That is never how it has worked.
Then before CGL goes any further with this new CASE errata, you absolutely and immediately need to provide a workable description of how Clan CASE functions if my explanation isn't it. You are currently publishing units that can only be explained through unscientific principles. If we want magic, we can invest in Shadowrun.
Based strictly on the rules as currently published, any description for CASE needs to do each of the following:
1. Adhere to all explanations for how CASE is strictly described (ferro-fibrous plates that redirect explosions out of a blow-away panel) and functions (ie, even when shutdown)
2.
Scientifically explain why Inner Sphere CASE has actual mass and bulk (as all real things do) but why Clan-grade CASE is effectively zero tons and zero critical spaces in construction rules.
3. Explain why Clan mechs (including Battlemechs, not just Omnimechs) can use CASE in any location, but Inner Sphere mechs may only use it in the Torsos.
4. Explain why Clan-grade CASE is either a non-salvageable piece of equipment, or is salvageable but is identical rules-wise to Inner Sphere-grade CASE when installed on Inner Sphere mechs.
A Clan-tech chassis that incorporates CASE principles in its construction satisfies all four conditions. The redirection plates are built into the frame, eliminating the later tonnage and space requirements, while simultaneously providing coverage to all locations. Nor can parts of it be salvaged and reused in other mechs, much in the same fashion that its impossible to strip off segments of endo steel and plug them into your mech to make it lighter. Per rules, the mech must still identify which locations have "functional" CASE (rather than an "inert" CASE) so as to identify which locations have blowout armor panels in order to cover the record sheet requirements and cost factors (the cost for Clan CASE then is basically just for the blowout panel, not the redirection-panels.) Furthermore, the fact that Clan equipment is routinely described as lighter weight and less bulky already provides an explanation for why adding the ferro-fibrous redirection panels to the mech's structure would bring it back into line with Inner Sphere weights (i.e. 10% of total mech for standard, or 5% for Endo Steel.) Inner Sphere-grade CASE remains a plug-in piece of equipment, requiring both mass and volume, with limitations on where it can be installed (Torsos.) CASE II remains plug-in for both groups.
I would certainly welcome any other description of how CASE works that can successfully account for all four points.
"Add-on technology" doesn't. I do not dispute that it is exactly what Inner Sphere CASE is: it has mass (half a ton) and substance (it takes up space). But Clan CASE must be something different for it to be effectively zero tons and zero critical spaces. I'm not saying that the technology is weightless or has no substance: physics says that's impossible. What I'm saying is that the weight and volume has to be accounted for elsewhere. The MechWarrior clearly has mass and takes up space, but they don't count against the mech's weight or critical spaces either because there's a component on the mech (the cockpit) that does account for the added mass and volume of a human body such that neither the rules nor laws of physics are violated. By extension the weight and substance for anything that goes on a mech must be accounted for somewhere. If its external, it can be handled by carrying rules. But if internal, it falls under the domain of construction rules. If Clan CASE were a quarter ton and still took up a critical space, in the same fashion as Clan machine guns to their Inner Sphere counterparts, I'd have no issue with it being add-on technology because it accounts for itself. But if its going to be zero tons and zero criticals, then we need to know where the mass and volume actually go. Its perfectly fine to explain how better construction techniques can cause something to be reduced 50% in weight and/or volume - even more than 50%. But there is no valid explanation for how something can be fully reduced 100% in either. The weight and volume of those ferro-fibrous panels has to go somewhere.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.I remember my group having several discussions about salvaging Clan CASE in the early 1990s, which led to us seeking a higher power who provided the description I now supply. (This "higher power" was someone who either ran tournaments or was an experienced tournament player, I forget which; I wasn't the one who personally knew him. Nowadays we can ask CGL directly by email or forum; but back then, getting a direct answer from FASA was improbable.) At the time I even remember being in support of salvaging plug-in Clan CASE, but upon the explanation given above I realized I was wrong: a plug-in Clan CASE certainly doesn't meet the second or fourth points and has trouble with the third.
This isn't the first time since then that I've seen somebody else make a claim about CASE that fails to meet at least one of the four tenets. Every few years, I feel like this discussion comes up and I have to point out these four facts and burst someone's bubble with why their description doesn't work. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone here. I'm reminding you guys of the rules that have been published for 30 years on the subject and why a simple plug-in description for zero-ton, zero-critical Clan CASE does not fit those rules, does not appeal to common sense, or violates scientific principles.
Clan CASE that is entirely add-on, 'plug-and-fight' type, technology only properly satisfies the first condition, which is the easiest. Now this one is pretty straightforward but I've seen an explanation that Clan CASE incorporates Star League-era Steiner Stadium-style force-fields to explain its apparent lack of weight and bulk, yet force-fields would require online power and would not operate when the mech is shutdown, so that's not a valid alternative. If you find fault that my description doesn't look anything like the image labeled as CASE in canon material, I don't dispute that Inner Sphere-grade CASE might look like that. But in no source where CASE has been described that I checked (TRO:2750, TRO:3050, BTC, BMR, Total Warfare, and TechManual) is CASE explicitly defined as anything like a "
device" - its always named as "damage-control
technology", which means it could take many different forms, including the one I described. My explanation does not violate the first point on the basis that it doesn't match the image of what one representation of this technology may be. (Frankly, the image itself is rather poor because it doesn't show the ferro-fibrous plates nor the blowout panel. Its basically just the picture of what could easily be a standard ammo bin.) In any event, images have never taken precedence over written descriptions.
For the second point, nothing has yet been offered to explain how anything, CASE or otherwise, can weigh nothing and take up no space on a mech short of being accounted for as a part of another component of the mech. I've also seen it explained that Clan CASE could be part of the armor, but this doesn't explain why Inner Sphere-grade CASE is not, nor does a mech actually require armor in the protected location for CASE to function. (The blow-away panel is certainly part of the armor though, even if none is mounted or its all been destroyed. TROs have long listed mechs with armor types following the form of "Such-and-such Armor
with CASE". But the targeting systems also often say "Such-and-such system with Artemis IV FCS", and we know the Artemis units are not installed in the cockpit; it only means the two pieces work together to form a solution. For CASE, the ferro-fibrous redirection panels and the blow-away panel of the armor together comprise the whole, both in my explanation above and canon descriptions.) Engines, cockpits, life support and sensors don't cover the whole mech so they're not viable sources to cover CASE tonnage and volume. Myomer bundles and actuators don't make any sense, and aren't present on non-mechs anyway. Internal structure really is the only suitable component in which to gain any weight and space savings to justify Clan-grade CASE effectively weighing nothing and taking up no additional space later in the construction steps. Any significant piece of technology internal to the mech that doesn't account for itself and is not accounted for by another component is very problematic. If it has no weight it is effectively an anti-gravity device. If it takes up no physical space but somehow surrounds something else, it is a ghost. BattleTech shouldn't need anti-gravity or access to the ethereal plane anymore than it needs
time travel or future-sight to explain things.
For the third, some of the TRO:GC refits of Star League chassis violate long-standing rules by mounting CASE in the arms. Rather than fix these mechs to fit the rule, your errata is trying to change the rule to fit the mechs. I can't really deny that CGL has the right to do this. But if Inner Sphere and Clan CASE are the same type of equipment but different mass and volumes, why should a chassis that doesn't allow Inner Sphere-grade CASE in the arms even if the tonnage and critical space were paid for, allow Clan-grade at no cost to tonnage or critical space? This is backwards from common sense but exactly what the new errata is apparently saying. If Clan CASE is effectively just a leaner form of IS Case, what magical property does it possess that allows it to be placed in the arms or legs of Inner Sphere chassis? Is it only because its lighter and less bulky? Pretty weak argument when you've got much heavier multi-ton, and much bulkier multi-critical equipment that can be mounted in arms and legs as well.
For the fourth, the definition of add-on technology demands it to be salvageable equipment but which the Atlas C errata indicates is most certainly not identical. The Atlas could easily lose a heat sink to provide IS-grade CASE without violating this rule, but if you go forward with it then you're subjecting ALL mixed-tech mechs to be able to use salvaged Clan CASE. This is a massive retcon covering 31 years of real-time and 151 years of in-universe time and many dozens of published products. If its not salvageable, why not? Self-destruct mechanisms? (Why not on the weapons then?) Or does it magically disintegrate as soon as barbarian Inner Sphere hands touch it?
So, if you're intent on introducing the new CASE rules, beyond the in-universe ramifications, CGL is in real-world trouble, too. Without going into every single scenario, let's look at one pair of mechs: the Nightstars of Shelly Brubaker and George Holt. Each mounts salvaged Clan Gauss rifles in their arms. Neither mounts IS CASE but there isn't the tonnage or room to allow it. However, by your new rules of how CASE works, salvageable Clan Gauss Rifles effectively come wrapped in a "jacket" of undamaged, salvageable Clan CASE. (Which was previously either unsalvageable, or no different to IS CASE when applied to IS mechs.) Ergo, both mechs should naturally mount Clan CASE. To not do so demands believing that both pilots willing turned down potentially life-saving equipment. That's illogical. Additionally, the technicians would have to spend valuable time removing the CASE jacket from the weapons when they could have just left it in place before mounting it on the Nightstars. That's also illogical. Therefore, to maintain believable storytelling, both of these Nightstars *must* mount the Clan-grade CASE system in their arms and therefore CGL must spend time issuing errata for any product they appear in.
Now, CGL has to commit to reviewing each and every other Inner Sphere faction or mercenary owned mixed-tech mech with a record sheet or Alpha Strike card to determine which ones do and which ones don't have Clan CASE. (Best guess is 150-200 of them.) This is not something players can look at a record sheet and figure out on their own. CGL themselves must dedicate resources to answering questions, issuing errata, and recalculating the BV of each and every affected unit. If CGL is so far behind on ilClan stuff, is it all that wise to spend time doing that? Why would CGL commit to wasting their time (and that that of the players) fixing a mess that didn't exist for 30 years? All over the issue of just five or six mechs that violate the existing rules and are all easily correctable?
What is so wrong with the rule today that it needs to be changed? And why the hell would we ignore a perfectly good explanation that's worked (for those of us that have known about it) for 28 or 29 years for one that requires a huge retcon, illogical conditions, and magical properties? When I say this is the most massive rule change ever implemented, I'm not saying that lightly. All the retcon work aside, introducing magic should
NEVER be the answer. Please CGL, do not cross that line. Just leave the rule alone, fix the mechs you've published (or errata'd) that violate it, and save everyone's time to focus on more important issues.
Or, you can explain how else an apparently weightless, volumeless add-in Clan CASE meets the four objectives above without resort to unscientific principles. If you can supply a better explanation than I have, I will happily stand down. If you can't, then you should do what your predecessors did and flip those jumpships over so the sails point in the logical direction. With exception to some faster-than-light technologies and perhaps a few more isolated examples, BattleTech has always been grounded in scientific fact. Any proposed rule that changes something from being scientifically explainable (even if you don't like the explanation) to something that can not has no business being implemented.
