Register Register

Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 256107 times)

GreekFire

  • Aeternus Ignis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1260 on: 01 September 2022, 17:43:58 »
I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.
Tu habites au Québec? Tu veux jouer au BattleTech? Envoie-moi un message!

S.gage

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • The Nova Cat is a subtle hunter.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1261 on: 01 September 2022, 18:30:26 »
I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.

The errata was based more on OTP: REVIVAL Trials, which is well written and clear. The FASA books aren't always clear, and sometimes they have clear typos/problems. FM:WC does not support nor contra-indicate a Coyote presence much. The line beginning "When the Coyotes' Delta Galaxy dropped onto Londerholm, ..." sounds more like Delta arrived from another system. But maybe in-system elements dropped from elsewhere on world, of something else.

And absolutely, both OTP: REVIVAL Trials and the Kickstarter map could be right. By 3045, the Coyotes had lost almost 75% of their max territory (FM:WC, p. 43, "Stalling Fate"), why not have Clan Coyote lose their Londerholm enclave between 3050 and 3052, only to recover some of their losses after Clan Smoke Jaguar was Annihilated?

It might help to know if Clan Nova Cat had an enclave on Londerholm in 3052 from another source, but there is very little information about CNC in the Clan Homeworlds.

(EDIT was to write more clearly, sorry for any confusion)
« Last Edit: 01 September 2022, 21:02:32 by S.gage »
"WHO PUT 6 ARMOR ON THE RIFLEMAN'S HEAD?!?" - Peter S., while marking damage from a PPC, 1994.
"Ich bin Jadefalke!!!! Ich bin MechKrieger!!!!" - German students on their field trip to Leipzig, 1998.
Custom Early Clan Refit BattleMechs, Custom Novel Golden Century BattleMechs, Custom Early Clan Refit Combat Vehicles, Custom First Generation OmniMechs.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 30576
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1262 on: 05 September 2022, 10:46:13 »
This had been fixed in earlier printings, but it seems to have crept back into the most recent ones.

The issue: Aerodyne Small Craft appear to be back in the "auto self-destruction" category when attempting vertical landings or liftoffs:

Strategic Operations: Advanced Aerospace Rules (4th printing), pages 60-61:
Quote
VERTICAL LANDING AND LIFTOFF
Under standard rules, aerodyne DropShips may not conduct
vertical landing maneuvers in any type of atmosphere; such units
can move in a vacuum in this fashion (see Vacuum, p. 52, TO:AR).
Aerodyne units are not designed to shunt away the backwash
of their belly mounted transit drives, and can suffer catastrophic
damage to their hulls and components if they attempt to land
vertically in an atmosphere.
Under these advanced rules, aerodyne DropShips may conduct
a vertical landing (and the liftoff rules are modified accordingly),
as a spheroid, in any atmospheric conditions (see Atmospheric
Pressure, p. 52, TO:AR) using all the standard rules for spheroids
making such a maneuver (see p. 87, TW), with the following additional
rules.
• In addition to all standard modifiers for a spheroid landing,
apply an additional +1 for aerodyne DropShips and +2 for
aerodyne Small Craft to the landing Control Roll
• A second Control Roll after the standard landing Control
Roll is made (for maneuvering the unit through its own
backwash), applying all the appropriate spheroid modifiers
from the Landing Modifiers Table (see p. 86, TW) or Vertical
Liftoff Modifiers Table (see p. 88, TW) as appropriate, and an
additional +2 modifier. For every point of Margin of Failure,
add 1D6 points of capital-scale damage to the final liftoff/
landing damage. If the Control Roll succeeds, subtract 6
capital-scale damage from the final Takeoff Damage for
every point of MoS.
• The unit suffers automatic damage based on its tonnage
(see Size Class Damage Table, above). Modify this damage
by the MoS or MoF of the Control Roll and then apply any
Atmospheric Conditions modifiers to the final damage.
Damage is split evenly between the Nose and Aft armor.
If damage exceeds the damage threshold for that arc, roll
for a critical hit as normal.
• For a liftoff, if the unit’s landing gear is deployed it is destroyed
during liftoff as though it took a critical hit; check
off the Gear box on the record sheet.
• For a landing, the unit’s landing gear is not deployed during
the landing. If the unit survives the landing, it may not
move under its own power (see Taxiing, p. 88, TW).

This is at variance with the most recent printing of Tech Manual (cut-away Atlas cover), page 190:
Quote
Aerospace fighters and aerodyne Small Craft, by virtue of their
design, already incorporate VSTOL capabilities, but may mount
this equipment to eliminate the +2 penalty for attempting a vertical
landing in atmosphere.

As Aerodyne Small Craft can be as small as ASFs, it would seem either ASFs should also self destruct when trying this maneuver in atmosphere, or Small Craft should NOT self destruct.  I advocate for the latter.

The fix:
I believe the easiest fix would be to remove the mention of Small Craft from the first bullet at the bottom of page 60, thusly:
Quote
• In addition to all standard modifiers for a spheroid landing,
apply an additional +1 for aerodyne DropShips and +2 for
aerodyne Small Craft to the landing Control Roll
.

It's possible that last mention was just missed in the overall errata entry, in which case this post probably belongs in the StratOps thread vice the Tech Manual one (the less than 100% certainty on my part is why it's here in this thread instead).  The missing period at the end of that bullet as printed adds credence to this interpretation.

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 272
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1263 on: 05 September 2022, 22:32:10 »
Here are a couple nitpicks regarding the recently published Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition v. 5.1 PRE document:

1. New Additions section doesn't mention that the new Movement Cost Table (p. 34) and  Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44) errata entries also apply to p. 199 and p. 200 respectively.

2. I realize that it will likely add an extra page to the document, but to make it easier for the players to use the document, I would add separate entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200), and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201) at the end of Full Errata section of the document, or at the very least a entry following entry:

Movement Cost Table (p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200), and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201)
See Movement Cost Table (p. 34 and p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44 and p. 200) and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 47 and p. 201) earlier in the document.

By the way note that the v. 5.0 of the document was inconsistent in this regard - it had full entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 199) and  Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200) at the end of the Full Errata section, but no such entry for Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201).
« Last Edit: 05 September 2022, 22:39:58 by Alfaryn »

EDG

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 119
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1264 on: 07 September 2022, 11:51:27 »
More Alpha Strike Companion errata/clarifications needed here (Version 1.5):

Pg 94: MASC and Superchargers (conversion from Battletech)
I think this should clarify whether Myomer Boosters for Protomechs are considered to be included as MASC/Superchargers? Currently they are not explicitly mentioned but I can't see a reason why they shouldn't count? This could significantly affect PV calculations.

Pg 130: Triple-Strength Myomer (TSM) (Special Abilities)
This could do with a note saying that this doesn't include Protomech Myomer Booster since that isn't activated by Heat?

Unit Role Classification (pg 134):
Generally the speeds listed for the roles cap out at 12", but it's possible to make units faster than that in which case no role would be applicable as stated. Would suggest replacing references to a 12" limit with 'or faster' (i.e. Brawler would be '8" or faster', Scout and Skirmisher would be '9" or faster', Striker would be '9" or faster')

pg 136 (Striker, 2nd Paragraph)
"In Alpha Strike terms, a unit may be considered a Juggernaut if it meets the following criteria:" - "Juggernaut" should be replaced with "Striker" here.
« Last Edit: 07 September 2022, 21:19:58 by EDG »

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 272
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1265 on: 14 September 2022, 10:04:29 »
Regarding the recently posted AS:CE v5.1 errata document

I'm not entirely sure of it, since I don't own any version of the book older than the third printing, but shouldn't the entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 34 and p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44 and p. 200),  Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 47 and p. 201), Artillery (Advanced) (p. 151 and p. 209), and Morale Check Table (p. 170 and p. 210) an pp. 1, 5, 7, 12, 13 of the errata document be repeated in their entirety at the end of the Full Errata section (p. 17) of the document? Currently only the new additions (indicated with asterisks) to Movement Cost Table and Attack Modifiers Table appear there, and I can confirm that at least some of the older errata for the tables in question wasn't fixed on pp. 199+ of the third printing of the book.
« Last Edit: 14 September 2022, 10:10:45 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11067
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1266 on: 14 September 2022, 11:25:49 »
I can't check right now, but IIRC the rear tables had errors different than the main tables at times, and so the errata for the two won't line up directly.  But I'd have to go back over the 1st print for that, and I don't have time.  A future update will ensure that they're properly in sync, if they aren't already.  Thanks for the notes as always.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Gribbly

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1267 on: 22 September 2022, 15:06:02 »
'Interstellar Operations: Alternate Eras' lists the prototype date for the standard AC/10 as 2443 (page 32). The Mackie has an AC/10 in 2439, the Bonaventure and Vigilant Corvettes have standard AC/10's in the early 2300's.

Should the intro dates for the AC/10 be considerably earlier than stated?

Liam's Ghost

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7266
  • Miss Chitty finds your honor rules quaint.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1268 on: 22 September 2022, 15:51:26 »
The Vigilant and Bonaventure already don't fit with the availability table (they both have armor which didn't exist at the time they were launched) so those stats would most likely correspond to later updates (post 2470) anyway.

(this is actually true for a lot of early age of war WarShips. In some cases it can be resolved without changing the stats too much by just adding more of a lower grade of armor. In other cases it can't.)
Good news is the lab boys say the symptoms of asbestos poisoning show an immediate latency of 44.6 years. So if you're thirty or over you're laughing. Worst case scenario you miss out on a few rounds of canasta, plus you've forwarded the cause of science by three centuries. I punch those numbers into my calculator, it makes a happy face.

(indirect accessory to the) Slayer of Monitors!

Gribbly

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 67
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1269 on: 22 September 2022, 16:06:31 »
The prototype date should be brought forward to 2439 at least for the AC/10 on the Mackie.

cmerwin

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 238
  • Clan Nova Cat: True to General Kerensky's Vision!
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1270 on: 25 October 2022, 22:51:22 »
I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.
The same can also be said of the Nova Cat Abjuration in the same year. I would agree with @GreekFire that it seems likely that the Coyote's were able to fill in the void (66% between combined Jag and the Cat loses), and prevent the Hellions from being the sole possessors of Londerholm. This would also fulfil a possible "in-system" drop description if the Cayote's didn't have a sizeable enclave enough worth mentioning before Annihilation & Abjuration, but took advantage of suddenly a lot of free space otherwise left entirely to the Hellions and committed a Galaxy's worth of warriors to hold part of it.
"But the nova cat paced steadily on,
Undisturbed by the petty battles...
its heart and mind devoted to
The Ways of Seeing, devoted to a more perfect life.”
-- The Remembrance (Nova Cat), 50.5.26-32.


ShroudedSciuridae

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 359
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1271 on: 28 October 2022, 22:04:22 »
Era Report: 2750, p. 149: "Creating Characters in the Star League"

"To reflect these subtle differences, the following rule modifications apply to creating A Time of War characters in the Star League era, and may be used for any characters created from roughly 2700 through 2770."

This seems like an error, but I'm not confident enough to submit it as errata.  I feel 2700 was supposed to be 2600. Thoughts?

Cerberus Kull

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1272 on: 31 October 2022, 17:47:47 »
Alpha Stike anti mech attacks: I believe the rules should be adjusted to allow a VTOL Infantry or BA to perform an AM attack when in base to base with a unit as long at the VTOL unit is at an elevation relative to the unit that would allow the unit to come into physical contact with the unit.  For example: a VTOL Infantry at elevation 1 or 2 should be able to perform the AM attack against a BM or a CV while at elevation 1. 

To me this makes thematic and tactical sense that the unit would fly at the unit and perform the attack without having to completely land.
Dave "Cerberus"
Valhalla Club Podcast - Host
Colorado Springs, CO

pokefan548

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1926
  • The Barracuda knows where it is, hence the -2 mod.
    • Poke's Aerospace Academy (Discord Server)
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1273 on: 01 November 2022, 07:30:35 »
VTOL Conventional Infantry should still not work since they're mechanized.
Poke's Aerospace Academy
The best place to learn and discuss AeroTech.


BattleTech players: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater since 1984!
"Poke is just a figment of our imagination really." - Siam
"Poke isn't a real person, he's just an algorithm programmed by CGL to try and get people to try the aerospace rules." - Phantasm
"I want to plant the meat eating trees and the meat growing trees on the same planet! Watch that plant on plant violence!" - Sawtooth

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 30576
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1274 on: 01 November 2022, 17:42:06 »
That still leaves VTOL BA in contention.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 18197
  • Useless and I didn't even get to be pretty
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1275 on: 01 November 2022, 18:30:37 »
this is for discussion of errata, not rule changes. unless the above rule is written incorrectly, it's not errata and should be discussed in the appropriate subforum.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 30576
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1276 on: 01 November 2022, 18:40:46 »
Perhaps you could provide the current rule interpretation of the proposed scenario? ???

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 18197
  • Useless and I didn't even get to be pretty
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1277 on: 01 November 2022, 19:25:44 »
Also not errata

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

ShroudedSciuridae

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 359
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1278 on: 02 November 2022, 05:21:09 »
In the process of updating a ATOW character generator I've been going through IO:AE and updating the ATOW tech/availability with the Dark Age era, in the process finding a few minor mismatches which I noted in the IO:AE thread.

But then I got to Mines, and it's all screwed up, nearly every stat has two different values for all four types of mines. It was then I remembered TO:AUE also has availability ratings so I was hoping for a tie breaker only to discover nearly all of those stats disagree with the other two sources as well.

Which source is correct? Is there a source that's correct?

Crackerb0x

  • CamoSpecs
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 214
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1279 on: 02 November 2022, 06:54:41 »
p38, Mechanized Battle Armor
after first paragraph add
"A transport carrying Mechanized Battle Armor may not use jump, WiGE, VTOL, submersible or aerospace (thrust) movement."

Could I ask for additional clarity here? As it reads, RAW, it looks like VTOL and Thrust capable units cannot use those movement types while carrying Battle Armor that have MEC or XMEC but are being transported via IT# rather than mounting the unit via their MEC special. I double checked the wording of the Mechanized Battle Armor section in the 5th print and it looks like Mechanized Battle Armor is a term that's used both to describe a Battle Armor that has the MEC special and Battle Armor which are mounted to an Omni capable mech of vehicle.

I guess that also extends into the paragraph on that age in the 5th print that says that "If a transport is destroyed, any units with the MEC or XMEC special ability it is transporting are placed on the map immediately as if they had dismounted." Currently, it reads as though if a IT# transport with MEC capable BA are riding inside using the IT# special of the vehicle instead of MEC special, if it is destroyed, the Battle Armor would survive the destruction of the transport.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10624
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1280 on: 02 November 2022, 07:55:00 »
Mechanized Battle Armor are the ones using the rules labeled Mechanized Battle Armor.  Ie. not using IT, but using MEC (or XMEC).
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

pokefan548

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1926
  • The Barracuda knows where it is, hence the -2 mod.
    • Poke's Aerospace Academy (Discord Server)
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1281 on: 04 November 2022, 20:13:00 »
In AToW p. 298, it's stated that the camo ratings given also apply to Total Warfare gameplay. However, while the Camo Sneak Suit's given camo rating is 4 (granting a -2/-1/-0 camo modifier), which doesn't line up with the +3/+2/+1 modifier it yields on TO:AR p. 130.

Should one of these be corrected to maintain parity? Should TO:AR drop the mods down to those of a camo rating 4 suit, or should AToW list the Camo Sneak Suit as having a camo rating of 6?
« Last Edit: 09 November 2022, 09:30:15 by pokefan548 »
Poke's Aerospace Academy
The best place to learn and discuss AeroTech.


BattleTech players: Throwing the baby out with the bathwater since 1984!
"Poke is just a figment of our imagination really." - Siam
"Poke isn't a real person, he's just an algorithm programmed by CGL to try and get people to try the aerospace rules." - Phantasm
"I want to plant the meat eating trees and the meat growing trees on the same planet! Watch that plant on plant violence!" - Sawtooth

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 23412
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1282 on: 29 November 2022, 22:48:12 »
Errata question about Record Sheets: 3067 unabridged and Record Sheets 3145: New Tech, New upgrades

Question for 3067: The record sheet for the No-Dachi NDA-2KO (page 130) shows the ER Medium Lasers as being forward mounted.  The previous record sheet from the printed collection Record Sheets 3067 showed them rear mounted (leading to much humor as the only mech who's longest-range weapons were facing backwards).  Which is correct?

Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

GreekFire

  • Aeternus Ignis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1283 on: 29 November 2022, 23:06:56 »
Errata question about Record Sheets: 3067 unabridged and Record Sheets 3145: New Tech, New upgrades

Question for 3067: The record sheet for the No-Dachi NDA-2KO (page 130) shows the ER Medium Lasers as being forward mounted.  The previous record sheet from the printed collection Record Sheets 3067 showed them rear mounted (leading to much humor as the only mech who's longest-range weapons were facing backwards).  Which is correct?

Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?

No-Dachi: the older sheets. The errata as posted by Ice_Trey in the RS3067U thread can be considered accurate.

Mad Cat Mk II 4/5: under discussion.
« Last Edit: 29 November 2022, 23:08:43 by GreekFire »
Tu habites au Québec? Tu veux jouer au BattleTech? Envoie-moi un message!

GreekFire

  • Aeternus Ignis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1284 on: 30 November 2022, 14:08:51 »
Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?

Thanks for your patience here. This was an interesting question.

Ultimately, no errata will be issued for now. The 4/5 were created as TW-scale canonizations of two MWDA-era variants. Both of these had low-slug arms à la Timber Wolf, so the decision was made to give these Lower Arm Actuators once both received official record sheets.

Because of the core guiding idea behind these variants, we have, at this time, decided to leave things as is.
Tu habites au Québec? Tu veux jouer au BattleTech? Envoie-moi un message!

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 23412
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1285 on: 30 November 2022, 15:32:00 »
Makes sense.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

MyndkryM

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 377
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1286 on: 03 December 2022, 16:12:25 »
CGL has been really good with updating and pushing out corrected versions of AS:CE. Is there a plan to do the same with the errata that has been compiled for the ilClan Rec Guides?
"Halfway down the trail to Hell,
In a shady meadow green
Are the Souls of all dead Troopers camped,
Near a good old-time canteen.
And this eternal resting place
Is known as Fiddlers’ Green...."

-"Fiddler's Green" The US Cavalryman's Prayer

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11067
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1287 on: 03 December 2022, 16:32:12 »
Nothing has been announced with regards to that, but I would think that all errata to date would be processed as part of the re-release of the eventual (IIRC) two-volume compilations.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 23412
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1288 on: 11 December 2022, 13:38:16 »
What's the current rule on units that have Artemis IV-equipped missiles?  I noticed that in Rec Guide 28 the Sturmfeur (WoB) and Sturmfeur (Lyran) both have LRM launchers with Artemis IV and MML pods without them.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

ShroudedSciuridae

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 359
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1289 on: 29 December 2022, 14:39:38 »
In an effort to improve my Sarna editing (and because I'm super bored lately) I'm going through the old Errata threads and noting all those marked as dev-level.  But I'm also seeing errata reported by people who typically issue dev-level rulings that don't identify it as such.

In the absence of a compiled errata file for a title is it safe to assume comments by devs/mods/writers are corrections and not reports? Is there a list of, for lack of a better term, authorized correctors?

 

Register