Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 305783 times)

Hammer

  • Numerorum Malleo
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4101
    • MegaMek Website
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #960 on: 16 April 2020, 19:34:25 »
From RS 3039

Planetlifter Air Transport "SuperPelican" aka "Waddle" with an introduction date of 2623, is sporting a SRM6 (OS) but launcher isn't around till 2676 (TM pg 291, IO pg 46 shows around 2665).

Suggested fix change Planetlifter to have a later introduction date.


MegaMek Projects Wiki
Bug Trackers
MegaMek Tracker
MekHQ Tracker
MegaMekLab Tracker
New Units and RAT's aren't added until after the 2 month release moratorium is passed.
Join the official MegaMek Discord

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #961 on: 16 April 2020, 19:51:43 »
From RS 3039

Planetlifter Air Transport "SuperPelican" aka "Waddle" with an introduction date of 2623, is sporting a SRM6 (OS) but launcher isn't around till 2676 (TM pg 291, IO pg 46 shows around 2665).

Suggested fix change Planetlifter to have a later introduction date.

OK, done, but please put MUL requests/errata in the MUL thread in the future.  https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=47774.0
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Hammer

  • Numerorum Malleo
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4101
    • MegaMek Website
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #962 on: 16 April 2020, 19:54:42 »
OK, done, but please put MUL requests/errata in the MUL thread in the future.  https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=47774.0

Opps...wasn't paying attention to the thread I was in sorry about that.
MegaMek Projects Wiki
Bug Trackers
MegaMek Tracker
MekHQ Tracker
MegaMekLab Tracker
New Units and RAT's aren't added until after the 2 month release moratorium is passed.
Join the official MegaMek Discord

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
With the ruling in this thread it seems a few errata are in order to make things clearer.

I gave a wrong page reference for the problematic section of A Time of War but page 186 offers this:

Quote from: A Time of War page 186
Tactical Armor vs. Internal Structure: These rules also
consider a tactical unit’s internal structure identical to tactical
armor. Unless the unit is a battle armor suit (see below) or its
design notes state otherwise, the BAR value for any tactical
unit’s internal structure is presumed to be identical to that of its
exterior armor.

This is mostly troublesome because of Tactical Operations page 338 which offers this:

Quote from: Tactical Operations page 338
Game Rules: Rifles lack the power to function effectively at normal space-to-space ranges, but may be employed by aerospace units operating in atmosphere and their
ground-based counterparts, where they function as normal direct-fire ballistic weapons. However, because they lack the armor-penetrating power of modern autocannons,
rifles of all sizes must subtract 3 points of damage (to a minimum of 0) for successful attacks against any unit except for conventional infantry, battle armor, ’Mechs using
Commercial Armor, or Support Vehicles with a BAR rating below 8.

The easy answer would be to self-contain A Time of War page 186, which seems to be the intent but because of page 212:

Quote from: A Time of War page 212
VEHICULAR WEAPON TRAITS
All vehicular weapons—also called heavy weapons in Total
Warfare—are classified by various codes that indicate their
unique traits in combat. These weapons perform per their normal
Total Warfare-style rules when fired at opposing vehicular units,
but against infantry units in tactical combat, these weapon traits
(described on p. 113 in Total Warfare and shown in the equipment
tables on pp. 303-305 of that book) yield alternative features that
replace the normal anti-infantry effects in Total Warfare.

And the rule section quoted above saying unit with no mention of ignoring the -3 for internal structure or against buildings and it does get a bit confusing.

Then we have Penetrating Critical Hits:

Quote from: Total Warfare page 206
DAMAGE
Support Vehicles handle damage differently than Combat
Vehicles. Every time a Support Vehicle suffers a hit that exceeds
its BAR rating, a chance exists for a critical hit (called a penetrating critical hit), even if armor remains in that location. Penetrating
critical hits are rolled in the same fashion as standard critical hits
(see Critical Damage p. 192), with the following exceptions.

I'll skip to the next problematic wording:

Quote from: Total Warfare page 207
Penetrating critical hits may occur in addition to any normal
critical hits due to location or internal structure damage. The
Armored Chassis modification does not affect rolls for these
normal critical hits.

The underlined section in the first quote is frankly a weird way to word things if Internal Structure does not have a BAR of it's own and if Penetrating Criticals are only to be checked as long as Armor exists to provide even partial protection.

The second quoted section seems to back that Penetrating Criticals are check for in addition to Internal Structure damage.

So the easiest way to handle all this would be adding a few lines to Rifle Cannons about the exceptions to the -3 damage modifier for Internal Structure, Buildings, Terrain, any other valid targets not already listed that I might be forgetting, and exploding for full damage with a second errata to Total Warfare to make it clearer that Penetrating Critical Hits are only checked for as long as Armor exists in the location struck.

A Time of war page 186 would still be a bit confusing but like I said the intention seems to be for it to be self contained to A Time of War so I'm not sure how to fix it but because with the above changes it probably could be left as is for now especially as it only causes problems in a few specific cases(Rifle Cannons, possibly Mine Clearance, and I'm probably forgetting another).

That should also neatly solve my pending question about Patchwork Armor as it would make it entirely about the armor.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
With the ruling in this thread it seems a few errata are in order to make things clearer.

We're going over this in light of the problems that have developed, though the trending line is "AToW is to be ignored here".  We'll get back to you (and the original thread) when it's all hashed out.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Like I said it does seem like the intention was for that to be self contained to AToW in the first place and with the alterations I propose I think it can mostly be as the rest is mostly just clearing things up because things were either outright omitted that probably should be included(Rifle Cannons doing full damage to Internal Structure) or some wording changed up(Penetrating Critical Hits).

So no worries xotl if AToW does need to be disregarded in this instance and if there is anything else I can do to help sort through things do let me know.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
We're going over this in light of the problems that have developed, though the trending line is "AToW is to be ignored here".
*snip*
That would be a shame.  Consistency from top to bottom is achievable.

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15537
That would be a shame.  Consistency from top to bottom is achievable.

Not in this case. TW/BM > ATOW.
The solution is just ignore Paul.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
To be clear though there may still need to be some errata to AToW pages 186-187 and 211-212 to make AToW internally consistent too to handle fringe cases like Rifle Cannons, Mine Clearance Munitions, and Patchwork Armor inside it's own rules.  Possibly Frankenmechs too but I 'm not sure they present any issues that could not be handled by any alterations to handle Patchwork Armor.

AToW giving things that are not Armor BAR and the table on 187 including unarmored structures may be the biggest issue there.

The good news is I think we can create a divide and conquer situation here with the errata to solve the varying issues.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Not in this case. TW/BM > ATOW.
That would still be a shame.  Consistency is achievable with a minor tweak to TW/BM.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Which I think we can get by making the alterations I suggest to make it clearer what the exceptions to the -3 of Rifle Cannons are and re-wording the two passages from Penetrating Critical hits I quoted to make it more clear that Armor still has to exist between Internal Structure and the shot because as they are now it really suggests if no armor exists you still check for Penetrating Critical hits*.

If I've parsed everything correctly such changes would cover all the issues outside of AToW.

The only things that might really need to be changed inside of AToW is 211 could use some unifying of terms as in the case of using Field Guns and Field Artillery it gets a little confusing which of the conditions to use there and if the space can be found on 212 to make it a little clearer that TW/TacOps overrules 186 and 187 even in fringe cases like Rifle Cannons.

*This is mostly to handle possible oddities from Patchwork Armor which I had some concerns about especially when it comes to IndustrialMechs, both as a distinct unit and as a component of a FrankenMech, but yes the wording could use some work if the intention is for armor to still exist to check for Penetrating Critical Hits because I don't think I've stressed enough how the existing wording supports the idea that you still check even if no armor exists.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
I actually thought about something that I'm either making a mountain out of a mole hill or really will throw a monkey wrench into things for Rifle Cannons with this whole mess I've started over them and BAR.

A rather specific case scenario I'll admit but there may now be some odd interactions due to damage transfer.

If a location struck due to previous damage only has internal structure left and not enough left to absorb a Rifle Cannon doing damage to it the procedure for transferring the remaining damage to the next section actually provides a possible way for a Rifle Cannon to at least partially ignore the -3 even though the next location has BAR 8 or higher armor.

I think it is only problematic if there is a way to put BAR 8 on an Industrial Mech as Support Vehicles don't transfer damage.

I guess it depends on if the ruling from 2013 stating patchwork armor rules do not change what armor types are available to a unit is upheld with Riflemech's question on patchwork armor as I don't think I can put BAR 8 on an Industrial Mech by any other means.  I'll have to research that and get back to you on that.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Okay I've determined it does depend on if the 2013 ruling on Patchwork Armor gets overturned or not if there is a significant enough problem here to worry about in terms of damage transfer.

Though it has made me start thinking about other damage transfer scenarios and penetrating critical hits.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
My completely unofficial stance on this (hooray, discussion thread!) is that this is mountain out of molehill.  You and the maybe two other people in the world who will ever encounter this potential problem can roll off for it and the winner decides for that game.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
I certainly grant it is a fair question to ask how often people use Patchwork Armor, Industrial Mechs, and Support Vehicles and thus how likely is it that anyone is going to run into some of these issues.

Though I think that actually makes it more worthwhile to make a few changes as I propose, to keep a lot of the odd interactions I've found/thought of fringe and obscure.

Upholding the 2013 ruling by Paul that Patchwork Armor doesn't change what armors are actually available to a unit would eliminate a lot of possible interactions and I would suggest a rewording of the last line on the third paragraph to go with it to make it more clear: change from
Quote from: TacOps page 377
A unit may
also not mount armor types illegal for that unit type to mount.
to
Quote
Patchwork armor rules do not change what armors are legally available to mount on units.

Then closing down Penetrating Critical Hits to make it more clear armor still has to exist seems like a really good idea to me too for much the same reason of to keep any remaining odd interactions even more fringe case.

Rifle Cannons and the AToW changes I propose are more to clear up wording than anything else to make certain things more clear.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
As one of those "two other people", I can assure you there's more than two of us.  There have been two whole threads related to this issue already, not counting monbvol's rules questions.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
And I have thought of another counter point for why there needs to be official answers to these questions.

For a fair number of people MegaMek is the only way they get to play Battletech.  If one of the dozen or so people* who actually play with these rules want to use them in MegaMek it makes life a lot easier on the coders if there is an official and clear answer.

*Sorry Daryk.  As much as there may be a couple threads it is largely the same people in both threads.  So still a fairly tiny minority.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Upholding the 2013 ruling by Paul that Patchwork Armor doesn't change what armors are actually available to a unit would eliminate a lot of possible interactions ..

Forgive me as I'm sure I've missed a good deal of this conversation, but why would we have to uphold a previous ruling? Was there a later ruling that undid it?

The stance regarding ATOW is that ATOW often goes into detail or directions that TW doesn't support.  That is known. We're not dragging all of that in to TW.  doesn't mean we will ignore everything, just that ATOW being different isn't by itself a problem.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Mostly that there is an open question thread that really should be closed by that previous ruling but hasn't yet and thus brings into doubt if that ruling is still valid or not.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Mostly that there is an open question thread that really should be closed by that previous ruling but hasn't yet and thus brings into doubt if that ruling is still valid or not.

the vast majority of open question threads are open because we each have only limited time and willpower.  previous rulings are rulings into explicitly said otherwise.  you can't have a player toss out a previous ruling by opening a question and demanding we answer it now (or any time period) or whatever ruling isn't valid.

which open question thread are you referring to?
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
This one marked research.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
This one marked research.

Yeah, my previous answer definitely applies to that one, just underline willpower.  *heads back to Alpha Strike hidey-hole*
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Just the way my brain works because it is marked research raised doubt if Paul's 2013 ruling that Patchwork Armor doesn't change legalities of armor in terms of what can be mounted on a unit was still valid or not.

But if it is still upheld then that does indeed close a fair number of possible weird interactions when it comes to Penetrating Critical Hits and Patchwork Armor.

To circle back to the AToW stuff, yeah I've pretty well determined 186 and 187 of AToW are intended to be self contained to AToW.  Just some odd wording on Penetrating Critical Hits that could stand to be cleaned up and the lack of clear exceptions to the -3 of Rifle Cannons for lack of better information did make them seem relevant to some questions I asked, one of which has been answered.

There is some unification of terminology that could be done to clear up some odd wording on 211 that I'd have to dig up again to be more specific and 212 is also not super clear on the rule that covers what happens when shooting a Heavy/Vehicular Weapon at certain targets does override what page 186 and 187 says, especially in cases where a weapon does have different effects based on a target's BAR.  In particular page 187 does have a table with sample bars that without knowing about the ruling on Weirdo's question about Rifle Cannons versus buildings or the ruling to my question about Rifle Cannons against internal structure and exploding for full effect in an ammo explosion would indicate that the -3 would apply against some targets that said rulings indicate it shouldn't.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Unification is my ultimate goal, and it seems to me ridding ourselves of the singularity introduced by the flat -3 damage for Rifle Cannons is the shortest path to it.  A consistent system from top to bottom is possible.  Why not make it so?  As long as you assume the TW level is the one that all abstractions should simplify to, it shouldn't be that hard.  More granularity down to AToW, and more abstraction all the way up to ISaW.  Why think small?  BattleTech is by definition a niche market, and I propose we OWN that niche with the only system that operates at any scale, from personal one-on-one melee to interstellar war!

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
A more mundane question, since I just saw Xotl's edit to the Inactive list.  Another thread recently pointed out that a JumpShip was statted out in 3026r, and I don't see any of those in 3039 or 3075.  I don't own 3026r, but I do have 3039 and 3075 and am at a total loss as to these stats.  I assume they're for the Quetzalcoatl variant of the Scout.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
You didn’t ask a question.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Sorry... what book did the stats for this putative JumpShip listed in 3026r migrate to?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
It didn’t. The MUL lists the source for any unit, TR 3026r is the only listed source.  If there was a better one (better write-up or more available) we would have listed it.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Well, I hope they're right then!  ::)

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
If we are wrong, we’ll just rip the page out of every copy until we are right :).
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets