Hey, first of all, thanks for your time & reading this. O0
The question is:
What written BattleTech materials are considered canonical and used to form the boundaries in which novelists and sourcebook writers stay?
The rule for continuity review of new material is that:
1) Rules take precedence
2) Fluff and novels are next
3) Artwork is lowest on the continuity food chain
4) Newer material overrides conflicting earlier publications
5) The Line Developer has final say. All hail the Herb.
So, if the writer of a new novel turned in a draft to fact checkers that said, "The MechWarrior plotted his next shot with the cockpit's Ouija board," the fact checkers would, by default, turn to Tech Manual for its description of how BattleMech fire control works and provide proper references for the author to correct his error.
Now, if the writer pointed out that a (hypothetical) rule in Total Warfare specified BattleMech fire control was to be handled with a Ouija board, then the rules would take precedence over the fluff. But until contradicted by the rules (or overridden by someone at a higher pay grade), the "fluff" of Tech Manual, Strategic Operations, etc., is very much enforced during continuity reviews.
For example, are the Tech Manual "fluff" descriptions of how a BattleMech's targeting and tracking system and diagnostic interface do the grunt work of aiming 'Mech weaponry something that novelists and other writers would have to adhere to? Or can such "fluff" be ignored at will by novelists to provide their versions of how BattleMech's perform and behave?
That fluff of Tech Manual would be adhered to by default. I can and have pointed out mistakes in control descriptions in BattleCorps stories and referred the author to the Tech Manual for the correct descriptions. (Not directly - such continuity commentary is subject to editorial / line developer oversight. See point 5, above.) As it stands, Tech Manual has the current descriptions of how BattleMech weaponry and movement is controlled and writers stick to that.
Or, for example, the Boardgame Rules don't do PSR's for falling over until *after* the 'Mech has taken fire; thus suggesting that the 'Mech has been able to handle the recoil from firing it's own kinetic based weapons and the "knock" generated by taking incoming weapons fire without any interaction from the Pilot (no PSR when these events happen, only after) - thus seemingly indicating that the 'Mechs are able to "handle" this recoil and knock without pilot input? ... essentially meaning that the combat rules would establish the 'Mech's behavior/performance, where those rules touch on these topics?
Well, here you run into an issue where fluff and rules collide, and the rules don't exactly take precedence when writing. The rules on combat turn sequence are not necessarily representative of the actual flow of time in the fictional world of BT. In this case, the rules are an abstraction meant to keep game play organized, sane, and methodical, without translating directly into real world effects.
For example, the rules indicate weapons fire is handled at the same instant in each turn, and THEN damage is applied. This can result in oddities such as one 'Mech blowing another 'Mech's arm off, but the amputee 'Mech still gets to shoot its amputated arm's weapons because damage is resolved AFTER everyone fires "simultaneously." But in fiction, a writer would not be expected to describe every 'Mech on a field firing all their weapons in the same clock tick of a 10-second period, then seeing all the damage manifest afterwards, then make appropriate PSRs. In the novel, the damage would happen more organically and the MechWarriors would be firing at their own pace.
On the other hand, a writer would generally be expected to adhere to descriptions of damage effects in the rules: when an engine is hit, heat flares. When a gyro is wrecked, the 'Mech can't remain standing if it has to make any PSRs. Since the fluff and rules are fairly in agreement about damage effects, the fluff would also be referenced if the author had continuity problems with his draft. (For example, an author that described finding big hydraulic pistons under a 'Mech's blown-off armor would be reminded that 'Mechs use myomers, as described in Tech Manual's fluff.)
In your specific example of handling their own weapon recoil, yes, BattleMechs can handle that without too much MechWarrior input. As noted in Tech Manual, the Diagnostic Interface computer is pretty good about keeping a BattleMech upright. It will be especially good about its own weapons since it knows their recoil values, from what angle and elevation the recoil will occur, and knows when the recoil will occur - the DI computer is, after all, the computer that is overseeing the activation of the weapons once the MechWarrior points-and-clicks with the trigger. The DI computer (and MechWarrior) will have more trouble with the unpredictable onslaught of an attack, which will erratically shed tons of armor (losing about a ton is the minimum to trigger a PSR) and possibly structure, hence the PSRs if enough damage is inflicted.
If that doesn't answer your questions, or raised new ones, feel free to ask away.
