Thread: TNE FF&S Errata (was Re: Ore Processor and two quick questions)

--- In , "donm61873" <don.mckinney@...> wrote:
>
> I know that Marc (Miller) has confirmed that the 100-ton minimum ship size is definitely errata for TNE, and your suggestion of 28m3 makes a great deal of sense related to that. Do you have a recommendation for where this errata should be placed?
>

FF&S Chapter 3: Page 42: "Jump Drives... Important Note: The smallest jump drive possible, at any tech level, is 28m3. The smallest hull that can support jump drive, at any tech level, is 1400m3."

I would also add a note in Chapter 1. Something to the effect...

FF&S Chapter 1: Page 10: "Designing Spacecraft... 1. Hulls... The first step in designing a space craft is deciding if it is a Starship or Spaceship. Starships are special cases that use a jump drive for interstellar travel and must be a minimum of 1400m3. Alternative interstellar drives do not require this minimum hull size. The next step is to determine the size, shape, and... "

(at least I'm not aware of size restrictions for alternative drive tech, though there may well be, I'm just not familiar with them and their original rule systems, like Stutterwarp)

Dan "far-trader" Burns

> --- In , "far_trader_mail" <far_trader_mail@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "roger" <rogerclarktopaz@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm curious is there a minimum size that starships can be built? In FFS-1 page 42 it states that the smallest a jump drive can be made is 2m3.
> >
> > I've long believed that was a typo/errata and should have read 28m3. The error being they either dropped the "8" in entering the value, or took the 2ton minimum from HG et al and forgot to change the value when changing the units to fit FF&S1. So it's not 2m3 but 2tons, or more properly 28m3. No big deal, they screwed up the text, not the long held standard minimum drive size, nor the 100dton minimum ship size.
> >
> > --- In , DED <dedly@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Before TNE, 100 tons was the minimum size. TNE said that starships could
> > > have displacements less than 100 tons.
> >
> > Where? Precisely. I don't recall TNE stating that starships could be less than 100dtons. I do recall some designs being created after the fact, based on what I believe was an error, the 2m3 (imo) errata idiocy above. I saw that on my very first read of the rules when first published and was sure it was a mistake, but I don't recall anywhere the rules saying starships can be less than 100tons displacement. If I had then I wouldn't have felt it was a mistake. Maybe I've missed that all these years. If so I'd stand corrected on it being errata, it would simply be (imo) idiocy of the first order then ;-)
> >
> > Dan "far-trader" Burns
> >
>

Does anyone know what the reasoning behind the minimum hull size is? I've been using a 90 DT scout ship as the main scout ship for my pocket empire so if there is a reason behind this, I'd be very interested in it. (I do know I don't *have to* follow the rule, but the reasoning behind it will help me figure out if I *want to* or not.)

Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "far_trader_mail"
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:22:09
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] TNE FF&S Errata (was Re: Ore Processor and two quick questions)






--- In , "donm61873" <don.mckinney@...> wrote:
>
> I know that Marc (Miller) has confirmed that the 100-ton minimum ship size is definitely errata for TNE, and your suggestion of 28m3 makes a great deal of sense related to that. Do you have a recommendation for where this errata should be placed?
>

FF&S Chapter 3: Page 42: "Jump Drives... Important Note: The smallest jump drive possible, at any tech level, is 28m3. The smallest hull that can support jump drive, at any tech level, is 1400m3."

I would also add a note in Chapter 1. Something to the effect...

FF&S Chapter 1: Page 10: "Designing Spacecraft... 1. Hulls... The first step in designing a space craft is deciding if it is a Starship or Spaceship. Starships are special cases that use a jump drive for interstellar travel and must be a minimum of 1400m3. Alternative interstellar drives do not require this minimum hull size. The next step is to determine the size, shape, and... "

(at least I'm not aware of size restrictions for alternative drive tech, though there may well be, I'm just not familiar with them and their original rule systems, like Stutterwarp)

Dan "far-trader" Burns

> --- In , "far_trader_mail" <far_trader_mail@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "roger" <rogerclarktopaz@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm curious is there a minimum size that starships can be built? In FFS-1 page 42 it states that the smallest a jump drive can be made is 2m3.
> >
> > I've long believed that was a typo/errata and should have read 28m3. The error being they either dropped the "8" in entering the value, or took the 2ton minimum from HG et al and forgot to change the value when changing the units to fit FF&S1. So it's not 2m3 but 2tons, or more properly 28m3. No big deal, they screwed up the text, not the long held standard minimum drive size, nor the 100dton minimum ship size.
> >
> > --- In , DED <dedly@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Before TNE, 100 tons was the minimum size. TNE said that starships could
> > > have displacements less than 100 tons.
> >
> > Where? Precisely. I don't recall TNE stating that starships could be less than 100dtons. I do recall some designs being created after the fact, based on what I believe was an error, the 2m3 (imo) errata idiocy above. I saw that on my very first read of the rules when first published and was sure it was a mistake, but I don't recall anywhere the rules saying starships can be less than 100tons displacement. If I had then I wouldn't have felt it was a mistake. Maybe I've missed that all these years. If so I'd stand corrected on it being errata, it would simply be (imo) idiocy of the first order then ;-)
> >
> > Dan "far-trader" Burns
> >
>

--- 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.

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.

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 :-)

Dan "far-trader" Burns

--- In , daryl@... wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what the reasoning behind the minimum hull size is? I've been using a 90 DT scout ship as the main scout ship for my pocket empire so if there is a reason behind this, I'd be very interested in it. (I do know I don't *have to* follow the rule, but the reasoning behind it will help me figure out if I *want to* or not.)
>
> Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
>

Only Marc will know for sure. I suspect it's just a convenient round number for a game rule that made it easier to write the original CT Book 2 Ship Design rules by having a simple table with (mostly) even 100ton breakpoints.

There have been suppositions (Marc's Jump Space article in JTAS first did maybe) that the minimum size is what is required to maintain a stable jump bubble and anything smaller gets popped/crushed/whatever and the ship is destroyed.

That said I long ago (CT The Traveller Book) penciled in my own TU design notes for the minimum hull size for jump drives getting beaten back as TL progresses :-) (but I never imagined it as anything but alternate tech)

Dan "far-trader" Burns

I follow the reasoning for minimum size of the jump drive (must maintain a set size for jump bubble), but I don't see why the hull size would be restricted. Unless the jump buble is maintained with nodes installed on the hull. Couldn't a smaller ship be designed to use a jump drive for a 100 DT ship?

If what you're saying is true (it was likely done just for convenience's sake) then I think I'll go with just the minimum size for jump drive. At least for my own TU.

Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "far_trader_mail"
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:53:25
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] TNE FF&S Errata (was Re: Ore Processor and two quick questions)



--- In , daryl@... wrote:
>
> Does anyone know what the reasoning behind the minimum hull size is? I've been using a 90 DT scout ship as the main scout ship for my pocket empire so if there is a reason behind this, I'd be very interested in it. (I do know I don't *have to* follow the rule, but the reasoning behind it will help me figure out if I *want to* or not.)
>
> Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
>


Only Marc will know for sure. I suspect it's just a convenient round number for a game rule that made it easier to write the original CT Book 2 Ship Design rules by having a simple table with (mostly) even 100ton breakpoints.

There have been suppositions (Marc's Jump Space article in JTAS first did maybe) that the minimum size is what is required to maintain a stable jump bubble and anything smaller gets popped/crushed/whatever and the ship is destroyed.

That said I long ago (CT The Traveller Book) penciled in my own TU design notes for the minimum hull size for jump drives getting beaten back as TL progresses :-) (but I never imagined it as anything but alternate tech)

Dan "far-trader" Burns

Percolating through my earlier musings/fixes below I realize this may still not correctly lead to the intention of the original rules. It's really defining the jump drive itself as having a minimum size that messed/messes things up. Given the suggested correction below and ignoring my additional clarification for a minimum hull size one could still make a sub-100ton jump ship, if I'm thinking it through correctly...

Eg. A 35ton ship with the smallest possible jump drive of 28m3 would be capable of J6 (theoretically), actually having a jump drive of 29.4m3... Right? See what I mean? Defining a minimum jump drive size is the wrong approach for the intent.

If so either drop the "Important Note" entirely (misleading) and note the minimum hull size allowed for jump drives, or change the Important Note to the minimum hull size for jump note.

Dan "far-trader" Burns

--- In , "far_trader_mail" <far_trader_mail@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "donm61873" <don.mckinney@> wrote:
> >
> > I know that Marc (Miller) has confirmed that the 100-ton minimum ship size is definitely errata for TNE, and your suggestion of 28m3 makes a great deal of sense related to that. Do you have a recommendation for where this errata should be placed?
> >
>
> FF&S Chapter 3: Page 42: "Jump Drives... Important Note: The smallest jump drive possible, at any tech level, is 28m3. The smallest hull that can support jump drive, at any tech level, is 1400m3."
>
> I would also add a note in Chapter 1. Something to the effect...
>
> FF&S Chapter 1: Page 10: "Designing Spacecraft... 1. Hulls... The first step in designing a space craft is deciding if it is a Starship or Spaceship. Starships are special cases that use a jump drive for interstellar travel and must be a minimum of 1400m3. Alternative interstellar drives do not require this minimum hull size. The next step is to determine the size, shape, and... "
>
> (at least I'm not aware of size restrictions for alternative drive tech, though there may well be, I'm just not familiar with them and their original rule systems, like Stutterwarp)
>
> Dan "far-trader" Burns
>
> > --- In , "far_trader_mail" <far_trader_mail@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "roger" <rogerclarktopaz@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious is there a minimum size that starships can be built? In FFS-1 page 42 it states that the smallest a jump drive can be made is 2m3.
> > >
> > > I've long believed that was a typo/errata and should have read 28m3. The error being they either dropped the "8" in entering the value, or took the 2ton minimum from HG et al and forgot to change the value when changing the units to fit FF&S1. So it's not 2m3 but 2tons, or more properly 28m3. No big deal, they screwed up the text, not the long held standard minimum drive size, nor the 100dton minimum ship size.
> > >
> > > --- In , DED <dedly@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Before TNE, 100 tons was the minimum size. TNE said that starships could
> > > > have displacements less than 100 tons.
> > >
> > > Where? Precisely. I don't recall TNE stating that starships could be less than 100dtons. I do recall some designs being created after the fact, based on what I believe was an error, the 2m3 (imo) errata idiocy above. I saw that on my very first read of the rules when first published and was sure it was a mistake, but I don't recall anywhere the rules saying starships can be less than 100tons displacement. If I had then I wouldn't have felt it was a mistake. Maybe I've missed that all these years. If so I'd stand corrected on it being errata, it would simply be (imo) idiocy of the first order then ;-)
> > >
> > > Dan "far-trader" Burns
> > >
> >
>

--- In , daryl@... wrote:
>
> I follow the reasoning for minimum size of the jump drive (must maintain a set size for jump bubble), but I don't see why the hull size would be restricted. Unless the jump buble is maintained with nodes installed on the hull. Couldn't a smaller ship be designed to use a jump drive for a 100 DT ship?

It would depend on how the jump bubble is created/maintained. If it requires the equivalent of a hull then you don't save anything. If it's a field projection that can extend beyond the hull to make up the minimum displacement instead then yes a smaller hull would be possible, but you're sill going to have to use the minimum 100tons for fuel calculation as that is your bubble size.

CT did have "jump nets" that allowed ships to carry external payloads through jump. There was no solid info afik to the cost, mass, displacement, etc for the jump nets. You did have to have enough jump drive and fuel to "carry" the extra displacement though. That was about the extent of the rules.

Likewise there was no real issue for carrying externally mounted craft beyond their displacement and any mounting hardware. Either the jump drive extended to include them, some function of the mounting permitted it (like jump nets), or the craft hulls had the required jump grid or whatever included in them at the basic cost of manufacture (meaning it was a redundant feature for non-jump use*).

* except that I figured the hull grid/field was a standard feature/part of the required hull that included not just jump space protection but also normal space radiation protection and debris shielding, wrapped up with the artificial gravity and contra grav lifters (before such items were broken out into defined components)

Problem is this is one of those tar-pit questions that once you start into it you're stuck inventing all kinds of increasingly stretched ideas to explain your way out of the mess, only you just find yourself sinking deeper as you struggle harder :-)

Dan "far-trader" Burns

Tar pit question indeed. I’ve always assumed that jump-bubbles cannot be
spherical because the volume of n-space they contain is *not* dependant on
the longest dimension of the ship inside the bubble. I have also always
assumed that their shape cannot be tied to anything in the hull of the
ship because a ship with extreme damage to its hull can still jump without
issue (apart from, you know, the vacuum of n-space itself).

The easiest solution, in my mind, was to assume that the extent and shape
of the bubble was simply projected from the jump-engine into n-space
through a gap in the hull which the jump engine enclosed (hence the need
for surface area for jump engines, and why it’s always tied to one
specific spot on the damage tables and not spread over all 20 hull
locations).

This addresses pretty much all the issues I know of (which, granted, is
likely not *all* the issues), but does fail to explain why there would be
a minimum hull size (which I’ve decided to ignore anyway).

As far as jump nets go (which I just found out about today), perhaps they
allow the ‘bubble’ to be extended in odd, unpredictable shapes. For
example, a vessel designed to tow another one through jump-space would not
know ahead of time what the shape of the carried ship would be.

>
>
> --- In , daryl@... wrote:
>>
>> I follow the reasoning for minimum size of the jump drive (must maintain
>> a set size for jump bubble), but I don't see why the hull size would be
>> restricted. Unless the jump buble is maintained with nodes installed on
>> the hull. Couldn't a smaller ship be designed to use a jump drive for a
>> 100 DT ship?
>
> It would depend on how the jump bubble is created/maintained. If it
> requires the equivalent of a hull then you don't save anything. If it's a
> field projection that can extend beyond the hull to make up the minimum
> displacement instead then yes a smaller hull would be possible, but you're
> sill going to have to use the minimum 100tons for fuel calculation as that
> is your bubble size.
>
> CT did have "jump nets" that allowed ships to carry external payloads
> through jump. There was no solid info afik to the cost, mass,
> displacement, etc for the jump nets. You did have to have enough jump
> drive and fuel to "carry" the extra displacement though. That was about
> the extent of the rules.
>
> Likewise there was no real issue for carrying externally mounted craft
> beyond their displacement and any mounting hardware. Either the jump drive
> extended to include them, some function of the mounting permitted it (like
> jump nets), or the craft hulls had the required jump grid or whatever
> included in them at the basic cost of manufacture (meaning it was a
> redundant feature for non-jump use*).
>
> * except that I figured the hull grid/field was a standard feature/part of
> the required hull that included not just jump space protection but also
> normal space radiation protection and debris shielding, wrapped up with
> the artificial gravity and contra grav lifters (before such items were
> broken out into defined components)
>
> Problem is this is one of those tar-pit questions that once you start into
> it you're stuck inventing all kinds of increasingly stretched ideas to
> explain your way out of the mess, only you just find yourself sinking
> deeper as you struggle harder :-)
>
>
> Dan "far-trader" Burns
>
>
>
>

I have always stuck 1400M^3 as minimum starship hull size, that being said,
i am invoking the Handwavium rule here, but in at least one scenario (and
possibly a jtas article) I justified the minimum size rule by claiming
anything less would not support a jump "bubble" of sufficient strength to
consistently prevent jump inclusions, that will damage a vessel and drive
crew insane. ( that last part is based on an actual cannon adventure, if
anyone considers T20 canon that is 8-)

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM, <> wrote:

>
>
> Tar pit question indeed. I�ve always assumed that jump-bubbles cannot be
> spherical because the volume of n-space they contain is *not* dependant on
> the longest dimension of the ship inside the bubble. I have also always
> assumed that their shape cannot be tied to anything in the hull of the
> ship because a ship with extreme damage to its hull can still jump without
> issue (apart from, you know, the vacuum of n-space itself).
>
> The easiest solution, in my mind, was to assume that the extent and shape
> of the bubble was simply projected from the jump-engine into n-space
> through a gap in the hull which the jump engine enclosed (hence the need
> for surface area for jump engines, and why it�s always tied to one
> specific spot on the damage tables and not spread over all 20 hull
> locations).
>
> This addresses pretty much all the issues I know of (which, granted, is
> likely not *all* the issues), but does fail to explain why there would be
> a minimum hull size (which I�ve decided to ignore anyway).
>
> As far as jump nets go (which I just found out about today), perhaps they
> allow the �bubble� to be extended in odd, unpredictable shapes. For
> example, a vessel designed to tow another one through jump-space would not
> know ahead of time what the shape of the carried ship would be.
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In <>,
> daryl@... wrote:
> >>
> >> I follow the reasoning for minimum size of the jump drive (must maintain
> >> a set size for jump bubble), but I don't see why the hull size would be
> >> restricted. Unless the jump buble is maintained with nodes installed on
> >> the hull. Couldn't a smaller ship be designed to use a jump drive for a
> >> 100 DT ship?
> >
> > It would depend on how the jump bubble is created/maintained. If it
> > requires the equivalent of a hull then you don't save anything. If it's a
> > field projection that can extend beyond the hull to make up the minimum
> > displacement instead then yes a smaller hull would be possible, but
> you're
> > sill going to have to use the minimum 100tons for fuel calculation as
> that
> > is your bubble size.
> >
> > CT did have "jump nets" that allowed ships to carry external payloads
> > through jump. There was no solid info afik to the cost, mass,
> > displacement, etc for the jump nets. You did have to have enough jump
> > drive and fuel to "carry" the extra displacement though. That was about
> > the extent of the rules.
> >
> > Likewise there was no real issue for carrying externally mounted craft
> > beyond their displacement and any mounting hardware. Either the jump
> drive
> > extended to include them, some function of the mounting permitted it
> (like
> > jump nets), or the craft hulls had the required jump grid or whatever
> > included in them at the basic cost of manufacture (meaning it was a
> > redundant feature for non-jump use*).
> >
> > * except that I figured the hull grid/field was a standard feature/part
> of
> > the required hull that included not just jump space protection but also
> > normal space radiation protection and debris shielding, wrapped up with
> > the artificial gravity and contra grav lifters (before such items were
> > broken out into defined components)
> >
> > Problem is this is one of those tar-pit questions that once you start
> into
> > it you're stuck inventing all kinds of increasingly stretched ideas to
> > explain your way out of the mess, only you just find yourself sinking
> > deeper as you struggle harder :-)
> >
> >
> > Dan "far-trader" Burns
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla

>
>
> > --- In <>,
> daryl@... wrote:
> >>
> >> I follow the reasoning for minimum size of the jump drive (must maintain
> >> a set size for jump bubble), but I don't see why the hull size would be
> >> restricted. Unless the jump buble is maintained with nodes installed on
> >> the hull. Couldn't a smaller ship be designed to use a jump drive for a
> >> 100 DT ship?
>
>
Sub-100dt jump capable vehicles do exist in cannon.

1) Adventure 4: Leviathan from CT which has jump torpedoes - unmanned jump
capable missiles for sending messages.
2) Regency Sourcebook 55dt jump boats.

--
Axel

jtorps were one shot and recover items,unmanned messenger drones, no
passengers basically. so, as presented in cannon, how the frak did they get
away with the minimum drive size being violated? (expirimental Tech 16
items? they never were explained to my satisfaction really.) never did get
the regency source book so i am ignerant on that one, though i did know
about the 150dton stretch scouts 8-)

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Axel <> wrote:

>
>
>
>> > --- In <>,
>> daryl@... wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I follow the reasoning for minimum size of the jump drive (must
>> maintain
>> >> a set size for jump bubble), but I don't see why the hull size would be
>> >> restricted. Unless the jump buble is maintained with nodes installed on
>> >> the hull. Couldn't a smaller ship be designed to use a jump drive for a
>> >> 100 DT ship?
>>
>>
> Sub-100dt jump capable vehicles do exist in cannon.
>
> 1) Adventure 4: Leviathan from CT which has jump torpedoes - unmanned jump
> capable missiles for sending messages.
> 2) Regency Sourcebook 55dt jump boats.
>
> --
> Axel
>
>
>
>

--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla

--- In , Axel <der.axel@...> wrote:
>
>
> Sub-100dt jump capable vehicles do exist in cannon.
>
> 1) Adventure 4: Leviathan from CT which has jump torpedoes - unmanned jump
> capable missiles for sending messages.

De-canonized by Marc iirc :-) Though it might be interesting to allow it with the caveat that it is unmanned and any life aboard would be killed or worse as noted. It was either created under an incorrect assumption or before the 100ton minimum hull was canon, I suspect.

> 2) Regency Sourcebook 55dt jump boats.
>

Being built* on the FF&S error isn't proof of canon correctness of the size limit though :-)

I also seem to recall something in the backstory of it that there was a reason it had never been done before. So it could work as a New Era design if that was the case. Or I might just be recalling various handwaves and houserules to make it fit.

* I presume

Dan "far-trader" Burns

As for previous iterations of the jump drive how does the jump torpedo from
Adventure 4 work? This adventure was still listed as canon the last time I
checked.

Personally I don't really care one way or the other. It does bring to mind
an old cartoon showing a Kinunir hurtling back to base with a caption
something like "an imminent rule change"

Antony

-----Original Message-----
From: far_trader_mail
Sent: Thursday, 20 May 2010 10:38 PM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] TNE FF&S Errata (was Re: Ore Processor and two
quick questions)

--- In , Eamon Watters <eamonwatters@

The problem with a minimum hull size is that it will ignore hull
configuration so the jump bubble would again need to either follow the hull
bringing back up the discussion about whether the jump drive requires a hull
grid or not. For example a 100dt starship with a sphere configuration would
need a jump bubble of a much smaller diameter than the same displacement
starship with a needle configuration or it does not require something to
force it to configure to the hull shape which could allow smaller
displacement vessels with "more wasteful" configurations that fit within
that jump bubble to be used. Either way is really anomalous.

Antony

-----Original Message-----
From: far_trader_mail
Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 2:37 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] TNE FF&S Errata (was Re: Ore Processor and two
quick questions)

Percolating through my earlier musings/fixes below I realize this may still
not correctly lead to the intention of the original rules. It's really
defining the jump drive itself as having a minimum size that messed/messes
things up. Given the suggested correction below and ignoring my additional
clarification for a minimum hull size one could still make a sub-100ton jump
ship, if I'm thinking it through correctly...

Eg. A 35ton ship with the smallest possible jump drive of 28m3 would be
capable of J6 (theoretically)

Of course, why the 100dt lower limit on starships?

It's obvious - the Vilani traditionally never built a ship with jump drive
smaller than this so Vilani yards at least will not now build a starship
smaller than 100dt.

Antony

-----Original Message-----
From: far_trader_mail
Sent: Friday, 21 May 2010 10:11 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] TNE FF&S Errata (was Re: Ore Processor and two
quick questions)

--- In , Axel <der.axel@..

I have alsways regarding the term "jump bubble" as an analogy and not as a bubble as such. I have always regarded the hull gridd being the actual gimo to keep the jump space seperate from n-space inside the craft.

And I have no problems with sub 100dt jump capable crafts. Why not? I think the limit at 100dt is an artifact from CT where everything was more or less designed by tables rather than formulas.

--
Roger Malmstein
www.travellerfreepo

--- 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

   
     

   
   

 

My apologies to all... I'm on the digest, so I'm slow to respond at times...

--- In , "far_trader_mail" <far_trader_mail@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Axel <der.axel@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sub-100dt jump capable vehicles do exist in cannon.
> >
> > 1) Adventure 4: Leviathan from CT which has jump torpedoes - unmanned jump
> > capable missiles for sending messages.
>
> De-canonized by Marc iirc :-) Though it might be interesting to allow it with the caveat that it is unmanned and any life aboard would be killed or worse as noted. It was either created under an incorrect assumption or before the 100ton minimum hull was canon, I suspect.

Decanonized isn't the word for it. But, yes, that has been eliminated in the CT errata:

"Adventure 4: Leviathan, Page 35, Jump Message Torpedoes (correction): Eliminate this paragraph, and replace them with additional RPV drones on page 31."

> > 2) Regency Sourcebook 55dt jump boats.
> >
>
> Being built* on the FF&S error isn't proof of canon correctness of the size limit though :-)
>
> I also seem to recall something in the backstory of it that there was a reason it had never been done before. So it could work as a New Era design if that was the case. Or I might just be recalling various handwaves and houserules to make it fit.
>
> * I presume
>
> Dan "far-trader" Burns

I'll have to go look at that, but I suspect the easiest errata is simply to delete the design.

It's not like someone's going to come to your house and kick you if you continue using small jump drives. But officially, nothing under 100 tons can jump. Just ignore that line in the errata if you don't like it.

--- 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

--- In , "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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 :-)
>
> Dan "far-trader" Burns
>

GDW was basically sans Marc during the TNE period, but indications at the time were that they DID know what they were doing by removing the 100-dton minimum. They went so far as to have a miniature of the "offending" design cast up by RAFM.

Marc's opinion now notwithstanding, it was a conscious decision at the time by all public indications.

That said...

The 100-dton minimum is only odd in the context of Traveller because the game tends to dwell at the small end of ships to begin with. When we are used to the "default" being 200 to 400 tons, being told you can't go smaller than 100 seems arbitrary. Move your commerce default up to 2000-4000 dtons, and now that 100-dton scout looks "cute". Move the commerce default up above 10k dtons and the Scout becomes "that dangerous little contraption the Scout Service insists on calling a ship." I'm half convinced that the misjump rules are centered around the little stuff just as the commerce rules are, and that jumps are a LOT less risky as you get away from the tiny hulls that shouldn't be mounting jump drives even if the physics of jump allows them to.

On 21 May 2010 10:38, Eamon Watters <> wrote:

> --- On Thu, 20/5/10, far_trader_mail <<>>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Not to mention that they were the canonical authors of the period.
Marc <> God

> >Changing this would seriously change the whole nature of the default
> >Traveller setting. 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.
>
so I guess that would mean that TNE could be considered decanonised.
>
Starviking ._,___
>

I agree with Starviking. I'd add to that by pointing out that the reaction
mass requirements for the sub-light drive have way more of an impact on
canon than allowing JD's on ships below 100 dtons.

--
Axel

this falls in line with my thoughts somewhat on jump inclusions and why jump
drives are not permitted on (manned) ships under 100 tns. the (handwavium)
physics of jumpspace require a specific minimum of displacenment to
'guarantee' a safe jump. I pretty much end the debate with the players at
that point. the actual minimum might only be 87.659 tons, but who want to
volunteer to find out? it could also be explained as under 100Dtons, the
probability of jump inclusions grows greater than %1, thus being banned by
imperial decree, so, it might not be an actual physics limitation, it might
be that permits are simply not issued for building a starship under 100dTons
in any imperial affiliated shipyard. as for post imperium? perhaps the
rational of why you don't build starships under 100Dtons may have been
partially forgotten (well, it ain't never been done befour, so ther musta
been a reeson I guess.)
I have also used that same line of reasoning for the limit of 1 turret per
100 tons. that is a "CIVILIAN" limitation, not a technical limitation. That
being said, pure military ships in MTU are NOT canon. in MTU, I have once or
twice role played out permit acquisition for would be ship builders who
wanted to pack in more turrets per ton than imperial law allowed for a
'civilian' ship. it certainly helped that the individual in question was a
knight of the realm with 24 years of Naval service under the belt, AND had
successfully completed 2 merc tickets.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, James <> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In <>,
> "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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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 :-)
> >
> > Dan "far-trader" Burns
> >
>
> GDW was basically sans Marc during the TNE period, but indications at the
> time were that they DID know what they were doing by removing the 100-dton
> minimum. They went so far as to have a miniature of the "offending" design
> cast up by RAFM.
>
> Marc's opinion now notwithstanding, it was a conscious decision at the time
> by all public indications.
>
> That said...
>
> The 100-dton minimum is only odd in the context of Traveller because the
> game tends to dwell at the small end of ships to begin with. When we are
> used to the "default" being 200 to 400 tons, being told you can't go smaller
> than 100 seems arbitrary. Move your commerce default up to 2000-4000 dtons,
> and now that 100-dton scout looks "cute". Move the commerce default up above
> 10k dtons and the Scout becomes "that dangerous little contraption the Scout
> Service insists on calling a ship." I'm half convinced that the misjump
> rules are centered around the little stuff just as the commerce rules are,
> and that jumps are a LOT less risky as you get away from the tiny hulls that
> shouldn't be mounting jump drives even if the physics of jump allows them
> to.
>
>
>

--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla

>I agree with Starviking. I'd add to that by pointing out that the reaction
mass requirements for the sub-light drive have way more of >an impact on
canon than allowing JD's on ships below 100 dtons.

my translation of the reactionless drives was actually rather simplistic,
during the civil war, almost every starship construction facility was an
acknowledged war target. so, most got hit, and hit hard. not just the
shipyards, but the facilities to manufacture reactionless drives (and otherr
ship components) as well. the most economical means of combatting said
attacks, was to build ships that could be supported by lower tech levels
than the ships were constructed at. so, we have the RE-introduction of
reactionless drives. after 40 years of civil war and the release of virus,
and the collapse that ensued pretty much wiped out anything with a
reactionless drive. IMTU, i allow the re-introduction as a T13 item for
ships, and they can't be 'retrofitted' as they are basically integral to the
hull and structure.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Axel <> wrote:

>
>
> On 21 May 2010 10:38, Eamon Watters <> wrote:
>
>> --- On Thu, 20/5/10, far_trader_mail <<>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Not to mention that they were the canonical authors of the period.
> Marc <> God
>
>
>> >Changing this would seriously change the whole nature of the default
>> >Traveller setting. 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.
>>
> so I guess that would mean that TNE could be considered decanonised.
>>
> Starviking ._,___
>>
>
> I agree with Starviking. I'd add to that by pointing out that the reaction
> mass requirements for the sub-light drive have way more of an impact on
> canon than allowing JD's on ships below 100 dtons.
>
>
>
> --
> Axel
>
>
>
>

--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla

--- On Fri, 21/5/10, far_trader_mail <> wrote:

>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.

I was saying that keeping the Jump Boat Canon wouldn't have a significant effect, as it is a design with limitations. Cutting it has a significant effect on the Regency Setting in TNE, possibly rendering it non-canon.

Personally I think it would be best to state that up until TL-15 sub-100dT ships jumping had a significant error in where they emerged from J-Space - and so for all intents and purposes they are not permitted.

On 20 May 2010 at 21:18, Axel wrote:

> Sub-100dt jump capable vehicles do exist in cannon.
>
> 1) Adventure 4: Leviathan from CT which has jump torpedoes - unmanned
> jump capable missiles for sending messages.

No, that was later stated to be non-canon.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com

On 22 May 2010 03:22, <> wrote:

> On 20 May 2010 at 21:18, Axel wrote:
>
> > Sub-100dt jump capable vehicles do exist in cannon.
> >
> > 1) Adventure 4: Leviathan from CT which has jump torpedoes - unmanned
> > jump capable missiles for sending messages.
>
> No, that was later stated to be non-canon.
>
> Can you provide a reference?
My Google-fu couldn't find one.

--
Axel

It's probably buried in the TML listings, but I'm also pretty sure the Leviathan Jump-Torps were decanonised.

Starviking

--- On Sat, 22/5/10, Axel <> wrote:

From: Axel <>
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] TNE FF&S Errata (was Re: Ore Processor and two quick questions)
To:
Date: Saturday, 22 May, 2010, 12:21

 

On 22 May 2010 03:22, <> wrote:

 On 20 May 2010 at 21:18, Axel wrote:

> Sub-100dt jump capable vehicles do exist in cannon.

>

> 1) Adventure 4: Leviathan from CT which has jump torpedoes - unmanned

> jump capable missiles for sending messages.

No, that was later stated to be non-canon.

Can you provide a reference?My Google-fu couldn't find one. 
--
Axel

--- On Fri, 21/5/10, far_trader_mail <> wrote:
>> 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?

Well addressing those points in the order they were raised:

* MT is notorious for errors.
* I agree, lack of correction is not proof of non-error - but it is a point to weigh, especially if the error is pretty glaring.
* On the scenarios - possible, but with a low probability of occurrence in my opinion.

>> 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?

Not really odd if you consider that the new lower tonnage limit was only shown in a Regency ship - which was not the primary TNE setting, and would not be sketched out for another two years. The rulebook showed starships the PCs were likely to come across - ex-Imperial vessels which (for whatever handwave you choose) were designed with a 100dT limit.

>>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.

I'll disagree on the marginality of the differences - HEPLAR made ships more fuel dependent than other versions - no zinging around a system on reactionless drive for 4 weeks after jumping in.

>>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.

I guess it depends on what you think is game-changing. There's other stuff being done too that I oppose - like rigidly tying Naval Bases to A + B starports. Now that's in the gen rules of all settings (I think), but there have always been exceptions: one of the Mirriam's in the Spinward Marches has an E-port and a Naval Base. TNE, with its collapse rules has a few C-port/Naval Base combos. The errata push wants to eliminate these - but this kind of error/unexpected result makes a setting for me by eliminating the cookie-cutter feel engendered by rigidly sticking to a rule (however inappropriate the rule is, either by form or application). I'd much more prefer a push to fix a lot of the batshit insane multiple-UWPs seen in some computer generated Traveller Sectors, and some of the fan naming should be purged too...

>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?

I'm mostly with you here - having a theoretical limit of a 100m3 J1 ship does not mean one can be built with the resources available (or if it can be built that it is useful) - but that still does not mean that the theoretical limit does not exist. As an example - the Atlas ICBM was capable of achieving orbit on its own without staging. However its utility as a Single-Stage to Orbit vehicle was zero.

>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.

I'll disagree for the reason above, and I'll note that FFS covered a wide range of tech levels - so who knows what functionality might be possible at higher tls?

Starviking