Hello Thomas,

Add T4 to the list. In T4 FF&S odd pages have a sun burst I call a watermark that makes copy or cut and paste impossible for some of the text.

Tom Rux

> On 06/24/2020 3:22 AM Thomas Jones-Low <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I will note that the OCR used to enable the cut/paste from all of the Classic
> Traveller, JTAS, Megatraveller and TNE books is marginal at best. I have found
> any attempt to cut/paste from these books always contains numerous spelling
> errors, layout errors, missing characters, words, or entire paragraphs. So the
> text in the book as written may be correct, but the cut/paste is almost always a
> mess.
>
> On 6/24/2020 2:35 AM, xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > You wrote:
> > " "For every 3 armor levels of 40 (defensing ship) apply a -1 DM against all
> > weapons on the surface explosions table and all but meson guns on the radiation
> > damage table.""
> >
> > You indicated that was a cut and paste.
> >
> > Here's what my MT p 94 says:
> >
> > "For every 3 armor levels over 40 (defending ship) apply a -1 DM against all
> > weapons on the surface explosion table and all but the meson guns on the
> > radiation damage tables. "
> >
> > Note carefully the difference between "For every 3 armor levels of 40 (defensing
> > ship)..." and "for every 3 armor levels OVER 40 (defending ship)".
> >
> > Every 3 armor levels of 40 is hard to parse as not being either
> > a) every 3 armour levels (of 40)
> > OR
> > b) every (3 armour levels of 40 [each])
> >
> > Neither of those is as clear as what was actually in the manual ("every 3 armor
> > levels over 40...").
> >
> > So, either something happened to your cut-and-paste or your MT Ref's guide is
> > very different than mine. And the first clue was "defensing" isn't even a word...
> >
> > So, we agree on how it works, but that 'cut and paste' you included was messed
> > up, which is why I had trouble parsing what was there.
> >
> > Logic led me to what is actually written in the manual and I just looked it up
> > and pasted the text in my MT manual pg 94. It does not match what you included,
> > but it does match what you and I both agree is the way things are to be resolved.
> >
> > So, there is no errata, because the actual text in the MT book (at least mine)
> > is correctly worded (using "over 40" not "of 40" and using "defending" instead
> > of "defensing").
> >
> > I don't know whether your manual is really screwed up (could have been an early
> > printing?) or there was a cut-n-paste issue, but take a look at what you wrote
> > previously then compare to what is there on pg94 again. I think some gremlin
> > krept into your transcription somehow or else you need an updated Ref's manual.
> >
> > TomB
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:13 PM Thomas RUX <xxxxxx@comcast.net
> > <mailto:xxxxxx@comcast.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     __
> >     Hi kaladorn,
> >>     On 06/23/2020 3:05 PM xxxxxx@gmail.com <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>     On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:08 PM Thomas RUX < xxxxxx@comcast.net
> >>     <mailto:xxxxxx@comcast.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>         __
> >>         Hello all,
> >>
> >>         My last question here was about how to increase the armor value for MT
> >>         planetoid and buffered planetoid hulls. Thanks to kaladorn I think I
> >>         have a handle on how to add additional armor for these two hull
> >>         configurations.
> >>
> >>         An off-shoot of the discuss asked what impact armor has on taking
> >>         damage in combat.
> >>
> >>         Here is what I think happens when adding Armor to a hull.
> >>
> >>         1. Constructed Hulls are configuration types are open frame,
> >>         needle/wedge, cone, cylinder, box, sphere, dome/disk, and irregular.
> >>
> >>         A. Select constructed hull configuration
> >>         B.Selected the Armor Type applying the applicable weight and price
> >>         modifiers to the hulls weight and cost.
> >>         C. The minimum armor protection for a spacecraft or starship hull is 40.
> >>         D. The Armor Table indicates that a protection value applies a further
> >>         modifier to the weight and cost of the hull
> >>
> >>         2. Planetoid and Buffered Planetoid hulls
> >>
> >>         A. Planetoid hull's 20% of unused material provides an Armor Value of
> >>         50 and the buffered planetoid hull's 35% of unused material provides
> >>         an Armor Value of 56 at no additional increase to weight and price.
> >>         B. To additional armor select from the Armor Type Table and apply the
> >>         appropriate weight and price modifiers.
> >>         C. The additional armor value for a Planetoid hull is increase from 50
> >>         to 53. Referring to the Armor Table the armor protection value of 53
> >>         has a modifier of 104. An armor value of 50 has a modifier of 80. The
> >>         modifier applied to weight and price is 104 - 80 = 24.
> >>
> >>         3. Armor and Combat MT Referee's Manual p. 94 DMs for Ship Damage table:
> >>         "For every 3 armor levels of 40 (defensing ship) apply a -1 DM against
> >>         all weapons on the surface explosions table and all but meson guns on
> >>         the radiation damage table."
> >>
> >>
> >>     What do you think the front of that sentence means?
> >     The quoted text means that for every 3 points of armor above 40 I get a DM
> >     of -1 applied to weapons that cause a surface explosion which are fusion
> >     guns, plasma guns, lasers, missiles, particle accelerators, and
> >     disintegrators per the Surface explosion table.  The same Armor DM is
> >     applied to radiation damage caused by particle accelerators, nuclear and
> >     antimatter missiles. Armor has no effect on meson guns since the energy is
> >     released in a ship's interior.
> >>     "For every 3 armour levels of the 40 (the defending ship has), apply a -1
> >>     DM against all weapons on the surface explosion table and all but the
> >>     meson guns on the radiation damage table" and thus.... 40/3 = 13 (rounding
> >>     down) so apply a -13 DM against all weapons as specified? I think a -13 DM
> >>     is HUGE.
> >>
> >>     OR
> >>
> >>     "For every 3 armour levels of 40 (defending ship), apply a -1 DM against
> >>     all weapons on the surface explosions table and all but the yada yada"
> >>     taken to mean that you need to have 3 levels of armour of 40 (so 120?)
> >>     needed to get a -1 DM? That's not likely to ever exist.
> >>
> >>     So what's the real story?
> >>
> >>     Let's assume starship damage *begins* at 40 (armour 0 in old HG terms, but
> >>     40 in MT to deal with when people shoot LAGs, Tac Missiles, etc. at
> >>     Starships).
> >>
> >>     A different wording might be what they really meant since both of the
> >>     readings I outline above are not reasonable:
> >     I had no problem with the wording as written.
> >>     "For every 3 armour levels more than 40 (defending ship has), apply a -1
> >>     DM against all weapons on the yada yada" which would mean:
> >>
> >>     Armour 43: -1 DM
> >>     Armour 46: -2 DM
> >>     Armour 49: -3 DM
> >>     Armour 52: -4 DM
> >>     Armour 55: -5 DM
> >>     etc.
> >>
> >>     I think some heavily armoured tanks are 57 (-5 DM) and some ships may
> >>     reach up towards 67 (-9 DM) but that's an awful lot of armour.
> >>
> >>     That would (aside) mean the 50 planetoid hull was a -3 DM and the 56
> >>     buffered planetoid was -5 DM, both of which feel like they might make
> >>     sense for an asteroid hull.
> >>
> >>     Armour 42 and below would be no modifier on the tables mentioned because
> >>     those levels of armour don't mean much to the weapons using those tables.
> >>
> >>     I think that's what is meant. I will see if there is an errata on this. If
> >>     not, I think the wording there needs cleared up.
> >     Again, I had no problem understanding the wording since I just read the text
> >     without trying to add an spin to them. Of course after twenty years of
> >     following maintenance requirement cards step by step helped. I will admit
> >     that this literal way of reading also causes me to go off on the wrong
> >     track.;-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>         A. A planetoid hull with an armor value of 50 generates a -3 DM on
> >>         both the surface and with the exception of a meson gun damage table.
> >>
> >>         Do I have a handle on this area?
> >>
> >>
> >>     If the wording works more like I think it should (and it does need the
> >>     English cleaned up or your transcription perhaps?), then yes. And -5 for a
> >>     buffered planetoid.
> >     Again, I had no problem with the English and my transcription of the rule
> >     from p. 94 was a copy and paste from from my PDF copy of the Referee's
> >     Manual after comparing the information with my softcover book.
> >
> >     Thank you for confirming that I have some clue on how MT armor is added to
> >     planetoid hulls and how that armor is used to minimize damage.
> >
> >     Tom Rux
> >
> >     -----
> >     The Traveller Mailing List
> >     Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
> >     Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> >     <mailto:xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
> >     To unsubscribe from this list please go to
> >     http://archives.simplelists.com
> >
> > -----
> > The Traveller Mailing List
> > Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
> > Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> > To unsubscribe from this list please go to
> > http://archives.simplelists.com
> >
>
>
> --
>          Thomas Jones-Low
> Work:	xxxxxx@softstart.com
> Home:   xxxxxx@gmail.com
> -----
> The Traveller Mailing List
> Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
> Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> To unsubscribe from this list please go to
> http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=zZOCJCw2BI9jPrGTB4OJoibiHbbTEiok