ghostrider
02/27/14 03:46 AM
24.30.128.72
|
Did you say the stories in the tro's were not canon?
I was wondering, because I had never seen anywhere but here any one suggesting those were not official parts of battle tech. Yes, it is old but in those stories and histories about the mechs,
The tro:3025 says the javelin mech is top heavy and when moving at high speed in rough terrain has issues. Treat as +1 to piloting.
This info has cause more then a few people I know to skip using a decent light mech because of this issue. I know I have seen a few other things that call into question how a certain mech does something others can't.
I do hope this is being looked into in the future tro's and other canon material.
|
BrokenMnemonic
02/27/14 05:24 AM
82.110.109.210
|
I'm not sure who the "you" you're referring to is - could you possibly give a little more context?
I've not heard of a version of TRO:3025 including details on actual game-modifications for units within the description of those units - I've got three different editions of TRO:3025, and none of them include that. The earliest thing I remember that said anything similar was the article in Dragon Magazine where one of the editors suggested a range of gameplay modifications for units in the TRO for the future.
Sarna sometimes notes where unit details have been superceded from one publication to the next - that happened with a number of units from various publications that got revised stats in other publications - but I'm not sure what you mean by asking here about this being looked into in future TROs and canon material - Sarna doesn't have anything to do with the design and publication of canon product.
|
ghostrider
02/27/14 11:53 AM
24.30.128.72
|
Have you ever read the information given for the javelin? It is in there that they say it is top heavy and gives a +1 to piloting moving quickly over rough terrain. I could hook up the printer/scanner I have and see if I can get it to work.
I believe in one of the threads, cray said that the fiction stories were not canon. I was not sure if that extended to the history and stuff for the tro's. Don't know about the newer material, but some of the older ones had contradictions in them. Kai allard had natural aptittude in gunnery at the time the mechwarrior book said it was not allowed. Believe the same thing with phelan ward.
|
BrokenMnemonic
02/27/14 01:31 PM
82.0.120.73
|
That comment was removed by FASA when they produced the revised edition (the one with the Atlas on it) so I don't get the problem there.
I'm still not clear on what you're expecting the wiki to look into, though?
|
ghostrider
02/27/14 05:30 PM
24.30.128.72
|
not wiki, the people that are supposed to proof read the books before they are published.
someone had asked about the time it takes to recharge after a jump, since they had some misinformation in it. From what it appeared, the error was never corrected in later publishing.
Sorry if this made you think it was on your end. It is not.
|
Cray
02/27/14 06:10 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Did you say the stories in the tro's were not canon?
Fluff in an official publication is canon, but if contradicted by rules or later publications then it is overruled.
Quote:
The tro:3025 says the javelin mech is top heavy and when moving at high speed in rough terrain has issues. Treat as +1 to piloting.
While TRO:3025 stated the Javelin was top heavy, the +1 piloting idea only appeared in a Dragon magazine, not a BT publication. Therefore, the actual +1 piloting penalty is non-canon.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (02/27/14 06:14 PM)
|
Cray
02/27/14 06:13 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
not wiki, the people that are supposed to proof read the books before they are published.
Fluff is held to a lower standard than stats, since fluff can be incorrect or filled with rumors. Rules, meanwhile, trump fluff in any contradiction.
Quote:
someone had asked about the time it takes to recharge after a jump, since they had some misinformation in it. From what it appeared, the error was never corrected in later publishing.
Are you talking long a 'Mech's jump jets take to recharge or something else? If you've got a specific thread you're referring to, providing a link would be helpful.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
02/27/14 06:53 PM
24.30.128.72
|
The tro book I have, has the +1 in it. I didn't even know dragon magazine had run anything on it.
The printing says third printing may 1987.
It is in the top middle paragraph on the page.
Gonna have to get the scanner out and hope they have the drivers for it that runs on windows 8.
|
KamikazeJohnson
02/27/14 08:25 PM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
The tro book I have, has the +1 in it. I didn't even know dragon magazine had run anything on it.
The printing says third printing may 1987.
It is in the top middle paragraph on the page.
Gonna have to get the scanner out and hope they have the drivers for it that runs on windows 8.
I remember that note. There's also a note for the Quickdraw saying it can fire certain arm-mounted weapons "over-the-shoulder" into the rear arc. I read an Q&A with (I believe) Randall Bills where he made it clear that Fluff text was NOT to be considered equivalent to published rules.
I often include "Game Notes" for my designs, usually detailing ways to represent various malfunctions and difficulties with my prototypes. Optional rules at best.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Cray
02/27/14 08:35 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
The tro book I have, has the +1 in it. I didn't even know dragon magazine had run anything on it.
The printing says third printing may 1987.
Oh, yep, my bad. That goes back to the first printing, too. I should've checked. However, that's still a fluff matter not really encoded in the stats in subsequent books. Today, you'd have to poke through Strategic Operations' vehicle quirks for something equivalent.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
02/27/14 08:39 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
I do hope this is being looked into in the future tro's and other canon material.
Alright, speaking of future TROs, what did you think of the TR:3050 treatment of the Javelin when it was first printing in 1990? Did that address your concern about the Javelin?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
02/27/14 09:47 PM
24.30.128.72
|
They removed the +1.
The pair of streak 2's was not a really good upgrade for the mech.
But they were trying to keep it simple and within the fact that they did NOT have the facilities to make endosteel, ferrous fiber armor, or xl engines like alot of people had thought.
It does make me think that cray did not check the oldest edition first. I have not opened anything newer then the one I got, so that could be used against me as well.
This was an example of the problems I have run into. There was nothing in the early books that said what was correct and what wasn't. I am hoping to keep any conflicting information like this out of to be published books. That was all.
|
Frabby
02/28/14 03:56 AM
87.164.167.172
|
FASA made a ton of stuff up in the process of creating BattleTech. They are infamous for lackluster fact-checking and internal consistency, especially in the early material.
FanPro, when they took over, made a great effort to reconcile, explain, rectify and otherwise correct the mess FASA left behind. Catalyst, who were essentially the FanPro staff under a new label, continued from there.
They did just what you expect them to do. In the case of the Javelin, they removed an arbitrary ruling that went against the game rules, and later re-introduced it in the optional Quirks rules specifically to honor that bit of fluff they had to remove from the "hard rules".
Technical Readout: 3025 in particular is known for having been reprinted numerous times with minor changes that were not announced, much less noted down somewhere or tracked by FASA. These include swapping around the images of the Ost-Mechs and apparently also the note on the Javelin being unbalanced and +1 to piloting.
I presume you have read the article about Canon on the Sarna.net BattleTechWiki.
Herbert A. Beas II, during his tenure as Line Developer, repeatedly stated that newer canon material/information trumps older material/information in cases where they are mutually exclusive. Similarly, rules trump fluff at least when it comes to what you can do on the gameboard.
He also ruled/clarified that simply omitting a given piece of information in a subsequent source does not make it non-canonical. An omission is not a contradiction. However, in the case of the Javelin I think the publication of the optional Quirk rules supercedes the old "fixed" ruling from its fluff text in the earliest edition of TRO3025.
Bottom line, fluff is canon. I'm not aware of any ruling, anywhere, that ever challenged the canon status of TRO fluff.
But it can be inaccurate, especially when it is written as sourcebook fiction (i.e. pertaining to be an in-universe source, because as such it is inherently unreliable), and there may be occasional corrections.
Edited by Frabby (02/28/14 03:59 AM)
|
Cray
02/28/14 04:49 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
This was an example of the problems I have run into. There was nothing in the early books that said what was correct and what wasn't. I am hoping to keep any conflicting information like this out of to be published books. That was all.
FanPro and CGL utilize a large continuity checking team that reviews each new publication. They compare new publications to the entire body of prior rules and continuity to sort out contradictory data.
The official BT website also has an errata section where players can point out rules or fluff errors in current publications. Free errata files are periodically posted.
Quote:
They removed the +1.
Yes, TR:3050 removed the +1 because random rules hidden in fluff isn't good practice. Quirks are now consolidated in Strategic Operations. If a 'Mech has a quirk, it is now listed in their record sheet or stats section of their TRO and refers back to Strategic Operation.
Quote:
The pair of streak 2's was not a really good upgrade for the mech.
But they were trying to keep it simple and within the fact that they did NOT have the facilities to make endosteel, ferrous fiber armor, or xl engines like alot of people had thought.
The 3050 Javelin was made in 3050, when that equipment was just first becoming available. So of course the 3050 Javelin's upgrade was simple.
Quote:
It does make me think that cray did not check the oldest edition first.
??? Ghostrider, throughout this thread you've been making statements lacking important clues on context.
Your first post started with the sentence, "Did you say the stories in the tro's were not canon?" Who is "you"? Who were you talking to? What conversation were you picking up?
Then you make this comment about what I did or didn't do, right after talking about TR:3050. Are you talking about me checking TR:3050? Or are you talking about an earlier conversation about TR:3025? (If you're talking about TR:3025, my first response was off the top of my head, not a TRO. After your feedback, I broke out my first printing copy I picked up in 1986.)
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
02/28/14 07:24 PM
24.30.128.72
|
Sorry you mistook some of that.
I have seen several people claim the fluff was not always canon.
I am sorry if it seemed I was saying YOU were saying that.
Didn't remember who or where I seen that at, so asked
As for the tro's I have bought only one copy of the 3025. I did not think they had updated the errors in them for newer printings. Other games I have played have not done so, so I made the mistake of thinking battle tech didn't do so as well.
Also. I did not surf the internet, nor did I really think there was anything like these forums when I first started playing. It is still fact that not everyone has access to the internet for alot of things, though as you can see this does not apply to me.
I stay away from alot of sites because of the malware, spyware and all the other crap that alot seem to have.
|
ghostrider
02/28/14 07:26 PM
24.30.128.72
|
it is possible I mixed up the novels and fluff as being one and the same.
|
Cray
03/01/14 09:26 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
As for the tro's I have bought only one copy of the 3025. I did not think they had updated the errors in them for newer printings. Other games I have played have not done so, so I made the mistake of thinking battle tech didn't do so as well.
No guarantees that TR:3025 is updated here, but this is the master list of errata'd publications:
http://bg.battletech.com/?page_id=25
This is the official errata forum:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=82.0
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
03/01/14 04:45 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Quote:
While TRO:3025 stated the Javelin was top heavy, the +1 piloting idea only appeared in a Dragon magazine, not a BT publication. Therefore, the actual +1 piloting penalty is non-canon.
Actually Cray you are wrong on this one. Page 16 of the ORIGINAL TRO3025 states under Capablites that "This tends to make the machine top heavy and prone to falls while moving at high-speed in difficult terrain. (treat this a +1 die roll modifier for falling whenever a Javelin is running through woods, rough terrain or rubble.)
So you are saying that an Official FASA publication is not giving us the facts? And instead you say it's form Dragon Magazine? I must ask do you own a copy of the original TRO3025? How did you miss this one?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/01/14 04:52 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Shouldn't this topic be in the General Section of the boards?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/02/14 02:41 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Actually Cray you are wrong on this one.
Actually, Karagin, I already acknowledged my error with respect to the Javelin's piloting modifier before you posted here. Kicking a dead horse doesn't add constructively to a thread, it just makes gross squishy sounds.
Quote:
So you are saying that an Official FASA publication is not giving us the facts?
Already answered in this thread.
Quote:
And instead you say it's form Dragon Magazine?
Already answered in this thread.
Quote:
I must ask do you own a copy of the original TRO3025?
Already answered in this thread, down to the print run. Strike 3: you're out. 
Quote:
How did you miss this one?
Already answered in this thread. (Strike 4?)
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
03/02/14 04:57 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So sorry there Cray, I missed your admitting you had made a mistake and mis-spoke. My bad.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/02/14 06:50 PM
24.30.128.72
|
I think Karagin is in argument mode. He didn't read everything before responding. This is cray you are talking to, not retry.
|
Karagin
03/02/14 07:18 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I didn't read past the first comments, and yes I know who I am talking to. As I said it was my mistake.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|