Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BV Calculated incorrectly for ammo criticals found in arms. #214

Open
AlphaSled opened this issue Dec 1, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

BV Calculated incorrectly for ammo criticals found in arms. #214

AlphaSled opened this issue Dec 1, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@AlphaSled
Copy link

AlphaSled commented Dec 1, 2020

v.0.7.4

Possible bug: BV for ammunition found in the arms is being calculated incorrectly for Clan 'Mechs with Spheroid XL engines.

When attempting to build the Conjurer 8 (from RecGuide 5) it was noticed that the Explosive Ammunition Penalty was -45 BV (for three criticals of ammo) instead of -75 BV (for the five criticals of ammo that is has).

Errata listed here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/techmanual/answered-mixed-tech-xl-engines-and-bv/ states that "15 points (should be subtracted) per critical space of explosive ammo in any location (’Mech with an Inner Sphere XL engine)"

As the Conjurer 8 is a 'Mech with an IS XL engine, its Explosive Ammunition Penalty should be -75 BV, as there are no exceptions for ammunition being stored in CASE-protected arms.

I noticed the same problem with XXL engines, but did not test them in-depth.

@Maelwys
Copy link

Maelwys commented Dec 1, 2020

We need to check and see if that errata is going to be pushed through as actual errata, it changes things if so, though not sure how in depth it is.

The Clan XXL engine bit, I'm going to have to check as well. Its possible we're doing it wrong, though not sure how that would've been messed up to that point. May have to check the errata over time.

@WEKarnesky
Copy link
Member

I'd seek clarification. The CASE in the arm would prevent the torso from being damaged and thus also the engine destruction. It's possible the one line got changed before officially being entered into Errata.

@AlphaSled
Copy link
Author

After further discussion with mordel, if appears that MML is currently doing things correctly.
I agree with WEKarnesky, though, that clarification via a rules question could at least clear up the language and make things a bit more unambiguous.

@WEKarnesky
Copy link
Member

@AlphaSled @Maelwys can we safely close this until further information is found?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants