Help Finding Error In Car Design

[owenmp]

When I write a vehicle description, I write the LGL as below.

20-rocket LGL (TL tuned, 20 tuned RL rockets, TL-RL link)

TL Tuning $500.00
RL Rocket Tuning x 20 $4,000.00
TL-RL Weapon Link $50.00

LGL Total Cost $4,550.00

[nightrider]

Originally Posted by owenmp

When I write a vehicle description, I write the LGL as below.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I like your description better. Were you able to spot my error? (my cost is $2000 more than the book's and my weight is 100lbs less). I can't for the life of me figure it out. I must be missing something fundamental.

[swordtart]

You have made the cost of xhvy chassis 200% of the chassis cost rather than 100%. That will save you $600.

FOJ costs $300 not $3000

I'll do a full check later.

It looks like the published design doesn't add up. The design first appears in the Compendium as far as I can tell (then appears in compendium 2.5 with the same stats). It states it is 100lb and $1300 more than the sum of its components.

I couldn't find anything in the errata and can't think of an obvious reason. None of the components have changed value or weight between the versions. This may just be an unspotted errata.

[nightrider]

Originally Posted by swordtart

You have made the cost of xhvy chassis 200% of the chassis cost rather than 100%. That will save you $600.

FOJ costs $300 not $3000

Oh man, thanks so much. Not sure how I kept missing that..

Originally Posted by swordtart

It looks like the published design doesn't add up.

I am pretty sure I have found at least one other that doesn't add up, but I want to triple check it before making a fool of myself.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

The design first appears in the Compendium as far as I can tell

_Marksman_ first appears in _Combat Showcase_, p. 19 -- which is a large part of the problem: LG rules went through a couple-three cost changes over the years.

[Racer]

I have a hardcopy print out of a 3rd Party Blog page with errata for the three Vehicle Guides , Combat Showcase & (I think ?) Deluxe Car Wars (White Book) .

I'm not at home , but Marksman may be on that ? Dated 2001 , I did the print off in 2004 . May have it under a Mobile Phone Bookmark . Just 22K to search through ... I'll try and narrow the search down & get back to you guys ... 😊

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by Racer

I have a hardcopy print out of a 3rd Party Blog page with errata for the three Vehicle Guides , Combat Showcase & (I think ?) Deluxe Car Wars (White Book) .

I'm not at home , but Marksman may be on that ? Dated 2001 , I did the print off in 2004 . May have it under a Mobile Phone Bookmark . Just 22K to search through ... I'll try and narrow the search down & get back to you guys ... 😊

The CS errata was in ADQ 7-1 but it doesn't list the Marksman unfortunately.

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

_Marksman_ first appears in _Combat Showcase_, p. 19 -- which is a large part of the problem: LG rules went through a couple-three cost changes over the years.

Thanks for tracking that down. I note at the end of the description the cryptic add. pow. 524 this is also 100lb different from the calculated value.

I wonder if this has something to do with the discrepancy as no other design in that book seems to note the amount of power (or chassis weight) left - maybe the design was modified somehow (disallowed passenger equipment?) and the weight and cost were not updated.

The laser guidance rules certainly did flop about for a bit, but I think your observation that the design validation wasn't very good at the event that most of those designs were drawn from was more likely the issue.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

I wonder if this has something to do with the discrepancy as no other design in that book seems to note the amount of power (or chassis weight) left - maybe the design was modified somehow (disallowed passenger equipment?) and the weight and cost were not updated.

Not the case -- in _CS_, every unit with "leftover" PFs has such noted.

If I had to guess: I'd say someone failed to carry a 1 in the third column somewhere (guilty as charged :) ).