Recent aero errata

[Cannonshop]

When the bombs are loaded into a 100-ton fighter, they become part of the 100-ton fighter. That fighter continues to weigh 100 tons, because that represents the loaded weight of the fighter. A 100-ton fighter that is not carrying any bombs also weighs 100-tons, because this is Battletech, not any setting that tries to be serious about adherence to physics.

aw, come on, Battletech has, like 5% more real physics than Star Wars! 

[idea weenie]

aw, come on, Battletech has, like 5% more real physics than Star Wars! 

In this case with 20 tons of bombs on a 100-ton ASF, I'd say 20% more physics   

But I get the spirit of the rules.

Another way to look at it is only 100 tons of stuff long-term, and the only exceptions might be stuff loaded onto the craft.  But if stuff is loaded on the craft to exceed the 100-ton limit, then maintenance cannot be done on the craft.  This allows you to load bombs, cargo pods, and other external ordnance onto an ASF to exceed the 100-ton limit, but this will cause the ASF to fall apart eventually.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

The other option would be shoving in Life Support tonnage, so by the time you arrive at your destination the Life Support has been consumed and the Bay is free for use.

Yeah. Consider it's unlikely that those 40 ASFs are maintained by the pilots themselves, they needs a lot of food reserve, after all.

aw, come on, Battletech has, like 5% more real physics than Star Wars! 

That looks like way more realistic. :p

I remember that, despite it's a SF genre, Battletech lures many people to be 'why it's not so realistic' kind of argument. Since its design is looks like to be consider some point of reality I can't help it, but in the core it's a fantasy genre.

In this case with 20 tons of bombs on a 100-ton ASF, I'd say 20% more physics   

But I get the spirit of the rules.

Another way to look at it is only 100 tons of stuff long-term, and the only exceptions might be stuff loaded onto the craft.  But if stuff is loaded on the craft to exceed the 100-ton limit, then maintenance cannot be done on the craft.  This allows you to load bombs, cargo pods, and other external ordnance onto an ASF to exceed the 100-ton limit, but this will cause the ASF to fall apart eventually.

On the opposite way of this that shows the similar result is, many units does needs for the cargo bay, and even if when it holds nothing the unit is assumed to be have the same weight anyways. So I think that you are correct. While the unit may bear more than that temporary, it's just temporary, not semipermanent uses. Even if it was already intended that the unit can bears it often.

[sneakylikeajavelin]

I like that this makes fitting larger bays more attractive. If you've got the tonnage spare to update an ASF bay to a Small Craft bay you effectively get 50t more cargo capacity for free, *and* the ability to fit a Small Craft in there if you want to at some point in the future. Similarly if you don't mind the unloading time you can pack a load of small vehicles in a heavy vehicle bay, and if you later on need to transport a Demolisher then you can just drive it on in.

[idea weenie]

I like that this makes fitting larger bays more attractive. If you've got the tonnage spare to update an ASF bay to a Small Craft bay you effectively get 50t more cargo capacity for free, *and* the ability to fit a Small Craft in there if you want to at some point in the future. Similarly if you don't mind the unloading time you can pack a load of small vehicles in a heavy vehicle bay, and if you later on need to transport a Demolisher then you can just drive it on in.

I thought an ASF bay would need the 50 tons to represent maintenance equipment, pilot Quarters, etc.

I.e.
ASF Bay = 150 tons = 100 tons of ASF/cargo + 50 tons of 'stuff'
vs
Small Craft Bay = 200 tons = 200 tons of Small Craft/cargo

So this seems that a Small Craft Bay cannot support an ASF.

[Daryk]

The Small Craft Bay needs a catapult to launch what it carries, and if it can launch 200 tons, it can certainly launch less.

[AlphaMirage]

It doesn't 'need' a catapult, none of them probably do since these vehicles should be capable of self-launching in space and cannot launch from a grounded dropships (they must be craned up and down)

[idea weenie]

The Small Craft Bay needs a catapult to launch what it carries, and if it can launch 200 tons, it can certainly launch less.

I don't mean launching it.  I mean maintenance, life support, personal gear, and similar items.  What does that extra 50 tons of an ASF bay include?  That is what is missing from a Small Craft Bay.

[Weirdo]

Y'all are overthinking things again. Aero bays are really simple. An ASF bay can hold, maintain, and launch any aero up to 100 tons. A Small Craft bay can hold, maintain, and launch any aero up to 200 tons. That's really the whole of it.

[Lagrange]

It is interesting that converting cargo space to smallcraft bays has a c-bill price, but no tonnage or cargo transport cost while providing transport bay life support.  In fact, the only capability cost I see is for transport of discrete objects >200 tons, a rather uncommon occurrence.

The c-bill price increase matters for dropships given the cost multiplier, but on a warship it plausibly does not.

[Frabby]

Follow-up question: Is excess "cargo space" from bays shared between bays, or only limited to a given bay?

Specifically, could I cram 4 Marauders (3 ready for deployment once the bays are cleared of cargo, and a 4th as cargo) into 3 'Mech bays?
If yes, does this also hold true if one of the bays is an ASF bay holding a 75 ton aerospace fighter?

[Maingunnery]

Follow-up question: Is excess "cargo space" from bays shared between bays, or only limited to a given bay?

Specifically, could I cram 4 Marauders (3 ready for deployment once the bays are cleared of cargo, and a 4th as cargo) into 3 'Mech bays?
If yes, does this also hold true if one of the bays is an ASF bay holding a 75 ton aerospace fighter?

Unlikely, as how are you going to stretch that 4th marauder over 3 gantries?

[Frabby]

Unlikely, as how are you going to stretch that 4th marauder over 3 gantries?

It’s in the free space between the gantries. Or something. Existing floor plans for the Union DropShip suggest a single, two-tiered open space holds all the gantries; descriptions of the Leopard in Far Country suggest basically the same there.

[Maingunnery]

It’s in the free space between the gantries. Or something. Existing floor plans for the Union DropShip suggest a single, two-tiered open space holds all the gantries; descriptions of the Leopard in Far Country suggest basically the same there.

I think that we can assume that the gantry is the thing that is rated to hold 100 tons.

[glitterboy2098]

i'd honestly assume that the extra cargo mass is not in the bays themselves, but rather represents extra mass limit you can fit into the normal cargo bay's volume. so in the case of carrying 4 marauders in a 3 bay craft, you'd have one marauder per bay, and one palletized in the main hold.

[Daryk]

As I read it, that would mean none of the three bays could be used to launch/drop the Marauders in them though.

[Lagrange]

As I read it, that would mean none of the three bays could be used to launch/drop the Marauders in them though.

'Drop' is forbidden:

Bay cannot be used for ... dropping troops... while carrying standard cargo.

but "Disembark" (=walk out of the bay) appears allowed.

[Daryk]

Concur!

[Frabby]

As I read it, that would mean none of the three bays could be used to launch/drop the Marauders in them though.

Yes. That part seems clear.

It’s wether or not extra "cargo" space is pooled that’s unclear to me.
My first instinct was that yes, it absolutely should be. There is neither a limitation in the wording nor is there a physical barrier between gantries in the fluff.
But the argument becomes a bit more complicated when you’re pooling extra space from different bay types for a single large item.
Then again, cargo space is generally poorly defined and perhaps it’s always implied that the fourth Marauder has to be disassembled to fit into cargo, be it across 3 'Mech bays or inside a Buccaneer cargo hauler…

[Daryk]

When I laid out a Manatee for a game, I stuck the tail of a Karnov into one 'mech bay, and a jeep-towed trailer in a second.  I managed to keep two 'mech cubicles clear, and that's where the heaviest 'mechs went.

[Maingunnery]

Yes. That part seems clear.

It’s wether or not extra "cargo" space is pooled that’s unclear to me.
My first instinct was that yes, it absolutely should be. There is neither a limitation in the wording nor is there a physical barrier between gantries in the fluff.
But the argument becomes a bit more complicated when you’re pooling extra space from different bay types for a single large item.
Then again, cargo space is generally poorly defined and perhaps it’s always implied that the fourth Marauder has to be disassembled to fit into cargo, be it across 3 'Mech bays or inside a Buccaneer cargo hauler…

It is not about the raw volume, it is about how mass is secured in the bay.
Each type of bay will be different in how they handle and secure their typical content.
And Mech bays use their gantries to secure that mass.

[Hellraiser]

It does not restrict normal launching or recovery at all. It only restricts combat drop actions, which isn't something ASFs...normally?...care about.

I asked for clarification on this & also on the "Multiple Units per Bay" since in the errata it still says 1 Fighter or 1 Mech.
I'm not sure that is saying I can put 5 Wasps in there v/s I can put 1 Wasp & 80 tons of Boxes around the edges of the bay.

It isn't worded well, IMHO.

[Hellraiser]

i'd honestly assume that the extra cargo mass is not in the bays themselves, but rather represents extra mass limit you can fit into the normal cargo bay's volume. so in the case of carrying 4 marauders in a 3 bay craft, you'd have one marauder per bay, and one palletized in the main hold.

That is how I've always thought of it being done for the last few decades, but that is the thing that is different w/ this rule.

Now they are specifically saying your putting the cargo into the "cubicle" & in turn losing the capacity to perform maintenance & orbital drops.

The 4 Marauders thing just can't happen under this new ruling unless the existing "Cargo Bay" mass of the DS is already over 75T.

[Hellraiser]

When I laid out a Manatee for a game, I stuck the tail of a Karnov into one 'mech bay, and a jeep-towed trailer in a second.  I managed to keep two 'mech cubicles clear, and that's where the heaviest 'mechs went.

This is sort of how I see it going using these new rulings.

If I have a Union & I have 3 lances at Heavy/Medium/Light weight.

I'm going to cram all my "Extra Cargo" into the Light Lance Bays.

And then I'm going to be screwed out of using any "Extra" space for the Heavy & Medium lances since I want to drop those from orbit.

The Light Lance is just going to be late to the Party as it won't get there till the DS lands & they get off loaded slow style.

[Hellraiser]

As long as the catapult can handle it, it really doesn't matter where the other 20 tons come from on the ship.

I'd say the bombs come from the normal cargo bay area.

They don't overload the cubicle, in theory, but they also aren't "Free" either.

[Hellraiser]

Just because I need it said, Does having cargo in ASF bays prevent you from launching the fighters stored in said bays? *looks at the Vengeance*

I put that in my question in the rules area too.

I mean, I love that we can have cargo space now in with a Trident.

I'm not a fan of trying to cram 5 of them into a single bay though, that seems odd.

And the cargo either needs to be in a central area, where this doesn't seem to apply by these new rules, or, I feel like "Launching" needs to be in the same boat w/ "Orbital Drop".

I'm just not sure why there is a difference there.

That said, as I mentioned about Lights, cram those bays first & save the Heavies for rapid deploy in the event of clarifying answer that removes the ability to use bay for anything.

When an enemy is near, I want Stukas in the air first before Sparrowhawks any day.  Hehe.

[Weirdo]

The Light Lance is just going to be late to the Party as it won't get there till the DS lands & they get off loaded slow style.

Bear in mind, "slow style" is still a process that only takes ten seconds once the ship is on the ground.

[Hellraiser]

Bear in mind, "slow style" is still a process that only takes ten seconds once the ship is on the ground.

Yeah, I meant as in "didn't arrive via air drop".

I'm still not sure I buy into the whole "can air launch fighters & can drive/walk right out" when the cubicle is stuffed.

Which is why I asked in the rules area.

I feel like the cargo needs to be moved first.

And the catapult/fighter  launch is REALLY out there in terms of rules.   "Yes my cardboard boxes are totally fine while you spit out flames from a fusion engine igniting hydrogen fuel.  Totally see that happening.... NOT.

And like I said the way the rules say 1 "Unit" + Cargo makes me think that you can never double (quintuple) stuff a bay 5-Wasps or 2-Stuka's.

But I like the changes, the use of "missing tonnage" has something we've all wanted to do for decades now.

Just think there needs to be better wording to stop some of the obvious cheese that can happen as it stands now.

[Lagrange]

A "happening" Hellraiser refers to is here.

My views are:
(a) you can't reliably store a single item in multiple transport bays simultaneously because there could be walls between the bays.  This doesn't exclude the possibility of being able to do so on specific designs, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing you can plan on. For ASF/Small craft bays, even that may be disallowable due to pressurization concerns: you don't want to evacuate an entire hanger just to launch one fighter.
(b) For dropping, you need to use a drop cocoon which plausibly requires some significant extra space, so it makes sense to disallow it.
(c) For launching, I'm hazy on exactly what happens to air pressure in the transport bay.  Is it the door which functions as an airlock or the transport bay?  If the latter, cargo which can't withstand some vacuum could have a rough time. At the same time, disallowing launching while allowing disembarking seems inconsistent.  I'm also quite skeptical about the thought of igniting fusion engines _inside_ a dropship under any circumstances.  That sounds absolutely disastrous.  More reasonable is having an EM catapult shove an ASF into space, and then starting the engines.  And an EM catapult launch doesn't seem to require appreciably more space/allowances than disembarking.
(d) W.r.t. other units in bays as cargo, it seems reasonable enough---plenty of garages can elevate a car into storage for example.  Gameplay wise it also seems good as it gives a significant boost to the desirability of small units, and it makes you start thinking about combat force per ton rather than combat force per unit.  That's generally good for a game since it makes many more potentially good solutions. 
(e) There's a separate issue about the 'realism' of Small craft bays.  It is somewhat odd that ASF bays have a 50 ton overhead and give transport bay life support to 2 while Small craft bays grant transport bay life support with a 0 ton overhead.  If anything, Small craft bays should have more overhead, since Small craft have significantly more varied form factors.

Anyways, I flagged Hellraiser's question for notifications---it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[Hellraiser]

My views are:
(c) For launching, I'm hazy on exactly what happens to air pressure in the transport bay.  Is it the door which functions as an airlock or the transport bay?  If the latter, cargo which can't withstand some vacuum could have a rough time. At the same time, disallowing launching while allowing disembarking seems inconsistent.  I'm also quite skeptical about the thought of igniting fusion engines _inside_ a dropship under any circumstances.  That sounds absolutely disastrous.  More reasonable is having an EM catapult shove an ASF into space, and then starting the engines.  And an EM catapult launch doesn't seem to require appreciably more space/allowances than disembarking.

Do you own the scenario book Living Legends?
In it is a deck by deck blueprints of the Aegis (2750).
Check out the Fighter Decks.  IIRC it's a "7-slice pie shape" with each wedge being a fighter bay & the 7th being the "Door".
Each fighter is moved into place by a central crane.
I question how this set up is launching at the game rate of 2/minute, lol, but I like the look of it.
Yet, while this set up makes sense it wouldn't be universal since things like the Leopard/Leo-CV & Union all appear to be the Door right into the bay, at least per the artwork.

(e) There's a separate issue about the 'realism' of Small craft bays.  It is somewhat odd that ASF bays have a 50 ton overhead and give transport bay life support to 2 while Small craft bays grant transport bay life support with a 0 ton overhead.  If anything, Small craft bays should have more overhead, since Small craft have significantly more varied form factors.

Most bays have this issue.  LV-50, HV-100, SCC-200
I think the Mech/Fighter at 150 tons were done that way to represent being 0-G launchable/droppable.
Vees not being droppable (originally) didn't get it which then makes "Bay Quarters" seem odd since 3-7 people should still be a ton or so.
Shuttles are really off since they have Quarters & are 0-G bays.

If they ever do another AT RS product that changes stats again, probably go back & make the LV/HV/SCC weight in at 60-120-250 so that the SCC matches the Mech/Fighter while the other 2 get "simpler" frames that are only 20% of max weight.