Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Xotl]

Hi there.  For ease of errata collection there is to be no discussion in the individual errata threads themselves.  However, if you want to request a new errata thread be opened, feel a piece of errata or someone else's report is in error, or have something else errata-related you want to discuss, we'd be happy to hear what you have to say in this thread.  As always, sources with exact page numbers are needed when relevant if we're to properly examine anything.  Thanks.

Quickie errata guideline:
Basically, if there's a rules problem and you know what the solution is, it's probably errata.  If there's a rules problem but you don't know the solution, it's probably a rules question first and then, once you have an answer, it's errata.

But best to read the stickied errata rules thread for all the nitty gritty details.

Looking for a list of all errata threads?
http://tinyurl.com/p7a6gty

Looking for the official BattleTech errata webpage?
http://bg.battletech.com/errata/

SPECIAL

Errata-corrected infantry sheets:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z89atupo1d0xdif/Infantry%20RS.pdf?dl=0

[BeeRockxs]

Will the stuff that has been reported in the now-closed threads be added to the compiled errata?

[Xotl]

Will the stuff that has been reported in the now-closed threads be added to the compiled errata?

Absolutely.  When I'm told to assemble errata for a given product all the material in the closed threads will be gone over as well: there's no need to report it all again.

EDIT: except RS 3085 - if you had something in there and it's not currently posted in this forum, please repost it, because we might have missed it.

[sfsct]

Jihad: 3072 has some issues with the Manei Domini calculations and a couple other hiccups I think.  I would recommend a new errata stream for Jihad:3072

[DarkISI]

*Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade (print)
*Appears to be first edition.
*P. 30 (DASHER PRIME - actual pages unnumbered)
*Error: In the critical hit table next to "Right Arm" it says "(CASE)."  TRO does not indicate that this configuration has CASE (and no space is allocated to CASE).
*Delete "(CASE)."

That's not an error. Clan units have CASE integrated. It takes up no critical space and no weight.
The moment a Clan unit has ammo or other explosive equipment loaded, CASE will show up on the Record Sheet

[Daryk]

Will the Strat Ops thread be reopened any time soon?  Or did I miss my window to cross-post the answer to my personnel carried as cargo question from the rules forum?  Welshman had asked me to post an errata when the permissions were fixed, but I seem to have missed that happening, and now the thread is locked.

[Xotl]

We're readying a new version of the errata for the next StraOps reprint - as soon as it's ready I'll start a new thread and you can post it there.  I have no ETA at the moment, but I'd appreciate you keeping an eye out and posting what you have then.  Thanks.

[Daryk]

Ah, roger.  Sorry I missed the window to get it into the reprint.  It's a fairly glaring contradiction between pages 44 and 155 regarding the amount of consumables required to support personnel transported as cargo.  Welshman said page 44 is right.  I'll try to keep better track going forward.

[Xotl]

You'll be pleased to learn that your errata did in fact make it into the new errata revision - I combed the rules forum as well as the old errata threads for stuff to add.  So, no need to report it after all.

[Daryk]

Excellent!  Thank you, kind sir.

[Moonsword]

I need a thread for XTRO: Marik, please.

[Moonsword]

And one for XTRO: Liao if you don't mind.

[Trace Coburn]

  It might pay to create a thread for Era Report: 3062.  I've only skimmed a few portions in the half-hour I've had it, and I've already found three four typos....  :-\

[roosterboy]

Please open threads for Operational Turning Points: Falcon Incursion and Field Report: DCMS.

[Revanche]

Please open a thread for Unit Digest: 1065th Millerton Armored. Many thanks.

[Revanche]

The new MUL site erroneously uses the graphic for the Combat Vehicle for the Naval Vehicle as well (on the Getting Started page).

Hope this helps,
Rev

[ColBosch]

Hey Xotl, could you open a thread for Era Digest: Age of War? Found a p. XX reference.

[ColBosch]

Suggestion: Add the old MUL back to the Download page as an alternative source. [EDIT: I'm referencing the XL spreadsheet database, not the beta MUL released a few months back.]

Since the old MUL is the only comprehensive source for dates of manufacture, it's appropriate that the old MUL still be available for download. While some will definitely find this new database compelling, it creates a lot more work for people like myself who run period-specific campaigns, forcing you to read through the TRO to fish out this data. That defeats the entire purpose of an MUL, IMO.

I disagree. Many of the dates from that document are strongly suspect - i.e., I personally made some serious mistakes - and the MUL Beta can not be relied upon as a source. It also has problems with Battle Value. Keep in mind that it was meant purely for outside review and has served its purpose.

[Revanche]

I have in my hands official errata for Strategic Operations, labeled version 1.2. I've looked on the Errata Information page (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=Errata) to see if its been updated, but can't find the link.

I thought, too, we had a stickied thread that listed links to each errata specific thread, in alpha-order. Am I mis-remembering that?

- Rev


Edit: okay, I found the thread and ColBosch's attachment; same version I have. If its official, though, shouldn't it be listed on the CBT Errata Information page?

Edit2: Can we please get the Strategic Operations thread unlocked or maybe a new one opened? In the mean time, I'll store my suggestions here.

Edit3: Removed 3 suggestions that were included in Errata v1.3.
 
Edit4: Moved to new errata thread.

Thanks!

[Xotl]

The CBT webpage errata list is lagging behind the production of official errata: it will be updated as soon as the time can be found.

As you've noticed, version 1.2 is still the official version.  However, a 1.3 is in the final stages of review and will hopefully be posted soon; that is why the current StratOps thread is closed.  The moment 1.3 is ready a new thread will be opened: please save your reports for it.  Thank you.

[Revanche]

Copy all, Xotl. Thanks.

I'll just save my reports in my last post (for the time being). Otherwise, I'll never remember them whenever the new official errata thread opens.

- Rev

[jymset]

Could we get a new thread for Print RS 3085? Unless I'm blind and there already is one...

[Moonsword]

I need one for Klondike's record sheets and preferred methods of submitting BV calculations.

[ronalmb]

Strategic Operations : Equipment Rating and Quality Rating, pg. 167, 168 tables.

I believe that the A - F designations that is reversed from earlier incarnations of these systems (Field Manual Ratings, Dragoons Rating, etc) is counter intuitive to what most folks would be familiar with.

What I mean is that under the current Strategic Operations Tables, A is the worst (Salvage) while F is the best (Excellent). Typically, things graded as A are considered excellent, while things graded F are considered awful.  I believe that the change in scale creates unnecessary confusion without adding anything to the game other than reversing the ratings. While this is a minor issue, I hope that others might agree and that this might be reversed back in the next printing/future editions.

Thank you for an excellent product.

Edited for Clarity, correction of an error
Edited II: Moonsword's correction. :)

[Moonsword]

I would note that Tech Rating operates the same way the Equipment and Quality Ratings do.  The simpler end of things is toward A.  Clan gear is generally F.

[ronalmb]

Moonsword,

Quite right. I stand corrected and have fixed "Tech Rating" to "Field Manual Equipment Rating" which is what I meant.  I still believe that an A (good) F (Bad) rating is more intuitive, user friendly, and consistant with previous rating scales that it is something to consider.

While a minor topic, I believe that the change is easier to remember - which can be handy for newer players, and consistant with earlier products - which can be handy for veterans.

An obvious Con is of course that it reverses a table that some folk may have become accustomed to, which certainly risks muddying the waters. Still, I believe that its a change worth considering.

[Moonsword]

The Phoenix Hawk IIC 7's tonnage is correct.  Both SSW and sitting there and adding the numbers on page 281 of TRO3085 up with a calculator call this one wrong.  All the numbers are correct, too.

[Sartris]

The Phoenix Hawk IIC 7's tonnage is correct.  Both SSW and sitting there and adding the numbers on page 281 of TRO3085 up with a calculator call this one wrong.  All the numbers are correct, too.

I got the same results.  80 tons, 5 free crits

[Chunga]

The Reunification War thread seems to be filled with grammar suggestions. Is that really errata?

[BeeRockxs]

Outright grammatical errors should be errataed, in my opinion.