Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 292819 times)

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 328
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1380 on: 10 September 2023, 14:26:43 »
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.
« Last Edit: 10 September 2023, 14:35:41 by Alfaryn »

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 35718
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1381 on: 11 September 2023, 00:08:59 »
As requested by Xotl:
Quote
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:
Quote
...(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]...

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9750
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1382 on: 11 September 2023, 00:17:57 »
Daryk, always thinking about the little guy...

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

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11546
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1383 on: 11 September 2023, 13:46:25 »
I have unfortunately run out of time and won't be able to get that question resolved as of the next round of reprints.
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: 35718
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1384 on: 11 September 2023, 13:51:33 »
Rog... I'll continue to use TO:AUE as the most recent version of the rule.  Thanks for at least looking at it! :)

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 328
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1385 on: 17 September 2023, 23:03:27 »
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.
« Last Edit: 18 September 2023, 00:29:20 by Xotl »

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 328
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1386 on: 18 September 2023, 19:17:38 »
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)

Quote
(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.
« Last Edit: 19 September 2023, 04:50:58 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11546
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1387 on: 18 September 2023, 20:25:11 »
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.
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: 328
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1388 on: 18 September 2023, 23:11:52 »
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?
« Last Edit: 19 September 2023, 05:01:38 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11546
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1389 on: 23 September 2023, 13:25:36 »
Not for now, thanks.  I'm working on them.
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: 11546
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1390 on: 23 September 2023, 18:56:00 »
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.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Bison AIs

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 362
  • Flechs Dev
    • Flechs
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1391 on: 28 September 2023, 10:12:09 »
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?
« Last Edit: 28 September 2023, 10:14:32 by Bison AIs »

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10941
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1392 on: 28 September 2023, 10:45:33 »
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.

Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9049
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1393 on: 28 September 2023, 11:02:34 »
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.
Sun Tzu Liao: Scheming, opportunistic weasel of a ruler, or brilliant political tactician?
-What's the difference?

Bison AIs

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 362
  • Flechs Dev
    • Flechs
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1394 on: 28 September 2023, 13:09:37 »
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.

« Last Edit: 28 September 2023, 15:51:48 by Bison AIs »

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1521
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1395 on: 30 September 2023, 13:26:37 »
Hi! You may be interested in an earlier post I wrote about the evolution of the Clan C 'Mechs, which the folks at Sarna ported over to the wiki.
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.

Bison AIs

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 362
  • Flechs Dev
    • Flechs
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1396 on: 01 October 2023, 12:12:37 »
Hi! You may be interested in an earlier post I wrote about the evolution of the Clan C 'Mechs, which the folks at Sarna ported over to the wiki.

🙌 Ayyyyyyy! Thank you! Better info than what I was even hoping for!


Given you're in touch with this stuff, forgive me another question. 🙏

That the C units being underweight was so disagreeable is surprising to me and I'm curious if you have more perspective on that.

There seems to be a variety of common precedents like emptied ammo bins, lost limbs and armor, omni mechs capable of carrying battle armor but not doing it right now, empty cargo bays etc. I coulda've also sworn I'd seen advanced rules for 'under weight' units at some point somewhere around the same time that mixed tech rules existed (though maybe I'm imaging this!).

Thanks for your help!

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9750
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1397 on: 01 October 2023, 14:56:22 »
Every mech can run underweight, like technically a 100 ton Dire Wolf with only twenty-five tons of pod space being used, that means 25.5 not filled, still moves at 3/5! Even when it's 75 (well 74.5) tons current weight... Shouldn't that get a "boost" in speed for being lighter?

Also, you can dump ammo per slot, which means you dumping full tons... I've always wanted to know if you can dump a half ton of MG ammo, if the slot had 100+ salvos left?

Like Warhammer -6R, carries that ammo bomb of 200... Technically, I can dump the slot, but can I dump half of that or is it all or nothing? Also with such amount, you can choose to allow so many ammunition in homebrews, but not tournament. Full slot and dump on turn one only.

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

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 328
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1398 on: 30 October 2023, 21:52:44 »
Posting the following report here, because I don't see an errata thread for this product.

Alpha Strike Quick Start Rules 2019-08.pdf available in the downloads section of the main Battletech boardgame site.

p. 25, Attack Modifiers Table, Range Modifiers subtable, "Long" line, "Distance" column.

>24” to 48”
Change to:
>24” to 42”

Miannes

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1399 on: 31 October 2023, 18:48:04 »
Hello,

We need a clarification on the rules in Alpha Strike Commander Edtion for transporting battle armor.  On page 38 it says when they dismount they can move half their MV rounded down and they "can only use jump movement mode from an airborne transport or if mechanized (see below)." 

Now on page 39 in the example, Lara has 2 squads of IS standard battle armor.  They have 6"j MV.  It explains mounting but during the dismount it says "They may then move half their MV value, for 1”f MV."  Nothing about this makes sense so we need some help.  Half their move would be 3"j MV since they are MEC.

I looked in the errata post and a mod made this suggestion change:

"p39, transport example
"They may then move half their MV value, for 1"f MV."
change to
"As they were not mechanized battle armor, they cannot jump when dismounting. They may move half their MV value, for 3" MV. ""

The confusion is that IS standard battle armor is MEC.  They should be able to dismount and jump 3"j MV as far as we can tell.  It seems like the original example and the correction are both wrong in some way.  Shouldn't it just be "As they are mechanized battle armor, they can jump when dismounting. They may move half their MV value, for 3"j MV. "

Please let me know if we misunderstand.  We thought BA could ride in transports and not just on omni mech or omni vehicles.  The Maxim looks like it would be ok.

Thanks
« Last Edit: 31 October 2023, 18:54:33 by Miannes »

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10941
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1400 on: 31 October 2023, 19:17:25 »
A unit is not mechanized, it has tue ability to be mechanized.  To jump dismount, you must be using the em Jan odd battle armor rules, by riding an Omni unit externally. The example transport is not an Omni, so they are not currently mechanized battle armor.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

nikarus2370

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1401 on: 05 November 2023, 12:30:59 »
Tactical Operations:Advanced Rules, p.40 "Extreme Depth Table".

So this caused a bit of an argument among my players. But as written, Column 1 "Walk/Cruise Modifier" appears to be a bonus to the movement speed of a given unit when it's supposed to be a penalty of additional MP needed per hex. (in other books, a positive "movement modifier" means you walk farther being the main gist of the argument)

Perhaps this heading could be changed to something like "MP Cost Per Hex/Terrain Cost" or "MP Cost Per Hex" as in Total Warfare, p.52's "Movement Cost's Table" for clarity?

Secondly, Column 2 "Weapon Attack MP Modifier", I don't think the MP is supposed to be there (I think it was supposed to be in column 1's header)

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13549
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1402 on: 05 November 2023, 20:39:29 »
🙌 Ayyyyyyy! Thank you! Better info than what I was even hoping for!


Given you're in touch with this stuff, forgive me another question. 🙏

That the C units being underweight was so disagreeable is surprising to me and I'm curious if you have more perspective on that.

There seems to be a variety of common precedents like emptied ammo bins, lost limbs and armor, omni mechs capable of carrying battle armor but not doing it right now, empty cargo bays etc. I coulda've also sworn I'd seen advanced rules for 'under weight' units at some point somewhere around the same time that mixed tech rules existed (though maybe I'm imaging this!).

Thanks for your help!

Being underweight is not illegal in the first place, but (and I'm not speaking from a position of knowledge here, this is speculation) if the Clans were already putting these units in for refit in the first place it makes little sense to leave them underweight when doing so isn't going to change the difficulty or class of the refit.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Kilter

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1403 on: 23 November 2023, 11:51:27 »
The ATMO special isn’t defined in the AS:CE, even though it is used on AS:CE p.196 of the Eridani Light Horse Recon Lance.

It looks like this special was dropped in the “rollover” from the AS & AS Companion.

If it was dropped it should be removed from the 4 references in the Eridani Light Horse Recon Lance.

Here’s the rule from AS Companion:

“Atmospheric Only (ATMO)
An aerospace unit with this special ability uses an “air-breathing” engine or structural design, and thus cannot exit a planetary atmosphere. This includes operating at the Outer Ring of an atmospheric Radar Map.

This special looks like it’s been superseded by the Atmospheric Density environmental conditions section in AS:CE on p. 61:
“**VACUUM**
Non-BattleMech units that lack the **SOA** or **SEAL** special abilities, or units that possess the **EE** special (even if they do have the **SEAL** special), cannot operate in vacuum, nor can any vehicles using the VTOL, WiGE, hover, or airship motive types.”

logion567

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1404 on: 01 December 2023, 20:43:30 »
Using the Record Sheet from page 307 "Record Sheets:3150" I noticed that the Svartalfa 3 is 100kg overweight.

750kg for the cockpit. 2,500kg for the Engine. 1,400kg for the Internal Structure. 7,500kg for the weapons and ammo, and 1,950kg for the Armor. Add these up and you get 14,100kg.

In fact when loading up the unit in MegaMekLab it immediately yells at you that the machine is overweight. Removing 2 points of armor from the head would fix the weight issue and also change the BattleValue to 486, a reduction of 7 BV.