Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Daryk]

*snip*
To be clear, the BMM text is correct in both cases, and takes precedence over TW.

This is probably the clearest statement on BMM vs. TW so far, and THANK YOU for it!  :thumbsup:

[Xotl]

Well, we need to be careful there.  In general that's true, but there have definitely been times where I cocked up the language and needed to go back to make the BMM line up better with TW.  Always best to ask to ensure one way or the other.  That also helps me line the two books up better as new printings appear.  Glad you're enjoying the book though.

[Empyrus]

Latest TacOps errata changed Reflective Armor to explicitly note that only full circles count as damage toward PSRs. Oddly there doesn't seem to be a similar erratum for Reactive armor even though it functions identically to Reflective armor vs appropriate weapons. An oversight or deliberate?

[Empyrus]

Another difference between BMM (p35) and TW (p151). BMM allows physical attacks against prone mechs (both on same level) where as TW does not mention that. No mention in errata. Presumably BMM is correct?

[Xotl]

There is a discrepancy there: TW says DFAs and kicks only, whereas the BMM adds club and physical weapon attacks.  I'm not sure why the BMM would do that: as far as I can tell someone added it during the dev process.  I think it would have to be considered errata for the time being.

[truetanker]

Just curious, is there any official SCUBA TAG Infantry or do I have to make them?

If yes, where? If not, errata?

Thanks Xotl.
TT

[Xotl]

I do not believe that there are.  If there were they would be in TacOps, in the specialized infantry section.

[Empyrus]

Just curious, is there any official SCUBA TAG Infantry or do I have to make them?

If yes, where? If not, errata?

Thanks Xotl.
TT

You have to make them. TacOps AUE 152 for SCUBA infantry rules.
TRO3085 and Supplemental do have two types of SCUBA infantry but neither has TAG.

[truetanker]

Which makes them fanon...

Crap...  :-\

TT

[pokefan548]

Which makes them fanon...

Crap...  :-\

TT

Anything other than bare-bones generic infantry is almost always going to have some DIY. That's just the nature of playing conventional infantry. It's probably the only unit type where customs are assumed for most levels of play.

[truetanker]

Yeah, but just once someone could do, oh what " hint hint ", errata on them.  ;)

But alas, no...

Thanks anyway,
TT

[Weirdo]

What you're asking for isn't called errata, it's called TRO entry. You should be posting this is Ask the Devs, they're the only ones who can make it happen.

[Daryk]

There is a discrepancy there: TW says DFAs and kicks only, whereas the BMM adds club and physical weapon attacks.  I'm not sure why the BMM would do that: as far as I can tell someone added it during the dev process.  I think it would have to be considered errata for the time being.

My guess would be BMM acknowledging clubs and physical weapons use the full body chart all the time. ???

[Empyrus]

My guess would be BMM acknowledging clubs and physical weapons use the full body chart all the time. ???

That's not about full body attacks, but physical weapon attacks against prone 'Mechs. TW and BMM have differences there (not allowed in the former, allowed in the latter). There was more context to this in discord discussion.

[Daryk]

"All the time" was the point of my post...

[Empyrus]

"All the time" was the point of my post...

Ah, sorry missed that.
But BMM does allow the option of punch/kic charts for physical weapons?

[Daryk]

I think it depends on the weapons... the mention of clubs made me think of the swinging (vice claw/talon) kind.

[Empyrus]

Minelayer infantry.
They are in TRO3085 page 199, but they don't have rules in TacOps. It does seem the rules are in Handbook House Liao page 160, but i do wonder, should these rules be added in errata to TacOps as well? HBHL seems a bit obscure place for these rules, especially since TRO3085 doesn't seem to indicate HBHL as source for these.

[ArcFurnace]

This thread indicates that combat vehicles can use the various industrial-equipment physical weapons to make physical attacks. Errata was added to page 144 to this effect.

However, the entries for the various individual items under "Other combat weapons and equipment" (Total Warfare, 9th printing, pages 129-143) still specifically reference "Support Vehicles" for various rules effects. Should these various entries be adjusted to refer to "vehicles" rather than "support vehicles"? I think this would reduce potential confusion.

[S.gage]

Will CGL be posting an errata thread for the Kickstarter poster of the Clan Homeworlds? I found an issue on the map
S.gage

[Xotl]

No, that's too specific for a thread; just post your issue here and I'll take note of it.  Thanks.

[jasonf]

I have a question on combat VTOLs > 30 tons in the MUL listed as Standard rules tech.

I know they are listed as such in their respective TROs, but is this right?

I could only find advanced rules for support VTOLs > 30 tons in Tac Ops (which makes me believe they are all advanced by construction), so I wanted to check on how these should be listed rules-wise before posting any MUL errata.

The potential culprits are listed in the filtered MUL here:
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=false&MinTons=31&MaxTons=200&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasBFAbility=&MinPV=&MaxPV=&Rules=4&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=&SubTypes=51

[Empyrus]

Remember with tech advancements, superheavy vehicles are standard rules level by... well, around 3090 i think. TROPrototypes and 3145 have tech adjustment tables that alter rules levels of various techs. And MUL supports only one rules level, so units get the rules level they are when they get introduced.

[jasonf]

Ah yes, thanks!

TR3145 only lists super-heavy 'mechs because super-heavy vehicles makes the jump from Experimental straight to Standard in TR:Proto, which I missed.

As a sidenote, I really hope some version of those tables makes it into TO:AUE someday...

[S.gage]

No, that's too specific for a thread; just post your issue here and I'll take note of it.  Thanks.

Ok, this might be errata for the Kickstarter Map or OTP: REVIVAL Trials; however, neither needs to be errata, since they are set 2 years apart (to me, this seems unlikely).

Clan Invasion Kickstarter Map, Clan Homeworlds 3052

Issue: Londerholm enclaves, Ice Hellion 34%, Nova Cat 40%, Smoke Jaguar 26% (and no Clan Coyote)

This does not match previously published information stating Clan Coyote had an enclave on Londerholm. OTP: REVIVAL Trials, Clan Ice Hellion's "Hellions Fury" campaign began in May, 3050. It included assaults on both Coyote and Smoke Jaguar enclaves. However, both temporarily put their disputes on hiatus to repel the Hellions (p. 14, second column)(p. 38, "Mini-Campaign: Helion's Fury").

Although not explicit, it seems FM: WC may support a Coyote enclave on Londerholm. We also know there was long enmity between Clans Smoke Jaguar and Coyote from being neighbors on Albion, with Clan Coyote Omicron Galaxy intervening in the Clan Smoke Jaguar merchant purge on that world (FM:WC, p. 55, "Omicron Galaxy"). It may be plausible they were also neighbors elsewhere during the merchant purge.

Unfortunately there is little known about Clan Nova Cat's secondary enclaves, so I have no information about this.

Optional solutions: 1. The Clan Nova Cat enclave is actually the Clan Coyote enclave, and adjust the map accordingly.
2. Clan Coyote was not on Londerholm in 3052. An errata may need to be written for OTP: REVIVAL Trials.

[GreekFire]

I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.

[S.gage]

I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.

The errata was based more on OTP: REVIVAL Trials, which is well written and clear. The FASA books aren't always clear, and sometimes they have clear typos/problems. FM:WC does not support nor contra-indicate a Coyote presence much. The line beginning "When the Coyotes' Delta Galaxy dropped onto Londerholm, ..." sounds more like Delta arrived from another system. But maybe in-system elements dropped from elsewhere on world, of something else.

And absolutely, both OTP: REVIVAL Trials and the Kickstarter map could be right. By 3045, the Coyotes had lost almost 75% of their max territory (FM:WC, p. 43, "Stalling Fate"), why not have Clan Coyote lose their Londerholm enclave between 3050 and 3052, only to recover some of their losses after Clan Smoke Jaguar was Annihilated?

It might help to know if Clan Nova Cat had an enclave on Londerholm in 3052 from another source, but there is very little information about CNC in the Clan Homeworlds.

(EDIT was to write more clearly, sorry for any confusion)

[Daryk]

This had been fixed in earlier printings, but it seems to have crept back into the most recent ones.

The issue: Aerodyne Small Craft appear to be back in the "auto self-destruction" category when attempting vertical landings or liftoffs:

Strategic Operations: Advanced Aerospace Rules (4th printing), pages 60-61:

VERTICAL LANDING AND LIFTOFF
Under standard rules, aerodyne DropShips may not conduct
vertical landing maneuvers in any type of atmosphere; such units
can move in a vacuum in this fashion (see Vacuum, p. 52, TO:AR).
Aerodyne units are not designed to shunt away the backwash
of their belly mounted transit drives, and can suffer catastrophic
damage to their hulls and components if they attempt to land
vertically in an atmosphere.
Under these advanced rules, aerodyne DropShips may conduct
a vertical landing (and the liftoff rules are modified accordingly),
as a spheroid, in any atmospheric conditions (see Atmospheric
Pressure, p. 52, TO:AR) using all the standard rules for spheroids
making such a maneuver (see p. 87, TW), with the following additional
rules.
• In addition to all standard modifiers for a spheroid landing,
apply an additional +1 for aerodyne DropShips and +2 for
aerodyne Small Craft to the landing Control Roll
• A second Control Roll after the standard landing Control
Roll is made (for maneuvering the unit through its own
backwash), applying all the appropriate spheroid modifiers
from the Landing Modifiers Table (see p. 86, TW) or Vertical
Liftoff Modifiers Table (see p. 88, TW) as appropriate, and an
additional +2 modifier. For every point of Margin of Failure,
add 1D6 points of capital-scale damage to the final liftoff/
landing damage. If the Control Roll succeeds, subtract 6
capital-scale damage from the final Takeoff Damage for
every point of MoS.
• The unit suffers automatic damage based on its tonnage
(see Size Class Damage Table, above). Modify this damage
by the MoS or MoF of the Control Roll and then apply any
Atmospheric Conditions modifiers to the final damage.
Damage is split evenly between the Nose and Aft armor.
If damage exceeds the damage threshold for that arc, roll
for a critical hit as normal.
• For a liftoff, if the unit’s landing gear is deployed it is destroyed
during liftoff as though it took a critical hit; check
off the Gear box on the record sheet.
• For a landing, the unit’s landing gear is not deployed during
the landing. If the unit survives the landing, it may not
move under its own power (see Taxiing, p. 88, TW).

This is at variance with the most recent printing of Tech Manual (cut-away Atlas cover), page 190:

Aerospace fighters and aerodyne Small Craft, by virtue of their
design, already incorporate VSTOL capabilities, but may mount
this equipment to eliminate the +2 penalty for attempting a vertical
landing in atmosphere.

As Aerodyne Small Craft can be as small as ASFs, it would seem either ASFs should also self destruct when trying this maneuver in atmosphere, or Small Craft should NOT self destruct.  I advocate for the latter.

The fix:
I believe the easiest fix would be to remove the mention of Small Craft from the first bullet at the bottom of page 60, thusly:

• In addition to all standard modifiers for a spheroid landing,
apply an additional +1 for aerodyne DropShips and +2 for
aerodyne Small Craft to the landing Control Roll.

It's possible that last mention was just missed in the overall errata entry, in which case this post probably belongs in the StratOps thread vice the Tech Manual one (the less than 100% certainty on my part is why it's here in this thread instead).  The missing period at the end of that bullet as printed adds credence to this interpretation.

[Alfaryn]

Here are a couple nitpicks regarding the recently published Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition v. 5.1 PRE document:

1. New Additions section doesn't mention that the new Movement Cost Table (p. 34) and  Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44) errata entries also apply to p. 199 and p. 200 respectively.

2. I realize that it will likely add an extra page to the document, but to make it easier for the players to use the document, I would add separate entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200), and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201) at the end of Full Errata section of the document, or at the very least a entry following entry:

Movement Cost Table (p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200), and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201)
See Movement Cost Table (p. 34 and p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44 and p. 200) and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 47 and p. 201) earlier in the document.

By the way note that the v. 5.0 of the document was inconsistent in this regard - it had full entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 199) and  Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200) at the end of the Full Errata section, but no such entry for Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201).

[EDG]

More Alpha Strike Companion errata/clarifications needed here (Version 1.5):

Pg 94: MASC and Superchargers (conversion from Battletech)
I think this should clarify whether Myomer Boosters for Protomechs are considered to be included as MASC/Superchargers? Currently they are not explicitly mentioned but I can't see a reason why they shouldn't count? This could significantly affect PV calculations.

Pg 130: Triple-Strength Myomer (TSM) (Special Abilities)
This could do with a note saying that this doesn't include Protomech Myomer Booster since that isn't activated by Heat?

Unit Role Classification (pg 134):
Generally the speeds listed for the roles cap out at 12", but it's possible to make units faster than that in which case no role would be applicable as stated. Would suggest replacing references to a 12" limit with 'or faster' (i.e. Brawler would be '8" or faster', Scout and Skirmisher would be '9" or faster', Striker would be '9" or faster')

pg 136 (Striker, 2nd Paragraph)
"In Alpha Strike terms, a unit may be considered a Juggernaut if it meets the following criteria:" - "Juggernaut" should be replaced with "Striker" here.