Register Register

Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 228100 times)

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8353
  • Legends Never Die
When I was doing this, I used two simple rules of thumb: 1) is this an actual error of tense, number agreement, etc.; 2) if not an outright mistake, does the text as-is get the point across? In other words, unless what was printed was simply wrong by basic rules of grammar, I wouldn't pass on a change unless it was also hard to understand.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Trace Coburn

  • Starfighter Analyst
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4266
  • За родину и свободу!
Outright grammatical errors should be errataed, in my opinion.
  No disrespect, ColBosch, but I agree with BeeRocksx, which is why I did a comprehensive read-through on ER: 3062 for such errors and intend to do so for H:RW in the next couple of days, hopefully in time for the corrections to go into the print version.  Maybe it's just the kind of mind I have, but to me hitting glaring punctuation/grammar errors like that is more annoying than hearing a record skipping on a given spot for an hour straight.  #P

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 27340
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
+1 more to that sentiment.  I edit a lot of writing at work, and even small mistakes interrupt the flow of reading.  I've begun noticing it my favorite science fiction novels, too.  I suspect a growing reliance on automated spelling and grammar checkers is driving it.

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8353
  • Legends Never Die
Er, did you guys read my post? I said outright errors should be fixed.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6678
  • BattleTech Line Developer
hopefully in time for the corrections to go into the print version.
No...errors spotted at "this point" affecting the print version is the exception, not the rule.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 27340
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Er, did you guys read my post? I said outright errors should be fixed.
The qualifier "outright" left a bit of room.  My point was that automated spelling and grammar checkers will pass things that are wrong, outright or otherwise.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
I have no specific guidelines concenring errata and grammar, so unless told otherwise I'll be accepting them all.  Bosch's guideline's are generally what I'm working off of as well.

Some will be trivial or incorrect, but that's true of rules-based posts as well - they'll get weeded out when the time comes to assemble the errata.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8353
  • Legends Never Die
Also note that I was talking about how I handled reports when assembling the final errata, and not in any way, shape, or form telling people what to post or not. I gave up THAT privilege when I resigned. ;)
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Kojak

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4473
  • The pinnacle of society
The Reunification War thread seems to be filled with grammar suggestions. Is that really errata?

Speaking as the one who's submitted most of those, I'd say yes. Incorrect grammar is no different from incorrect spelling or incorrect word usage: a mistake in need of correction. That's what errata is for (along with correcting factual inconsistencies and the like).


"Deep down, I suspect the eject handle on the Hunchback IIC was never actually connected to anything. The regs just say it has to be there."
- Klarg1

Revanche

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 567
  • Fanah’s Fangs (formerly of the Talitha Division)
Xotl,
Just to be clear: when you post with "Designer Errata", that means that is official errata and not to be confused with fan posts that offer errata suggestions?

Also, when you do post "Designer Errata", is that replacing the one-stop errata pages accessible from the main page? Or will your posts be incorporated into those?

I ask because my policy is to print out the errata pages and make changes as time allows, and refer to the print-outs when I haven't completed my pen-'n-ink changes. If the most up-to-date errata will now reside here, I'll modify my procedures.

Thanks,
Rev
« Last Edit: 02 July 2011, 16:15:12 by Xotl »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Just to be clear: when you post with "Designer Errata", that means that is official errata and not to be confused with fan posts that offer errata suggestions?

That's correct.  I'm in the middle of organizing it right now, but the opening post of each thread (the introductory one made by me) will also have a section called Developer-Level Errata (if necessary).  These are rulings made by developers, and are fully official.  You can consider them previews of future errata revision documents.

Quote
Also, when you do post "Designer Errata", is that replacing the one-stop errata pages accessible from the main page? Or will your posts be incorporated into those?

Developer-Level Errata is supplemental to the CBT webpage errata section.  The rulings only replace CBT webpage errata if specifically noted (for example, the TechManual thread has a new BV table that overrides a ruling currently sitting on the CBT TechManual errata webpage).

Quote
I ask because my policy is to print out the errata pages and make changes as time allows, and refer to the print-outs when I haven't completed my pen-'n-ink changes. If the most up-to-date errata will now reside here, I'll modify my procedures.

It will always be easier for me to keep a forum and a word document up to date than it will be to find the time to update the website.  In addition, the website will only have full errata revisions, made as a result of the rulings in this forum, rather than individual rulings, so this forum will always be ahead.  That having been said, we do plan to update the CBT webpage errata section whenever the time and manpower can be spared.

So, to sum up, Developer-Level errata is fully official, will appear in future full errata revisions, and from there will eventually make it onto the CBT Errata webpage section.
« Last Edit: 02 July 2011, 16:16:04 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Revanche

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 567
  • Fanah’s Fangs (formerly of the Talitha Division)
That's correct.  I'm in the middle of organizing it right now [Rev's italics], but the opening post of each thread (the introductory one made by me) will also have a section called Developer-Level Errata (if necessary).  These are rulings made by developers, and are fully official.  You can consider them previews of future errata revision documents.

I presume the threads where you have "Designer Errata" in different posts will be consolidated in the first, then?

Quote
So, to sum up, Developer-Level errata is fully official, will appear in future full errata revisions, and from there will eventually make it onto the CBT Errata webpage section.

This method sounds like its the go-to-idea for up-to-date errata. Thanks for the quick and informative reply (and for fixing my previous code-cursed post).

- Rev

Edit1: Can you please open a new thread for Strategic Operations (since the new PDF was just released). Thanks.
« Last Edit: 02 July 2011, 16:38:12 by Revanche »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
I presume the threads where you have "Designer Errata" in different posts will be consolidated in the first, then?

Yes: that's the "middle of" part - I've spent my weekend so far cleaning up the forum.  I think only TacOps is left - check the Total Warfare or TechManual threads for how it is supposed to look.

Quote
This method sounds like its the go-to-idea for up-to-date errata. Thanks for the quick and informative reply (and for fixing my previous code-cursed post).

No problem - happy to help.

Quote
Edit1: Can you please open a new thread for Strategic Operations (since the new PDF was just released). Thanks.

Hmmm, so it has.  I'll get working on that right away (may take a while, as I have verify that everything was successfully integrated before I post the new errata revision.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Annnnd it's up.  Thanks everyone for your reports - the latest printing of Strategic Operations is a great one.

P.S. Thanks Revanche for listing your typos earlier in the thread - I was able to sneak all but one of them in before the book went out.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Revanche

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 567
  • Fanah’s Fangs (formerly of the Talitha Division)
P.S. Thanks Revanche for listing your typos earlier in the thread - I was able to sneak all but one of them in before the book went out.

That's awesome. Thanks for the shout-out.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Just to let everyone know that TechManual, Total Warfare, and Tactical Operations have all had their first posts extensively updated to incorporate all developer-level errata to date and in a nice, orderly fashion.  I've found a couple of contradictions, and will be attempting to get them resolved.

More importantly, the Tactical Operations thread has had a couple of new pieces added to it - a construction section for Chain Whips, and a new attachment featuring Mechanized SCUBA infantry and Infantry TAG systems.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16099
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
* Clan Weapons and Equipment BV Table [Addendum] (p. 385)
Change the BV for the Arrow IV from 168 to 268; Ammo BV remains unchanged.

This appears to have accidentally migrated from the TO list to the TM list and contradicts something already on the TO list.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
I just finished correcting some other contradictions - I'll check on this one too.  Thanks!
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16099
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
The term Arrow IV just happened to leap out at me when I was idly poking through the TM errata.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
I've left the one that is listed on the website and that matches the current versions of SSW and MML.  The other I've sent off for verification, along with a trio of TechManual oddballs.  Thanks for the catch.
« Last Edit: 03 July 2011, 05:03:19 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16099
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Regarding this report, they're talking about the experimental model in that context, not the 6S.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Agreed, but even then it's still an error - the prototype was only twenty kilos faster than the original, not thirty.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1481
  • the one and only
p. 30, Cavalry Infiltrator / Capabilities
Every Cavalry capable of transporting infantry had a 4 tons bay already. There is no variant with 3 trons.

Suggested ciorrection: drop expansion and state only an increasing demand for the Cavalry.

No, the Infantry Cavalry had errata posted (currently offline) that clarified it carried 3 tons of infantry.

At the same time a (BA) variant was introduced with 4 tons, but the main Infantry Cavalry indeed carries 3.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Demos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1602
No, the Infantry Cavalry had errata posted (currently offline) that clarified it carried 3 tons of infantry.

At the same time a (BA) variant was introduced with 4 tons, but the main Infantry Cavalry indeed carries 3.
Look, the MUL shows only one Infantry variant, the RS shows only one Infantry variant (and this has 4 tons).
I know that the Cavalry had previously only 3 or 3.5 tons, but after the armor was errata'd is had the 4 ton bay.

To base the description on a "unseen" variant is a bit - weird?  ;)
"WoB - Seekers of Serenity, Protectors of Human Purity, Enforcers of Blake's Will!"

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
There is a current XTR Davion errata thread open, but it has no posts.  That errata doesn't show in either of the old XTR Davion threads, meaning it must have been lost in the post-crash chaos.  jymset - would you mind making a fresh errata report for the current XTR Davion thread covering the Calvary Cadence Rain?

EDIT: oops, nevermind, you were talking about the TR3058U Cavalry.
« Last Edit: 03 July 2011, 15:11:41 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1481
  • the one and only
Look, the MUL shows only one Infantry variant, the RS shows only one Infantry variant (and this has 4 tons).
I know that the Cavalry had previously only 3 or 3.5 tons, but after the armor was errata'd is had the 4 ton bay.

To base the description on a "unseen" variant is a bit - weird?  ;)

Yes, I messed up that RS, plus a small handful of others in RS 3058U. Yes, that messed up sheet had an effect on the MUL.

I apologise to you - and Xotl - for not making it fully clear that I was talking about RS 3058U (though I did talk about the "Infantry" Cavalry).

Xotl, I'll make updating RS 3058U thread my first priority.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1481
  • the one and only
Done deed, I hope that helps. Sorry about the inconvenience.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1481
  • the one and only
Quote from: Snake Eyes link=topic=7572.msg174185#msg174185 date=1309761795 <A href='www.pickitisbn:1309761795'><img style='border: 0px none' src='[url
https://www.citavi.com/softlink?linkid=findit'[/url] title='Titel anhand dieser ISBN in Citavi-Projekt übernehmen'/></A>]
PDF, pg. 71 "Garuda Heavy VTOL":
The stat bloc for the number of locations for the IS and Armor need to be fixed as this VTOL is considered a Superheavy Vee, per Tac Ops pg. 378, which means it is suppossed to have six hit-locations, not four as shown in the TRO

As per the newest block of TO errata, VTOLs are exempt from this:

Quote
* Super-Heavy Vehicles (p. 378)First column, last paragraph.  Change
"All Super-Heavy Combat Vehicles use the Super-Heavy Vehicle Hit Locations Table, and must apply armor and structure to 6 facings (plus any rotors or mounted turrets) rather than 4." to
"All Super-Heavy Combat Vehicles apart from VTOLs use the Super-Heavy Vehicle Hit Locations Table, and must apply armor and structure to 6 facings (plus any mounted turrets) rather than 4."

Please note that this would have always been the intentions of the rules, as witnessed by both the template in the book, as well as the way heavy support VTOLs are handled.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Snake Eyes

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1232
  • I am here to keep the peace
As per the newest block of TO errata, VTOLs are exempt from this:

Please note that this would have always been the intentions of the rules, as witnessed by both the template in the book, as well as the way heavy support VTOLs are handled.
Thank you Jymset jymset for pointing that out
« Last Edit: 06 July 2011, 13:38:19 by Snake Eyes »

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16099
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Since we're not supposed to be yakking at each other in the errata threads, I figured I'd express my thanks for the errata credit in here.  Thanks!

 

Register