Maybe it is that I am making myself stay up past when my body is demanding sleep but I have a sneaking suspicion I need to restate what I'm getting at to be safe.
As Total Warfare stands in the corrected 6th printing:
A tracked Support Vehicle with an Armored Chassis
modification and a BAR of 7, with 12 armor points per side,
takes a hit from a large laser to its front side (Hit Location
Roll result of 7). Because the laser’s 8 points of damage
exceeds the Support Vehicle’s BAR, a penetrating critical
hit has occurred, even though 4 points of armor remain in
the front.
Because the Support Vehicle has an Armored Chassis
modification, however, the roll for the penetrating critical
is modified by –1. When the attacker rolls for the critical,
his result of 6 becomes a 5, narrowly saving the unit from
a possible critical hit.
In a later turn, the same Support Vehicle takes a second
large laser hit to its front, in this case from a Hit Location
Roll result of 2. The laser causes a penetrating critical hit, has
breached the armor, and has struck a location that gives the
attacker an additional possible critical hit. The attacker rolls
three times for critical hit effects, modifying only the first
roll—the one for penetrating critical hits—by –1.
If, on the other hand, the Support Vehicle were struck by
an AC/5 using armor-piercing rounds, it would be forced to
make a critical hit check regardless of its BAR (see ArmorPiercing Ammunition, p. 206). If it had a BAR of less than 10,
the vehicle would add a +2 modifier to this check.
If, on the other hand, the Support Vehicle were struck by
an AC/5 using armor-piercing rounds, the vehicle would be
treated as if it had a BAR of 4 (7 / 2 = 3.5, rounding up to
4) rather than 7 for purposes of determining penetrating
critical hits. Both hits might do critical damage because the
autocannon’s damage points exceed the unit’s effective BAR,
even though together the two autocannon hits would only
eliminate 10 of the Support Vehicle’s 12 armor points
I color coded the paragraphs to make them stand out a bit more.
Now we both agree as evidenced by the linked rules question that paragraph 5(red) is in error.
The 6.1 errata document has this:
Damage [example text] (p. 207)
Replace the fifth paragraph with the following:
“If, on the other hand, the Support Vehicle were struck by an AC/5 using armor-piercing rounds, it would be forced to
make a critical hit check regardless of its BAR (see Armor-Piercing Ammunition, p. 206). If it had a BAR of less than 10, the
vehicle would add a +2 modifier to this check.
This is a duplication of paragraph 4(green).
So yes 5 can just be deleted and all be fine but like I have suggested I think it would be better to replace it with a new example.
If my suspicion is incorrect, no worries.
