Author Topic: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST  (Read 310545 times)

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #271 on: 28 March 2016, 10:00:51 »
House Davion Gauss Infantry:

Not sure where this one fits. HB House Davion, TechManual, or MUL.

According the HBHD Gauss Infantry are supposed to carry 6 M345B3 Thunderstroke II Gauss rifles.
The MUL gives this unit an intro date of 3061
TechManual has an intro on the rifle of 3062

Which needs errata. Should the rifles intro be changed? Does the intro for the three infantry units on the MUL need to change to 3062?

Based just on HBHD I would think that the MUL intro should be changed to 3062. This may be a simple change for the MUL or may require further discussion among TPTB

Date changed on Gauss infantry to 3062. Thanks.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Ck16

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #272 on: 28 March 2016, 12:17:10 »
How reliable is the Faction Force table in Combat Operations (10979)? Just curious if this is held in same view as a RAT or more reliable source? We talked about wondering if Clan Ice Hellion was a mistake, I think I found where they got the idea to place them on the MUL for the Mk.II though in the first place, among CIH also on that list for Clans is ironically again Jade Falcon and as well Wolf in Exile.

Page references.

For Clan
Diamond Shark(Pg.112)
Ice Hellion (Pg.115)
Jade Falcon (Pg.116)
Nova Cat (Pg.116)
Wolf-In-Exile (Pg.119)

For IS
Kurita (Pg.125)
Davion (Pg.127)
Steiner (Pg.132)
Star League-3061 (Pg.133)


Also Star League guessing from use with in Nova Cat as well as the few house units but worth adding maybe as well if there is enough to back the other clans?
« Last Edit: 28 March 2016, 12:20:52 by Ck16 »

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #273 on: 28 March 2016, 12:37:28 »
Faction Availability has no rules.  It's a brawl between various conflicting sources, opinions, bizarre rituals and occasionally direct intervention by powers beyond the MUL team.

Usually we try to take all sources in to account.  If there is a direct conflict (same unit, same time, different answers), then we often prioritize either a current Technical Readout or more recently published source.

But none of those are rules.  Thirty years of sourcebooks and dozens if not hundreds of different authors means we can write specific rules, but have to take each case as it comes.  You are welcome to make suggestions, that's why this errata thread specifically allows suggestions.  We don't require a definitive answer before you ask, because there often isn't one.

Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Ck16

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #274 on: 28 March 2016, 12:48:23 »
Alright thanks! Just trying to help, I kinda understand why reluctant due to the TRO stating that the only ones that would have been in service with Wolf, Jade Falcon, Ice Hellion, and Steel Vipers as noted were only obtained in winning them through various trials. It only says a few so I think there is a little conflict by what a few actually means in terms of numbers. -edit: miss read TRO thought made mention of unknown amount in the Lyran forces.-

I just am a bit surprised by only Diamond Shark and Nova Cat on the MUL I guess for clans. Was expecting or hoping for a few more Clans on that list, at least Wolf in Exile during the Civil War. Find it odd though that Falcon is mentioned both on the RAT and FFT while they despised the mech supposedly.

I just linked those if it was worthy to note them or not for the MUL at least maybe in Jihad and later years. The only source we have for Mk.II in Fedcom Civil war is in 3067 stuff right at the end of it all.
« Last Edit: 28 March 2016, 13:00:41 by Ck16 »

Ck16

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #275 on: 28 March 2016, 15:48:35 »
For the Mad Cat Mk.II (I am not trying to push this to much)

Clan Ghost Bear: Could the argument that since the RAT in Field Manual: Updates does list Ghost Bear with them on the 2nd line battlemechs? I know some in the RAT is contradicted by the TRO (AKA Jade Falcon having them though hating them ect.) BUT Ghost Bear was never mentioned in the TRO at having or not having the mech OR objecting to the mech (at least as far as my research has found). They were business partners with Diamond Shark as mentioned in Field Manual portion of Diamond Sharks. The mech does kinda fit the Ghost Bear profile in fast,agile, firepower, decent protection. They would have been rebuilding a bit after the border conflicts between DCS/Nova Cat and Hells Horses. But it is still on a list for units available somewhat to that faction for selection right?

Clan Wolf In Exile:
They are listed as posted above in the Combat Operations installment of rules (3067), they do have the Mad Cat Mk.II in their Faction Force Table (still a bit confused if this is worthy or not). There is no contradiction between the TRO and this installment and similar to the Ghost Bear's situation of rebuilding.

Thoughts? Or is the Mk.II pretty set in stone for the Fedcom era?
« Last Edit: 28 March 2016, 16:13:39 by Ck16 »

cavingjan

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #276 on: 28 March 2016, 17:44:53 »
Information that was reviewed at the time that the faction data for that era was compiled.

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #277 on: 28 March 2016, 17:53:02 »
How reliable is the Faction Force table in Combat Operations (10979)?
Not at all really. That was the first attempt at a faction availability list, and it's now over a decade out of date.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Ck16

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #278 on: 28 March 2016, 17:58:57 »
Alright, I just was curious I guess about all this, looks like any changes will not happen unless a new TRO is done up, that I don't think will change anything as added, sorry to question it a little bit.

Wraithcannon

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 366
  • Oh boy, here I go killing again!
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #279 on: 29 March 2016, 22:27:51 »
Would it be possible to get some images for the infantry platoons and points? Right now they are blank.

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1147/foot-platoon-rifle

I was thinking some higher resolution pics from pg.23 of total warfare might serve the purpose.
Whomever said violence isn't a solution obviously wasn't using enough.

Planning an operation against the Capellans? Hey, who wouldn't? - Sulla

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #280 on: 30 March 2016, 13:06:05 »
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5242/ti-tsang-tsg-9ddc

This should actually be called the TSG-9DDC Ti Ts'ang DDC.

I'm honestly not sure if its a "Ti Ts'ang DCC" with a variant number of TSG-9DDC, or if the extra DDC is an extra identifier, much like a character's name would be, but both XTRO Liao and TRO Prototypes are definitive about the extra DDC

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #281 on: 30 March 2016, 13:14:23 »
Making it a "Ti Ts'ang DDC" would keep it from appearing in the variants list on any other Ti Ts'ang due to how those are handled (at least, that's my understanding).
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.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #282 on: 30 March 2016, 13:15:58 »
Making it a "Ti Ts'ang DDC" would keep it from appearing in the variants list on any other Ti Ts'ang due to how those are handled (at least, that's my understanding).

That's why the MUL lists it as it does.  It's an exception to general MUL naming rules.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #283 on: 31 March 2016, 13:10:28 »
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4935/rook-nh-1x-rook-x

I assume the name change from Rook-X to Rook is for the same reason as the Ti ts'ang DDC? But if you have the extra name "Rook-X" on it, why the change from NH-1B to NH-1X?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #284 on: 31 March 2016, 13:12:31 »
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4935/rook-nh-1x-rook-x

I assume the name change from Rook-X to Rook is for the same reason as the Ti ts'ang DDC? But if you have the extra name "Rook-X" on it, why the change from NH-1B to NH-1X?

Because there was already a different NH-1B.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

jh316

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 407
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #285 on: 31 March 2016, 15:39:55 »

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #286 on: 31 March 2016, 17:05:52 »
Because there was already a different NH-1B.

Sure, but there are 4 JR7-K Jenners, and that's not a problem, because they all have different names after them, why is that different for the Rook-X? And are these official name changes, or just MUL changes?

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1011/eyleuka-eyl-4a

Has an intro date of 3068, but the era seems to be set for the Civil War. Not really sure which is correct to be honest.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #287 on: 31 March 2016, 17:25:50 »
There one JR7-K and three modified JR7-Ks.  That's not the same as two different Rooks with the same designation.  Yes, it's errata to XTR Retrotech.  It should be in the errata thread for it ( if not, should be added).
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #288 on: 01 April 2016, 10:59:58 »
I'll leave that up to you, along with the report on the Ti Ts'ang DDC.

Here's an oddity for the coders

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=3068&MaxIntro=3075&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasRole=&HasBFAbility=&MinPV=&MaxPV=&Role=None+Selected&Types=18&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=

If you click that, you get a page that shows all BattleMechs, with intro dates from 3068 to 3075. But if you sort it from lowest to highest, two things interesting pop up.

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7398/atlas-ii-as7-d-h-devlin
Which has no date (Still) so I'm not really sure why its being pulled, but maybe the mul recognizes its supposed to be in the Era that the intro years chosen follow..or something like that.

But the big weird one is
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/298/battlemaster-blr-6x

Which has an intro year of 3085. There's no way this should be showing up in the search, and yet it does. It also sort of seems to hang out there. I've changed the parameters on the Years to 3068-3076 and it shows up again. But a search of 3075 to 3084, it doesn't show up.

cavingjan

  • Spelunca Custos
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4470
    • warrenborn
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #289 on: 01 April 2016, 11:31:11 »
What you don't see is that there are two date fields. The visible one can be blank or even use text. The internal one for search purposes is strictly numbers. I would guess the dates are mismatched on the battlemaster. I'll have to check.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #290 on: 01 April 2016, 13:37:38 »
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/752/crusader-crd-3r

Shouldn't this be 2572 instead of 2752? The writeup in TR3039 states that it fought in the Reunification War and was introduced in the late 26th Century. Could be a transposing of numbers?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #291 on: 01 April 2016, 13:47:32 »
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/752/crusader-crd-3r

Shouldn't this be 2572 instead of 2752? The writeup in TR3039 states that it fought in the Reunification War and was introduced in the late 26th Century. Could be a transposing of numbers?

The Crusader was introduced (the 1R) in the late 26th century, not the 3R.  The discussion was years ago so I don't remember the specifics, but the 3R couldn't have been the late 26th century model.  That's why the 1R entry was created.

Ah, I think I remember why now. The 3R is the 2R without the streak and artemis (ancient battletech lore).  But Streaks didn't exist in the late 26th century.  So the 1R was a 2R without Streak SRM-2s.  The 2R then switched to Streaks.  The 3R was then the downgrade model.  It didn't go 3R, then 2R, then back to 3R.
« Last Edit: 01 April 2016, 13:49:48 by nckestrel »
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #292 on: 01 April 2016, 14:33:50 »
Okaleedokalee. Though I could've thought of easier fixes that didn't screw up previous fluff :) But I'll digress.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #293 on: 01 April 2016, 14:47:43 »
Okaleedokalee. Though I could've thought of easier fixes that didn't screw up previous fluff :) But I'll digress.

Go for it.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #294 on: 01 April 2016, 19:37:14 »
Well, since the 1R doesn't exist yet, I'm left off the hook for the not knowing about it. :) But still. This seems to only be an issue because whoever wrote up the 2R didn't read the fluff on the 3R. I would've thought the simplest answer would've been to issue errata and change the name of the 2R to the 4R, then you keep the 3039 fluff intact, and don't have to try to explain why the Star League suddenly started to produce downgraded Crusaders at the height of their technological prowess.

So you get the 3R at 2572 (or something similar) that matches the fluff from 3039
Quote
Introduced in the late twenty-sixth century, the CRD-3R Crusader became the workhorse of the SLDF’s line regiments as they battled Periphery troops during the Reunification War.
Quote

Then you have the 4R at 2649, which is a few years after Streak technology was invented. Which makes sense. Its an advanced version of one of the SLDF's "workhorse" design.

And then after the fall of the Star League as technology declined, the 3R was put back into production as an introtech design as "other manufacturers continued to churn out Crusaders, making them one of the most common heavy BattleMechs in existence." (3039).

I mean, its not like 3075 wasn't already filled with errata. And we're just talking about a single number change (and really, its not like we haven't seen odd numberings before, but hey, TR3075 can take a bit more errata to keep people from pulling their hair out over it). So this way you match the fluff and don't have to try to explain why the Star League downgraded their design at the height of technology.

The way it is now, it seems like the decision was made to ignore the fluff from 3039, create a whole new 'Mech that's never been mentioned as existing before, and create a downgraded 'Mech when they have no reason to really exist. Its like the decision took the most complicated way possible WITH the added bonus of ignoring specific fluff from not all that old of a product.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #295 on: 01 April 2016, 20:06:58 »
You didn't go back far enough.  TR 3025 talks about the "original Crusaders" superior long range (Phoenix) and short range (hawk) missiles.  That had long supposed to mean Artemis and Streak.  The 2R just made that official.
But Streaks didn't exist in the 26th century (late or otherwise).  TechManual lists them as around 2650?
Therefore the 2R couldn't have been the original in the late 26th century either.
We were going to have to break canon somewhere. We decided interpreting 3039 to be referring to the Crusader in general, and not the 3R in specific, was the less damaging of breaks. 
There is no solution that doesn't break at least some fluff.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4872
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #296 on: 01 April 2016, 20:57:52 »
Nope, I went back. :) I just considered the specific of TR3039 to trump the apocryphal, non-specific of TR3025, which was a flawed product.

I mean, there's a reason that CGL rewrote all those entries and did 3039, rather than just reprinting TR3025. To give priority to 3025 seems odd to me. But you've explained your position, and y'all are in charge, so that's that :)

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #297 on: 03 April 2016, 11:15:14 »
Pursuant to the linked ruling:

Should the Bolla Stealth Tank's Specials be amended to not have C3S (and C3M where appropriate) and their PVs suitably recalculated, since by the ruling they can never use C3?  There is no way to turn STL off, and no critical hit, damage, or opponent's action that can disable STL.

I lament the loss of the most hilarious combo in Alpha Strike (now that I'm aware of it), but the points are still being paid for the C3.

This would also affect the the WOB version of the Bolla, the Raven 4LC, Mongoose II 267, the Sha Yu 4B, the Nexus II NXS2-B, Raijin II 200-B and C, Cronus TD9, Goliath 5W, both the Hunter Killer [C3/HRR] and Grenadier II, the Kobold X-C3, and finally the Tortoise II battle armor suits.

Similarly, a number of units have both STL and PRB.  PRB likewise does not work under an ECM field.
« Last Edit: 03 April 2016, 11:25:16 by Scotty »
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.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25565
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread II - READ THE FIRST POST
« Reply #298 on: 03 April 2016, 21:40:16 »
Wasp LAM WSP-110

No weight listed; as per Wasp chassis, & other record sheets, this should be 30 tons.

Side question - all LAMs are listed as role NONE. I believe LAMs should qualify for role SCOUT (ASC, p135):

Scout units are the speedsters of any force. Designed to serve in the forefront of any action, where they act as reconnaissance elements, Scouts favor mobility over all other considerations. Most Scouts, therefore, tend to be small, lightly armored, and barely armed. Because of this, these units should avoid combat unless in swarms.

Thanks in advance,

W.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"