest themselves. Either:
1) alter the Assignments table as you have done in the errata, and change the PH wording on page 93 to read "If the character's assignment was Strike, Missiles, Air Defense, or Hospital, he or she was wounded in action and receives a Purple Heart."
or
2) change "Combat" to "Strike" both in the Assignments Table and in the PH sentence on p.93. Change nothing else in the Assignments table, but add an explanation to the column headings on the Assignment resolution tables on p.94. Headings could then read:
Technical: Training || Base operations (Support) || Base Defense (Missiles)
Security: Training || Base Operations (Air Police/Security) || Base Defense (Air Defense)
Medical: Training || Base Operations || Base Defense (Hospital)
I suppose (1) is simpler and cleaner, but I actually prefer (2). I suppose a third option would be to have a note at the bottom of the Assignments table which translated "Base Operations" and "Base Defense" into all the relevant branch-specific assignment names.
COACC p.92 left column under Draft: second sentence reads "A throw of 5+ (1D) results in the individual being drafted into his homeworld COACC." Should obviously be "A throw of 5 (1D)..."
The erratum for the Assignments table on p.94 (errata p.59) is a much-needed clarification, but with this version of the correction it results in another confusion. On p. 93 (left column, under Survival), Purple Hearts are awarded on exact rolls of the survival throw "If the character's assignment was combat or base defense..."
Two solutions suggest themselves. Either:
1) alter the Assignments table as you have done in the errata, and change the PH wording on page 93 to read "If the character's assignment was Strike, Missiles, Air Defense, or Hospital, he or she was wounded in action and receives a Purple Heart."
or
2) change "Combat" to "Strike" both in the Assignments Table and in the PH sentence on p.93. Change nothing else in the Assignments table, but add an explanation to the column headings on the Assignment resolution tables on p.94. Headings could then read:
Technical: Training || Base operations (Support) || Base Defense (Missiles)
Security: Training || Base Operations (Air Police/Security) || Base Defense (Air Defense)
Medical: Training || Base Operations || Base Defense (Hospital)
I suppose (1) is simpler and cleaner, but I actually prefer (2). I suppose a third option would be to have a note at the bottom of the Assignments table which translated "Base Operations" and "Base Defense" into all the relevant branch-specific assignment names.
Apparently I missed this previously... got it now.
Unfortunately, that is the exact benefit table for Merchants which appears in the 1977 and 1981 LBBs. So, it is not errata...
Is this before or after the existing errata?
That errata is completely valid for the first printing of the book. The CD has the last printing, which includes some portions of the errata (but not all)... So I'll have to filter your posting and see what is applicable.
Ok, this was added in v2.12, as a proposal in e-mail by Jeremy Gibson. He found some serious inconsistencies between the existing errata, and the text, and one of his suggestions was eliminating the reference. Here's his comments:
So, what is the pleasure of the board? Remove the reference, restore it, or modify it?
Pretty extensive discussion of this earlier in the thread, and in other threads in the MT forum. Basically, without putting Combat Rifleman instead of Rifleman in the Gun Combat cascade for Mercenary characters, it's very difficult for a Mercenary character to learn to use Gauss Rifles or ACRs, as the Rifleman skill does NOT give access to those weapons.
If you have a PM printing that has this change in it, I'd be very interested in seeing it, as I'm unaware of such a beast.
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
