OTU Only: Gypsy Queen Class Fast Merchant, LBB2, 199Td, J26GP7

[atpollard]

It's called a TYPO ... also known as an errata (of which there are plenty in LBB2.81, besides this one).
Also known as a mistake.

I would agree except it isn't.

• It was not included in the compiled errata.
• It was not corrected, but preserved in the 1982 The Traveller Book.
• It was not corrected, but preserved in the 1983 Traveller Starter Edition.

I can hate what they decided, but it is clear that that is what they chose. They appear to have WANTED those anomalies in the data table (just like the Z drive and PP fuel issue).

 

[Spinward Flow]

I can hate what they decided, but it is clear that that is what they chose.

You say "decided" and "chose" ... but that's probably overly generous.
For one thing, it's a (pro)active framing of the situation.

A much more likely answer is "didn't realize" and simply did a copy/paste from previous, perpetuating the error ... because no one questioned it enough to examine it thoroughly enough to make a decision about it (keep/fix).

And now the "weight of inertia" falls on the side of DON'T FIX ... even if it is wrong ...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Spoiler Alert: MASSIVE CHERRY PICKING incoming

The ENTIRE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE TABLE "breaks the pattern of the left hand side of the table" ...

So, your maths is only valid for some drives, not others...

Show me the 150 ton line entry on the LBB2.81, p22 table.

So, your maths is only valid for some hull sizes, not others...

Starts to look suspiciously like a table with discrete values.

A power plant that is (exactly, integer) code: 1.000 @ 4000 tons generates 40 EP.

So you are not even going to pretend to defend your proposition that a V drive in a 600 Dt hull gives a potential of 6⅔?

An intellectually honest interpretation of how EPs "work" necessarily dictates that a power plant that generates 40 EPs in a 4000 ton hull will ALSO generate 40 EPs when installed into ANY SIZE OF HULL if the LBB2 power plant (insert drive letter here) remains unchanged.
If you want to fight me on that point ... go right ahead.

That is an opinion that is not shared by RAW, and neither do they require the same amount of fuel...
Intellectual honesty would be to be up front about your house rules.

What's the EP output of a C plant in a 150 Dt hull? 4.5 EP? 6 EP?
If you say 6 EP, isn't that potential 4?

It's called a TYPO ... also known as an errata (of which there are plenty in LBB2.81, besides this one).

So, when you disagree with RAW it's a typo...


Cherry picking, indeed.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And now the "weight of inertia" falls on the side of DON'T FIX ... even if it is wrong ...

You can believe or do whatever you want, but when you disagree with RAW, it's a house rule.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The ENTIRE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE TABLE "breaks the pattern of the left hand side of the table" in order to produce the values entered on the table in RAW LBB2.81, p22. The "magical Drive-Z" phenomenon is widely known and obvious to everyone on these forums, because the TL=15 drives "cheat the rules/pattern" that were established for all of the other tech levels and letter drives.

Absolutely true.

They are also The Rules As Written. Deviating from that based on the math, including interpolation and extrapolation, may be more consistent and plausible than The Rules As Written -- but are not those rules.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I can hate what they decided, but it is clear that that is what they chose. They appear to have WANTED those anomalies in the data table (just like the Z drive and PP fuel issue).

The TL-15 drives issue was finally fixed in T5, I think.

The LBB2 power plant fuel issue wasn't left as-was because it made more sense that way, but because fixing it would have invalidated years of existing GDW and licensee products and player-created content.

 

[kilemall]

Three lasers would be 750 MW for a total of 750 GJ?

Yes which is different from 20 minutes.

In my house rules EP gets converted to 10 tons per the black globe valuation and the damage level drops as range increases. So the actual damage won’t necessarily be the full battery/bay EP value.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The TL-15 drives issue was finally fixed in T5, I think.

I don't know about fixed, but it was changed to be completely linear.
Instead the LBB5 TL system was adopted, and tech stages based on that.
So, a C drive can have different performance, size, cost, and fuel consumption depending on the nominal potential.
Enhancement, or just needless complication?

 

[atpollard]

And now the "weight of inertia" falls on the side of DON'T FIX ... even if it is wrong ...

Traveller has a LONG and honorable history of "fixing it".

• Book 5 (High Guard) "fixed it".
• Then MegaTraveller came along and REALLY "fixed it".
• Then T4 and Melieu 0 came along to try and "fix it" [ouch].
• Then TNE gave us the "ULTIMATE fix" in FF&S.
• Finally Mongoose came along and put their Credits on the table to reboot the Classic Traveller paradigm with their "fix" (followed by a Cepheus Engine variant and a MgT 2.0 fix).

It is probably one of the most "fixed" RAW in history.

So you are just standing on the shoulders of giants by carrying on the long tradition.
I have tried to "fix" it myself. I come here to post my ideas for a healthy serving of humble pie.
That just IS what it IS.

They are not wrong ... the printed text is what it is and our "fixes" are "our fixes".
I am learning to shrug and move on. I am under no obligation to compel agreement. If they understand, I am happy.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Enhancement, or just needless complication?

T5 seems to be complicated for the sake of complication.

Or completeness, that would also explain it.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Traveller has a LONG and honorable history of "fixing it".

Except they'd didn't fix LBB2, they just went around it.

'81 just redefined what the numbers from '77 meant, without changing them. And if you advocate rules literalism, that's an insignificant change (Whether it's for "one trip" or "4 weeks", you still must carry every m^3 of it).

Later rules had fuel use proportionate to output, but not generally coupled with the LBB2 tech/size paradigm.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You can believe or do whatever you want, but when you disagree with RAW, it's a house rule.

Good thing then that I've never claimed to "Be The RAW" ... wouldn't you agree?

What I've said is that RAW has an error in it.
Here's the error.
Here are three proofs that it's an error from three different perspectives.
Here's how to fix the error.

And your answer is ... "NO IT DOESN'T!"

They are also The Rules As Written. Deviating from that based on the math, including interpolation and extrapolation, may be more consistent and plausible than The Rules As Written -- but are not those rules.

Don't fix anything.
Don't find the errors.
Just use the stone tablets given to us by our ancestors and don't question anything ... and whatever you do, don't <CENSORED>.

Critical thinking: OUT.
Cult thinking: IN.

Questions will be disparaged.
Answers to those questions will be denied as "heretical" to the Holy RAW.
Blind Faith will be rewarded.

Traveller has a LONG and honorable history of "fixing it".

• Book 5 (High Guard) "fixed it".

Except they'd didn't fix LBB2, they just went around it.

Have to agree with @Grav_Moped here.

LBB5.80 didn't "fix" the flaws (and errors) of LBB2 ... it just grandfathered in LBB2 as "still being usable" in CT despite being an incompatible design paradigm.

LBB2 "works" for starship design ... in a limited and specific way ... which was fine for a first draft (before pocket calculators were readily available to do the math that was really needed), but that's all it really was. LBB2 was a quick and dirty way to make starships "quickly enough" for use in the game (just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). It was more of a "broad brushstrokes" yet still minimalist way of doing things, where you didn't have to keep track of all that much (during the design phase).

The problem with LBB2 is that it is TOO LIMITED.
How do you design a (from scratch) new small craft using LBB2?
Short answer: You both DON'T and CAN'T.

LBB5.80 struck out in a completely different direction for starship design (and combat) with game mechanics and systems that are decidedly incompatible with LBB2. There's even a distinct asymmetry when "translating" starships between the two design paradigms.

• You can put LBB2 stuff into a LBB5 craft and things will "still work" (mostly) the same.
• If you try to put LBB5 stuff into a LBB2 design ... all kinds of things "break" almost immediately (and they stay broken in a bad way).

So LBB5.80 was less of a "fix" and more of a "new shiny!" way of doing things that mostly sidestepped away/around what LBB2 had done without completely invalidating LBB2 entirely.

Later rules had fuel use proportionate to output, but not generally coupled with the LBB2 tech/size paradigm.

Later developments went more in the direction of being a Simulation, because that helped immersion (and accounting, for those who care about such things). The "first draft" of Traveller (LBB2 in particular) wound up being largely discarded later on in favor of alternative paradigms (such as dropping computer programming as an upgrade path/bottleneck for starships). The vector mapping for starship combat and maneuver movement is another system that "works" in theory, but in practice often times winds up being more trouble than it's worth (unless you're tabletop wargamers who like measuring distances with bits of string).

 

[atpollard]

Except they'd didn't fix LBB2, they just went around it.

Yup … because EVERYONE has a better way to do it!
They just all disagree on what that better way is.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Good thing then that I've never claimed to "Be The RAW" ... wouldn't you agree?

As you are not a text, you can't really be RAW, so that is a nonsensical statement.

But you certainly claimed other people were wrong when they didn't use your house rules, e.g.:

Incorrect.

and proceeded to tell how Traveller worked:

A 600 ton hull with Maneuver-T (code: 6) and Power Plant-V (also code: 6) can be done.
Power Plant-V would be generating EP=40

Can we then agree that that is

Not Rules Legal In Traveller

Or are you still maintaining that a power plant V in a 600 Dt hull produces 40 EP, i.e. has a potential of 6⅔?

What I've said is that RAW has an error in it.

That is an opinion.

RAW is what is written, not what you feel it should have been:

That is RAW, anything else is a house rule.

Here are three proofs that it's an error from three different perspectives.

It does not matter if you really, really believe that some parts of the table should follow some formula or other, it doesn't.

RAW says a J drive in a 2000 Dt hull is potential 1, if your formula says otherwise, per definition your formula is wrong by RAW. That is of course not a problem, it's just a house rule.

And your answer is ... "NO IT DOESN'T!"

My answer is RAW is RAW, no matter how much you huff and puff until your face is all red.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Don't fix anything.
Don't find the errors.
Just use the stone tablets given to us by our ancestors and don't question anything ... and whatever you do, don't <CENSORED>.

You really don't get the concept of RAW, do you?

You or I can't "fix" RAW, only MWM can change RAW.
If you "fix" your game it's a house rule.

There is even a rule for that, called Rule 0:

LBB0, p34:
Referees should feel free to modify any rule to whatever extent they see fit, providing they bear in mind that:
...
- Do not expect other Traveller materials to match your universe if you engage in large-scale modifications.

RAW is not something anyone plays, it's just a common reference, a starting point.

 

[Grav_Moped]

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong."

 

[Grav_Moped]

And here's the thing: it's a three-decade-old set of rules that's been superceded a few times and is now under different ownership -- the window for getting formal acknowledgement of errata is pretty much closed.

On the other hand, "not rules as written" is not a value judgement -- and isn't necessarily a binary determination of merit.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Perfectly legal to build using LBB2.

We only need to rate it using LBB5 for LBB5 combat, so Agility-0.

No problem.

This is what I was talking about with respect to how you transpose ships from one rule set into another. That Type S with a triple laser turret? If rated in LBB5, it's not only Agility-0, but also one of the lasers cannot be used (or at least it doesn't count toward the USP rating).

If all three can be used, then that Size A power plant must be putting out more than 2EP in High Guard terms. How many more is not stated. Could just be 3EP (covers the lasers but no agility), could be 5EP (because the power draw of 3 lasers has no effect on its maneuverability under LBB2 combat rules, why would it do so under HG?).

Edits done.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This is what I was talking about with respect to how you transpose ships from one rule set into another.

There is no explicit rule for that, so in the absence if RAW we have to use house rules.

I would start with this, showing a LBB2 ship in a LBB2'80 context (S9,p 21):

It has an agility rating that is different from the M-drive rating.

We also have this (S7, p46):

It's a LBB2'77 ship with J-2, M-1, and PP-1 (2 EP) with (according to the text) two double laser turrets (4 EP) and Agility-0.

That Type S with a triple laser turret? If rated in LBB5, it's not only Agility-0, but also one of the lasers cannot be used (or at least it doesn't count toward the USP rating).

Yes, but it's a perfectly legal, fully functional LBB2 ship. It does not stop working because we are rating it an LBB5 mechanism. One triple LBB2 laser turret is fully functioning, as the Empress Margaret example shows.

If we refitted it using LBB5 rules, e.g. mounted fusion guns, I would apply the LBB5 power limit of one fusion gun.

If all three can be used, then that Size A power plant must be putting out more than 2EP in High Guard terms. How many more is not stated.

No, we are not building the ship under LBB5, we are only rating it, describing it.
Just like the Annic Nova cannot be built, but can be described, rated in LBB2 terms. The Annic Nova doesn't stop working just because we use LBB2 terms to describe it.

Could just be 3EP (covers the lasers but no agility), could be 5EP (because the power draw of 3 lasers has no effect on its maneuverability under LBB2 combat rules, why would it do so under HG?).

The examples above hints that all the lasers can be used, but not with full agility (acceleration), and that would be my house rule.


So, this is how I would rate a Scout with a triple laser turret in LBB5'80:

SC-11222R1-000000-30000-0       MCr 32,6         100 Dton
bearing           1                                Crew=2
batteries         1                                  TL=9
                    Pass=2 Cargo=3 Fuel=40 EP=2 Agility=0

 

[atpollard]

This is what I was talking about with respect to how you transpose ships from one rule set into another. That Type S with a triple laser turret? If rated in LBB5, it's not only Agility-0, but also one of the lasers cannot be used (or at least it doesn't count toward the USP rating).

If all three can be used, then that Size A power plant must be putting out more than 2EP in High Guard terms. How many more is not stated. Could just be 3EP (covers the lasers but no agility), could be 5EP (because the power draw of 3 lasers has no effect on its maneuverability under LBB2 combat rules, why would it do so under HG?).

Edits done.

I never used either LBB2 or LBB5 starship combat very much (just not where the fun was - people are interesting), but were LBB2 phases not consecutive (a ship destroyed in one phase did not get to fire in a later phase) while LBB5 phases abstracted to concurrent (a ship could both be destroyed and fire in the same combat turn).

If I remembered correctly, then the LBB2 PP need only power each item one at a time, while the LBB2 PP was abstracted to power everything at once. Thus it is less about "different EP output" than different levels of abstraction in the combat they were designed for. (like "range" vs "two range bands" or "Software loaded" vs "computer model")