Topic: Tech Law: Robotics Manual Question 1: 20.1 Hits p. 59 possible Errata

[snrdg051306]

Hello all,

SM: P VM Select AI Systems (24) p. 118 refers to the Robotics Manual Stock #4511, ISBN 1-55806-563-6 (SM: P RM) to determine AI cost. Since this is an option in the VM construction rules I flipped to SM: P RM Section 23 pp. 74 -75 to find out about determining AI cost.

Per SM:P RM Section 23 Step 1 the base cost of an AI system is ¢50,000 and is "created just like androids." Creating an android is covered in Section 20 pp. 58 - 67, Section 21 pp. 68 - 71, and Section 22 pp. 72 - 73.

SM: P RM Section 20 Step 1 Hits displays a table that shows, at first glance, that the price tag = point cost x 1,000. A more detailed look shows that the price tag progression of point cost x ¢1,000 fails Hits 160 with a Point cost of 15 and a price tag of +¢10,000.

Is the price tag progression calculated using the formula of point cost x 1,000 as indicated in 10 of the 11 Hits options in the table?

Should the Price Tag be ¢15,000 instead of ¢10,000?

Tom R

[Marc R]

Anyone have a clear idea on this one?

[markc]

I do not.
MDC

[snrdg051306]

Sorry Marc R and MarkC looks like I may not have expressed myself clearly. Here is another try.

SM: P RM p. 59 Android Hit Table RM-20.1 Point Cost (PC) to Price Tag (PrT) progession:

100 PC -15 = PrT -¢15,000
110 PC -10 = PrT -¢10,000
120 PC -05 = PrT -¢5,000
130 PC   00 = PrT +¢0
140 PC +05 = PrT +¢5,000
150 PC +10 = PrT +¢10,000
160 PC +15 = PrT +¢10,000
170 PC +20 = PrT +¢20,000
180 PC +25 = PrT +¢25,000
190 PC +30 = PrT +¢30,000
200 PC +35 = PrT +¢35,000

Looking at the progression the Point Cost appears to be multiplied ¢1,000 to get the Price Tag for everything but 160 Hits.

Based on the other 11 numbers 160 Hits Price Tag appears to be out of wack.

To be inline with the rest of the table 160 Hits should have a Price Tag of ¢15,000 instead of ¢10,000.

[Marc R]

Now that makes sense to me, and sounds like a renegade typo.

[snrdg051306]

Sorry Marc R that what I think is clear, at least at the time I type them, turns out to be unclear to others. I'm glad I finally got the issue correctly identified.

[Marc R]

I think he's correct, and it should be 15,000. . .anyone disagree?

[markc]

I think he's correct, and it should be 15,000. . .anyone disagree?

 IMHO it makes a lot of sense.
MDC

[Defendi]

I concur.

[snrdg051306]

Hello Marc R, Mark C, and Defendi,

Thank you all for the reply and again my apologies for not being clear earlier.

[Marc R]

added to the errata

[snrdg051306]

Hooray, another pen and ink change to my credit and book.