S4 was WRONG about CT Combat!

[Gadrin]

...and moved on to the playing.

:rofl:

I remember trying to get a friend to play Traveller and when he
saw errors in the ship payment rules, I could tell he lost interest
immediately.

Then he'd talk about how good Star Trek TNG was... (like it wasn't
flawed) :rofl:

Oh, well, suspension of disbelief is a powerful thing.

>

 

[rancke]

:rofl:

I remember trying to get a friend to play Traveller and when he
saw errors in the ship payment rules, I could tell he lost interest
immediately.

Then he'd talk about how good Star Trek TNG was... (like it wasn't
flawed) :rofl:

Oh, well, suspension of disbelief is a powerful thing.

"It's no worse than Star Trek TNG" is an extremely faint praise .


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

For clarity I think I'd word it the way you have before:

The First Blood rule will only be applied as a character's first wound when that character is at full characteristics.

I just scribbled down what I wrote as it came to me.

The point(s) is/are:

If no stat goes to zero, then don't worry about it.

Stats going to zero indicate a problem.

One stat goes to zero? Get a check. Fail the check = problem. Problem is you're incapciatated for about 10 min. Success = no problem.

Two stats at zero? Problem. You're shot! Or stabbed! Or otherwise Seriously Wounded.

Three stats at zero? Problem. You're either dead or dying. The check decides which.

[HOUSERULE] If a character has NO attributes reduced to 0 in a combat, then all attributes return to their full value at the end of the combat. [HOUSERULE]

Beat ya to it. See my post above.

I just wanted to be clear that this is IMTU ... but notice how many of the arguments and potential conflicts disappear.

Absolutely, which is why I was so convinced the rules read that way.

<choking sounds>

Apology, accepted Captain Needa...

I figured at least one person would get a laugh out of my "Susie Wong Wrong" song in the OP.

Guess not.

 

[far-trader]

I just scribbled down what I wrote as it came to me.

No worries, just trying to help with the editing (I think a few people will be using it)

I figured at least one person would get a laugh out of my "Susie Wong Wrong" song in the OP.

Guess not.

Oh yeah, got it, grinned fwiw (I was sure I'd heard it once somewhere, the words were familiar... )

 

[Supplement Four]

Oh yeah, got it, grinned fwiw (I was sure I'd heard it once somewhere, the words were familiar... )

I completely made it up as I wrote it.

 

[far-trader]

I completely made it up as I wrote it.

But there was a Suzie Wong character (if you made that up too perhaps it came from a buried subconscious memory) and I still swear I've heard a Suzie Wong/Wrong song somewhere (as an indictment of the characterization of Asian women) probably different words though (except for the repetitive Wrong and the Suzie Wong), the memory is vague.

But we (I) are waaay off topic now and entering quicksand...

 

[aramis]

Speaking of Suzie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_of_Suzie_Wong

 

[far-trader]

I saw the movie (or part of it) once (late late TV) which is where I recognized the Suzie Wong name from. And knew there was a stage production before that, BUT (sci-fi connection ) I did not know The Shat starred in the stage production

 

[Supplement Four]

But there was a Suzie Wong character (if you made that up too perhaps it came from a buried subconscious memory) and I still swear I've heard a Suzie Wong/Wrong song somewhere (as an indictment of the characterization of Asian women) probably different words though (except for the repetitive Wrong and the Suzie Wong), the memory is vague.

But we (I) are waaay off topic now and entering quicksand...

Aramis has got it.

Speaking of Suzie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_of_Suzie_Wong

Yep, I was referring to that movie...but only because "Wong" and "Wrong" go together in my opening "Song".

There's no other connection. If you're looking for logic, it ain't there. My brain works like that sometimes.

 

[BlackBat242]

I admit that a lot of what Marc is confirming for CT errata doesn't seem to be in the rules. For example, healing from Minor Wounds. That seems to be different from healing from Unconsciousness, if you go strictly by the text.

I wonder if some retconning isn't going on.

Not that that's bad. The rules Marc is endorsing are good ones. But, it is hard to squeeze what he's saying about the rules into how they read.

I've always been interested in what the rules of Classic Traveller are as printed--not as re-interpreted 30 years later.

From the discussion in The Fleet about small craft, I would agree that there are rule changes being passed off as "clarifications"... which means definite ret-conning disguised as "cleaning up".

I don't mind if Marc & Don do a "revised CT" (I probably would get a copy of it)... as long as they admit that that is what they are producing.

 

[rancke]

From the discussion in The Fleet about small craft, I would agree that there are rule changes being passed off as "clarifications"... which means definite ret-conning disguised as "cleaning up".

I don't mind if Marc & Don do a "revised CT" (I probably would get a copy of it)... as long as they admit that that is what they are producing.

The rules are either so ambiguous that people have been interpreting them two different ways for 30 years or, assuming for purposes of argument that they're as clear-cut as you and S4 claims, so counter-intutive that a lot people have interpreted them contrary to the letter of the text for 30 years. In the first case, 'clarification' is definitely the correct term. In the second case, the text may easily have been so badly written that it contradicts the original intent, in which case 'clarification' is, again, the correct term.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

The rules are either so ambiguous that people have been interpreting them two different ways for 30 years or, assuming for purposes of argument that they're as clear-cut as you and S4 claims, so counter-intutive that a lot people have interpreted them contrary to the letter of the text for 30 years. In the first case, 'clarification' is definitely the correct term. In the second case, the text may easily have been so badly written that it contradicts the original intent, in which case 'clarification' is, again, the correct term.

Perhaps.

But, if you look at pg. 47, under Minor Wounds, you'll see instructions for how to treat your character specifically stating, "The character is treated as having the reduced characteristics until medical care or recovery has taken place."

No where does it state that, if you have a Minor Wound and haven't been knocked unconscious that you get half your wound points back with stats placed halfway between the wounded level and the level they were at when the combat started.

But, also on pg. 47, under Unconsciousness, you'll see instructions to do the half-way stat thing.

That reads, clearly, that if you have a Minor Wound and haven't been knocked unconscious, that you live with whatever stats you have at the end of the combat round where as the unconscious minorly wounded character gets a bump in health when he regains consciousness.

Marc's rule is to aplly the halving to the characer with a minor wound that hasn't been knocked unconscious too.

I like the rule. It's a good rule. But, that's not what the book says. I think it's more of a retcon than it is a clarfication.

And, I'm interested in how we are directed to play in the CT Traveller Book.

I may agree with the new rule (I do. It makes a lot of sense.). But, I want to know what TTB says, too.

 

[rancke]

No where does it state that, if you have a Minor Wound and haven't been knocked unconscious that you get half your wound points back with stats placed halfway between the wounded level and the level they were at when the combat started.

Yes, it does say so somewhere. Wil pointed it out to me when I asked about that very thing earlier in this very thread. With color-coded text and everything. Go back and read for yourself. If you have up to one characteristic reduced to 0, you treat it as a minor wound. With one characteristic reduced to 0 it is a minor wound that rendered you unconcious; with no characteristic reduced to 0 it is a minor wound that didn't reder you unconcious.

In any case, even if you had been right, this would constitute a piece of bad rules-writing and merit a clarification.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

Yes, it does say so somewhere. Wil pointed it out to me when I asked about that very thing earlier in this very thread. With color-coded text and everything. Go back and read for yourself. If you have up to one characteristic reduced to 0, you treat it as a minor wound. With one characteristic reduced to 0 it is a minor wound that rendered you unconcious; with no characteristic reduced to 0 it is a minor wound that didn't reder you unconcious.

I know it says that. We're talking about healing. The book says to treat those with Minor Wounds that didn't go unconscious different from those with Minor Wounds whom did go unconscious.

Marc's retcon is to use the halving from the unconscious description for both types of wounds, even though the book does not say that.

 

[rancke]

I know it says that. We're talking about healing. The book says to treat those with Minor Wounds that didn't go unconscious different from those with Minor Wounds whom did go unconscious.

It does? Specifically? It isn't just unclear about it? It actually says specifically what to do when someone is wounded but not knocked unconcious, as opposed to what you should do if they are knocked unconcious?

Marc's retcon is to use the halving from the unconscious description for both types of wounds, even though the book does not say that.

It may not say that, but does it say not to? If it specifically tells us to treat the two situations differently, then telling us to treat them the same would be a ret-con. If not, it could be a ret-con or it could be a clarification, depending on the original intent. And since you've no way to gauge the original intent (except, arguably, the rather debatable process of arguing what makes the most sense), you've no basis for stating flat out that it is a ret-con.

"In any case, even if you had been right, this would constitute a piece of bad rules-writing and merit a clarification." -- Me​

Hans

 

[aramis]

S4 is correct about 47; the text on another page, however, contradicts it. Which is the quote that Hans is citing.

 

[Supplement Four]

It does? Specifically? It isn't just unclear about it? It actually says specifically what to do when someone is wounded but not knocked unconcious, as opposed to what you should do if they are knocked unconcious?

Yes. I gave you page numbers. If no stat is reduced to zero, but damage is applied, it's a Minor Wound. Page 47 of the Traveller Book discusses how to address Minor Wounds.

Right below that, there's a section that discusses Minor Wounds/Unconsciousness specifically.

 

[Supplement Four]

S4 is correct about 47; the text on another page, however, contradicts it.

Where? I'd like to look that up.

 

[rancke]

Yes. I gave you page numbers. If no stat is reduced to zero, but damage is applied, it's a Minor Wound. Page 47 of the Traveller Book discusses how to address Minor Wounds.

Right below that, there's a section that discusses Minor Wounds/Unconsciousness specifically.

The first paragraph you reference refer to both kinds of minor wounds. "Any wound points applied to a character which does not reduce more than one physical characteristic to zero" (emphasis mine). Wound points that does not reduce any characteristic to zero does not reduce more than one to zero. The two paragraphs do not instruct you to treat Minor Wounds/Concious in one way and Minor Wounds/Unconcious in another way. One paragraph instructs you to treat both kinds of wounds one way while the other paragraph instructs you to treat one of the two kinds in a different way. This is an inherent contradiction and, presumably, not a deliberate one.

I repeat: The rules do not specifically instruct you to treat Minor Wouds/Concious in one way and Minor Wounds/Unconcious in a different way. Rather, the rules are contradictory.


Hans

 

[Supplement Four]

The two paragraphs do not instruct you to treat Minor Wounds/Concious in one way and Minor Wounds/Unconcious in another way. One paragraph instructs you to treat both kinds of wounds one way while the other paragraph instructs you to treat one of the two kinds in a different way.

If that were the case, then the bit about half way would be under Minor Wounds and not Unconsciousness specifically.


You're in a game, and your character has taken a Minor Wound, but not been rendered unconscious. You want to know how to deal with this. Do you look under the Minor Wound heading or the Unconscious heading? Since your character is not Unconscious, you look under the Minor Wound heading, of course.

Using your logic, one would look under the Unconscious heading to figure how to deal with Minor Wound even though the character wasn't unconscious. And, that's just silly.





BTW, the rules are not contradictory according to Marc's clarification (which I've been wondering is a retcon). And, even if you don't take Marc's clarification at face value, the rules are clear in the book. Minor Wounds are treated one way. Unconscious characters with a Minor Wound are treated differently.