Understanding Classic Traveller Combat Damage

[Supplement Four]

No, that's not what the rule says. There is no mention of "full health". It simply says "first wound" and the only logical interpretation that isn't open to abuse is "in that engagement".

Or...you could take it at face value and follow literally what it says: a character's "first wound" is the wound he takes after being completely healed.

That's what is meant. That's what it says. Nothing is said about combat rounds or engagements.

There's nothing in the rule, taken literally as you seem wont to do to support your take, that says anything about "full health" though. It says simply, "first wound" and that character's "first wound" was 4 years ago. Are you reading it to mean "fresh wound" maybe? But then can you not have "fresh wounds" while still recovering?

A character has stats 777. He gets into a fight. He takes damage. At the end of the fight, his stats are 177.

No doctor is around, and the character doesn't have time to rest. The next day, the character gets into another fight. Damage, again, is applied.

Now, tell me, which is the first wound taken by the character?

The wound taked in the first encounter or the wound taken in the second fight?

Care to play ref on my other scenario

I can give you the rules as written, if you like.

"I poke myself with a pointed stick for 1 point of damage (on my full health UPP)."

Heck, it may not even be an actual flesh puncture by your claim (not all hits are bullets in bodies right), but just a near miss that gets my heart racing or whatever.

"First blood goes on (rolls D6) Dex. Now let's spring that ambush!"

I actually had a player attempt this sort of thing once. It's up to the referee to ensure the rules, and the spirit of the rules, are followed.

This is clear abuse of the rules.

In the game I refer to, I had an immature gamer (not one of my regulars) who lucked out and got very high stats for his physicals. I don't recall exactly (it's been years) but it was something like: AC8.

He thought he'd be "smart" and have one of the other crewers take his foil and ram it into his chest, piercing himself for 1D damage. That way, he new he'd survive and not have to risk the first blood rule when the group went into combat (your point with this example).

I just looked at him and said, "Fine. Your buddy grasps your foil and shoves it deep into your chest. You fall down on one knee and begin to spit up blood."

"No!" He cried foul. "You can't do that! This is subject to the first blood rule. He needs to roll his 1D damage and take it randomly from one of my stats!"

I said, "Sure I can do that. I'm the GM. Besides, it's the Coup De Grace rule that applies, not the first blood rule. Pg. 43 of the Traveller Book. Look it up. Your buddy just rammed you through and pierced your lung. Your character is dying."

After that...I never had another issue of this type with this player. :smirk:

 

[aramis]

S4: Dan was quite correct in his assumption of my view.

Striker does not deal with the "after combat" and is NOT a part of CT Core Rules. (Yes, it's part of the overall Traveller canon, but it was a standalone game with a few, minor but none-the-less important differences.

It looks like you have been interpreting it one specific way so long, that you think the quote you've made support you; I don't agree (they're neutral on the matter, IMO, not having the scope of application you attribute to them), and further, you are the ONLY person I've EVER encountered who interprets them that way. (Everyone else I've encountered plays that you function in combat with the current stats you started combat with, or house rules it to use current at all times.)

As for that last, yeah, I'd ask the other player if he/she/it is making a killing shot, and if yes, it's a coup de grace. If not, it's a 1d to a random attribute. But, even 1 miute later, if combat begins, I'd still apply the first bood rule.

As for the one before it, no, the poor shlub's UPP is 177xxx, and he's gonna get hit in a random location, determined at time of application.... he will face another one as soon as the "adrenaline" wears off. Those partially healed wounds determine his combat potentials at the time the adrenaline takes over. A guy recovering from a major wound SHOULD be sucking wind.

 

[sabredog]

S4: Dan was quite correct in his assumption of my view.

Striker does not deal with the "after combat" and is NOT a part of CT Core Rules. (Yes, it's part of the overall Traveller canon, but it was a standalone game with a few, minor but none-the-less important differences.

It says in the introduction to AHL that it is "a new personal combat system for use with Traveller". Striker says it provides for rules to use 15mm minis "using the AHL rules" and has rules to integrate it with CT.

Since all of the terms regarding damage throughout CT, Snapshot, AHL, and Striker are consistent and all designed implicitly to be used for resolving combat with CT I think the argument that any of them are not part of the CORE rules is mere sophistry.

having played this game for as long as it's been in print, and having used all of these systems at one time or another I think I stand with S4 on pretty solid ground here.

 

[rancke]

Since all of the terms regarding damage throughout CT, Snapshot, AHL, and Striker are consistent and all designed implicitly to be used for resolving combat with CT I think the argument that any of them are not part of the CORE rules is mere sophistry.

What isn't sophistry, though, is the argument that the rules for resolving combat in Snapshot, AHL, and Striker deal with single encounters and do not deal with the after-battle consequences[*]. Thus they are irrelevant to the question of what happens after a fight.


Hans


[*] Unless I'm mistaken about that; it's been a long while since I read the Snapshot, AHL, and Striker combat rules.

 

[saundby]

Reduced Characteristics aren't "wounds"

Changes to characteristics as a result of wounding happen outside combat. You are conflating wounds (in combat effects) with reduced characteristics (effects that extend outside the encounter.) Therefore, if a new combat starts after one in which characteristics were reduced, the reduced characteristics are what's used:

TTB pg. 33:

Combat is based on successive attacks by each character involved (blows if brawling, swings with blade weapons, shots with guns)....Combat continues until one party is vanquished, flees, dies, or surrenders.

TTB pg. 34:

3. When combat ends, attend to the wounded and regroup forces.

When combat ends, wound effects are applied according to the rules, modifying the stats. Verbage such as "...and remains so until recovered" or "until medical care or recovery have taken place" clearly mark wounding effects that are treated as actual changes to characteristcs:

TTB pg. 36:

Their characteristics remain at the wounded level (or 1, whichever is higher). Recovery is dependent on medical attention (a medical facility and an individual with medical-3 skill; recuperation to full strength without medical attention is not possible).

This carries combat effects outside the individual combat encounter, beyond governance of combat rules, in the form of reduced characteristics (not wounding, but an effect of wounding.)

This means:

You can't avoid the critical hit. Even if you choose to interpret someone poking themself with their pocket knife as a combat encounter (it isn't if you play rules as written since it does not involve a party encountering other people or beasts), that combat ends when they stop abusing themselves and start fighting the other party. In normal, in-rules circumstances you could have a running battle where the critical hit is taken only once, but once you get to any form of recuperation, that combat has ended. A new fight means another critical hit.

Also, if the characteristics are reduced, and recovery is not complete, the new fight uses the characteristics as they were at the start of combat. A 777 guy gets into combat on day 105, wound effects leave him at 177, he gets into another fight on day 106 and is still at 177, his characteristics for that fight are 177, not 777. He gets the weak DM if he uses cutlass, fists, or whatever. He won't have 777 again--in combat or out--until the recovery procedure has been completed.

Going back to other parts of the OP, PCs don't get unskilled DMs in any weapons (TTB pg. 37 "Untrained Weapon Usage" and pg. 21 "Weapons Expertise".) This includes fists, as they are a weapon listed on the chart.

This has an effect on PC vs. NPC combat, as an NPC does get unskilled DMs. So if a PC starts a bar fight with an NPC, even one with a career background, their skill-0 with fists will give them an edge over the NPC without brawling skill. So if the engineer is a PC and the captain an NPC, or vice-versa, this'll have to be taken into account.

I've been playing CT combat as written, and I like the rules. Higher TLs are definitely bloodier. But then, the rules favor those prepared for combat. A complete two-party wipe may be possible in a TL A+ version of an Irish stand-down, but knowing that, who's going to fight that way? Toe to toe "I whack you you whack me" is OK (sorta) for fantasy melee, but in Traveller there's tactics. Take a position, set up a killing zone, bring the right weapons for the fight, don't get hit. That's what wins, not relying on hot dice.

 

[Icosahedron]

I'm not sure where you're getting that. 1 die equally a wound (if that's what you mean by "hit") has never been the case with CT. A single bullet from a weapon can do 3D damage. A single bullet won't wound three times.

Or, maybe you're talking about the other method of assigning damage dice. Check out the OP.

There are two methods for assigning damage in CT.

Method 1: Add up damage from all dice and take that amount from a randomly rolled physical stat (as I showed in the example above).

Method 2: Allow the defender to lower physical stats by an amount shown on the damage dice, taking one die at a time.

Yeah, this is what I meant - my underline in your quote - aren't you supposed to take each die as a single 'quantity of damage' (if you don't like the word 'hit') to be applied to a single stat?

2 - There is no multiple action rule in CT. Each round, each character gets to act and move. The rounds are 15 seconds long, so a lot of leeway is given. CT doesn't allow for a character to move, fire off all six shots in his revolver, and then move again. Run as written, CT allows a character to move and make one attack each round.

This is not to say you can't house rule this aspect of CT. Many people do. Some use Snapshot, and some use Azhanti High Lightning (a more abstract tactical combat system for CT). Some use hybrids.

If you want to have multiple actions, I suggest shortening the round to 2, 3, 5, or 6 seconds. If you do this, don't forget to adjust movement, too.

Exactly. This was one of my major gripes with CT; the fifteen second round in which you can only move and squeeze the trigger once. As you say, you can always house-rule it, but the need to house-rule (even to the minimal extent of altering the round-length) indicates a problem with the original rules.

It was this need to drill down into what was actually happening during those fifteen seconds, and figure that my character runs to the packing crate, snaps off two rounds at the guy holding the hostage, then runs over and grabs the hostage, laying down covering fire against each of the three goons on the gantry as he runs...

Somehow, I just couldn't get it to work. Snapshot/AHL/Striker/ACQ helps, but...

3 - I made up what happened in the action round because I was making it up as I was writing. In a real game, the player would tell me what his character was doing--I wouldn't make it up for him. And, as GM, I would control the NPCs.

I'm not sure I follow your complaint on this aspect of the game. It's like every other rpg I've played. I certainly don't find anything tiring about it.

Maybe you could elaborate on your point?

Elaboration just made. The more that goes on in a combat round, the more tiresome it is to describe if the rules are too vague to help you, and the more tiresome it is to play if the rules are too detailed for quick resolution.



-----------------------------

The poster (FT I think) who talked about Snapshot being a separate game wasn't suggesting that it's not canon, he was simply saying that its rules relate to only a single firefight. It's a 'snapshot' of combat and says nothing about a subsequent firefight.

Therefore an omission to mention penalties for future firefights in a set of rules that cover only a single firefight shouldn't be taken to imply that no penalties should be made if you do have subsequent firefights.

Edit: Hans beat me to it.

 

[saundby]

Application of Damage

The rules as written are open to interpretation on how damage vs. dice rolls is applied.

TTB 35:

Each die rolled (for example, each of the two dice rolled in a result of 2D) is taken as a single wound or group of hits, and must be applied to a single characteristic.

...

Once a characteristic has been reduced to zero, further points may not be applied to it; they must be applied to other (non-zero) characteristics.

The rules for critical hits on pg 35 explicitly state that in that case extra points roll over to other characteristics:

This first wound is applied to one of the three physical characteristics (strength, dexterity, or endurance) determined randomly. If that characteristic is reduced to zero, then any remaining hits are then distributed to the other physical characteristics on a random basis. As a result, first blood may immediately incapacitate or even kill.

The logical implication is that roll-over does not occur unless it's a critical hit ("must be applied to a single characteristic" supports this.) What muddies the waters is the "further points" statement. This may or may not imply roll-over of damage from one characteristic to another on regular damage, though it is likely a rule against applying damage to stats previously zeroed out.

So the rules can be read to state that normal damage is applied by die to one characteristic with no roll-over of excess to other stats, or, that excess normal damage does roll over on a point by point basis.

I have always interpreted it as damage only rolls over on critical hits (supporting that no other single hit can individually cause incapacitation or death) and that extra damage on a die is lost beyond the value of the stat to which it's applied. E.g., a character at 195 from a prior wounding in this combat gets a 2D hit on them, the attacker rolls a 1 and a 6. The wounded player applies the 6 to str, and the 1 to dex, putting them at 085. Since each die is applied individually, they can't put both dice on str. They can limit the wound by applying the high roll against their low stat.

And this is part of the CT magic: the number of dice rolled becomes very important. A so-so roll on a 2D weapon can do more to an opponent than a 6 rolled for damage on a 1D weapon.

 

[DonM]

Given the differing interpretations we've seen in this thread, are there some "clarifications" that are identified that we should add to the official CT errata pile?

 

[Gadrin]

I have always interpreted it as damage only rolls over on critical hits (supporting that no other single hit can individually cause incapacitation or death) and that extra damage on a die is lost beyond the value of the stat to which it's applied. E.g., a character at 195 from a prior wounding in this combat gets a 2D hit on them, the attacker rolls a 1 and a 6. The wounded player applies the 6 to str, and the 1 to dex, putting them at 085. Since each die is applied individually, they can't put both dice on str. They can limit the wound by applying the high roll against their low stat.

???

Book 1 p34

Once a characteristic has been reduced to zero, further points may not be
applied to it; they must be applied to other (non-zero) characteristics.

So you never "throw away" damage. You find another CHARACTERISTIC
that's non-zero and keep subtracting.

>

 

[aramis]

Given the differing interpretations we've seen in this thread, are there some "clarifications" that are identified that we should add to the official CT errata pile?

Damage doesn't affect abilities during the combat where it is taken.
Damage does effect a temporary reduction in abilities after the combat encounter, lasting until healed.
Damaged abilities are treated as being the damaged level at the start of a new combat.*

* MWM needs to confirm or refute that one, but majority view seems strongly in favor thereof.

 

[Supplement Four]

S4: Dan was quite correct in his assumption of my view.

I will definitley admit it if, when this all washes out, that I find that I'm wrong. But, I don't think that I am. The evidence in my favor is overwhelming.

I'm not talking about taste, interpretation, or opinion. I'm talking about the rules as written.

Striker does not deal with the "after combat" and is NOT a part of CT Core Rules.

I didn't reference Striker. I referenced Snapshot, and the introduction of Snapshot specifically states that it incorporates clarifications to Book 1 combat.

One of the Book 1 rules that Snapshot makes more clear is the use of wounds against characteristics, the full quote being:

"It is important to note that the marking off of wounds against characteristics has no effect on the person's abilities as dictated by the characteristics. Thus, someone with a strength of 11 who sustains wonds on his strength characteristic is still treated throughout the game as having a strength of 11. Wounding of characteristics is imply a bookkeeping system."

Anybody familiar with Snapshot will recognize it as Book 1 combat. Book 1 provides tactical grid movement, freeform combat, and range bands. Snapshot adds to that a choice of tactical movement governed by action points. The mechanics of the systems are the exact same, written by the same author: Marc Miller.

Plus, Snapshot's clarification, quoted above, supports the other quotes I have provided direct from The Traveller Book.





I know it's hard to digest for some of you who have playing Classic Traveller a certain way for 30 years. But, the evidence is there in B&W. You don't have to like it. You don't have to use it in your games. But, this is the way Classic Traveller is written.

 

[Supplement Four]

Yeah, this is what I meant - my underline in your quote - aren't you supposed to take each die as a single 'quantity of damage' (if you don't like the word 'hit') to be applied to a single stat?

Usually, this is the case. Each die of damage has to be applied to a single physical stat at the defender's option.

But, if a target has not been wounded yet and is at full health, then the first blood rule is used instead (where all damage is summed and applied to a physical stat randomly).



Reasoning For The First Blood Rule

I wasn't there, of course, when MWM wrote the first blood rule, but the reason he included it is pretty clear to me: He wanted to keep damage in the game fairly deadly.

If a character has average 777 physicals and is hit with an average 3D hit of ten points of damage, rolled 3, 3, 4, a defending player can assign the damage so that his character his not reduced to unconsciousness (443).

The first blood rule makes this hard to do because, firstly, all damage is summed (10 points), and that damage is applied, in its entirety, to a single physical stat rolled randomly.

STR is rolled randomly. Reduced to 0. DEX or END is rolled randomly (getting an END result), and the remaining 3 points of damage are applied there: 074.

The reason the first blood rule is not used after a character is damaged is because the game would then be too deadly.

Follow this example...



Target with physicals 777 is hit in combat by a weapon doing 3D damage. Damage turns out to be: 1, 2, 3. First blood rule is used because the target is at full health. DEX is the random stat. The character is now reduced to 717 in his physicals.

The character does not sustain any more damage, but neither does he receive medical help. He's on his way back to the ship, when, two hours later, he's attacked again. This time, damage is 2D, and the attacker rolls: 6, 6.

The normal method of wound allotment is used, and the defender has no choice, if he wants his character to remain conscious, than to reduce his stats to 1, 1, 1.

Still no medical treatment, the next day, the character is again attacked. The first blood rule is not used again because the character has been wounded previously. (First blood is only applied as a first wound.)

The damage of 1D is only 1 point, but that's still enough to knock this character unconscious.

Note that the first blood rule is not used at the beginning of each combat. It is only used if the wound is to be the first wound the character is suffering from. That's what the rules say.

 

[Supplement Four]

Exactly. This was one of my major gripes with CT; the fifteen second round in which you can only move and squeeze the trigger once.

I can understand that gripe. Back in the day, when CT was written, D&D used a 1 minute combat round! And, you only got to swing your sword once (or you fire your bow twice).

This type of rule comes from the designer's wargaming background: "This unit can fire once a turn...this unit fires three times a turn."

It's abstract, not meant to necessarily represent "pull of the trigger" just like attacking successfully and damaging a target with a gun doesn't necessarily mean the target was shot (just like swinging your broadsword at your goblin enemy in D&D doesn't mean you cut him).

It's a hit point system with somewhat abstract rounds.

And, I can understand your dislike of that.





Here's a house rule you may want to employ:

Snapshot enhanced Book 1 combat with an opton to fire your weapon more than a single time in a combat round. Use that as a rule of thumb to figure if characters can use multiple actions in a game governed by Book 1 combat.

What is a Book 1 combat round in Snapshot terms? An average character has 14 action points. And, a Book 1 character is allowed to move and make one attack each 15 second round.

That's 8 (or 12) aps to fire the weapon leaving 6 aps for movement (that varies due to direction and portals and things like that).

We can make a pretty good and easy house rule out of this, just by looking at what a character is allowed to do in the freeform system (Book 1) and the tactical system (Snapshot) and forming a comparison.

Here's the house rule I would use:



If a character's DEX + END = 16+ (he's above average), then allow him two attacks per round* at the price of no movement.

*In order for this rule to apply to autofire, the character's DEX + END = 24+.


That's a pretty fair and balanced rule. Hell, I might even start using it in my games.

If you like this rule, you can make a similar one using the Snap Attack rule from Snapshot (see pg. 6). This house rule would allow characters with lower level stats to make more than one attack in around at the price of no movement and a -2 DM penalty on each attack. The houserule could read like this:



(DEX + END) / 4 = the number of times a character is allowed to attack* in a round if he forgoes movement and uses a -2DM penalty on each attack.

*For autofire weapons, divide the total by 6.



Thus, a character 777777 could make 3 attacks if he remains stationary and suffers a -2 DM penalty on each attack.




Note: This is exactly the sort of house-ruling that LKW speaks about in the From the Management column of JTAS #2 (where he suggests using what is already in Traveller when creating new rules...interpolate).

Plus: Don't forget rules like Panic Fire that can be found in Book 4.

 

[far-trader]

Again, nobody is saying the rules for Snapshot et al are not Traveller, just that they are single encounter rules not meant for anything beyond that single encounter so they don't address post encounter effects, at all. Making arguments outside that narrow scope is wrong. They are more stand alone games, primarily intended for that purpose. Again, check the line (something) about "if a character is rendered unconscious they are out of the game". Surely you don't think that means in a CT campaign that if my character is rendered unconscious I have to roll up another one? (that's a rhetorical question of course, but do reply if you like, I'm not ruling out discussion by mentioning it, just saying I don't think you would say it should be read that way).

And the lesson of the first blood rule as applied to entering combat when wounded is DON'T! You think combat is deadly enough for a healthy person, darn rights you should think it should be even more lethal and difficult for someone with bullet holes and blade cuts.

I think (but I wasn't there either) that the designers knew what they were doing and intended CT to model fairly realistically deadly combat. As it should be. I think they fully intended wounds to be a penalty in later combats through temporarily reduced UPP characteristics. I think they fully intended First blood to represent that shock of a fresh wound, each and every time you enter a new combative encounter, not just when you're fully healed.

And I'm not at all sure Marc will recall the way it was first played or intended (not that I fault him at all for that, it was decades ago and my own memory is fuzzy). Besides he's moved on since then and his current take on it may be coloured by more recent game design ideas.

And it won't matter a whit to me which way he rules, until convinced otherwise (and His simple word wouldn't be enough) by reason I think they way I've long been doing it makes a better game. How could I be faulted for thinking that the way that looks better to me isn't the correct way as the rules are meant to be read

Nor should it matter or should you S4 (or anyone) be persuaded to change a way that works for you on the simple nod of Marc, imo.

What a clarification would do, if it were clear, would be to give anyone just picking up the game (a long shot maybe) a better start. At least until they ran into a Grognard from the other camp :devil:

 

[Supplement Four]

Again, nobody is saying the rules for Snapshot et al are not Traveller, just that they are single encounter rules not meant for anything beyond that single encounter so they don't address post encounter effects, at all.

As I've said, for the third time now, Snapshot specifically states that it presents a clarification of the rules in Book 1.

You seem to be ignoring that.

And, taking what Snapshot says and matching it with what The Traveller Book says provides for a perfect match. The quotes I presented from TTB are validated by what is clarified in Snapshot.

And the lesson of the first blood rule as applied to entering combat when wounded is DON'T!

You know...you're the the one assuming words with the first blood rule. It says nothing about the combat round, entering a combat round, or the first wound taken in a combat round.

What it describes is a characters first wound. Period.

It doesn't matter if that wound was inflicted that combat round or another.

I think they fully intended wounds to be a penalty in later combats through temporarily reduced UPP characteristics.

You have no evidence to support that, though. I've thrown no less than four quotes from the rule books at you that specifically guide the game into a different direction--one where stats have a dual role as a bookkeeping system and as attributes, but where wounds do not decrease attributes.

I've provided a lot of game evidence to support what I'm saying.

Look at how animals are handled in CT: They use hit points.

When a character is encumbered with a double load, he loses two hit points from each stat, but his stats are considered at their full level for other purposes.

When a character is wounded and his DEX is reduced, the Traveller Book specifically states that his DEX modifier for gun combat is not effected. It doesn't say it will be affected next round or in the next combat. The rule says the DEX modifier is not effected--as in: it's never effected by DEX reduction due to wounds.

That right there, that breaks your theroy that stats are reduced because of wounds after a combat encounter. You're saying, if a character with 777 physicals takes 6 points of damage to his DEX during a fight and doesn't get medical attention, that he'll be considered at 717 in the next fight he goes into.

That's incorrect, according to the book. The rule reads that the DEX modifier is not effected by wounds. So, your character's stat is still considered at 7 when looking at gun combat DEX modifiers...but his hit points are 717.

I mean, this line, right there, from pg. 36, is pretty doggone specific: ...a still conscious character with strength reduced from 9 to 7 would still function as if he had a strength 9.

It does not say anything about that changing later in later combat rounds or engagements. So, if you have a 777 character that is reduced to 377 due to wounds, you are not playing the came as written if you only allow the player to carry 3 kgs of equipment before being encumbered.


All of this jives, 100%, with what the Snapshot rules say. All you've backed up your comments with is your opinion. I've used several quotes from the rule book.

If you looked at this with an open mind, I think you'd see that I am correct in what I am saying. I think the problem is that you've been playing the game "your way" for 20 or 30 years and have it so ingrained that you cannot see the truth as it sits in front of you.

And I'm not at all sure Marc will recall the way it was first played or intended (not that I fault him at all for that, it was decades ago and my own memory is fuzzy). Besides he's moved on since then and his current take on it may be coloured by more recent game design ideas.

On this, I agree with you 100%. If DonM had him stop by and clarify what I'm saying for he, he may not even recall what he meant with CT.

Then again, mabye he remembers clearly...who knows.

And it won't matter a whit to me which way he rules, until convinced otherwise (and His simple word wouldn't be enough) by reason I think they way I've long been doing it makes a better game.

Wow. Well, there you have it, then. There is no convinicing you. You're saying if Marc Miller himself came on these boards, read this thread, and said, "Supplement Four is correct in his description of the Classic Traveler rules," that you would remain unconvinced.

Dunno what to tell ya. That's a pretty hard core, non-budging, stance, where you can't see the light even if it were brought to you.



BTW, I'm not attacking any houserules you might have. I started this thread to clear up misconceptions about Classic Traveller gaming. Obviously, there are a lot of misconceptions (which I suspected already), and I wanted to shed some light on how to play CT as it is written in the book.

But, if you've got a house rule that says attributes are effected by wounds, I have no quarrel with that.

I'm only trying to illuminate the rules in CT as they are presented--and not add to them or take anything way.

I want to share a clear picture of just what CT is becuase I'm fairly sure (and this thread supports this notion) that a lot of people really don't understand Classic Traveller as written.

 

[far-trader]

All I can say is you're wrong on several counts there, about me and imo on other points. Trying to be more specific for the last few minutes is just pushing the wrong buttons and feels pointless besides so I'll leave it at that. I'm not mad, just frustrated.

 

[Supplement Four]

All I can say is you're wrong on several counts there, about me and imo on other points.

What's frustrating is that I show you a specific rule printed in the book, and you ignore it.

 

[far-trader]

I'm not ignoring it (or anything you've said) S4. Again you're wrong about me.

Part of my frustration is that you seem as equally blinded as you accuse me by your own long use of the rules as you see them and you can't see that you're using some (much?) of your "specific rules" out of context (as has been pointed out) to (in appearance at least) support your take...

...never mind. I'm not dismissing you, we're just talking past each other I feel, and continuing to do so is pointless and annoying to everyone else, if not ourselves.

 

[aramis]

What's frustrating is that I show you a specific rule printed in the book, and you ignore it.

No, I tell you we believe you are doing three things:
1) taking it out of context (specifically the Snapshot quote)
2) expanding the frame of relevance for a specific quote too far (that is, applying it too broadly for the context it was written in). Again, the snapshot quote, plus the wounds are not applied to figuring capabilities bits
3) not looking at the overall scope of the rules.

TTB 33 sets the chapter's scope: the duration of a combat encounter.
It mentions explicitly that you need the UPP. The examples of damage on 36 show that the UPP is adjusted by wounds at the end of the encounter.

P37, Section "Weight", the mention of wound values being reduced is not exclusive (IE, ONLY wound values are reduced), but explicitly inclusive, as it reduces the UPP and recalculates wounds and unconsciousness, not only for recalculation.

Essentially, the normative mode for wounds is:
3 versions of the stats:

1. Full unwounded value
2. Started this combat with this value in my current UPP
3. Current value.

#2 is the one for which to-hit mods are figured, since the scope of the chapter says UPP (p33), and says that after combat, the UPP is adjusted (p36, example which continues from p35.)

You're claiming #1 is the basis, based upon a reference in a subsidiary product, whose scope is narrower still; by that same token, unconscious and dead characters explicitly will not recover. That product has no recovery rules at all. So, does that mean that a character no longer is able to recover from being wounded? I think not, nor do I think you do, but I think your approach is similar (but less exaggerated).

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm not dismissing you, we're just talking past each other I feel, and continuing to do so is pointless and annoying to everyone else, if not ourselves.

OK, let's take it nice and slow then, for both our sakes.

Does the introduction of Snapshot say that it clarifies rules of Book 1 combat?

Yes or no?