CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Thomas RUX (23 Oct 2019 02:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Phil Pugliese (23 Oct 2019 15:28 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Thomas RUX (23 Oct 2019 16:25 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Ethan McKinney (25 Oct 2019 00:04 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Thomas RUX (25 Oct 2019 01:03 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Ethan McKinney (25 Oct 2019 02:03 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Rupert Boleyn (25 Oct 2019 12:53 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Thomas RUX (25 Oct 2019 14:06 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Phil Pugliese (25 Oct 2019 16:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Ethan McKinney (25 Oct 2019 21:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Thomas RUX (25 Oct 2019 21:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Rupert Boleyn (26 Oct 2019 00:22 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Thomas RUX (26 Oct 2019 01:07 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Rupert Boleyn (26 Oct 2019 01:09 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Thomas RUX (26 Oct 2019 13:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Thomas RUX (25 Oct 2019 13:32 UTC)

Re: [TML] CT LBB 2 1977, 1981 Computer question Rupert Boleyn 26 Oct 2019 00:22 UTC

On 26Oct2019 0554, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:

>  It seems that most of the ship designs that GDW published have a
> little 'something' in them that doesn't quite jibe, doesn't it?
> Frankly, I've never noticed that little glitch. Anyway, it's easy to
> fix; If you're like me wrt computer & max jump capability, just
> redesign the Scout w/ a Model/2 or a Model/1bis. p.s. The discrepancy
> can then be 'rationalized' as a pre-prub typo or transcription
> error.

That would be the obvious fix, and it's the model that the Type S was
given in the 2nd edition (though that edition added the rule about model
limiting jump range, so it had to be fixed anyway).

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>