Register Register

Author Topic: Total Chaos  (Read 20797 times)

Azakael

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Brotherhood of Outreach - Until the Sword Breaks
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #30 on: 25 October 2014, 21:47:33 »
Page 166 Print Version First Printing

Chara Mini-Campaign requires Wolves to the Slaughter, Charred Victory, and Bridge to Oblivion.

Wolves leads to *either* Charred Victory *or* Bridge to Oblivion. Neither Charred Victory nor Bridge to Oblivion connect to each other.

Suggested Change: Add Bridge to Oblivion as a possibility for a next track to Charred Victory.
Alternate Change: Remove Bridge to Oblivion from the campaign as a required track, as it does not follow Charred Victory well - it requires switching sides.

(I do note, that they state that if you take a Mission versus a track, you can continue to any track after the last one, but recommends the one that actually follows.)
« Last Edit: 25 October 2014, 21:50:42 by Azakael »

Azakael

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Brotherhood of Outreach - Until the Sword Breaks
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #31 on: 28 October 2014, 19:08:36 »
Page 109 Print Version, First Printing.

Reaching The Limits

Game Setup calls for the Defender to designate D6+6 objective buildings, but doesn't call for their use at all. The original scenario from Jihad Hot Spots 3070/ Blake Ascending had their survival as one of the objectives, with total victory being worth 1000 WP.

Suggested Change: Either remove the reference to the objective buildings or add the objective back in with a 100 WP reward (Possibly reducing the rewards for Stand and Deliver by 100 to make the objective reward 200 WP.)

pensiveswetness

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1039
  • Delete this account, please?
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #32 on: 20 July 2015, 14:44:58 »
Print Version, First Printing.

Donegal Mini Campaign Side Bar, pg. 110

Combatants include the 6Th Lyran Guards (The Saucy Six) being part of any forces used for this Mini Campaign but there's a wee problem. According the Field Manuel: Updates (2003), pg. 178,  the 6Th LG are located Tomans (where the FCCW-sundered command is destroyed by unspecified Clan Wolf forces in 3070).

Suggested Change: Either remove the 6Th Lyran Guards RCT as a playable force for the mini campaign, replace the 6Th Lyran Guards RCT with a nameless Mercenary/Lyran command (or just do what I'm gonna do for my campaign: fake it with one lance that got stuck on Donegal when the Jihad Blockaide of the system began. I already printed sheets, why waste good RP material?).

pensiveswetness

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1039
  • Delete this account, please?
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #33 on: 18 March 2016, 18:59:10 »
Print Version, First Printing.

Touch Point: Ghost Tiger, pg. 160-161

Typos: All three aftermath personal notes are dated 20 June 3077

Suggested Change: correct the texts to say 20 January 3077

plutonick

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 126
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #34 on: 14 October 2016, 16:57:44 »
You need to change the example's calculations too. (1.5 and 2 multipliers are still in there. This erroneous example carries over in Era Report 3145 and Campaign Operations)

PDF, p. 16, first paragraph:

Replace all but the last sentence with the following:

To calculate a force’s TR, determine the percentage of the force’s total number of combat units (excluding conventional infantry) that use advanced technologies. Units that use Clan technology are worth double their TR percentage value, so after computing the percentage of units that carry Clan-made advanced technologies, double that result, and add it to the percentage of non-Clan advanced technologies units to find the force’s overall Technology Rating.
Need a newbie guide for Against the Bot (AtB / MekHQ)? Click here (v3 updated August '19)

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 272
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #35 on: 15 December 2016, 09:24:32 »
2012 print edition, pp.30-36.

There are several problems with the Missions.

BEACHHEAD

Both the Breakthrough Objective, and (to a lesser extent) the die roll modifier to determine opposition forces for not completing Recon-in-Force or Probe missions make sense only if the player is the Attacker.

Either make the player the Attacker, or change Game Setup rules and Objectives so that it makes sense for the player’s forces to be on the either side.

FLANK

Specify from which side(s) the Defender’s forces enter the battlefield at the start of the track (probably Defender’s home edge).

Both the Cut off retreat Objective and the die roll modifier during setup for not completing a Probe or Pursuit Mission make more sense only if the Player is the flanking party (and not the one being flanked), which is probably meant to be the Attacker. Either make the Player the Attacker or modify the objectives and Game Setup rules to fit both sides.

(FORCED) WITHDRAWAL

The rules for this mission work if the player is on the either side, but the name of the first objective (Gauntlet) coupled with the fact, that only part of the defender’s force enters the field at the beginning of the scenario (which should result in defese-in-depth situation), seem to suggest that the player is meant to be the Attacker.

Consider making the player the Attacker in this scenario, or renaming the first objective to something that makes more sense if the player is the defender. Alternatively mark the first objective as applying only to the Attacker and provide an extra objective for the player if he plays as the Defender.

PURSUIT

Problem 1

Objectives as written make sense if the player is the pursuer, and not the one being pursued. Since it makes no sense for the pursuing force to enter the battlefield two turns before the force being pursued the pursuer must be the Attacker.

Either change the objectives to make sense for both sides or make the player the Attacker. Making the player the Attacker seems to make more sense than changing objectives, since the Retreat scenario (p. 35) seems to be meant the counterpart of this scenario only with the Player as the pursued party.

Problem 2

Game Setup rules say, that both players enter the battlefield through Defender’s home edge, and Prevention objective requires the player to stop the opponent from exiting through his home edge. Since combination of Game Setup rules and Objectives suggest, that the player should be the Attacker (see Problem 1 above), the Defender can exit the battlefield through his home edge (the same edge he enters from!) on turn one, and prevent the player from archiving either objective two turns before the Player enters the battlefield.

If the Objectives remain unchanged, and the Player is forced to be the Attacker (as suggested as a possible solution to problem one), change the edge of the battlefield through which both sides enter to the Attaker’s home edge.

Problem 3 (already reported by Mendrugo, provided here only to list all problems with this mission in one place)

Since player can’t successfully complete two different missions immediately before this one he can not get the negative modifier (-1) in the OpFor strength and composition table, without also getting the positive one (+1). This means, that it is never possible to get a modified 0 while rolling in the table.

Change -1 modifier in the Game Setup section to -2.

RECON

The fact, that part of the Defender’s force starts anywhere on the board, and has some hidden units suggests, that the Attacker is the side preforming recon. Identify the opposition objective is both thematically inappropriate, and mechanically broken (due to hidden units) if the player is the Defender.

Either make player the Attacker, or rewrite the objectives to make sense for either side.

RECON-IN-FORCE

Exactly the same problem and suggested solution as in RECON above.

RETREAT

This scenario seems to be meant as a counterpart of the PURSUT scenario (p. 33, also mentioned above) but with the Player’s force being pursued instead of pursuing. Both scenarios seem to have analogous problems.

Make player the Defender, change the -1 modifier in the Game Setup section to -2.
Under Game Setup – Attacker change “The Attacker enters […] from the Defender’s starting edge [...]” to “The Attacker enters […] from the Defender’s home edge [...]” (the scenario defines only home edges, not starting edges of the battlefield). Alternatively, just to have the home edges named the way they were named in the PURSUIT scenario, you can make both sides enter from the Attacker's home edge and change the Gauntlet objective to require the player to exit through his own (Defender's) home edge (since there is no forced withdrawal in this mission, it makes no change gameplay wise, but thematically it seems to make more sense, for the retreating side to try to get to their own home edge, instead of their opponent's).

STALWART

This scenario is playable as is with the Player on either side, but both the naming convention of all missions and the name of the last objective (Hold the line) suggest, that the Player is meant to be the Defender.
« Last Edit: 15 December 2016, 11:12:06 by Alfaryn »

ThePW

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1033
  • One post down, a thousand to g... Oh we're here?
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #36 on: 19 May 2021, 10:00:25 »
2012 print edition, pp.32-33.

(FORCED) WITHDRAWAL

The rules for this mission work if the player is on the either side, but the name of the first objective (Gauntlet) coupled with the fact, that only part of the defender’s force enters the field at the beginning of the scenario (which should result in defense-in-depth situation), seem to suggest that the player is meant to be the Attacker.

Consider making the player the Attacker in this scenario, or renaming the first objective to something that makes more sense if the player is the defender. Alternatively mark the first objective as applying only to the Attacker and provide an extra objective for the player if he plays as the Defender.

The suggested correction I recommend is looking at other Mission Tracks (example, Mission: Pursuit, Pg. 121, Era Report 3052) and change the starting location of the Defenders entering the game at round 1 to the Defender's Starting Edge. The remainder of the Defender's forces enter from the Attacker's Home Edge edge at turn 3.

Am i looking at this the wrong way? Is (Forced) Withdrawal supposed to be the opposite mission track/roll of Pursuit (in the vain of how Attack and Defend works)?

« Last Edit: 19 May 2021, 10:31:57 by ThePW »
Even my Page posting rate is better than my KPD rate IG...

2Feb2023: The day my main toon on DDO/Cannith, an Artificer typically in the back, TANKED in a LH VoD.

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 272
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #37 on: 19 May 2021, 17:34:25 »
Is (Forced) Withdrawal supposed to be the opposite mission track/roll of Pursuit (in the vain of how Attack and Defend works)?
IIRC this is how I interpreted it when I wrote my recommendations for (Forced) Withdrawal and Pursuit missions, but I admit that even then I wasn't entirely sure if this was the authors' intent, which is why I provided more than one way to fix the problems I saw in these scenarios for players (and possibly errata maintainers in case this product ever gets an official errata) to choose from.
« Last Edit: 19 May 2021, 20:28:50 by Alfaryn »

ShroudedSciuridae

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 359
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #38 on: 30 October 2021, 20:32:57 »
P. 229, PDF (no edition listed)

New Earth sidebar lists "Chaos Tracks: Under Heel; Liberty or Death"

Issue: Liberty or Death is not an available Track.

Resolution: Delete reference or create Track

ShroudedSciuridae

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 359
Re: Total Chaos
« Reply #39 on: 23 November 2022, 15:25:15 »
p. 184, sidebar continued from p. 183

"The worst was the death of all twelve thousand residents of the Pullo Aerodrome on 13 December after Jade Falcon’s Alpha Galaxy sealed the dome, flushed out most of the purified air, and then breached the dome itself."
Issue: Totally a Jade Falcon thing to do, but they were on Luna, and absent from the list of forces in the proceeding page's sidebar.  This action is also mentioned in Jihad: Final Reckoning p. 60.
Correction:  Unsure how to correct, no other Clan units there were likely to be so aggressive. Perhaps the Hell's Horses 11th MechCav?