Register Register

Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 228189 times)

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1080 on: 06 June 2021, 21:00:33 »
Dear all,

It's the glorious Sixth of June, and with it the years' official errata has been uploaded to the website.  Thank you all for your reports.

New are:
AGOAC 5.0
TW 8.0
TM 4.1
TM Infantry Tables (one minor fix, IIRC)
TM BV Chapter (a couple of innocuous wording changes on turrets)
IO 1.2
ATOW Companion 1.1
Battle of Tukayyid 2.0
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 269
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1081 on: 08 June 2021, 11:07:58 »
I've noticed a typo in an errata thread title:

BattleTech Beginner Box & A Game of Armoured Combat

IIRC everywhere else in the official materials, including on the AGoAC box itself the American spelling (Armored) is used. ;)

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17502
  • I can and I will make you use a Garm
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1082 on: 08 June 2021, 11:16:12 »
Xotl forgot to switch his spellcheck that day

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1083 on: 08 June 2021, 11:47:15 »
God save the queen.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Jmlee236

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1084 on: 13 June 2021, 19:03:28 »
After doing some looking, is the FP cost listed in BoT for Elementals 9/11/12 correct?

Are they really worth more than a Comstar heavy mech? Especially in Alpha Strike, they’re fairly squishy.

Another reason I question this is replacing them with SPs costs half of what replacing a light mech costs, so shouldn’t they cost less FPs? More like a Comstar Light mech, 4/5/6 or something?

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4403
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1085 on: 15 June 2021, 08:53:51 »
I'm reviewing the Highlander in Recognition Guide: ilClan Volume 10 and when I enter it into Solaris Skunk Works (including errata changes 1 and 2) I end up missing a double heat sink and the design is 2.5 tons underweight.

Here's the output of SSW:
Highlander HGN-740

Mass: 95 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Experimental Tech
Era: All Eras (non-canon)
Tech Rating/Era Availability: F/X-X-F-D
Production Year: 0
Dry Cost: 10,263,240 C-Bills
Total Cost: 10,437,240 C-Bills
Battle Value: 2,254

Chassis: Unknown Standard
Power Plant: Unknown 285 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Jump Jets: Unknown
    Jump Capacity: 90 meters
Armor: Unknown Light Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
    1  ER PPC + PPC Capacitor
    1  LRM-20 w/ Artemis IV FCS
    1  Streak SRM-6
    2  ER Medium Lasers
    4  M-Pods
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard                     145 points                9.50
Engine:             Fusion Engine                285                      16.50
    Walking MP: 3
    Running MP: 5
    Jumping MP: 3 Standard
    Jump Jet Locations: 1 CT, 1 LT, 1 RT                                   6.00
Heat Sinks:         Double Heat Sink             15(30)                    5.00
    Heat Sink Locations: 2 RT, 1 LA, 1 RA
Gyro:               Standard                                               3.00
Cockpit:            Standard                                               3.00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA+H    R: SH+UA+LA+H
Armor:              Light Ferro-Fibrous          AV - 271                 16.00
    Armor Locations: 1 HD, 1 CT, 1 LT, 3 LA, 1 RA
    CASE II Locations: 1 LT                                                1.00

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     30           42       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  14       
                                           L/R Torso     20           28       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  10       
                                             L/R Arm     16           29       
                                             L/R Leg     20           36       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ER PPC + PPC Capacitor                       RA        20        3         7.00
    ER PPC + PPC Capacitor                   RA        5*        1         1.00
Streak SRM-6                                 LA        4         2         4.50
2 ER Medium Lasers                           RT        10        2         2.00
LRM-20                                       LT        6         5        10.00
    Artemis IV FCS                           LT        -         1         1.00
2 M-Pods                                     RL        0         2         2.00
2 M-Pods                                     LL        0         2         2.00
@LRM-20 (Artemis) (12)                       LT        -         2         2.00
@Streak SRM-6 (15)                           LT        -         1         1.00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 3

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      9    Points: 23
3j         3       4       2       0      4     1   Structure:  8
Special Abilities: CASEII, SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, IF 1




It looks like the engine accepts an additional heat sink, leaving only 4 to be placed in the critical hits table. Increasing the number of heat sinks to 16 fills the 3 empty critical slots in the right torso. This leaves 1.5 free tons and no free critical slots.

Changing from Light Ferro-Fibrous to standard plate armor uses up another ton, leaving a half ton free; Seven critical slots open up.

Can someone please check my math? Thanks!
« Last Edit: 15 June 2021, 08:55:41 by mbear »
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8814
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1086 on: 15 June 2021, 09:20:43 »
You problem is that your Highlander is 5 tons too heavy!
It is a 90-tonner, not 95.

The Highlander RS is missing CASE II and the PPC capacitor but i believe these have been reported already.
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4403
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1087 on: 16 June 2021, 06:03:47 »
You problem is that your Highlander is 5 tons too heavy!
It is a 90-tonner, not 95.

The Highlander RS is missing CASE II and the PPC capacitor but i believe these have been reported already.

Ah. Thank you!
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4827
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1088 on: 20 July 2021, 23:23:23 »
What should we do about the Alpha Strike Cards? The Athena is missing...

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10436
  • All your tulips belong to us.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1089 on: 21 July 2021, 03:08:15 »
What should we do about the Alpha Strike Cards? The Athena is missing...

Nothing.  The units that are in it are the units that are in it.
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets]

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4827
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1090 on: 21 July 2021, 07:14:14 »
Ah. That's a shame. Seems odd to randomly leave it out.

edit
Especially since it has a official RS and writeup, compared to say the Zalman and Ancestral Home.
/edit
« Last Edit: 21 July 2021, 07:19:00 by Maelwys »

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10436
  • All your tulips belong to us.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1091 on: 21 July 2021, 07:54:12 »
It wasn't random.  This is a very long overdue project, that began before the Field Report series.  So it doesn't have more "recent" units from the Field Reports or Golden Century because those didn't exist when start working on this.
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets]

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8814
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1092 on: 22 July 2021, 09:50:02 »
Uncertain if error: The Zeus-11S from Recognition Guide 2 has its rear-mounted medium laser on the right torso, while the Zeus traditionally has that rear-laser on the left torso.
Since these new models all seem to be WYSIWYG, this seems to be an error... UNLESS the new Zeus model has the laser modeled on the right side? I can't find a pic from rear of the new model so can't confirm. (Old Zeus mini seems to have the laser in rear center for what it is worth.)
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

Death_from_above

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 407
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1093 on: 22 July 2021, 10:28:49 »
The render for the Zeus on Anthony's Patreon has the rear laser on the LT..

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8814
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1094 on: 22 July 2021, 12:01:48 »
The render for the Zeus on Anthony's Patreon has the rear laser on the LT..
Ah, thank you. In other words, now the introtech variants are not WYSIWYG ;D
So, not errata.


EDIT Argh, brain not working. So, should this be errata?
« Last Edit: 22 July 2021, 12:23:53 by Empyrus »
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8814
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1095 on: 22 July 2021, 14:43:56 »
Something i'll ask about before making an errata report, because i'm not sure where to report this:
TechManual page 57 notes that ranged weapons that take 8 or more slots can be split between two adjacent locations on 'Mechs but excludes legs.
The thing is, there is at least one canon 'Mech, the Goliath GOL-3S (RS3085U-PP pg 195) that splits an LB-20X between left torso and left rear leg.

If the rule is upheld, then the GOL-3S record sheet would be need to be corrected (and that would be messy). So perhaps the rule should be either removed or amended to allow splitting for QuadMechs at least?


Xotl: looking into this.
« Last Edit: 05 August 2021, 13:21:03 by Xotl »
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

Elmoth

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3055
  • Periphery fanboy
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1096 on: 05 August 2021, 13:19:31 »
Saracen LRM10 (2 tons mmo) + 3*SRM2
Striker LRM10 (1 ton ammo) + SRM6

Saracen has shooting of 1 2 1
Striker has shooting of 2 2 1

Given that the firepower of 3 srm2 and 1 srm6 is equivalent, one of those seem to be wrong.

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8554
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1097 on: 05 August 2021, 14:38:48 »
Saracen LRM10 (2 tons mmo) + 3*SRM2
Striker LRM10 (1 ton ammo) + SRM6

Saracen has shooting of 1 2 1
Striker has shooting of 2 2 1

Given that the firepower of 3 srm2 and 1 srm6 is equivalent, one of those seem to be wrong.

I see each 2 pack dealing .5 damage each with me not hitting with one. While the 6 pack does a solid 2 damage as average.

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10436
  • All your tulips belong to us.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1098 on: 05 August 2021, 15:05:19 »
Saracen LRM10 (2 tons mmo) + 3*SRM2
Striker LRM10 (1 ton ammo) + SRM6

Saracen has shooting of 1 2 1
Striker has shooting of 2 2 1

Given that the firepower of 3 srm2 and 1 srm6 is equivalent, one of those seem to be wrong.

That's not how the conversion works. It uses the number of missiles that hit on a 7 on the cluster chart.   SRM-2 is one missile for .2 damage.   Three of them is .6.   SRM-6 is four missiles for .2 damage each.  Therefore for conversion purposes they are not equivalent.
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets]

ShroudedSciuridae

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 248
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1099 on: 30 August 2021, 14:23:37 »
Where should we report errors in the Kickstarter items? Specifically the Lance/Star packs.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1100 on: 05 September 2021, 12:56:33 »
I'm not sure, I'm afraid.  I could make a thread here, but I'm not sure devs would see it in a timely fashion.  Perhaps make a post in Ask The Devs.  Note that the "Cirect Fire Lance" and "Rana Kerensky" typos have been noted, however.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 27358
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1101 on: 06 September 2021, 06:08:34 »
Needler weapons are complicated, with rules spread between AToW, the AToW Companion, and Tech Manual, so I'm posting this here instead of either the Tech Manual or AToW threads.

The infantry weapons table on page 350 of the current printing of Tech Manual (and the errata Infantry Weapon Table v4.1) list the Needler Rifle (Shredder Heavy) with the "N" code.  Per the AToW Companion page 171 conversion rules, it does not qualify for this code as it has an AP of 3 (not 2 or less) per its AToW page 268 stats.  The Firedrake Support Needler also has an AP of 3, and properly lacks this code.  It's possible the 3 AP in AToW for the Shredder is the error, so that would be another possible solution.

Another complicating factor is that Needlers suffer a -2 AP against barriers and tactical armor.  While the damage value listed on page 350 and in the table errata is correct against conventional infantry, it would only be 0.11 against units other than that.  I'm not sure how that should be captured in the table.  This has implications for the Firedrake listing as well, but I'll address that separately after I've determined where 1.20 damage came from.

The fix: Either remove the "N" code from the Needler Rifle (Shredder Heavy) in the Tech Manual Infantry Weapons Table on page 350 (and it's own errata document), or reduce the Shredder's AP from 3 to 2 on page 268 of AToW.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 27358
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1102 on: 06 September 2021, 06:56:20 »
On page 4 of the Infantry Weapons Table v4.1, the Needler, Support (Firedrake) is listed with a damage of 1.20.

Per the Firedrake's stats as listed on page 274 of AToW (3AP/7BD with incendiary and splash effects, and Burst 10) and the AToW Companion page 171 conversion rules, this value should be 1.14:

Penetration Factor: (3 AP + 2 for Incendiary) / 4 = 1.25

Damage Factor: 7 BD x (3.5 + (10 Burst)/5 + 1 for Splash effect) = 7 x 6.5 = 45.5

Final damage: (1.25 x 45.5) / 50 = 1.1375, which rounds to 1.14 (Reload Factor is simply 1, and not relevant to the discussion)

As mentioned in my previous post, this is actually only the damage against conventional infantry.  Against other units, the AP is reduced by 2, yielding a Penetration Factor of only 0.75.  This leads to a damage of only 0.68.  I'm still not sure how that should be captured in the table.

The fix: Replace the Needler, Support (Firedrake) damage of 1.20 with 1.14 in the Infantry Weapons table.

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6678
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1103 on: 12 September 2021, 11:39:14 »
I'm not sure, I'm afraid.  I could make a thread here, but I'm not sure devs would see it in a timely fashion.  Perhaps make a post in Ask The Devs.  Note that the "Cirect Fire Lance" and "Rana Kerensky" typos have been noted, however.
Nope, don’t do that.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1104 on: 12 September 2021, 13:13:22 »
Nope, don’t do that.

How would you like such things reported?
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
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1105 on: 18 September 2021, 17:27:52 »
Early preview versions of the errata for TechManual, ASCE, and Campaign Operations have been made official and posted to the main website.  Additionally, an update has been made to the BMM errata (also at the main website).
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 27358
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1106 on: 18 September 2021, 17:36:36 »
Darn... I was really hoping those would post last month when I was on leave.  I've started my last job at the Pentagon, and I really don't think I'll have time to give them the scrub they deserve... Sorry!  :-\

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 269
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1107 on: 19 September 2021, 11:47:57 »
Xotl, it looks like you forgot to update the links to errata documents in both Campaign Operations and TechManual threads.

Also, I've found a couple issues with the recently published BMM errata document (v. 4.2). specifically with this bit appearing on pp. 6 and 14 of the document:
Quote
* Collapse: Falling and Displacement [example text] (p. 57)
Fourth paragraph, second sentence

using the Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table.

Change to:
using the Front/Back column of the Punch Location Table.
The first issue is the page number. Collapse: Falling and Displacement section of the example box in question is on p. 74 of BMM, not p. 57.

The second issue is with the content of the correction itself. The fourth paragraph, second sentence of the Collapse: Falling and Displacement section on p. 74 BMM deals with falling damage done to Stinger, which in that example fell from a roof of a collapsing building hex, and landed on a Locust which was below it - inside of that building hex when the collapse begun. According to Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules as they are written now (see pp. 57 and 73 BMM) the Stinger should resolve its falling damage using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table (applying damage to the rear facing of torso armor where appropriate), and it is the Locust that should use the Punch Location Table to resolve damage taken from its collision with the Stinger, so the correction to Collapse: Falling and Displacement section on pp. 6 and 14 of the errata document would be:

* Collapse: Falling and Displacement [example text] (p. 74)
Third paragraph, first sentence

using the Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table.

Change to:
using the Front/Back column of the Punch Location Table.

Having said the above, I'm not sure if the Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules on p. 57 BMM (and p. 152 TW and p. 44 AGoAC rulebook) are correct. I explained it in detail in this thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/total-warfare/accidental-fall-from-above-damage-problems/ , but long story short - I suspect that if a 'Mech accidentally falls on the back of a prone 'Mech, the damage to the prone 'Mech shouldn't be resolved using Punch Location Table as written now, but just like DFA attacks against prone 'Mechs - using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table with torso damage applied to the rear facing.

If I'm correct then we would need the following changes to the errata document:

1. Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules on p. 57 BMM (as well as p. 152 TW and p. 44 AGoAC rulebook) would be changed to account for the case of a 'Mech/unit dropping on an already prone 'Mech. For example in BMM the errata would be:

Falling 'Mech Hits Target (p. 57)
First paragraph, third sentence

to the target ’Mech using the Punch Location Table.

Change to:
to the target ’Mech using the Punch Location Table if it is standing, or to the target's 'Mech rear using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table, if it is prone.

2. the correction to Collapse: Falling and Displacement [example text] (p. 74) section would have to be removed entirely, since the pre-errata BMM text is actually correct, due to the fact that the sequence of resolving building collapse in the example would cause the Locust to be already prone when Stinger landed on top of it.

Edit: I believe I've found yet another issue with the new BMM errata (pp. 2 and 14 of the document):
Quote
* Reversing (Flipping) Arms (p. 24)
Third paragraph, after the second sentence insert the following:

A ’Mech cannot punch or make physical weapon attacks while its arms are reversed.
Shouldn't this new rule make an exception for Talons? They are covered in the Physical Weapons Attacks section of the book (p. 38 BMM), but I don't think that flipping arms should prevent attacking with them, since it doesn't prevent "regular" kick attacks.

Edit 2: I've also noticed an error on p. 6 of the TechManual v5.0 errata document:

Hesiod Wheeled Support Vehicle [example text] (p. 75)
change to:
Hesiod Wheeled Support Vehicle [example text] (p. 128)
« Last Edit: 19 September 2021, 16:09:39 by Alfaryn »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 27358
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1108 on: 20 September 2021, 19:08:02 »
Can you share why the new Tech Manual errata seems to have nerfed under barrel grenade launchers?  I just saw Liam's Ghost's rule question...

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10877
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1109 on: 21 September 2021, 21:53:06 »
Can you share why the new Tech Manual errata seems to have nerfed under barrel grenade launchers?  I just saw Liam's Ghost's rule question...

Infantry weapon mechanics slavishly followed a design rule regardless of the ridiculous outcome.  One day they will be redone completely and the Pope's Swiss Guard will no longer be able to damage mechs with crossbows; until that day, we're just nerfing the most extreme instances on the other end of the scale.

The second issue is with the content of the correction itself. The fourth paragraph, second sentence of the Collapse: Falling and Displacement section on p. 74 BMM deals with falling damage done to Stinger, which in that example fell from a roof of a collapsing building hex, and landed on a Locust which was below it - inside of that building hex when the collapse begun. According to Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules as they are written now (see pp. 57 and 73 BMM) the Stinger should resolve its falling damage using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table (applying damage to the rear facing of torso armor where appropriate), and it is the Locust that should use the Punch Location Table to resolve damage taken from its collision with the Stinger

Correct.  Thanks for the spot on that one.



Quote
Having said the above, I'm not sure if the Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules on p. 57 BMM (and p. 152 TW and p. 44 AGoAC rulebook) are correct. I explained it in detail in this thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/total-warfare/accidental-fall-from-above-damage-problems/ , but long story short - I suspect that if a 'Mech accidentally falls on the back of a prone 'Mech, the damage to the prone 'Mech shouldn't be resolved using Punch Location Table as written now, but just like DFA attacks against prone 'Mechs - using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table with torso damage applied to the rear facing.

I've answered in the other thread, but in essence, it may seem odd but the rules are correct there.



Quote
I believe I've found yet another issue with the new BMM errata (pp. 2 and 14 of the document):Shouldn't this new rule make an exception for Talons? They are covered in the Physical Weapons Attacks section of the book (p. 38 BMM), but I don't think that flipping arms should prevent attacking with them, since it doesn't prevent "regular" kick attacks.

Updated, thanks (was correct in my internal errata notes, but I missed it on the public side).


Quote
I've also noticed an error on p. 6 of the TechManual v5.0 errata document:

Hesiod Wheeled Support Vehicle [example text] (p. 75)
change to:
Hesiod Wheeled Support Vehicle [example text] (p. 128)

Perfect, thanks; always appreciated.  Look for updated documents in the next hour.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

 

Register