Upcoming Total Warfare Errata - we'd like your help!

[Xotl]

You guys have been quite helpful in viewing errata just before it gets officially committed, spotting errors here and there that have made the official release just that much better.  Along those lines, Total Warfare is getting a new errata release soon and I'd like to run the upcoming errata past you all for review.  As it is pre-release, you'll find some in-progress notes and the like - just bear with us.  Also, all the new stuff has not actually been copied to the Full Errata section yet, so you'll only find it in the New Additions section.

Feel free to just generally chat about the changes.  However, we'd also like you to take a look and tell us if you spot any bad page refs, contradictions, unclear wording, rulings that missed some vital element or otherwise appear not fully thought through.  You can report those here, or in Errata General Discussion.  Thanks!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/357573/Total%20Warfare%20v4.0%20PRE%203.pdf

[Nerroth]

PDF Page 11, The Jihad:

The second paragraph of this section refers to the Jihad as "the current universe-shaking storyline". As of 2013, this is no longer the case; after a year spent exploring the fall of the first Star League, we have now begun to make the jump to 3145. Perhaps referring to the Jihad as a recently-completed storyline might better reflect the state of play, if there is no room to add an explicit reference to the "current" Dark Age instead.


PDF Page 12, Eras:

The Star League Era only lists 2570, the cusp of the League's foundation. Given the late-League works which have been covered as part of the "Year of the Star League", either 2750 or 2765 should also be added, to help bookmark the seminal events of that era.


PDF Page 12, Eras:

The Jihad Era is listed as (3067, CURRENT), the latter of which is no longer the case. Perhaps referring to another year of the Jihad/WoR era (such as 3075, when the Jihad was at its peak and the Wars of Reaving came to an end) might be worth adding as a second date of note for that era.


PDF Page 12, Eras:

The Dark Age is currently listed as (3132+), based on Gray Monday but skipping over the intervening Republic Era. Perhaps the years 3085 (the year of the early Republic Era's field manual and TRO) and 3145 (the point at which events are being poised in most of the current wave of Dark Age releases) might be worth adding. In addition, since we are now officially "into" the Dark Age from a CGL product release point of view, perhaps it (rather than the Jihad) should be noted as "CURRENT"... unless it would be best to leave the choice of present era blank in light of the upcoming ilClan/potential jump to 3250.


PDF page 24, Hanseatic League data point:

The current number of inhabited worlds listed for the Hanseatic League is "24 (est)". According to the maps of the League in Field Report: Periphery and Objectives: Periphery, the Hansa has 29 systems within its territory (at least as of 3079). In addition, the capital city is referred to as "Commerce, Bremen", while that planet's entry in O:P refers to the capital as Freie Hansestadt. (Unless the latter is meant to only be the planetary capital, and the former is a separate city hosting the governing apparatus for the Council of Merchants instead.)


-----


Just on a general note, I think it might be worth re-considering what era Total Warfare considers to be "current". If it is a good idea to stay in the Jihad era in terms of presentation, fair enough; but with the jump to the Dark Age, perhaps 3085 or 3145 might be worth highlighting, of not switching to directly.

(Which may or may not have an impact on which map is included, or whether or not the Republic of the Sphere is offered as a faction in TW itself.)

When the first edition was being published, it may have seemed that the Jihad sourcebooks would run for quite some time yet; but that time has passed, and a new era is upon us... for as long as it takes to make the supposed jump forward, should that come to pass.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I think it needs to be less "immediate" era-focus, or you're going to have this problem every time there's an update.  Make the rulebook applicable to all eras, with acknowledgement of them all but no clear statement of anything being 'current' - this way it won't need to be updated again when the Dark Age plays itself out into the IlClan era.  Then again I'm assuming it'll be obsoleted by 3250 in whatever form it'll come, so...

[SCC]

Those Game Rules sections of each pieces of equipment in Tech Manual really belong in here, likewise any piece of equipment that is now Tournament Legal should be in here.

[Son of Kerenski]

*
Stealth Armor System (p.142)
First paragraph, third sentence

“When the stealth armor system is engaged, the ECM continues to function normally, but the ’Mech suffers effects as if in the radius of
an enemy ECM suite (see p. 134).”
Change to:
“When the stealth armor system is engaged, the ECM has no effect, other than to make the stealth armor functional.”

If I am reading this correctly, this now means that:

a) When Stealth Armor is ON, the mech no longer has a 6 hex ECM bubble
b) When Stealth Armor is ON, the mech can be part of a C3 network because it is not being affected by its own ECM anymore.

[Xotl]

Thanks for the comments so far.  One note though: this is errata for a new printing of TW, not a new edition of the book.  As such, redoing it completely to add dozens of pages of TechManual stuff, or changing all its flavour text to reflect a post-Jihad timeline, is not on the table.  Minor changes can be made though, and they will be considered (such as possible era updates, to reflect current policy - no promises though).

[A. Lurker]

If I am reading this correctly, this now means that:

a) When Stealth Armor is ON, the mech no longer has a 6 hex ECM bubble
b) When Stealth Armor is ON, the mech can be part of a C3 network because it is not being affected by its own ECM anymore.

As written it means that the 'Mech can be part of a C3/i network and use any Artemis IV/V fire control systems and active probes it may have whether the stealth armor is on or not -- if the armor is on, the ECM has no effect on such systems, if it's off, the ECM is "friendly". That's going to make stealthy scouts and the like that much more feasible. (If this change goes through, it'll be interesting to learn how it affects Angel ECM from TacOps as well.)

That it doesn't generate a pretty attention-grabbing ECM bubble while trying to be stealthy at the same time is something I'd consider a feature, not a bug. ;)

[StCptMara]

*
Non
-
Aerospace Units Attacking Airborne Aerospace Units (
p.
107
)
Replace the entire entry
with the following:
“
The range from any attacking non
-
aerospace unit, or grounded aerospace unit, to an airborne aerospace unit is based on
the distance from the attacker's hex to the hex of the airborne unit's designated flight path (see p. 242) that is
closest to
the attacker, regardless of whether the airborne aerospace unit is operating on a low altitude map (see p. 80) or is using
the
Aerospace Units on Ground Mapsheets
rules (see p. 91)

Would I be correct in reading this that, if an Aerospace unit ends its movement in the hex that the ground battle is taking place in, but
does not attack, that it can no longer be shot at, because it does not have a flight path? Or that it must always select a flight path now in that event?

[Sir Chaos]

In addition, the capital city is referred to as "Commerce, Bremen", while that planet's entry in O:P refers to the capital as Freie Hansestadt. (Unless the latter is meant to only be the planetary capital, and the former is a separate city hosting the governing apparatus for the Council of Merchants instead.)

That is not necessarily a mistake.

The real-world Hamburg and Bremen have "Freie und Hansestadt" (i.e. "Freie Stadt" und "Hansestadt") as part of the their full title, meaning they are and have been for centuries free cities (not part of any state) and member cities of the Hanseatic League - indeed they are each their own small state even today. A couple of others - Lübeck, Rostock and Stralsund, I think - still call themselves "Hansestadt" but are otherwise normal cities.

So perhaps the capital is a member of the Hanseatic League in its own right rather than as a part of the planet of Bremen - kind of like Washington is "Washington D.C." not "Washington, VA". In that case, I suppose the correct way to refer to the capital would be "Freie Hansestadt Commerce".

[Neufeld]

I just want to see a confirmation about the rules for Man-Portable Plasma Rifle. Is it correct that it deals no heat? Is it correct that it deals no extra damage against infantry?
I just hope that this question do not get ignored yet again.

[Xotl]

I just want to see a confirmation about the rules for Man-Portable Plasma Rifle. Is it correct that it deals no heat? Is it correct that it deals no extra damage against infantry?
I just hope that this question do not get ignored yet again.

You posted a thread about this already and it was answered there:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6663.0.html

That having been said, the actual errata was not written up, so thanks for raising the point again so it makes it into the book.

[Xotl]

If I am reading this correctly, this now means that:

a) When Stealth Armor is ON, the mech no longer has a 6 hex ECM bubble
b) When Stealth Armor is ON, the mech can be part of a C3 network because it is not being affected by its own ECM anymore.

The replacement sentence should read:

"When the stealth armor system is engaged, the ECM does not function, but the ’Mech suffers effects as if in the radius of an enemy ECM suite (see p. 134)."

[Neufeld]

You posted a thread about this already and it was answered there:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6663.0.html

That having been said, the actual errata was not written up, so thanks for raising the point again so it makes it into the book.

Ah, good, it was answered after all. I just had given up looking for answers.

[Paul]

Yeah, we installed a team of people to sift through the old unanswered questions and get them a response. We're largely caught up on TW and TM, in no small part because both needed errata.

[ANS Kamas P81]

"When the stealth armor system is engaged, the ECM does not function, but the ’Mech suffers effects as if in the radius of an enemy ECM suite (see p. 134)."

Awwww.

[SCC]

Awwww.

Boosted C3 my friend, it's worth installing anyway

[ehlijen]

The replacement sentence should read:

"When the stealth armor system is engaged, the ECM does not function, but the ’Mech suffers effects as if in the radius of an enemy ECM suite (see p. 134)."

Good to hear. Saying a stealthed mech isn't transmitting ECM noise but can happily transmit all its sensor data seemed somewhat inconsistent.

[BirdofPrey]

Boosted C3 my friend, it's worth installing anyway

Totally off topic, but that makes me wonder if running stealth armor with AECM will shut down boosted C3 systems and Bloodhound (assuming yes).
===
Would flying support vehicles (planes and airships. not sure if they come under the banner of aerospace units or not) and LAMs using airmech MP also be invalid targets whilst flying?
If that is true, wouldn't it be more future-proof to change the swarm attacks note (p.220) to "Airborne units cannot be targets of swarm attacks unless they land."

[Xotl]

The document has been updated (link in first post).  There's a good five pages of additional changes, culled from the rules forums, so I'd appreciate it if you could all take another look and check the wording and whatnot.  Some of your initial reports are still being considered, so not every report made so far has been ruled on.

Thanks for all your help.

[Paul]

Bumping this thread because we're still eager to get more eyes on this.

[SCC]

Just had a weird thought that may effect this: If the +1 TMM for jumping is the same +1 TMM flying/airborne units get for flying it may pay to make that connection clearer. Why? DFAing 'Mechs are technically airborne during the Weapon Attack Phase and I doubt that their meant to get the bonus twice.

[Paul]

You're going to have to include page references to explain which rules you're interpreting. Small quotes would be good to.

[WhoInvitedHim]

Really happy to see the end of Hex 0909 and the adoption of the "advanced" rule for LOS to aerospace units! A couple of questions prompted by the updated errata:

* Firing Arcs (p. 105)
Replace the first and second paragraphs on the page with the following:
“Whether the airborne aerospace unit is operating on a low-altitude map, or whether it is using the Aerospace Units on Ground Mapsheets rules, LOS to the target from the attacker is drawn to the hex on the designated flightpath that is closest to the attacker. If the attacker is on the flightpath, LOS is drawn to the hex the fighter would be in prior to entering the hex of the attacker. The attacker must take the angle of attack into account when firing at an airborne aerospace unit (see Angle of Attack , p. 236).”

A situation may occur where there are multiple hexes along an aerospace unit's flight path equidistant from (and closer than any other hexes to) a ground unit. For purposes of firing arc determination, selection of a given one of these hexes as "the" closest may result in the ground unit being able to fire from different (or no) arcs. Possibly there should be an "attacker chooses" or "defender chooses" as with ambiguous LOS along the border of cover, or the attacker might be able to use any arc which can draw LOS into any of the closest hexes.

* LRM Indirect Fire (p. 111)
1) First paragraph, second sentence
“Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is referred to as the spotter).”

Change to:
“Indirect fire allows a unit without a direct line of sight to a target to attack that target, though a friendly ground unit must have a valid line of sight to the target (this unit is referred to as the spotter).”

For these purposes, are VTOL and WiGE units considered "ground units" (i.e. the distinction is non-aerospace vs. aerospace) or is this intended to limit spotting only to literal "ground units"? If the latter, this may require minor changes to e.g. the VTOL Mast Mount [TacOps] rules.

[Paul]

A situation may occur where there are multiple hexes along an aerospace unit's flight path equidistant from (and closer than any other hexes to) a ground unit. For purposes of firing arc determination, selection of a given one of these hexes as "the" closest may result in the ground unit being able to fire from different (or no) arcs. Possibly there should be an "attacker chooses" or "defender chooses" as with ambiguous LOS along the border of cover, or the attacker might be able to use any arc which can draw LOS into any of the closest hexes.

For clarification, you're specifically talking about the Ground Unit firing at the Aerospace unit, right? As to which of the Ground unit's arcs might be eligible for use?

For these purposes, are VTOL and WiGE units considered "ground units" (i.e. the distinction is non-aerospace vs. aerospace) or is this intended to limit spotting only to literal "ground units"? If the latter, this may require minor changes to e.g. the VTOL Mast Mount [TacOps] rules.

VTOLs and WIGE are Ground Units.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5943.msg639923.html#msg639923
They can spot for Indirect LRM Fire.

[SCC]

You're going to have to include page references to explain which rules you're interpreting. Small quotes would be good to.

Total Warfare pg. 117 is probably the big one. Basically being ariborne at the time attacks are made is worth at least a +1 to-hit, jumping is also worth a +1 To-Hit, units performing a DFA are airborne during the Weapon Attack Phase

[Paul]

Total Warfare pg. 117 is probably the big one. Basically being ariborne at the time attacks are made is worth at least a +1 to-hit, jumping is also worth a +1 To-Hit, units performing a DFA are airborne during the Weapon Attack Phase

Do you mean this one? It'd be nice if you could quote the rules you refer to.

"Airborne aerospace unit at Altitude 1 (NOE) (attacker in attack/fl ight path) +1"

If so, the important bit there is "aerospace unit".
A 'Mech is never an aerospace unit that operates at Altitude 1, so there's no overlap or confusion with regards to the Jumping modifier overlapping with the airborne aerospace unit.

[SCC]

This also forms part of it:
"Airborne VTOL unit +1"

Basically there's a pattern that units airborne when attacked are harder to hit by at least +1

[A. Lurker]

This also forms part of it:
"Airborne VTOL unit +1"

Basically there's a pattern that units airborne when attacked are harder to hit by at least +1

Um...that very row has been errataed away for years already... ???

(Seriously, I've found the "remove this" note all the way back my copy of the 2.0 document already, and it should be in the one this thread's about as well..."Full Errata" section, ca. p. 23, if I'm not mistaken.)

[WhoInvitedHim]

For clarification, you're specifically talking about the Ground Unit firing at the Aerospace unit, right? As to which of the Ground unit's arcs might be eligible for use?

That's correct. I set up some maneuvers in MegaMek to convince myself this could actually cause ambiguity. I'm thinking specifically of scenarios such as shown here:

The Sholagar's flight path includes 7 hexes which are each 3 hexes away from the Quickdraw, passing through it's front, right arm, and rear arcs. In this case, from which arcs is the Quickdraw eligible to fire (without torso twisting)?

A related (but, I believe, unambiguous given the errata) "counter-intuitive" situation is shown here:

Under the errata, the Quickdraw (without torso twisting) may only fire on the Sholagar from its rear arc, correct?

I seemed to remember that there was an inclusive official definition of "ground unit" somewhere. Thanks for the link!

[Paul]

Cool, those are some excellent examples, thanks! We'll clean the phrasing up some. It's ultimately Herb's call. My $0.02 would be in favor of having the Ground Unit select the hex that it engages the Aerospace unit at, provided it picks the closest one. Your Quickdraw example is pretty cool, but even if we'd let it pick any hex along the flightpath, I'm not sure much is gained by letting it engage at 9 hexes away.