43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

[kjamma4]

Originally Posted by swordtart

As many of the most contentious designs were entries into tournaments

You can also judge the legal version against the illegal version to see if it would have made any difference to the ultimate outcome (assuming you were there).

The purpose of these books was to give us ready made vehicles to use in the game and to provide inspiration. I paid for them and I am going to flippin' well use them!

I agree with why you would want to do it. My contention is that the time to do so is water WAY under the bridge (at least for me.)

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by kjamma4

I agree with why you would want to do it. My contention is that the time to do so is water WAY under the bridge (at least for me.)

For the record, I wasn't even there. I'm old enough, but 'merikee was too far to travel and it sounds like some people forgot to have fun which would have made it an expensive disappointment.

But... these illegal designs have stories behind them and stories make the game more than pushing cardboard round a map or "battlin' spreadsheets". If you remember the good stories but forget the personalities (and the tantrums) then it can drive the game for new generations.

For me it will always be the 2030's ;)

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Duh! you mean the fact that CA now counts against the 1/3 rule. Gotcha. Was that rule in place at the time or is the design only retrospectively illegal in that regard (not withstanding the fact the calculations were wrong to start with).

Originally: CA didn't take up space at all; then someone used CA and the armor-penetration rules to "create super-armored vehicles". CA was then altered to "max 10 pts. Plastic, or equivalent weight; takes one space". Yes, that made _Challenger_ (and a few other designs) "retroactively illegal".

Originally Posted by swordtart

Since it only protects from damage to the front (or I suppose the rear once the car is gutted) you would be better with 10 points of plastic front armour instead. It costs $20 per point vs the $30 for the CA and weighs 10lb per point vs 12lb for the CA. That leaves you 45lb and 1 space spare. Whilst you can't use this in Division 15 it does mean you have space for your trophy on the drive home (maybe in a bulk ammo box in the boot as a damage sink).

I like to think of the _Challenger_ as a "crossover design" -- the last gasp of the _Chassis & Crossbow_-era designs: Basic weapons; metal armor only (save for the CA); no electronics to speak of. It's an archaic design; but in certain arenas and circumstances, it's still viable.

Hence the only change is "take the CA weight and cost off the RLs, and add a EM for the SD" -- the absolute minimum change required to make it legal again (as opposed to the "official" update, which is a little more invasive).

[swordtart]

I like to think of the _Challenger_ as a "crossover design" -- the last gasp of the _Chassis & Crossbow_-era designs: Basic weapons; metal armor only (save for the CA); no electronics to speak of. It's an archaic design; but in certain arenas and circumstances, it's still viable.

Hence the only change is "take the CA weight and cost off the RLs, and add a EM for the SD" -- the absolute minimum change required to make it legal again (as opposed to the "official" update, which is a little more invasive).

Once you add the EM (or extra plastic in my case) you are doing more than the minimum. There is case for just stripping out the CA and leaving it at that. The left over space, weight and cost can be left for aftermarket customisation.

I think this points up the challenge of redesigning. Much of the design process is subjective. Your interpretation of the intent leads to to a particular design philosophy, my interpretation leads to another. We cannot really know what the intent was so we can't really correct the design, merely revisit it. It was a bit easier with the ADQ designs and the earlier VGs as the fluff text was a clue as to where the design was trying to go.

Of course there have always been re-designs of classic vehicles in real life and these can be controversial (the re-treading of the VW Beetle and Austin Mini for example). Clearly the designer thought they were re-capturing the spirit of the original, others clearly disagreed.

These differing perspectives generate variation and as long as the intent of the re-design is clearly stated it generates a valid variation.

One day, I'll collate all the "official" updates into my ongoing catalogue of published designs. I tend to use CWVD but as this produces a whole spread sheet for each design I had to put together a Python script to collate all the summary pages into a single file for ease of reference. You would think that during lockdown I would have found time to systematically go through all of them, but the lure of the mini-series was too great ;)

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Once you add the EM (or extra plastic in my case) you are doing more than the minimum. There is case for just stripping out the CA and leaving it at that. The left over space, weight and cost can be left for aftermarket customisation.

In a way: That's what I was thinking -- the _Challenger_ started off as a _C&C_ design with a big gasburner under the hood; when gas became unavailable, the design was swapped to an electric; then the HD Trans and CA were added.

I might do that for the next installment: A "retcon" of the _Challenger_ showing how arena designs might have evolved over time.... :)

[Racer]

ADQ 7/1 has a Combat Showcase Errata article on page 33 . Challenger has updated stats there .

Blast Cannon in a Compact could work if you make it a Spinal Mount . Drop the Ramplate , swap 150 cu in for an uprated 100 cu in (Turbo?) & it could work I suppose .

All Gas Engined designs from VG2 need complete overhauls to .

[swordtart]

The errata for combat showcase is also in the errata section of the website (in case you don't have ADQ 7-1). Most require minor tweaks, but a few require extensive overhauls.

I may have to dust off my combat showcase and redraft the designs.

It's almost like playing the game ;)

Edit:
But it's like picking at scabs ;(
I was hoping the Navigator was legal as there is no mention of it in the errata (and this one won the 2036 championships).
I presume they were using the "personal equipment doesn't count against vehicle weight" interpretation as there is only 3lb spare for all that stuff. Not the way I play it, but at least that is a thing. Obviously that AV ammo rifle is illegal now though so the personal equipment needs refiguring.

However I make it $3960 over the ticket price before the personal equipment is taken into account (I note the PE cost is listed separately).

I can't see any reason unless not all RL rounds were LG (or the LG cost was only paid per RL not per round as it should have been - but that brings the cost too low).

[Magesmiley]

Originally Posted by swordtart

The errata for combat showcase is also in the errata section of the website (in case you don't have ADQ 7-1). Most require minor tweaks, but a few require extensive overhauls.

I may have to dust off my combat showcase and redraft the designs.

It's almost like playing the game ;)

Edit:
But it's like picking at scabs ;(
I was hoping the Navigator was legal as there is no mention of it in the errata (and this one won the 2036 championships).
I presume they were using the "personal equipment doesn't count against vehicle weight" interpretation as there is only 3lb spare for all that stuff. Not the way I play it, but at least that is a thing. Obviously that AV ammo rifle is illegal now though so the personal equipment needs refiguring.

However I make it $3960 over the ticket price before the personal equipment is taken into account (I note the PE cost is listed separately).

I can't see any reason unless not all RL rounds were LG (or the LG cost was only paid per RL not per round as it should have been - but that brings the cost too low).

I've crunched numbers on the Navigator a few times over the years.

First off, the weight instead of grenade-equivalent rules for hand weapons didn't exist back then. It was several years before that option came into existence.

By my calculations, it weighs in at $165 over budget, but is otherwise legal. (Drop the rifle load to 13 and it becomes legal for the division in the era it was created in).

Obviously the rules have changed since then. And some changes could be made to take advantage of newer gear.

The super PP could become a large PP with superconductors. Net gain 1 space, 200 lbs. Top speed drops to 90.

The Hi Res computer could become a hi-res SWC. Net gain $1500.

Passengers are no longer allowed, fortunately the PP change gives the space to convert the passenger to a gunner. Net loss 1 space.

AV ammo is no longer allowed. Drop the rifle. Net gain $620.

Give the gunner an Heavy AV rifle with a targeting scope and an extended clip. Net loss $1580.

Use weight instead of GE: Net loss: 116 lbs.

Cost reduction from printed design: $375 (counting the overage amount).
Weight reduction from printed design: 84 lbs.
Top speed reduced to 90.
PP only has 10 DP.
2nd crewmember is now legal and has a legal hand weapon which does more damage than the rifle, with the same to hit roll.

[Magesmiley]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

In another thread, discussion turned to "how do I correct a design which is Illegal" -- that is: What is my policy when making corrections?

The short version: I try to stay as close to the original design as possible, both in actual parts used, and in "intent" of the design (as best I can figure).

Example: The infamous _Pop-Cart_ from the equally-infamous _Vehicle Guide 3_; not only is the design spectacularly overweight, it also violates 1/3-spaces (4-sp. BC on a 10-sp. Compact).

So, what are we looking at, in terms of design? "Division 15: Really big gun on a slow-moving hull." Let's run with that.

Let's not forget that blast cannons can be spinal mounted for an extra space and $1000. So one could be put in a compact.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by Magesmiley

First off, the weight instead of grenade-equivalent rules for hand weapons didn't exist back then. It was several years before that option came into existence.[...]
Obviously the rules have changed since then. And some changes could be made to take advantage of newer gear.

That's another point -- the _CS_ "errata page" came a couple years, and a great-many tech advances (for ex.: PCs and SCs), after the original book. One of my policies is "use only tech which was available at the time of the original design's creation".

So, for ex.: On the _Pop-Cart_, Spinal Mounts are Right Out, as they didn't exist at the time _VG3_ was published; SWCs did exist, so can be used. On the _Challenger_, PCs and SCs didn't exist when _CS_ was published, so those aren't allowed; one is required to retain the HD Trans.