--- In , Eamon Watters <eamonwatters@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 20/5/10, far_trader_mail <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.
I think it's safe to presume they are as fallible as anyone. They may have simply made a mistake. Or maybe it was an intentional choice. I think it deserved more than a simple one line note if it was.
>
> Also, FF&S went through two erratas without the 2m3 Jump Drive minimum being corrected.
And MT has been through how many erratas? A few or several. And there are still errors uncorrected. Saying it wasn't corrected does not mean it wasn't an error. Could it not be that this (possible) error was simply never noted by someone who was connected enough to get it in the errata? Or maybe it was noticed, but not until after the horse had left the barn (in the form of the Regency Sourcebook and it's Jump Boats) and it was felt by the powers that be that correcting it then would be worse?
>
>
> >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.
And all were changed some in design and in the way they worked because of the change in maneuver drives. This was a new paradigm and noted as such with explanation. But not one hint or mention of the change in jump drives? Not one design showing the NEW jump drive design philosophy in use? Odd no?
>
> 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.
Marginally different. And none of them made sub100ton jump ships.
>
> 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.
Wait, I thought you said it wouldn't change anything and the Jump Boat was limited. Now you say if it were gone that would be a great impact on a significant feature. It can't be both.
>
> 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.
It's an attempt at consistency. I applaud it. I don't find it dogmatic. At least no more so than any other attempt to root out errors. I don't think we should just say "Oh well, they printed it so that's the way it is now." Not without some explanation anyway. Not if they intend it to be the same game. Different strokes and all I guess.
But ok, let's look at this particular nit from a different slant.
Let's say we take the statement as given. What does it mean? It means we can build (in theory) a J1 "ship" of just 100m3. Does that make any sense? Can we fit even the barest minimum of required components to make a valid "ship"? Even a simple jump torpedo* ala Leviathan? I'm guessing not. I vaguely recall trying to back in the day, and not succeeding. I don't have the time or resources to run some numbers again. Anyone else care to?
If there's no way to make a functional design at that minimum 2m3 drive size then stating such a minimum is pointless. Or it was a typo/error. The way it is written really sounds like a last minute addition without due consideration to me.
If there is a valid design at such a minimum then I could accept the statement is at least plausibly intended as written.
* Let's chat about that for a second too, since it was brought up as precedence. I had a a look last night, there's precious little there. Nothing really. It's basically 'a jump drive and fuel with a message tape'. Nothing about a power plant (shades of first printing Book 2). Nothing about how long a jump (J1? J2? J6???). Nothing about how big (or small) it is except a vague implication that it fires from a normal launcher and 1 is stored in a 1/2ton (deckplan) closet. Not even a cost for it. In other words it seems to be just an idea. Not a developed concept.
Anyway, I'm just in this because the question was asked and I for one have long wondered why this bit of apparent errata had gotten so little discussion. I'm certainly not invested in it though I find it interesting that Marc agrees it is errata.
Dan "far-trader" Burns