TRO3085, RS3085, & RS3085 Unabridged - The Cutting Edge
I have the PDF version of RS3085 and RS3085 Unabridged-The Cutting Edge is ONLY available as a PDF ... neither have the DT on them.
I've recently heard from another member of the forums that the print version of RS3085 includes the Damage Threshold information from TRO3085 for the LAMs. However, it's not simply the fact that the information isn't present on the RS3085 pdf or the RS3085 Unabridged - The Cutting Edge pdf, but the information provided in the print version of RS3085 and TRO3085 leaves Us unable to use the LAMs.
The way I interpret the rules on pg. 239 of TW "Each armor facing has a Damage Threshold equal to 10 percent of its full armor value, rounded up." when compared to a record sheet like that of the SYD-Z2B Seydlitz from RS3039 Unabridged for example where the Damage Threshold/Total Armor for each location are as follows:
Nose = 3/26
Right Wing = 2/16
Left Wing = 2/16
Aft = 3/22
is that the DT is calculated by dividing the LOCATIONS AF by ten and rounding up. Otherwise with an overall AF of 80, each location would have a DT of 8; but clearly this isn't the case. (This version of the Seydlitz is not the only one; MANY fighters from RS3039 Unabridged follow this same format, as do the record sheets that print from Heavy Metal Aero) (Chunga posted a confirmation of this while I was typing this up: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,12373.0.html
Another problem with using the TOTAL armor factor for instance can be found in the case of the Wasp mk I. According to TRO3085 it has a TOTAL AF of 64 and a DT of 10; 64/10 = 6.4 rounds up to 7, 64/10 ≠ 10. But regardless of whether We use 7 or ten, neither of these numbers can be divided and distributed evenly among the four locations of a fighter. Applying Our expanded understanding of how each individual locations AF/10 rounded up = each corresponding locations DT, then We see that We MUST know which mech body parts correspond to which fighter locations. So, unless the math is wrong for all of the LAMs in 3085 (Stinger LAM mk I's 80AF/10 ≠ 10DT, Wasp LAM mk I's 64AF/10 ≠ 10DT, and the Phoenix Hawk LAM mk I's = 128AF/10 ≠ 16DT) and RS3085 (I'm just assuming that the print version denotes the same incongruous DT info as the TRO since My PDF copy doesn't even include DT) then their construction rules must be different than those of aerospace fighters in regard to DT.
Regardless of what the explanation for this ultimately ends up being ... it seems clear to Me that in regard to DT if LAMs are going to be used before IO is published, We're forced to create house rules for the following points regarding DT:
1.) determine if the calculation used in TRO3085 for LAMs is different
2.) determine which mech body parts convert to what fighter locations
3.) determine how to allocate DT to each location