Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 307915 times)

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19848
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1290 on: 31 December 2022, 20:52:24 »
This is a dead end topic.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

ArcFurnace

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 153
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1291 on: 05 January 2023, 18:38:43 »
In an errata to TO:AR, a note was added to the "Searchlights" sections of Light Conditions (page 56) under "Full Moon Night/Glare" and "Moonless Night/Solar Flare" headings, indicating that a unit with an active searchlight can ignore the movement penalty from Full Moon Night or Moonless Night (which seems very logical).

Was it intentional that Pitch Black was left out of this adjustment? It did not have any such note added. I believe the original errata was to resolve rules differences between BMM and TO:AR, and BMM does not mention the Pitch Black light condition, but logically a searchlight should do something about the movement penalty even in total darkness.

ShroudedSciuridae

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 476
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1292 on: 07 January 2023, 12:03:51 »
Don't think there's an errata thread for this.  In the Downloads, Inner Sphere at War Hex Map: 3025, hex 3040 Jodipur should be Neukirchen by now per House Davion (The Federated Suns); Handbook: House Davion, p. 70; Handbook: House Davion, p. 72
"Assassinating" the Clan commander's goldfish is hardly the stuff of legend.

Ardent Fury

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1293 on: 14 January 2023, 17:16:06 »
Going to bring this up again because it wasn't addressed last time I posted it.

Artillery Cannons with Fuel-Air Munitions have some issues... As it stands there is a 4BV increase for Sniper cannons to go from dealing 10 damage in 1 hex to dealing 20/10/5 at radius 2. Thumper Cannons have 2 BV increase for a similar increase in damage and LTCs have a 16 BV increase and each one at least doubles the potential damage output of  the weapons.


S.gage

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 967
  • The Nova Cat is a subtle hunter.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1294 on: 23 January 2023, 17:45:39 »
Hello,

I found something that may require retcons going a way back. Depending upon the record sheets, the Man O' War (Gargoyle)'s free critical pod space is either (arms:legs) 10:1 or 9:2.

Re-reading the ilClan Rec Guides, specifically volume 11, I was surprised to see Ferro-Fibrous armor criticals in the left and right arms. I thought the criticals were in the legs, but indeed TRO: 3050, p. 36 (FASA); TRO: 3050 Revised, p. 34 (FASA); and TRO: 3050 Upgrade, p. 138 (CGL), the Man O' War (Gargoyle) places one critical of Ferro-Fibrous armor in the left and right arm.

However, I dug a little deeper, and found that the answer is not so clear. The Wave One Record Sheets do have 1 Ferro-Fibrous critical in each of the legs, and the Gargoyle E has an ATM-12 and 3 tons of ATM ammo in the right arm (10 criticals), meaning at least TRO: 3050 U configuration needs to be corrected, or it was designed with having FF criticals in the legs. Could someone confirm if the free criticals should be arms:legs 10/1 or 9/2.

Thanks!

S.gage
"WHO PUT 6 ARMOR ON THE RIFLEMAN'S HEAD?!?" - Peter S., while marking damage from a PPC, 1994.
"Ich bin Jadefalke!!!! Ich bin MechKrieger!!!!" - German students on their field trip to Leipzig, 1998.
Until the next Clan Invasion or Jihad, Clan Schrödinger's Cat is and is not Annihilated. :)
Early Clan Refit BattleMechs, Novel Clan Golden Century BattleMechs, Early Clan Refit Combat Vehicles, 1st & 2nd Generation Clan OmniMechs.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9120
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1295 on: 23 January 2023, 18:10:51 »
I believe i've reported this as errata already around Battle of Tukayyid book out, and the original ferro arrangement was confirmed as the correct one. That is, 2 free slots in the legs.
But perhaps someone can double confirm it, never hurts!

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9120
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1296 on: 23 January 2023, 18:18:09 »
Incidentally this reminds me, if the Gargoyle does indeed have all its leg slots free, does the Gargoyle C have 2xA-pod and ERSL (BV 2437) or 3xA-pod (BV 2417) (like it originally had)? Currently MUL's BV indicates the former.

pokefan548

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2761
  • The Barracuda knows where it is, hence the -2 mod.
    • Poke's Aerospace Academy (Discord Server)
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1297 on: 24 January 2023, 11:04:46 »
The Raven RVN-3X is listed as debuting in 3028, the same year as TSM-X, and is listed in its TRO entry in TRO 3039 as suffering from the effects of myomer-catalytic gas. Full TSM does not reach production until 3050. However, predating bespoke rules for TSM-X, TRO 3039's RVN-3X sheet has it mounting standard TSM. If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong), RS:SW uses the same build; this is corroborated by the MUL listing the RVN-3X as having the TSM special ability instead of TSMX.

Since we now have rules for TSM-X (IO:AE p. 98), should the RVN-3Xs' sheet be corrected to list TSM-X instead of standard TSM (and its MUL entry adjusted accordingly)?

EDIT: Same question stands for the Locust LCT-1L and Black Knight BL-6-KNT (Ian)
« Last Edit: 29 January 2023, 17:19:04 by pokefan548 »
Poke's Aerospace Academy
The best place to learn and discuss AeroTech.

"Poke is just a figment of our imagination really." - Siam
"Poke isn't a real person, he's just an algorithm programmed by CGL to try and get people to try the aerospace rules." - Phantasm
"I want to plant the meat eating trees and the meat growing trees on the same planet! Watch that plant on plant violence!" - Sawtooth
Leviathans: The Great War Backer #224
BattleTech: Mercenaries Backer #23

pokefan548

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2761
  • The Barracuda knows where it is, hence the -2 mod.
    • Poke's Aerospace Academy (Discord Server)
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1298 on: 27 January 2023, 13:47:02 »
Need a thread opened for Dominions Divided.
Poke's Aerospace Academy
The best place to learn and discuss AeroTech.

"Poke is just a figment of our imagination really." - Siam
"Poke isn't a real person, he's just an algorithm programmed by CGL to try and get people to try the aerospace rules." - Phantasm
"I want to plant the meat eating trees and the meat growing trees on the same planet! Watch that plant on plant violence!" - Sawtooth
Leviathans: The Great War Backer #224
BattleTech: Mercenaries Backer #23

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9120
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1299 on: 29 January 2023, 03:00:32 »
Regarding the Locust's quirks. Asking here because not sure if BattleMech Manual related or Recognition Guide, or if even actual errata.
BMM gives the Locust Compact 'Mech and Cramped Cockpit, while Recognition Guide vol16 has Ubiquitous for it instead (other quirks are shared between the listings).
BMM's Ubiquitous Quirk description also explicitly calls out the Locust as being ubiquitous.

Are these both lists valid, or should this reported as errata for one product?

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3689
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1300 on: 30 January 2023, 19:56:55 »
Hey in Rec Guide 29 page 13 the Charger C blurb says

Quote
Upgraded to a fully Clan-spec mech…


While the record sheet later shows it using a IS 400XL (3 crits per torso)

Either the description or the record sheet needs to change. (Also if the record sheet changes you’ll have to get the MUL team on a new card, the card reflects the IS engine)
NCKestrel’s new favorite.

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3689
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1301 on: 07 February 2023, 20:42:38 »
In Dominions Divided on page 141 in the Fed Suns RAT, assault column, row 12 there is a -2 to the ‘roll on republic RAT’. Is this meant to be there, as the other weight classes do not have the minus 2 Maulus, or is it meant to keep super heavies away from all but tHe best republic roll?
NCKestrel’s new favorite.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11643
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1302 on: 08 February 2023, 01:16:51 »
In Dominions Divided on page 141 in the Fed Suns RAT, assault column, row 12 there is a -2 to the ‘roll on republic RAT’. Is this meant to be there, as the other weight classes do not have the minus 2 Maulus, or is it meant to keep super heavies away from all but tHe best republic roll?

The penalty is deliberate, yes: only the best FedSuns units are meant to have access to superheavies.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

SANSd20

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 191
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1303 on: 08 February 2023, 01:19:21 »
The amount of work that would require of me and/or the layout team makes that unfeasible, I'm afraid.


It just occurred to me that you have already done that work when a new edition with corrections is printed. So, owners of the previous editions can get the PDF version and just print out the page/section onto the label paper. Over the last couple of weeks I have been contacting support on getting the PDF versions of books I just bought, and the thought never even crossed my mind until now!
Mecr KS back #244

Jal Phoenix

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4324
  • Once, we had gods.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1304 on: 16 February 2023, 15:42:22 »
Do we do errata for pilot cards? I ask because Hammond, Battle Cobra pilot in the Clan Support Star kind of can't exist. His story is that of a Capellan national turned mercenary who was taken as bondsman for Clan Steel Viper and is now a warrior. During the Invasion years, Clan Steel Viper does not have ANY freebirths in their touman (FM Warden Clans, p140), much less an Inner Sphere mercenary. Freebirths were not allowed in the touman until after the return to the Homeworlds, at which point the idea of the Inner Sphere taint had taken hold. I'm not sure if it's worth errata, but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention just in case.
« Last Edit: 16 February 2023, 21:52:43 by Jal Phoenix »

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11038
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1305 on: 16 February 2023, 18:28:24 »
He's not just a pilot card.  He's a notable mechwarrior for the Battle Cobra in TR3058U (Capellan, captured and made bondsman by Steel Viper).
« Last Edit: 16 February 2023, 18:35:27 by nckestrel »
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

jasonf

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 411
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1306 on: 20 February 2023, 12:57:57 »
Was the planet Liberty renamed to Carver V at some point in the Dark Age, or is the fluff for the Harrier (RE-Laser) in error?
[RG 31, p. 6]

(It was Carver V when the FedCom introduced the PPC variant, but I think it should be liberty for the current production variant's location).



Jal Phoenix

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4324
  • Once, we had gods.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1307 on: 23 February 2023, 12:49:38 »
Was the planet Liberty renamed to Carver V at some point in the Dark Age, or is the fluff for the Harrier (RE-Laser) in error?
[RG 31, p. 6]

(It was Carver V when the FedCom introduced the PPC variant, but I think it should be liberty for the current production variant's location).

For the Primary Factory location, it should say Liberty, because that's what the planet is known as in 3150. When the FedSuns seized it, it was known as Carver V, so the reference in the Variants section is correct. It's up to editing staff to decide if that one is worth changing for clarity, or to leave it for factual accuracy.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37271
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1308 on: 23 February 2023, 20:14:48 »
Carver V had HISTORY... I'm surprised it would be renamed at all.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19848
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1309 on: 23 February 2023, 20:16:39 »
it happened some time between 3059 and 3062

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40805
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1310 on: 23 February 2023, 21:21:11 »
It happened during the story of MechCommander 2, I believe. The populace renamed it at the same time they told the Houses to piss off.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

SANSd20

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 191
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1311 on: 23 February 2023, 22:53:42 »
From Dark Age Republic Worlds:

Quote from: Page 243
Captured by the Federated Commonwealth after the Fourth Succession War, Carver V experienced a major upheaval when the Commonwealth fractured in 3057. Torn by fighting between the Capellan Confederation, Federated Suns, Lyran Alliance, Free Worlds League, and even the Word of Blake, only the spirit of the planet‘s citizens allowed the world to recover when the shooting finally stopped. Carver V was renamed Liberty by a popular movement to unify the world that rose during this terrible crucible, and the name was ratified formally after the Jihad, when the world was accepted into The Republic.
Mecr KS back #244

jasonf

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 411
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1312 on: 24 February 2023, 10:11:23 »
It goes back to at least FM: Updates because Lindon's Bn. and the 379th Com Guard Div. are listed as being on "Liberty," and I have a feeling it might go back to the original FM: Mercs, but I'd have to check.

Either way, looks like the Harrier (RE-Laser) is produced on Istanbul Liberty and the Harrier (PPC) was produced on Constantinople Carver V
(and hopefully you now have They Might be Giants stuck in your head...  >:D)

 

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9940
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1313 on: 26 February 2023, 01:37:59 »
Is Spiderholm still on Roche?

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

SANSd20

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 191
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1314 on: 26 February 2023, 02:09:40 »
[...] I have a feeling it might go back to the original FM: Mercs, but I'd have to check.

Quote from: Field Manual - Mercenaries (Revised), Page 87
Lindon accepted a contract to support the independent government of Liberty (previously known as Carver V), where Chaos March raiders and pro-Capellan terrorists were making the world especially vulnerable to the Blakists’ “gunboat diplomacy”.
Mecr KS back #244

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1315 on: 19 March 2023, 09:36:26 »
I've noticed a few errors in the Force Pack Record Sheets published in the downloads section of this site, and I can't find an errata thread for them. Should I report the errors here, ni the Force Pack thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/force-packs/) or somewhere else?
« Last Edit: 19 March 2023, 09:41:21 by Alfaryn »

GreekFire

  • Aeternus Ignis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3881
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1316 on: 19 March 2023, 09:52:23 »
I've noticed a few errors in the Force Pack Record Sheets published in the downloads section of this site, and I can't find an errata thread for them. Should I report the errors here, ni the Force Pack thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/force-packs/) or somewhere else?

Please post them here unless they have to do with the Snord or UrbanMech sheets, in which case I'd ask you to wait.
Tu habites au Québec? Tu veux jouer au BattleTech? Envoie-moi un message!

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1317 on: 19 March 2023, 13:26:27 »
A list of Rules Level mistakes I've found in the recently published record shet pdfs. For completeness sake despite GreekFire's request I've added an error from Snords Irregulars, since it is just one of a few entries. While doing this list I assumed that the sheets should reflect Technology Advancement Tables from TROs Prototypes and 3145 if they are appropriate for given 'Mechs introduction dates from MUL. Otherwise the following list would be much longer.

ForcePack Record Sheets Kell Hounds

Wolfhound WLF-1
"Rules Level: Standard" should be "Rules Level: Introductory".

ForcePack Record Sheets Hansens Roughriders

Enforcer ENF-5R
"Rules Level: Standard" should be "Rules Level: Advanced", due to Large Re-engineered Laser.

ForcePack Record Sheets Northwind Highlanders

Warhammer C 2
"Rules Level: Standard" should probably be "Rules Level: Experimental" - as a mixed tech mech introduced in 3052 (according to MUL).

ForcePack Record Sheets Snords Irregulars

Guillotine GLT-7M
"Rules Level: Standard" may need to be changed to "Rules Level: Advanced", since, according to MUL, it was introduced in 3099, so Technology Advancement Table from TRO Prototypes is probably better for determining it's rules level than the one in TRO 3145, and it mounts CASE II.

By the way, I've noticed that Record Sheets – Wave Two pdf is linked twice in the downloads section - once with an appropriate thumbnail below Wave One sheets, where it belongs, and once without a thumbnail below A Game of Armored Combat Record Sheets (& Counters), where I think it doesn't.

GreekFire

  • Aeternus Ignis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3881
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1318 on: 19 March 2023, 13:37:51 »
"Rules Level: Standard" may need to be changed to "Rules Level: Advanced", since, according to MUL, it was introduced in 3099, so Technology Advancement Table from TRO Prototypes is probably better for determining it's rules level than the one in TRO 3145, and it mounts CASE II.

In these cases, no, the tables from 3145 supersede Prototypes.
Tu habites au Québec? Tu veux jouer au BattleTech? Envoie-moi un message!

Alfaryn

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 331
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #1319 on: 19 March 2023, 17:15:07 »
A minor typo in ForcePack Record Sheets Snords Irregulars pdf. The first mech in the document should be "Type: Rifleman RFL-3N (Hybrid FrankenMech Sneede)", not "[...]FrankeMech[...]".

And sorry for reporting yet another error in RS Snords despite what you asked three posts above this one GreekFire. Feel free to have mods remove this post and/or PM me about when to report it again.
« Last Edit: 19 March 2023, 18:22:49 by Alfaryn »

 

Register