--- On Thu, 20/5/10, far_trader_mail <> wrote:
--- In , Eamon Watters <eamonwatters@...> wrote:
>> How can it be errata for TNE? TNE specifically introduced a sub 100-ton
>>jump-capable ship.
>The authors of such were taking the book at its literal without knowledge
>of, or ignoring same, the way Traveller jump drives work. So such designs
>also need to be noted as errata.
The authors of FF&S were Frank Chadwick, Dave Nilsen, assisted by Loren Wiseman. The Regency Sourcebook was written by Dave Nilsen. I think it's safe to assume that they were aware of what they were doing.
Also, FF&S went through two erratas without the 2m3 Jump Drive minimum being corrected.
>I was certain when I read it (the 2m3 minimum size) when it was first
>published that it was errata. You'll note the TNE main book had no
>sub-100 ton Starships and the example in FF&S uses a 100ton ship. Pretty
>glaring oversights IF the rule had really meant to be changed that much
>don't you think? Of course I don't blame anyone not passing familiar with
>prior Traveller canon on jump drives for missing it. And even an editor
>can be forgiven for missing it. It's a typo.
All of the starships in the TNE rulebook are updates of previous versions, so I'm afraid that is not a valid point. As mentioned above, I think the authors would have been well aware of Traveller Canon - and seeing as they were the arbiters of Traveller Canon at the time they could change it as they saw fit.
>Changing this would seriously change the whole nature of the default
>Traveller setting. Alternative tech may permit such, and I'd have no >argument with such. But jump drives are the default tech, and they have
>to work the same way they always did before. In my opinion, and
>apparently Marc's as well which is good enough for me. If Marc has said
>it was an error, then it is. And all official designs (and effects)
>resulting from the error are likewise rendered illegitimate. Using one
>(or several) such published examples as proof it isn't an error is not
>logical since they are the result of the error. They and the consequences
>are at best part of a special sub-set of Alternate TU. An unintentional
>Alternate Official TU or something :-)
I disagree that it would change the nature of the default Traveller setting. The 55dT Jump Boat is a very limited design by its write-up. As for Jump drives working the same way as they did before - the Jump Drives certainly differ between editions - MT and TNE requiring less fuel than CT and T4.
Marc can say it was an error all he wants (if that is what he is saying) - but the only people who could actually say that are Messrs. Chadwick, Nilsen and Wiseman. What Marc can say is that that the sub-100dt Jump Drive sections of FFS and the Regency Sourcebook are decanonised. Of course, that impacts on the Regency Sourcebook greatly - as the Jump Boat-enabled X-Web was a significant part of the setting, so I guess that would mean that TNE could be considered decanonised.
To be honest, I'm very disturbed at this hunt through all the versions of Traveller on a quest to eliminate 'error' vis-a-vis the 'one true Traveller'. People discovered Traveller at different times, with different rulesets. Other rulesets were appreciated, but it was generally accepted that the changes that came in with different rules were the new canon. If you didn't like that you could always stick with your old ruleset (or argue a lot). I see nothing wrong with that. However now that rulesets can be retroactively declared in error it seems we're entering a more dogmatic era of Traveller, and I for one don't like that.
Starviking