Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 352702 times)

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12156
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1470 on: 22 December 2024, 16:39:24 »
Page reference please: where does it say this in the Mercenaries rulebook.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1471 on: 22 December 2024, 20:31:10 »
Page reference please: where does it say this in the Mercenaries rulebook.

It says it in Hinterlands..

Page 16:
BattleField Support rules add air support, artillery
support, and other non-’Mech military hardware . The
BattleMech Manual and Alpha Strike: Commander’s Edition
contain the initial rules for BattleField Support, and the new
Mercenaries box set updates and expands these rules . If you
are using the older BattleMech Manual rules, double the BSP
costs listed in those rulebooks . If using the Mercenaries box
set updated costs, there is no modification needed .

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1472 on: 26 December 2024, 16:39:05 »
Hinterlands
On pg 21 under Salvage...
"Salvage is the taking of destroyed/crippled equipment remaining on the battlefield..."

Does that mean that Destroyed 'Mechs (i.e. No CT, which makes them Truley Destroyed) still count for salvage?

The second paragraph says " 'Mechs that are salvaged may be repaired..."

If destroyed equipment may be repaired... is nothing truley destroyed then?   Or do truly destroyed 'Mechs not give Salvage payout even if their arms and legs and cockpit are intact?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11237
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1473 on: 26 December 2024, 18:50:49 »
Truly destroyed are gone. Nothing can be done with them. You get nothing for them.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 41133
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1474 on: 26 December 2024, 18:54:03 »
Unless you blew a limb off earlier in the fight, right?

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13981
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1475 on: 26 December 2024, 23:41:59 »
Irrelevant for the purpose of Hinterlands, which to my understanding is Chaos Campaign and is not tracking components specifically.  For all intents and purposes in Hinterlands, if a 'Mech is destroy by CT loss there is nothing left.
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.

Rob Bendig

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 91
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1476 on: 29 December 2024, 00:15:37 »
I don't see a separate thread for the Premium Record Sheets.

Premium Record Sheets - Clan Invasion 2
Beginner Sheet for Victor VTR-9B is mislabeled Grasshopper GHR-5H

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1477 on: 29 December 2024, 08:50:06 »
Hinterlands Problem on page 23 Breakthrough mission.
Attacker  (Standard)   "Attacking units may only exit via their home edge, exiting via any other edge for any reason counts as destruction"

Objectives:
Push Through (Attacker): The Attacker moves at least half the number of units which they began the track off the Defender's Home Edge (300)

Seems to me that the Attacker destroyes their units by trying to complete the mission?

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1478 on: 30 December 2024, 12:49:20 »
Hinterland Problem Mercenary/Pirate Opposing Forces Table Scale 2  pg 139
Dice Roll 2
The sum of BV for the Primary Force + Alternate Force  should sum to 7000 BV (3500 x 2) or thereabouts.

The BV of the primary force is 4318
But the BV value of the Alternate Force is another 5174
That's almost 9500 BV for a Scale 2 mission that even with "No Support For you" shouldn't be more than 7k


Die Roll 5 has the opposite problem on Scale 2
The total BV of both teh Primary and Alternate force is 5293/7000


On Scale 3 The Alternate force lists a CDA-4MA which I can't find in MUL, or MegaMekLab is it the CDA-4A  or the CDA-3MA?

Also on Scale 3  Roll 5 The total of BV for the Primary and Alternate force is 7904... about 2500 short of the 10,500 it should be (3500 x 3)
« Last Edit: 30 December 2024, 13:23:25 by cryptoknight »

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1479 on: 30 December 2024, 23:17:13 »
More Hinterlands Questions
Page 138  6+ gives 3 Light Gun Emplacements and 2 Medium Gun Emplacements

I can't find these on MUL, nor in my Hinterlands book or Mercenaries KS pdf... They're obviously Battlefield support of some kind... but how would I field these?

Deathpig

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1480 on: 31 December 2024, 12:26:32 »
Hinterlands question from the Hinterlands Errata thread:

APC, Hover
Cost 13 (15)
MP    10   TMM +4   Range 1/2/3      Skill 6(5)   Dmg   4      Check 5+   Threshold 5
Specials: AI, APC

APC, Tracked
Cost 13 (15)
MP    6   TMM +3   Range 1/2/3      Skill 6(5)   Dmg   2      Check 6+   Threshold 5
Specials: APC

GAL-102 Galleon Light Tank
Cost 21 (24)
MP    6   TMM +3   Range 3/6/9      Skill 6(5)   Dmg   5x3      Check 8+   Threshold 5
Specials: PRB
                           
GAL-106 Galleon Light Tank
Cost 29 (34)
MP    8   TMM +4   Range 4/8/12   Skill 6(5)   Dmg   5x3      Check 8+   Threshold 5
Specials: PRB, TAG
         
GAL-106M Galleon Light Tank
Cost 20 (23)
MP    8   TMM +4   Range 4/8/12   Skill 6(5)   Dmg   5      Check 8+   Threshold 5
Specials: AMS, APC2
         
Maxim Hover Transport (BA Factory)      
Cost 19 (22)
MP    8   TMM +4   Range 3/6/9      Skill 6(5)   Dmg   5x3      Check 7+   Threshold 5
Specials: APC2, IF1

Are these values correct? 

The Hover APC compared to the tracked APC is +4 move, +1 TMM, +2 Damage, adds AI special, but has -1 Check yet it costs the same?

Why do 6 move units have +3 TMM in Hinterlands, but in Mercs they are +2 TMM?  8 move units in Hinterlands have +4 TMM, but in Mercs they are +3?

I feel like I'm missing something :(

Azakael

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 751
  • Brotherhood of Outreach - Until the Sword Breaks
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1481 on: 31 December 2024, 15:03:33 »
More Hinterlands Questions
Page 138  6+ gives 3 Light Gun Emplacements and 2 Medium Gun Emplacements

I can't find these on MUL, nor in my Hinterlands book or Mercenaries KS pdf... They're obviously Battlefield support of some kind... but how would I field these?

There are cards for the Gun Emplacements in the Mercenaries box set, and will likely be in the Gun Emplacement Battlefield Support Force Pack when that releases sometime in 2025.

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1482 on: 01 January 2025, 06:28:55 »
There are cards for the Gun Emplacements in the Mercenaries box set, and will likely be in the Gun Emplacement Battlefield Support Force Pack when that releases sometime in 2025.

Will they then be in the MUL and have CBT and AS stats?  Because right now if you're playing Hinterlands with AS you need to use Tanker... and they don't exist in AS because they're only support cards (which you can't buy anywhere except the merc's box... and the BSA list is very limitted compared to the vehicles and infantry in either CBT or AS)

Azakael

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 751
  • Brotherhood of Outreach - Until the Sword Breaks
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1483 on: 02 January 2025, 09:21:54 »
Will they then be in the MUL and have CBT and AS stats?  Because right now if you're playing Hinterlands with AS you need to use Tanker... and they don't exist in AS because they're only support cards (which you can't buy anywhere except the merc's box... and the BSA list is very limitted compared to the vehicles and infantry in either CBT or AS)

I don't know. I hear rumors the BSP will be in MUL 2.0, but I've also heard otherwise. That might be something for someone who works for CGL. Update, more BSP in MUL 2.0 per Adrian Gideon as mentioned here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=86769.msg2051816#msg2051816

As for AS stats? My money is on release of the box set for emplacements.
« Last Edit: 02 January 2025, 09:24:31 by Azakael »

Ignaz

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1484 on: 02 January 2025, 09:41:33 »
Question about Hinterlands (First Printing)
Command Rights Table (page 20)
These levels differ in some levels to the ones in the mercenary contracts starting on page 74.

Even in the Errate PDF V2.0, for Level 8 there is Liaison (p. 74) and House (p. 76)

② Lone Wolf Retainer (p. 74)
Under “Command Rights”
Liaison (8)
Change to:
Liaison (8; non-negotiable)
② Daring Heist (p. 76)
Under “Command Rights”
House (8)
Change to:
House (8; non-negotiable)

Am I missing something?

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1485 on: 04 January 2025, 08:12:37 »
Hinterlands pg 131
If you get an expedition (roll 2-4) and then roll a 9... is it a Standard Expedition, or a Pirate Hunt?

Suggest 2-8 Std Expedition, 9-11 Pirate Hunt, 12 Guerilla Operation

And while there are no random Retainer contracts on the table to generate a contract, there are for the tracks on page 135 (there's a whole column for it, and a bullet point describing it in the random contract system).
Suggest:  Ammend the Garrison Contract type to be 2-5 Cadre Duty, 6-11 Standard Garrison, and 12 Retainer

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1486 on: 04 January 2025, 10:17:47 »
Hinterlands Page 132
Transportation   -  This should not be length... % Covered perhaps?

Salvage Rights - Step 7 is 40% ... Step 9 is 60%... the table seems to scale linearly... I'd expect the Dice roll of 12 to be Step 7 - 40%, but it could be Step 9 - 60%... not sure which is right.

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1487 on: 04 January 2025, 10:34:10 »
Hinterlands pg 134

Garrison/Retainer Tracks

How do you get a 12+ on a 2D6 roll?  Are we missing a modifiers table to go with the Track Length table?

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1488 on: 04 January 2025, 22:36:33 »
Hinterlands.
Having now played the Breakthrough mission... I ran into a problem with turn limits regarding trying to cross the Battlefield.

So we had 4 players playing at Scale 1, and I created a Scale 4 force to play it.

The problem is an Awesome 8Q (as an example) trying to cross a 2x2 set of mapsheets in 10 turns simply can't.  Any terrain features or anything that requires it to deviate from a straight line running path towards the other side will cause it to miss the 10 turn window.

cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1489 on: 05 January 2025, 09:44:48 »
Also... again with the post above... Breakthrough destroys the Attacker's mechs if they exit the defender's side (which is they mission objective).
Furthermore... if you flip it around and mandate they exit through the Defender's side, a mech under forced withdrawal must go through the defenders in order to exit.

Kilter

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1490 on: 11 January 2025, 08:12:17 »
Hinterlands.
Having now played the Breakthrough mission... I ran into a problem with turn limits regarding trying to cross the Battlefield.

So we had 4 players playing at Scale 1, and I created a Scale 4 force to play it.

The problem is an Awesome 8Q (as an example) trying to cross a 2x2 set of mapsheets in 10 turns simply can't.  Any terrain features or anything that requires it to deviate from a straight line running path towards the other side will cause it to miss the 10 turn window.

Hex maps are 17h x 15.5h

4 hex maps in a 2x2 would be 31h (34”) x 34h (44”). You would use the short 31 Hex (34”) side as the home edge.

An Awesome -8Q can run at 5H. Assuming no turns they can cover 50 hexes in 10 turns and exit the map in 7 turns. They have 15 ‘spare’ hexes of movement.

This would be an opportunity to allow players to use the optional sprinting rules on p.14 of the Battlemech Manual. Which allow a mech to move at 2x walking movement. Which would give the -8Q player 25 ‘spare hexes’ worth of movement.

Highlighter

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1491 on: 12 January 2025, 19:45:45 »
In Force Manual: Davion, page 131, the Blackjack "Arrow" record sheet seems... weird.  It is not technically wrong, but the placement of equipment in the Critical Table does not follow standard convention.  Is it correct?  Notice the odd placement of Endosteel, the lone Jump Jet in the leg, etc.  It doesn't feel correct but because it isn't technically wrong, I do not know. 

Screenshot attached.

Cache

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3134
    • Lords of the Battlefield
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1492 on: 15 January 2025, 19:05:46 »
Interstellar Players 3: Interstellar Expeditions, p. 114, states three Faslanes survived the Jihad and merged into the RotS.

Field Manual: 3145, p. 137 (note at the bottom of first column), states that the Faslane-class Iustita was lost in 3117, leaving three Faslanes (Clementia, Harmonia, and Necessitas) to be mothballed.

IlKhan's Eyes Only, p. 22, first (partial) paragraph, reads, "...reactivating the Republic’s three Faslane-class YardShips—Harmonia, Clementia, and Necessitas..."



Issue: The Iustitia being lost in 3117 should have left two Faslanes to be mothballed.



This post from "Ask the Writers" states that FM:3145 is in error and the Clementia is a Newgrange-class ship. https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=46605.msg1074279#msg1074279

By extension, this would mean IKEO is in error.



cryptoknight

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1493 on: 18 January 2025, 19:14:13 »
Hinterlands: Pushback pg 26

If you're playing Alpha Strike, BSP for vehicles don't exist.  Same if you're playing with TW rules.

What exactly are the 32 BSPxScale Vehicles units coming from the side opposite the attacker supposed to be?

Richard S.

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 252
  • Coming through
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1494 on: 18 January 2025, 20:21:12 »
Hinterlands: Pushback pg 26

If you're playing Alpha Strike, BSP for vehicles don't exist.  Same if you're playing with TW rules.

What exactly are the 32 BSPxScale Vehicles units coming from the side opposite the attacker supposed to be?

For TW at least you could probably use the 20 BV = 1 BSP rule, so the opponent would get Scale*640 BV of vehicles. I don't think there's a similar conversion for AS though.

Estwilde

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1495 on: 20 January 2025, 02:02:43 »
IlKhan's Eyes Only pg 188

Im reading through the force compositions in the rules annex in and am wondering if I'm going crazy or not. Are there a few unit type abbreviations that are in error, accidentally omitted from the table at the beginning of the section, or are typos? 

For Jade Falcons & Smoke Jaguars I am seeing "OM"
Third Canopian Light Horse have "MB"
2nd Victoria Rangers have "BR"
Thraxan Thrashers also have "MB"

Rainbow 6

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2668
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1496 on: 20 January 2025, 14:01:16 »
IlKhan's Eyes Only pg 188

Im reading through the force compositions in the rules annex in and am wondering if I'm going crazy or not. Are there a few unit type abbreviations that are in error, accidentally omitted from the table at the beginning of the section, or are typos? 

For Jade Falcons & Smoke Jaguars I am seeing "OM"
Third Canopian Light Horse have "MB"
2nd Victoria Rangers have "BR"
Thraxan Thrashers also have "MB"

Pretty sure OM is omnimech
MB looks back to front, should be BM for battlemech
BR possibly supposed to be BA for battle armour?

Estwilde

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1497 on: 22 January 2025, 17:52:20 »
Right, I assumed 'OM' was that and the others may just be typo's. I imagined there may have been an earlier draft of the book that used more unit types that then got merged for the final and some of these slipped through. But I guess that's what this thread is for? I certainly wouldn't know for sure what they would be so don't want to put them into the actual errata thread for it yet :)

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3827
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1498 on: 23 January 2025, 00:03:55 »
In IKEO pg190 there is listed in a sidebar text box the Speed Fire SCA, yet no unit across any of them in the rules annex section (pg188-195) are listed as having the SCA available to them.
Should one or more of these units have that SCA?
NCKestrel’s new favorite.

Prometheum5

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 240
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1499 on: 29 January 2025, 21:35:34 »
Hinterlands question from the Hinterlands Errata thread:

Are these values correct? 

The Hover APC compared to the tracked APC is +4 move, +1 TMM, +2 Damage, adds AI special, but has -1 Check yet it costs the same?

Why do 6 move units have +3 TMM in Hinterlands, but in Mercs they are +2 TMM?  8 move units in Hinterlands have +4 TMM, but in Mercs they are +3?

I feel like I'm missing something :(

I don't see this resolved anywhere so want to re-up the ask- for the added Assets in the Hinterlands errata thread, all of the TMMs for these new assets appear to be +1 higher than they should be. Is this correct?