BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Catalyst Game Labs => BattleTech Game Errata => Topic started by: Moonsword on 03 December 2013, 19:12:54
-
This thread is for all issues and problems with Field Report 2765: DCMS.
Product Link: http://bg.battletech.com/?wpsc-product=field-report-2765-dcms
Please remember to follow the errata report template (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290) when reporting issues. Thanks.
-
First Printing, page 4, first full sentence:
For years, the Combine has strived to be self-sufficient in military manufacturing, as the cost of the civilian market.
The first changes tense from present to past. Should probably be
For years, the Combine has striven to be self-sufficient...
The second is the wrong word. Suggested fix: Change to at so it reads:
...in military manufacturing, at the cost of the civilian market.
-
First printing, page 4, first full paragraph
Only because it is surrounded by the Lyran Commonwealth, Terran Hegemony and the Federated Suns has the Combine’s ambitions been kept in check.
Incorrect subject-verb agreement. Should be "...Suns have the Combine's ambitions..." (The Combine has more than one ambition, so it needs the plural.)
-
First PDF printing, page 5, first para, third sentence
...support an growing DCMS,
Should read
...support a growing DCMS.
This sentence should have the ending comma replaced by a period.
-
first PDF printing, page 6, second paragraph
...leading BattleMech manufactures within...
Should be manufacturers.
...leading BattleMech manufacturers within...
-
First PDF printing, page 21, last paragraph, first sentence:
Ultimately it was not be battle that saw...
Delete the word "be."
-
In the future, please put those in one post to reduce the clutter.
-
First PDF printing
Location: Page 1, under "Credits"
Erroneous Text: "Additional WarShip Designs: Jason Donahue, Térence Harris"
Correction: "Additional WarShip Designs: Luke Robertson, Mike Miller"
(Edit Note: this has been updated after confirmation from both)
-
(Should also pull that second name. That handsome bastard didn't do either of those ships.)
-
First PDF
Location: Page 3, first paragraph:
Erroneous text: "His decedents have continued his work for the most part..." (a decedent is a dead person)
Correction: "His descendants have continued..."
-
PDF, page 13, Pesht Regulars Condition fluff, 5th paragraph:
"The DCMS Procurement Department does not see the need in wasting combat expendables on regiments that rarely so combat."
should read:
"The DCMS Procurement Department does not see the need in wasting combat expendables on regiments that rarely see combat."
-
Dev-level errata: Page 18 (DC ADMIRALTY), under CONDITION, first paragraph:
Replace:
"Many of these vessels are older Terran Hegemony designs such as the Lola I-class destroyers, Vincent Mk39-class corvettes, and the older Aegis and Cruiser class heavy cruisers."
With:
"Many of these vessels are older Terran Hegemony designs, and includes five older Aegis-class and two two Cruiser-class heavy cruisers, five Baron-class, five Essex I-class and five Lola I-class destroyers, and four Vincent Mk39-class corvettes."
-
Pg 19 has a chart for the master equipment level modifiers applied to rolls for the various regiments. It does not appear to list the Benjamin Regulars. This should be added with an appropriate modifier.
Recommendation - as the Galedon Regulars seem a bit more prestigious than the Benjamin Regulars, but the BR is still supposed to be well equipped, perhaps a +2 would be appropriate.
Thanks!
-
Page 1:
Add Mike Timbers to the Factchecking/Playtesting section.
-
PDF - Field Report 2765: DCMS
Subject: Record Sheets for NARUKAMI (Block I & II) and the CRUISER.
Problem: Aft armor box is displaced so far down the page that the text for Aft Damage boxes the "Aft Damage Threshold (Total Armor)" is besides the boxes instead of below it on all three record sheets. This appears to be ongoing problem appearing through the entire series of FR2765's record sheets.
-
First PDF printing
Location: Page 24, under stat block for "CRUISER-CLASS CRUISER", Cargo bays, bay 3.
Erroneous Text: Bay three lists "94,536 tons" of cargo. This is repeated on the record sheet for the Cruiser-class on the last page of the PDF. Unfortunately, this much cargo leaves the ship 57,117 tons overweight.
Correction: Change value to "37,419 tons" of cargo on both the page 24 stat block and the record sheet. This is by far the least intrusive change.
Alternative correction: Revising other ship stats to get back the cargo. This would require removal of weapons, armor, structural integrity, etc., and would be significant sweeping change in the ship and its stat block.
-
Correction: Change value to "37,419 tons" of cargo on both the page 24 stat block and the record sheet. This is by far the least intrusive change.
As the Cruiser designer, I'd second that option.
-
Narukami Destroyer Block I, shows an intro date of 2380, but has Improved Ferro Aluminum Armor, according to IO pg 36 isn't introduced until 2500. This leaves the ship with Standard capital armor available only of which 667 Tons leaves a short fall of armor points.
Layout per FR
Nose - 75
Fore-Sides-75
Aft-Sides-70
Aft-65
Total Armor Points - 430
667 Tons of Standard Cap Scale offers 296 points. If you reduce the armor value per section by the same percent you would get.
Nose - 51
Fore-Sides-51
Aft-Sides-48
Aft-47
Total Armor Points - 296
The other option is move the ships development to after 2500, which would require a small change in the fluff.
I should note that these calculations are being generated from Megameklab which can now build and validate all DS/JS/WS/SS types.