Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Xotl]

Yes, typically errata for a new book is the first part of the process of creating it, meaning it always shows up well before the new printing itself.  Once updated with errata, the book then has to be printed, shipped and distributed, which is a lengthy process.

[DevianID]

OK so apparently im supposed to put stuff here since i got in trouble with moonsword by putting stuff in the wrong place

So in BV, the thumper/sniper/long tom have had their damage increased from their first appearance, but the BV of these weapons has not changed, and the BV is inconsistent.

The current BV for clan launchers/ammo, IS lauchers/ammo
Arrow 168/30, 240/30, range 9 clan 8 IS
Long tom 560/46, 368/46
Sniper 96/11, 85/11
thumper 48/5, 43/5

As can be seen, the BV of these identical weapons are all different but they all use a single profile, except for Arrow which has a separate clan version that is superior, but cheaper?  This, i have been told, is not the place for 'fan suggestions' so I wont post any math or anything here about what the BV should be... I just leave the inconsistent numbers above for the team to discuss, with the further reminder that the original damage was 5/2, 10/5, 20/10 for the thumper/sniper/long tom before the damage was increased and BV was not.
(edit: in the new book, the clan arrow is now 240 but with better range still)

[DevianID]

Artillery cannons, in the original rules, stated they must use the indirect fire rules to shoot, and their BV included a +1 penalty to shoot into their price.  In the newer printing, the artillery cannons can shoot direct now, with no +1 penalty.  However, with the newer rule not applying a +1 to hit, the battle value of the attack has not been increased.

The battle value (pg 195 and 216 of newer books) currently is
Thumper cannon--41
sniper cannon--77
long tom cannon--329

With no +1 penalty to fire, the weapons should have
Thumper Cannon--53/7
Sniper Cannon--95/12
Long Tom Cannon--419?

[SANSd20]

Yes, typically errata for a new book is the first part of the process of creating it, meaning it always shows up well before the new printing itself.  Once updated with errata, the book then has to be printed, shipped and distributed, which is a lengthy process.

I understand. I just find it interesting that CGL waits until the books are on their way to stores before publishing the PDFs.

[Xotl]

If the "printing" is available many months before the actual physical book, you have cases where the guys with PDFs are ahead of those who have physical materials only, leading to confusion at the tabletop, especially if there winds up being an unusual delay between the release of the PDF and the arrival in stores of the print version.  This occurred (IIRC) with the release of Second Succession War, which wound up causing a lot of fan consternation, as well as some of the Covid-era reprints.  So the bosses just prefer to avoid that and wait until they know printed copies are guaranteed close at hand.

[SANSd20]

If the "printing" is available many months before the actual physical book, you have cases where the guys with PDFs are ahead of those who have physical materials only, leading to confusion at the tabletop, especially if there winds up being an unusual delay between the release of the PDF and the arrival in stores of the print version.  This occurred (IIRC) with the release of Second Succession War, which wound up causing a lot of fan consternation, as well as some of the Covid-era reprints.  So the bosses just prefer to avoid that and wait until they know printed copies are guaranteed close at hand.

I had not considered that. That does make sense. Thank you for the insight.

[pokefan548]

Errata for Alpha Strike Counters Pack, since it doesn't seem to have it's own thread: on the Physical Attack Damage Table, ASCP states that Charge damage to the attacker should be divided by zero. Remove that entire division instruction.

[nckestrel]

Errata for Alpha Strike Counters Pack, since it doesn't seem to have it's own thread: on the Physical Attack Damage Table, ASCP states that Charge damage to the attacker should be divided by zero. Remove that entire division instruction.

The header for the column is "Damage to Attacker (Success / Fail).  It's not a divide by 0, it's 0 damage to the attacker on a failed charge.
For DFA, it's Size / Size +1 for Size +1 damage to attacker on a failed DFA.

[pokefan548]

Ah, I see. It makes me wonder what other symbols could be used instead, though, for clarity.

[ArcFurnace]

Total Warfare errata (v10.0) page 5, point 3, involves removing a phrase from TW page 55 indicating that voluntary movement of a WiGE vehicle could potentially cause an unintentional charge. The rules for VTOL movement on TW page 54 contain an identical passage to that removed from the WiGE Movement rules. Was this section intentionally left intact, or should it be removed as well?

[SANSd20]

The just release ASCE PDF, does that include 6.01 revisions?

[Xotl]

Any .0X corrections are always included: they're mistakes on my end that involved updating the errata to make sure the document and the book are in sync.  Essentially:

6.0: sixth printing
6.01, 6.02 etc: also sixth printing
6.1, 6.2 etc: not in sixth printing

[SANSd20]

Any .0X corrections are always included: they're mistakes on my end that involved updating the errata to make sure the document and the book are in sync.  Essentially:

6.0: sixth printing
6.01, 6.02 etc: also sixth printing
6.1, 6.2 etc: not in sixth printing

Thanks! I can delete those files then.

[Frabby]

Unsure if this is errata or a rules question; I've tentatively identified it as errata.

The specific issue is the example for resolving damage from a fall on p. 69, Total Warfare.
Right up to the latest issue I have access to, the example is 33 damage which is divided up in six 5-point clusters and a 3-point carryover.

The rules (TW p. 68) clearly say you divide tonnage by 10 and round first, then multiply the implicitly rounded result with (levels fallen +1).
The problem is that in this fashion you can't get to 33 points of falling damage for normal 'Mechs. Unless it's the edge case of a superheavy 'Mech falling down two levels, 33 points of falling damage for a 'Mech can only be reached when the rounding happens after multiplying tonnage with (levels fallen +1), and then only in the case of a 55-ton 'Mech falling down five levels:
55 (tonnage) times 6 (5 levels +1) / 10 = 33 damage

However, by the strict wording of the rules, it would be 55 / 10 = 5.5 rounded to 6, times 6 = 36 damage

So the example seems to imply you round as the final step, contrary to what the rules say.

The easiest solution would be to adjust the damage in the example text to 12 damage, divided into two 5-point clusters and a 2-point carryover.

Or you reword the rules to always only round results at the end of a calculation. Personally, I find it counterintuitive to round damage at any point except for the end result. But I reckon that would be a rule change.

In the case of falling damage, the current ruling as I understand it penalizes smaller 'Mechs because the damage will always be rounded up unless they happen to fall into water.

The potential rule change would be to put always put any roundings to the end of the computation, either for falls only (where it would benefit smaller 'Mechs by not penalizing them through rounding up damage incurred), or for all computations (like melee attacks, where 'Mechs would no longer be able to do the same damage as 'Mechs 5 tons heavier).

[Alfaryn]

Problems found in BMM v. 7.0 PRE errata document. Just New Additions section for now. I may look through Full Errata section to see if there are any disparities between it and the New Additions sections later, however I can make no promises about when or even if I'll do it. Unless specified otherwise page numbers below refer to pages in BMM, not the errata document.

p. 37, Death From Above Attacks change

change "in the Weapon Attack Phase." to "before the Physical Attack Phase"

A pilot performing a DFA may become unconscious during Movement Phase - for example as a result of a point-blank shot by a hidden 'Mech (see p. 82).

p. 45, Critical Hits, Hardened Armor change

The way the new rule is phrased it is unclear if the -2 to the roll is supposed to happen when inner structure is damaged and the 'Mech no longer has armor at the location, when a through armor crit happens (due to a natural 2 in hit location table or use of armor-piercing AC rounds - only p. 114 makes it clear that hardened armor completely negates the effect of AP ammo), or any combination of the above.

p. 51 Effects of Heat

What does this change is supposed to mean in practice? That an Inferno missile explosion due to 'Mech's internal heat and engine hits caused by internal explosions of "regular" ammo don't affect the 'Mech until after the Heat Phase in which it accrued? And does a 'Mech that suffered one or two Engine Crits during a Heat Phase increase its internal heat level by 5 or 10 at the end of the phase and just doesn't for example suffer a higher shutdown chance during the phase, or does it just not increase its internal heat for such crits during the phase? IMHO these (especially the question of engine crits suffered during heat phase) need to be clarified.

p. 61  Clearing Woods or Jungle, Plasma Weapons

Since Plasma Cannon has no Damage Value, change "Plasma Weapons" to "Plasma Rifle" and plural to singular later in the inserted sentence.

Edited in after TW 11.0 PRE was published: This one should probably be handled like Clearing Woods in the latest TW errata document, with the caveat about Plasma Rifles mentioned under Clearing Woods (p. 112) in the post directly below this one.

p. 68 Skidding

Maybe change "(not MP spent, so facing changes are ignored)" to just "(not MP spent)", since you would also ignore any MP spent for difficult terrain, standing up etc. Singling out facing changes only confuses the reader.

p. 70 (p. 20 of the errata document only)

Swap order in which Skidding (p. 70) and Interrupting A Skid (p. 70) entries appear on p. 20 of the errata document.

p. 70, Interrupting A Skid, point 2.

Maybe change "[...] taking normal skidding damage for entering that hex [...]" to something like "[...] taking normal skidding or falling damage (see Accidental Falls, above) for entering that hex [...]" to make it clear that you still don't count the water hex for the purposes of skidding damage if the bottom of the hex is two or more levels below previous hex's level.

p. 70, Skidding or Collisions with Stationary Objects

After

"Before “Collisions with Stationary Objects”, insert the following subsection:

COLLISIONS—GENERAL[...]"

and before the changes to collisions withe the buildings rules add a note to to delete the first three paragraphs of Collisions with Stationary Buildings sections, as their contents are covered in the new "Collisions - General" section.

Also I assume that some changes to Collisions with Stationary Objects section will end up looking like they were describe in "Resolving collisions during a skid" thread, and some of them (like changing "Buildings:" title to "Empty Buildings:" and changes to the two paragraphs that directly follow) were just cut from the errata document since they were just minor tweaks to clarify things a bit and to get space needed for other things, and not outright rules changes?

p. 71 Collisions With ’Mechs

I guess that, like with Collisions with Stationary Objects above, some changes from the "Resolving collisions during a skid" thread did not end up in Collisions With ’Mechs entry in the errata document just to save space, and will be included in the new BMM printing? If so, then I would suggest to put the change that clarifies that to successfully dodge an unintentional charge, the target 'Mech needs to not only make its PSR, but also successfully leave its hex (see second paragraph of the Collisions with 'Mechs section of the draft in the thread mentioned above) in the errata document.

p. 72 Collisions Within Buildings (p. 21 of the errata document only)

Change the section name to "Combat Within Buildings".

p. 78 Battlefield Support Table

If you end up implementing the change to p. 76 Offensive Aerospace Support (Strikes) suggested near the end of this post, you will also need to make it in Light Strike and Heavy Strike lines of the Battlefield Support Table.

p. 81 Forced Withdrawal

Maybe reword the change to make it clear that you can't make "five steps away from the home edge, one step back", but actually need to end withdrawing 'Mech's move at least closer to the home edge than you began? And of course if such move is impossible, the 'Mech should move in such a way that would make closing to its home edge as soon as possible in subsequent turns (though I don't think that the rules need to say that part explicitly, and leave the exact interpretation to player's judgement - especially because some maps may make exact interpretation of this rule tricky - for example if you need to temporarily move away from your home edge in order to get around some obstacle on your way back - possible in some official canyon maps, for example).

p. 116 Supercharger

"Under “Game Rules”, replace the first bullet point with the following:", change to "Under “Game Rules”, replace the second bullet point with the following:"

p. 146

Remember to copy the change from Battlefield Support Table on p. 78 (see above, and p. 76 Offensive Aerospace Support (Strikes) below) here if if you end up doing it there.


Things with no entry in the document:

Single line edited in after TW 11.0 PRE publication: Most of the problems with both TW and BMM listed in the second paragraph of the post directly below this one.

pp. 36, 37, Location after Charge/DFA sections

You may want to copy the changes to these sections from AGoAC manual errata v. 8.0. (That is - change "If the charge/DFA succeeds[...]" to "If the charge/DFA succeeds and the attacker was not destroyed[...]").

p. 76 Offensive Aerospace Support (Strikes)

The entry for Offensive Aerospace Support (Strafing) on p. 76 says to add [DE] to the section title. I believe a similar change may need to be made to Offensive Aerospace Support (Strikes) section to cover situations when the target has Reflective Armor for example. (Though I may be wrong, since according to pp. 243-245 TW, unlike Strafing Attack, Strikes may be conducted with non-energy weapons).

Finally, it looks like Xotl missed my last post in the "Resolving collisions during a skid" thread - the BMM and TW rules (possibly on pp. 25 BM, 107 TW) need to specify if hexes by which a unit was displaced or skidded count towards its TMM. Only sideslips are covered in TW (per p. 67 TW hexes sideslipped do count towards TMM), and I'm unsure if skids and displacement should follow the sideslip rules in this regard, especially since sideslipping units don't get an extra +2 to be hit that skidding units do. By the way, the rule about not counting sideslipped hexes towards TMM should IMHO be repeated on p. 107 TW, space permitting of course.

[Alfaryn]

Issues with TW v. 11.0 PRE errata document. As with BMM v. 7.0 PRE errata document above, I've only checked New Additions section so far, and all page numbers below refer to TW, not the errata document.

Note that the final note in my post about BMM errata document above also applies to TW, while Clearing Woods (p. 112) and Unit Displacement (p. 151) notes below as well as my final note in this post also apply to BMM.


Clearing Woods (p. 112)

If plasma weapons treat woods as "other units", shouldn't plasma rifle add 2D6 to its base Damage Value of 10, similarly to how plasma cannon uses damage value of 3d6 (see p. 139)? I also assume that a version of this change will end up in Clearing Woods or Jungle section on p. 61 BMM?

Chainsaw (p. 134)

Shouldn't the unit clearing woods from adjacent hex be required to keeps these woods in it's chainsaw attack arc?

Physical Attacks (p. 144)

I assume that "Attacks Against Large Support Vehicles and Grounded Small Craft" will be changed to something like "Attacks Against Large Support Vehicles, and Grounded Small Craft and Dropships" in 11th printing of TW, and the change was omitted in the errata document for brevity?

Charge Attacks (p. 148), point 4.

Wouldn't it be better to say something "DropShips: These are not displaced after a charge, and are treated as Prohibited Terrain by the attacker."?

Unit Displacement (p. 151)

What if a unit destroyed by a charge declared a physical attack against the charging unit. Does it still get to resolve it despite its target ending up in its hex? Is the answer the same for all kinds of physical attacks (for example could Push attacks be cancelled or resolved in some non-standard way in this situation)? I believe this one should also be clarified on pp. 36 and/or 55 BMM.


Things with no entries in the errata document:

Things from skidding rules rewrite that I think should make it into the errata document:
- Accidental Fall paragraph (Accidental Falls From Above in previous printings) with its clarification that you don't take skidding damage for skidding "into the air" and then falling, that you resolve final fall damage together with initial fall and skidding damage (unless a collision scenario interrupted the skid or final fall), and that only one roll in Facing After Fall Table for both falls.
- Maybe also corrections to the skidding example text to show the players how to exactly resolve skidding damage with an unintentional charge.

One thing that I believe we forgot to address with Xotl while rewriting skidding rules in TW and BMM. When resolving Accidental Fall at the end of a skid the rules say to combine initial fall, skidding damage and the final fall together (unless the skid was interrupted by a collision scenario along the way of course). This works for unit damage, however I think that in case of 'Mechs the rules should clarify that you still need to make two PSRs to avoid pilot damage - one for each fall. Also, if a pilot of a skidding unit becomes unconscious before a collision scenario, do any to-hit rolls for unintentional charges miss automatically?

[Alfaryn]

I've spotted some issues with ForcePack Record Sheets Kell Hounds pdf posted on the main site. Not sure if it belongs here, in the MUL thread or in some Recognition Guides/TRO/Record Sheet threads. Admins, feel free to move this posts to another thread as needed.

Griffin GRF-3M record sheet lists both Ubiquitous (Inner Sphere) and Ubiquitous (Clans) quirks, while Griffin C lists only Ubiquitous (Inner Sphere). However MUL's Faction Availability suggests, that if anything, it should be other way around - Griffin C gets both Inner Sphere General and Clans General availability in all eras in which it exists, while Griffin GRF-3M is never listed as available to any Clan.

Similar story with Crusaders - both CRD-5M and CRD-8R have both Ubiquitous (Inner Sphere) and Ubiquitous (Clans) quirks, but according to MUL they are pretty much never available to any Clan faction (with a possible exception of CRD-8R's availability to Clan Protectorate during ilClan era).

Finally, Griffin C (unlike Griffin GRF-3M) only lists a battle fist in its left arm. I believe it may be a mistake, since according to p. 92 BMM all Griffins should get Battlefists without a qualifier that the quirk only applies to one arm.

[Daryk]

As requested by Xotl:

⑪ Non-Infantry Weapon Damage Against Infantry Table (p. 216)
Replace the dagger footnote with the following:
† This equals the number of conventional infantry troopers hit and eliminated, regardless of armor protection; round all fractions up. Attacks by non-infantry weapons against mechanized infantry double the number of troopers eliminated, after any rounding.

is contradicted by the example on page 129 of TO:AUE:

...(For example, if a platoon using Lyran Field Infantry Armor Kits – with a Damage Divisor of 2 – is attacked by an LB 20-X AC, the damage to the platoon is computed as if the platoon suffered an 2-point hit [((20 ÷ 10) + 1) ÷ 2 = 1.5, round up to 2]...

[Xotl]

I have unfortunately run out of time and won't be able to get that question resolved as of the next round of reprints.

[Daryk]

Rog... I'll continue to use TO:AUE as the most recent version of the rule.  Thanks for at least looking at it! :)

[Alfaryn]

Issues with the recently published TW v11.0 document:

P. 8 of the document is missing an empty line to separate the lengthy ⑪ Collisions (pp. 62-63) entry and ⑪ Collisions (p. 63) entry.

P. 19 of the document, Leg Destruction (p. 122) entry, point 3 does not actually implement the change mentioned in New Additions section (p. 61 of the document). You need to add "If a ’Mech with no legs also loses both of its arms, it is immobile." at the end of the paragraph the text on p. 19 of the document says to insert into the book.


Xotl: I've upped a quick 11.01 update to address the above.

[Alfaryn]

Issues with recently released TO:AR v7.0 and TO:AUR v7.0 documents.


TO:AR

Opportunity Fire: Firing on the Move (p. 84)

no higher than the unit’s maximum Jumping MP in levels.
Change to something like:
no higher than the sum of unit’s maximum Jumping MP in levels and the level of the hex the unit jumped from.


TO:AUE

Laser-Reflective (Reflec/Glazed) Armor (p. 93), point 1

Additionally, heat-causing effects from the above weapons are halved (round down to a minimum of 1 heat point).
Change to something like:
Additionally, heat-causing effects from the above weapons and plasma cannons are halved (round down to a minimum of 1 heat point).

Alternatively see Laser-Reflective Armor (p. 114) in the v7.01 BM errata document for another way of handling the issue.

Armored Motive Systems (p. 94)

(round quarter-ton values up to the closest half-ton)

Not sure what this one is supposed to mean. Should you always round up to the nearest half or full ton, or normally (up or down) to the nearest half or full ton? Remember that according to TM (pp. 95, 117-120 TM) and TO:AUE (p. 190) ground vehicles may have a mass anywhere from 100 kg to 200 tons, and to complicate things further small support vehicles (below 5 tons) use kilogram, not ton, as their primary unit for mass calculations - should we still round mass of Armored Motive Systems of such vehicles using the same rules as for larger vehicles, or to a nearest kilogram?

This is of course without taking optional Fractional Accounting rules on p. 188 TO:AUE into account, which further complicate the situation by allowing other vehicles to determine mass of their components down to a kilogram.


Finally the TO:AUE document seems to be missing the usual "v" letters before version numbers in the page headers.

[Xotl]

Regrettably, I had time to either fix and adjust TW and the BMM, or TO, but not both, and I chose the core rules.  As such, I can't make further textual changes to the TO errata until the next printing.  For this PRE document, all I can adjust is errors in the document itself, not rulings.

[Alfaryn]

Does it mean that I should copy the above TO:AR and TO:AUR reports into their errata threads? Should I make a rules questions thread about rounding masses of Armored Motive Systems?

[Xotl]

Not for now, thanks.  I'm working on them.

[Xotl]

Finalized TacOps errata files have been uploaded to the main website.  While several errors were reported after the PREs were released, they could not be fixed in time to make the printed version.  They've been noted for the next release.

[Bison AIs]

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question.

Going through Rec Guide 24 and trying to figure out how/why Atlas C has CASE. 

Oldest related errata thread I found (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,13662.msg1670146.html#msg1670146) seems to dead end at just 'add case'.

Rec. Guide 24 Atlas fluff includes:
"...a rudimentary refit protocol was created for the Atlas C, which upgraded the weapons, and was later commonly implemented on captured Inner Sphere Atlases during Operation Revival...All our ArcShips can perform both upgrades on most existing Atlas chassis."

This sounds like the resulting tech base would be Mixed Tech w/ Inner Sphere Chassis, following  some other clan refits like the Archer C.

Unlike something like the Archer C, the Atlas C sheet has CASE as if it were a Mixed Tech w/ Clan Chassis.

The rec-guide sheets don't show base chassis though...

Question: Is the Atlas C refit more extensive so as to be 'built with clan internal' (per TM) so as to have clan CASE by default? Or does it still have an IS chassis with a rare instance of clan CASE being bolted in? Something else perhaps?

[nckestrel]

Question: Is the Atlas C refit more extensive so as to be 'built with clan internal' (per TM) so as to have clan CASE by default? Or does it still have an IS chassis with a rare instance of clan CASE being bolted in? Something else perhaps?

There is no requirement that Clan CASE require replacing the entire chassis.  Clan CASE is its own component, even when free tonnage/space.
TechManual says "units built with clan internal structure...are presumed to incorporate CASE automatically" not that it is required to have clan internal structure to have clan CASE.
A Mixed tech unit can add Clan CASE to an inner sphere chassis.

[Empyrus]

Technically there are even Clan-chassis mechs without Clan CASE. One or two TRO Golden Century early Clan 'Mechs with mixed tech use Clan endo but IS-grade CASE.

[Bison AIs]

Apologies for the confusion, my question is not with regards to the possibility of an IS chassis carrying Clan case.

My first question is what kind of chassis does the Atlas C have?

The record-sheet does not specify chassis. The fluff says the refit is a 'weapons upgrade'. Case isn't a weapon and neither is a chassis. So one or the other is being glossed in the description (which is totally fine) but I'm left with ambiguity about the chassis. (It's also in recent MM releases as having a clan chassis, hence some of my curiosity. [Edit: I'm assuming it's because it's not possible for their system to indicate clan case on an IS chassis but...])

My second question is between fluff and real world.

Early Atlas C printings had no clan case. That changed. I'm trying to learn if that change was meant to align it to some fluff (that I'm probably not aware of) or if there is some other behind the scenes reason, especially because it wasn't a blanket change (not all C refits got clan case [even when they were errata'd to be tonnage accurate]).

Hope this clarifies. Sorry to steal attention on this small matter.