Traveller-digest    Thursday, September 9 1999    Volume 1999 : Number 1079



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Acceptable Battle Losses (was: Re: Safety of low berths)
Re: Acceptable Battle Losses (was: Re: Safety of low berths)
Re: The Big Button [ Virus, eggs, booby traps ] 
Re: The Big RED Button (was Re: The Big Button)
RE Dustbin
Re: Bad Players
Re: Technology Demographics
Re: Roger Sanger?
Re: Bad Players
WoTC
Re: Hasbro buying WOTC
Re: Roger Sanger?
[none]
Re: Merc Equipment/Recruitment 
Re: WoTC
Re: Merc Equipment/Recruitment 
Re: Merc Equipment/Recruitment 
Habsro-WoTC
Re: WoTC
Way cool astronaut toy :-)
Re: 5FW: 1st Fleet?
Re: Merc Equipment/Recruitment 
Re: Re:UpPorts
Re: Weight of Metal
Re: WoTC
Re: Dustbin clarified

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:38:38 +0100
From: Matt Clonfero <Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Acceptable Battle Losses (was: Re: Safety of low berths)

Black ICE wrote:

>> Jutland - tactical victory for the RN - the enemy fleet fled the area,
>> returning to a friendly port.
>
>OTOH, according to Keegan [_The Price of Admiralty_, page 136], Admiral
>Scheer's objective was to inflict losses on the Grand Fleet.  He
>succeeded in sinking more enemy "Dreadnought-type" capital ships
>(INVINCIBLE, INDEFATIGABLE, and QUEEN MARY) than he lost (LUTZOW).  In
>other words, the High Seas Fleet's mission was to sortie, kill enemy
>capital ships, and return home.  Which they did.  It was in that sense
>(plus, of course, the fact that Germany lost far fewer sailors than did
>Britain) that I referred to Jutland as a German tactical victory.

INVINCIBLE, INDEFATIGABLE and QUEEN MARY were all battlecruisers, not
dreadnought battleships.

Also, the UK was outproducing Germany in Battlecruisers and Battleships.
It also had a large advantage of numbers, so it could afford these
losses. (You also neglect the fact that Seydlitz was out of action for
months). Finally, the Grand Fleet was ready for another battle 24 hours
after Jutland. The High Seas Fleet wasn't able to put to sea for months.

>Anyway, it could be worse; I could be arguing that the Spanish sould and
>should retake Gibraltar!  (For the uninitiated:  This discussion went on
>for quite some time, generating much more heat than light, on
>sci.military.naval.)

;>
They are welcome to try.

>ObTrav:  Over a century after the end of the Solomani Rim War, I expect
>that military theorists still debate, with much vigor, the wisdom of
>invading Terra.  

Just like the debates over the failure to win WWI by defeating the
Germans and pushing them back to Germany, rather than by the Armistice,
being one cause of WWII; or the debates over the failure in 1991 to push
on to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

IMHO, the best time to negotiate victory terms is with your foot on your
enemy's neck.

Aetherem Vincere
Matt
- -- 
Matt Clonfero: Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk    | To err is human, To forgive
My employer and I have a deal - I don't speak | is not Air Force Policy.
for them, and they don't speak for me.        |   -- Anon, ETPS.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:32:53 +0100
From: Matt Clonfero <Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Acceptable Battle Losses (was: Re: Safety of low berths)

SD Mooney wrote:

>>Probably because the delta in capability between the units wasn't great
>>enough to offset the delta in numbers. To link this to an earlier
>>thread, see NATO, Warsaw Pact, and first use of tactical nuclear
>>weapons.
>
>I've a problem with the Rim War - the Imperium is bigger, but has an
>average TL lower than the Solomani (unless someone has crunched the
>information down and proved otherwise). The Confederation is pretty uniform
>in TL and has a lot of TL14 worlds. Although smaller, surely this gives
>them an advantage longer term?

Depends if the Imperium can bring it's mass to bear. It's no use having
scads and scads of units if you can't bring them to bear on the enemy in
a reasonable timescale. Otherwise, you are feeding meat into a mincing
machine.

Aetherem Vincere
Matt
- -- 
Matt Clonfero: Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk    | To err is human, To forgive
My employer and I have a deal - I don't speak | is not Air Force Policy.
for them, and they don't speak for me.        |   -- Anon, ETPS.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 12:46:52 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Button [ Virus, eggs, booby traps ] 

> Going a step farther, even today microcontrollers tend to be computers
> in their own right, and are embedded into every appliance because
> they're so cheap... has you coffee maker ever tried to kill you yet?

Only when my roomie is making the coffee.  Course, I don't think my VCR cares 
for me too much...

> Kind of like your house being haunted...

Prob is, it scares the hell outta the cat.

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 12:57:12 -0400
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com>
Subject: Re: The Big RED Button (was Re: The Big Button)

"Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net> puts forth on the Net:
 >>Given the convoluted history of publishing rules for the GW setting,
 >>shouldn't that be the "Nth edition", as in the Nth Interstellar War(s)?
 >>;-)
 >As if we, fans of Traveller -- which has gone through CT, MT, TNE, T4,
 >T4.1, GURPS Traveller, and T5 -- have any right to jest. ;-)

Darn tooting we do!  We appreciate that Joke because we lived it! :-)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
eclipse@ultranet.com -- These opinions are mine, no one else wants `em.
           You sound reasonable ... time to up my medication
                  http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:13:44 -0500 
From: "Smart, David J (David)" <dasmart@lucent.com>
Subject: RE Dustbin

Ian Ferguson posted:
>
>
>	I like to run games in which the players decide on goals,
>	where to go, what to do, etc., but some limits must be
>	set (IMHO).  The main limit that I have always tried to 
>	enforce is on group integrity: since the PCs are 
>	automatically hired into the group, it is not fair (and it 
>	is often no fun) for one or more to work against the 
>	others.  There are exceptions to this rule, such as plots
>	that are enhanced by having a spy in the group, but I
>	generally try to keep the party compatable.  This does not
>	mean that there is no conflict in the group, only that the
>	characters can realistically work together and stay in 
>	character.
>
>Peez


Exactly. I'm the current GM for Rob's group and I really enjoy
running a highly-detailed campaign that runs itself (i.e. I
provide opportunities for the players only when they run out
of ideas). I am more than happy to explain any ruling I make
if a player asks for one and even back out of it if the player
makes a half-way decent case for his point of view, especially
when I'm learning a new rules set (i.e. GURPS).

I have little patience with a player who gets bent out of shape
because he makes a stupid tactical error and finds out his
handy dandy battledress suit *isn't* invunerable to high TL
military weaponry.

Rule #1 in my campaigns: Use the rules to get out of situations
they get you into.

Rule #2: There is _always_ a way out if you think hard enough.
(I try to make sure of it)

David

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 10:56:20 -0700
From: "Benyamene' ZeAbe' Akella" <xrp@sierratel.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Players

>  threw a tantrum, threw
> his character sheet at me, and stormed out.

And somebody *that* immature can keep a wife? She must be very patient or
very dumb.
////////////////////////////////////////
Akella 0609 C654474-6 S kk+ hi++ as+ va+ dr+ da+ so@ zh- vi++  A523
IMTU tc++ ?t4 ru@ 3i+(-) c+ jt au@ st- ls+ pi+ ta@ he+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:39:22 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Technology Demographics

"Benyamene' ZeAbe' Akella" <xrp@sierratel.com> writes:

>> 5) Palm-V
>
>I've been thinking 'bout something portable, how do you like your Palm V? Is
>there plenty of Traveller software for it? It comes with a basic data base
>and word processor, doesn't it? Although those new iBooks sound pretty nice
>too. A Powerbook is tempting, but expensive, and probably way overkill. I
>just need to take notes, sketch diagrams, etc.

Palm OS isn't bad - it's a nice *organiser* verging on a Palm top. If you
feel more computer orientated get a Psion 5 / 5Mx which is the best (IMO)
thing between a laptop and an organiser. Don't worry about B&W over colour
as B&W is less poor demanding (usually). The Palm V requires you to
recharge in a cradle - the Palm III uses AAA size batteries and is more
practical from my perspective. The V is sexier though. I've yet to see any
Traveller software for PalmOS.

>As far as the thread is concerned, I think all you folks are set up just
>fine. I am relieved, after seeing the primative POS's some acquaintances
>have, I thought maybe I should check and see what my audience might be
>using. I am feeling much more optimistic now. I think I can get away with
>frames, anyone /not/ frame capable?

I recently finished the hooks for the BITS site to handle no frame browsers
- - no one responded to my request for someone to test so it may be fair to
assume no frames is gone...

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:49:22 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Roger Sanger?

rboleyn@paradise.net.nz writes:
>What did he do to 2300AD? I though that it was owned by Tantalus.
>THings have obviously happened since I dropped off the 2300 list.

I think MM still has the rights to the RPG background - Tantalus have the
electronic rights?

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Players

On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Benyamene' ZeAbe' Akella wrote:

> >  threw a tantrum, threw
> > his character sheet at me, and stormed out.
> 
> And somebody *that* immature can keep a wife? She must be very patient or
> very dumb.
> 
As a female, I am amazed by the things other women tell me about their
men.  I don't like it and have been known to say "If he's THAT bad why are
you still with him?"  We are trained to make endless excuses.

She may be one of the sort who says "oh well, at least he has a job... at
least he doesn't beat me..."

Kiri

******************************************************************************
Kiri Aradia Morgan                                  93!  Thou Art God
tiamat@tsoft.com

"If time passes, everything turns into beauty
If the rains stop, tears clean the scars of memory away
Everything starts wearing fresh colors
Every sound begins playing a heartfelt melody
Jealousy embellishes a page of the epic
Desire is embraced in a dream..."              -- X-JAPAN 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:20:03 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: WoTC

SJ Games News: Hasbro To Buy Wizards of the Coast!

   Toy giant Hasbro announced today that they have entered into a definitive
   agreement for Hasbro to acquire Wizards of the Coast for approximately
   $325 million. Read the full story in Pyramid!


Related Links:

  1. http://www.hasbro.com/
  2. http://www.wizards.com/
  3. http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.cgi?1073

- ------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@pyramid.sjgames.com with the
message "unsubscribe illuminator".

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:45:18 EDT
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hasbro buying WOTC

In a message dated 9/9/99 4:40:30 PM !!!First Boot!!!, Clark@bessemer.com 
writes:

<< Just heard this on the radio while getting lunch.  They're supposedly 
buying
 them for 325 million. See the following link: >>

Great; so not only will we NEVER see Avalon Hill games reprinted, now we will 
NEVER see SPI games reprinted either... Hasbro sits on aquired material that 
they don't use in a manner that makes Mr. Sanger look like a saint... :-(

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 14:57:19 EDT
From: Kagehira@aol.com
Subject: Re: Roger Sanger?

    Not to entirely defend Roger (as I'd enjoy seeing the DGP material new 
and old printed), but as someone else recently remarked that Roger told him 
that Marc was asking an unrealistic amount for a license.

    From another project I was working on a year ago, related to Traveller, 
but not related to DGP. I'd have to say there is at least some truth to that 
statement. A group of people I know where involved in trying to talk over a 
Traveller license, but the amount of money that Marc required made the 
project untenable unless it was done as a charity (and since no Traveller 
player yet has won the lottery, we don't have any charity supporters). As it 
was I don't think any money was going to be made during the first couple of 
years anyway even with a free license.

Bryan

- -- One thing to remember, there are always at least two sides to a story

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 15:14:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
Subject: [none]

>Me neither. My original intent when exploring different armor types was in
>making more economical traders. Standard Armor made a slight difference to
>Return on Investment but Advanced armor was useless. For completeness I
>plugged
>it into a fast military craft (a 400DT SDB) and thought hey, that is quite
>good,
>but not amazing.
>
>I was quite surprised that the suggestion was considered canon breaking. From
>posts I had seen on the TML my impression was that GT starship armor was less
>capable than CT starship armor in general - in terms of its stopping power.

One key point about armor on ships in CT (and MT) vs GT:
	CT/MT armours (in gurps terms) would be primarily PD, with very
		little DR (if any). Especially since a HG/MT space combat
		round represents hundreds of shots.
	GT Armors are extremely DR intensive.

SO the "Effectiveness" issue cannot be objectively qualified; the armor
methodology is far to mechanics-specific, and quite different. More
importantly, what materials are used can be qualitatively compared...
G:Veh lists specific types of materials by TL; these can be compared with
the materials lists from traveller (specifically Striker, MT, and FF&S,
which all use the same base breakpoints for materials tech).

Traditionally, most designs with a sufficient detail level indicate that
Crystaliron, then Superdense, then finally bonded superdense are the hull
metals of choice with increaseing TL.

As for canon-breaking? No. Uninformed twiddleing, maybe... Under the non-CT
versions, you can tweak hull materials. So there is no reason you shouldn't
be able to in GT. However, the guidleines are still being
hashed/flamed/argued by some on the list... as they were not in the copy of
GT *I* purchased...

William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-
533
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis http://www.alaska.net/~mhaa
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:32:43 -0700
From: "Tom" <tbergman@brawleyonline.com>
Subject: Re: Merc Equipment/Recruitment 

> > ObTrav:  With the higher probability of prize money associated with
> > anti-piracy/picket duty, shouldn't the officers and crews of these ships
> > receive a credit bonus?  What about the possibility of privately owned
ships
> > being hired out as Privateers/Mercenaries against pirates?  This could
prove
> > financially worthwhile to courageous characters in a well-armed ship.
>
> IMTU, I handle this via the 'cash' rolls in chargen.  Course, I use CT,
but...
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm...  An idea just crossed my limited lil mind.  Ex-Marines who
were
> posted to Ship's Troops have an option to take *one* cash roll on the Navy
> table?
>
> > Just a thought...
>
> And an interesting thot it was...
>
> Keven

That's a good one Keven.  I hadn't considered the Marines.

I was thinking of maybe a +1 on *one* cash roll for the Officers of a
successful Anti-Piracy tour, cumulative with any other DM's.  With the crew
given a 5,000 CR for serving a full tour aboard an SDB or Patrol Cruiser in
a high piracy area.  Of course, the survival roll might have to be modified
to reflect the greater danger incurred.

Comments? Ideas? Flames?

Oriontwin
orion 0609 C36AA84-A hi- va+ vi+ so++ A633
tc+ tm+ tn t4+ tg-- ru+ he+ 3i!(+) c+ jt- st++ pi+ ta ge

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 14:33:09 -0500
From: Shimmergloom <shimmer@mhtc.net>
Subject: Re: WoTC

Now this could be amusing.


SD Mooney wrote:

> SJ Games News: Hasbro To Buy Wizards of the Coast!
>
>    Toy giant Hasbro announced today that they have entered into a definitive
>    agreement for Hasbro to acquire Wizards of the Coast for approximately
>    $325 million. Read the full story in Pyramid!
>
> Related Links:
>
>   1. http://www.hasbro.com/
>   2. http://www.wizards.com/
>   3. http://www.sjgames.com/pyramid/sample.cgi?1073
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@pyramid.sjgames.com with the
> message "unsubscribe illuminator".
>
> ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
>                        MiB - Marines in Battledress
>    "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
> Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/

- --
- ----------------------------------------------
he he he he he he he he he he he he

      Shimmer

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 16:06:39 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Merc Equipment/Recruitment 

> > > ObTrav:  With the higher probability of prize money associated with
> > > anti-piracy/picket duty, shouldn't the officers and crews of these ships
> > > receive a credit bonus?  What about the possibility of privately owned
> ships
> > > being hired out as Privateers/Mercenaries against pirates?  This could
> prove
> > > financially worthwhile to courageous characters in a well-armed ship.
> >
> > IMTU, I handle this via the 'cash' rolls in chargen.  Course, I use CT,
> but...
> >
> > Hmmmmmmmmm...  An idea just crossed my limited lil mind.  Ex-Marines who
> were
> > posted to Ship's Troops have an option to take *one* cash roll on the Navy
> > table?
> >
> > > Just a thought...
> >
> > And an interesting thot it was...
> >
> > Keven
> 
> That's a good one Keven.  I hadn't considered the Marines.
> 
> I was thinking of maybe a +1 on *one* cash roll for the Officers of a
> successful Anti-Piracy tour, cumulative with any other DM's.  With the crew
> given a 5,000 CR for serving a full tour aboard an SDB or Patrol Cruiser in
> a high piracy area.  Of course, the survival roll might have to be modified
> to reflect the greater danger incurred.
> 
> Comments? Ideas? Flames?

I could see a +1 modifier for every 3 Ship's Troops posting for that cash roll on the navy table.  The troopies would *definitely* be involved in boarding any ships taken, but not all actions would be profitable.  Thanxx for the idea.  <grin>

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:23:13 EDT
From: AveNelso@aol.com
Subject: Re: Merc Equipment/Recruitment 

    I believe there was an article in a MT magazine about how to run a Prize 
Court campaign, where naval PC's could get a share of captured ships along 
these lines. 
    I don;t have the article in front of me, however.

    I also concur that merc units (if they're any good) supply al the 
equipment for the troops, it would be too impractical logistically and 
legally otherwise, e.g., InterStellArms might sell surpluss LAG's to  
Bradley's Hussars, in sevral crates, but they aren't going to sell one to 
Thunderball McGinty.

            Dave Nelson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:28:57 EDT
From: AveNelso@aol.com
Subject: Habsro-WoTC

The acquisition of WoTC by Hasbro, which must have been in the works for 
quite awhile  goes a long way to explain why WEG didn't get their Star Wars 
RPG license renewed, since Hasbro produces most Star Wars toys.

        Dave Nelson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 13:54:59 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: WoTC

Scary, actually. 

A large, highly public American toy corporation now owns Magic the
Gathering and D&D. 

Expect these games to vanish once the fundies start in on Hasbro.
They're a lot more vulnerable to loud calls for boycotts than either
WOTC or TSR ever were.

The company that makes GI Joe and Monopoly now sells satanic demon
raising instruction kits that cause children to go insane, wear black
trenchcoats and kill innocent classmates en masse.

At least that's how the fundie spin will be.

My prediction?

Hasbro will strip out Pokemon, and toss the rest quietly on the
dungheap. Pokemon will be a fading fad, gone in 6 months anyway, but
I'll bet Hasbro more than gets their $325 million out of it. They were
willing to bet that.

It's telling that the founders of WOTC were willing to sell now...in a
take the money and run sort of way.

Shimmergloom wrote:
> 
> Now this could be amusing.


- -- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 14:05:36 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
Subject: Way cool astronaut toy :-)

See:

http://space.com/spaceimagined/psa_ball.html

A different kind of Happy Fun Ball...

- -- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:52:02 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 5FW: 1st Fleet?

>>Thanks. I wonder why the author didn't just put '18' there.
>
>Propably because the 18th was stationed somewhere else at the time.


The 18th and the 018th are seperate fleets?

Nick
+++
Confused

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:23:32 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Merc Equipment/Recruitment 

>IMTU, depends on who your polity is.  The most common faction of the
Shattered Imperium as far as my players is concerned (the Federation of
Daibei) does, the Principality of Caledon does,

Oh, they do, do they? Well, *I* never saw any of it....<g>

Cdr Hawkes
+++
Unless I lost it all in that Poker game on Victory, of course.....

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:32:43 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re:UpPorts

From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>


Sorry - I just really noticed your name - would you be the same John Buston
I played GURPS Trav and Discworld with last weekend?

Nick Bradbeer
aka
Trudi Truu (What? *The* Trudi Truu? I've got all your records! I mean...both
your records..)
and
Hunchbroad Modoscousin (I'll scream and run at it with an axe....)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:40:14 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Weight of Metal

>> According to FFS1, densities for the above are 10, 15 and 15 tonnes per
>> cubic metre, respectively.
>
>Which means they are 10, 15, and 15 kg per cm^3.

Uhh....isn't that out by a factor of a thousand?


Oh, somebody else already got there. Forget I said anything.

Nick

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:47:40 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: WoTC

>Shimmergloom wrote:
>>
>> Now this could be amusing.


Mmmm. I'll reserve judgement on how amusing that'll be.

I have to agree with Bruce's suspicions about where Hasbro are likely to
take the WotC product. Actually, I can see them retaining Magic since it's
*so* damn lucrative, but the RPG market really isn't going to interest them
much. I wonder if they'll be receptive to selling rights on to third
parties. (Probably not for the kind of money smaller companies can offer, I
guess.)

NB

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 17:42:36 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Dustbin clarified

At 02:20 PM 9/9/99 +1200, you wrote:
>Yep. I an AD&D game I was in we had a player who had a Mage-
>Thief who used to just lurk at the back, saving all his spells 'just
in 
>case' and shooting into melee, etc. The whole group wanted to get 
>rid of him, even those who were his friends, but the GM wouldn't do
it 
>himself, or let us do anything because he was in business with the 
>guy and he was (justifably) afraid of the repercussions.

	Surely you could have come up with creative ways to accidentally
leave his character in the lurch repeatedley ... turnabout is fair
play, after all.
- -- ------------------------------------------------------------ --
   Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj 

   Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they 
   did it by killing all those who opposed them.

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1079
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
