Errata - that difficult subject

[DonM]

I've added all the TD material to the errata; you can find that there, including the danger space discussion.

In addition, you will find there is NOW a piece of errata saying:

"If a target is completely enclosed in armor, and if the penetration is less than one-tenth of the target’s “lightest” armor value, ignore exceptional success. Your hit cannot do any damage to the target, regardless of the type of attack (hand-to-hand, direct, or indirect fire). (This prevents a small animal attacking with just its teeth from knocking out an opponent in battle dress.)"

So, you always ignore zero penetration exceptional success if you are wearing armor.

There's a lot of additions to this new errata. Please review

And Hyphen - I'd been trying to avoid inferences, but your fixes are too good to ignore. Can I have permission to incorporate them into the errata with attribution?

 

[Hyphen]

Originally posted by DonM:
In addition, you will find there is NOW a piece of errata saying:

"If a target is completely enclosed in armor, and if the penetration is less than one-tenth of the target’s “lightest” armor value, ignore exceptional success. Your hit cannot do any damage to the target, regardless of the type of attack (hand-to-hand, direct, or indirect fire). (This prevents a small animal attacking with just its teeth from knocking out an opponent in battle dress.)"

So, you always ignore zero penetration exceptional success if you are wearing armor.

Thanks, Don. I use that one myself. It means that PC's using small arms literally cannot even "scratch the paint" of a starship - although for civilian ships, I put in that the windows are "merely" AF 18. This keeps up the spirit of the early CT adventures, where access points include the windows (but depressurise that area of the ship, 'natch!).

Originally posted by DonM:
And Hyphen - I'd been trying to avoid inferences, but your fixes are too good to ignore. Can I have permission to incorporate them into the errata with attribution?

Sure, use whatever you want. since my stuff is simply a restatement of existing material anyway.

The only differences, I should point out, are the following:
</font>

• the ranges conform to a slightly modified (and grandiously-titled Unified Range Table) that incorporates range elements from T4 in order to break up the battlefield a bit more;</font>
• with this, the dice roll numbers (1D, 2D, etc) conform to the degrees of difficulty from Kenneth Bearden's KB3, also in my House Rules; for straight MT, just use the normal MT modifiers; and</font>
• the Aimed Fire DM is another addition for the KB3 system when distinguishing between a snapshot (i.e. most normal fire) and an aimed shot, although I'm seriously thinking about using those DM's for T20 as well - after all, high-TL weapons are "magical", neh?
  
  </font>

The rest of the stats are pretty much straight out of Striker and MT (errata-corrected, of course ).

 

[DonM]

The section I quoted about execptional success with penetration 0 attacks not affecting armor is actually from an MTJ discussion I had originally left out because I thought it was clarifications, rather than errata.

And I'm wanting another source to compare on the weapons -- I'm willing to bet money you are right on the Accel Rifle, and so I just want permission to use the other stuff you've noted as comparing to the original source.

 

[DonM]

While I'm creating NEW errata, I'd like to propose one: currently it's VERY easy for Marine and Army characters using BASIC generation to get Battle Dress and other skills.

It is NOT for advanced Marine and Army characters, because the "Special Combat" cascade is not used at all in the advanced set.

Special Combat includes: Battle Dress, Combat Engineering, Combat Rifleman, Demolition, FA Gunnery, Forward Observer, Grav Belt, Heavy Weapons, High-energy Weapons, High-G Environ, Stealth, and Zero-G Environ.

I'd like to propose the following change:

"Page 51, Service Skills (correction): Under NCO Skills and Command Skills, replace #4-Hvy Wpns with #4-Spl Combat. Under Staff Skills, replace #2-Fwd Obs with #2-Spl Combat. Under Ship Board, replace Vacc Suit with Battle Dress."

Thoughts? Comments? Outrages?

 

[aramis]

Battle Dress belongs in Marine Life, as well.

Only thing: Keep "Non-Official" errata clearly indicated as such!

 

[DonM]

How about a notation in the intro section about the "(unofficial)" label, and then noting such errata in this fashion:

Page 51, Service Skills (correction, unofficial): Under Marine Life, replace #1-Brawling with #1-Spl Combat. Under NCO Skills and Command Skills, replace #4-Hvy Wpns with #4-Spl Combat. Under Staff Skills, replace #2-Fwd Obs with #2-Spl Combat. Under Ship Board, replace both occurences of Vacc Suit with Battle Dress.

Yes, no, maybe?

 

[aramis]

Yes. Makes marine BD MUCH more common.

 

[DonM]

Not just BD; there's a big set of skills in that Special Combat cascade, much of which is VERY difficult for a Marine to get in the Advanced Generation (and Army guys too). And this allows Army guys to pick up BD on the off chance as well.

Unless I hear screams to the contrary, I'll add this.

As a general note, if errata is inferred from existing text, or a Q&A in TD or MTJ, or from an article in Challenge, it will just be normal errata. If it's something this (or another) forum come up with, then I'll apply the "unofficial" label.

I hope I'm not offending anyone with this idea...

 

[aramis]

Don, I've got enough space that I can host two versions... One with nothing but official, and one with unofficial... but I'd really rather see only one.

 

[Stainless]

Don, how about submitting your errata to the Traveller Wiki?

http://traveller.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

 

[DonM]

Aramis: I'd prefer just one as well.

Stainless: I don't like wikis. Sorry. I like a pdf.

 

[Stainless]

LOL. OMG, a "format-ist"!

 

[aramis]

Wikis have 3 problems
1) Insecure formatting & content due to communal editing and contribution
2) Most release posted material under an open license.
3) Wiki Formatting is not as intuitive as HTML, which isn't as intuitive as MSWord, etc.

#2 is a killer. Technically, none of us have the right to put ANYTHING traveller related into "Open Content", without following the guidelines laid forth in the OGL under which T20 was released and the specific content restrictions contained in T20.

 

[DonM]

I always feel like I can't find anything with a wiki. I like to print things out and put them next to my gaming chair. I refuse to game with a computer on next to me.

I'm a traditionalist.

Back to errata: The MT Referee's Gaming Kit has two items marked "This table is a simplified retatement of the attenuation rules in the Players' Manual". So, those come under "clarification".

Probably get another update out next week, if anyone finds anything else to add...

 

[Elliot]

And then you can begin the re-write of MT in its entirety

 

[DonM]

Sadly, I've had some thoughts there. I suppose that if Avenger can redo CT, someone could redo MT, right?

 

[Stainless]

If anyone decides to, and can, redo MT, I'm only too happy to help with proofreading the manuscripts.

 

[aramis]

I have been contemplating it for a while. I've another year on the master's, however. (I should graduate Jan 08, with an MAEd.) At that point, I probably will, just for my own use.

 

[Hyphen]

Originally posted by Stainless:
If anyone decides to, and can, redo MT, I'm only too happy to help with proofreading the manuscripts.

Me too! Me too!

 

[DonM]

For now, let us focus again on what errata is needed. If anyone finds such, let them post here. I've got another update ready, but it's just two clarifications (one deals with penetration and attenuation, and the other with Movement DM).