Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[NeonKnight]

Where do I put errata for the INITIATIVE DECK?

ERROR:

Page 10 of the rules Booklet
Initiative Sequenece
...proceeds in sequential order from A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, K, D, S.

That was from the BETA RULES, where K was a Knight, D was a Duke and S was a Successor Lord. It is also missing the number 10.

The Final Product has the face cards defined on page 2 as: Mechwarrior (M), Duke (D), and Successor Lord (L). Those are also how the cards are printed: M, D, and L

CORRECTION
...proceeds in sequential order from A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, M, D, L.

[Xotl]

That's been corrected for the upcoming printing, along with a bunch of other items.

[CJC070]

In the Downloads section under the Eridani Force Pack the Cyclops C has a movement speed of:
Walking 4
Running 5

[Sartris]

hardened armor

[SANSd20]

In the Downloads section under the Eridani Force Pack the Cyclops C has a movement speed of:
Walking 4
Running 5

What should it be?

[Sartris]

It should be 4/5

[IronmanV2]

Diving into Strategic Battleforce using the Battle for Tuykayyid Supplemental...  it appears the Strategic Battleforce Formation Record Sheets starting on pg. 29 and continuing through pg. 65 are missing the TMM, Tactics and Morale scores for the associated Formations. These both seem to be integral to Strategic Battleforce play so not sure if this is just an oversight or I am missing something with the rules.

[Grognard]

I've been looking, and I cannot find an entry for the HRN-7T Hornet of the BD era?
y'know... THIS guy?

[Sartris]

it's from the original battledroids line

http://brianscache.com/battledroids/

IIRC the BD hornet has the same stats as the eventual BT hornet that appears in the WD sourcebook. it was in battletechnology... issue 9?

[Grognard]

Yes, my dear friend, it IS a Battletech mini of the Battledroids era.

Unfortunately, I lost my issue 9 of Battletechnology, and the stats I can find for the HNT-171 don't match what I recall when I once did find stats.

IIRC, it was a large laser, plus a SRM-2 in each side torso and Advanced comms gear in the head?

I was hoping one of the other old grey heads like me might have an official ruling.

[Liam's Ghost]

Yes, my dear friend, it IS a Battletech mini of the Battledroids era.

Unfortunately, I lost my issue 9 of Battletechnology, and the stats I can find for the HNT-171 don't match what I recall when I once did find stats.

IIRC, it was a large laser, plus a SRM-2 in each side torso and Advanced comms gear in the head?

I was hoping one of the other old grey heads like me might have an official ruling.

The hornet in battletechnology #9 has an extra medium laser and is a ton overweight, but otherwise does match the stats of the HTN-151. Though the entry in the magazine has the wiggle room of not listing actuators or the locations of heatsinks, I think it's fair to assume that the 151 is intended to be the corrected canon form of the battletechnology version, and the HRN-7T is purely apocryphal.

[Gray_Noton_4lfe]

I would like to know what version this is and how it differs from the latest release. Couldn't find anything online about
it. 

[Liam's Ghost]

I would like to know what version this is and how it differs from the latest release. Couldn't find anything online about
it. 

The last time it was discussed, the powers that be indicated that was the cover for the next printing, which hasn't been released yet.

[Sartris]

The image has been floating around on various secondary market sites for a while now. I’ve been tempted to order one just to see what shows up

[Gray_Noton_4lfe]

The last time it was discussed, the powers that be indicated that was the cover for the next printing, which hasn't been released yet.

Thanks! Saw it for a reasonable price, just wanted to make sure it was one of the newer versions

[Sartris]

The current printing uses the old succession wars box set art.

[Red wolf]

I don’t know if I am missing something or this is errata, but it seems contradictory at the least.

This is from a 9th printing and I didn’t see any errata on it in the 11.01 documanent.

TW page 247: Dumping Bombs
“No ammunition explosion results if a fighter dumping its bomb load is hit in the aft location.”

This section calls to use the rules from the following in non-emergency situations.

TW page 140: under Aerospace Units in the dumping ammunition section.
“…any hit against a dumping unit's aft armor causes the ammunition to explode.”

The two passages say the opposite of each other, with regards to the bombs exploding, when it comes to dumping bombs.

Which one is correct?

[Red wolf]

TW 9th printing:

Page 248, 7th bullet point at the top of the page.

“…the player controlling the player may choose what arc applies.”

Looking at the sentence after this it seems that the quote should be.

“…the player controlling the Shiva may choose what arc applies.”

Is that correct?

[Gray_Noton_4lfe]

Will there be a new reprint of AToW companion?

[Xotl]

Unknown at this time, but I personally doubt it.  That's more of an Ask the Developers question than an errata question in any case.

[Gray_Noton_4lfe]

Unknown at this time, but I personally doubt it.  That's more of an Ask the Developers question than an errata question in any case.

Thanks, wasn't quite sure were to post it. I think I'll post it in Ask the Developers

[Alfaryn]

I have a request for errata maintainers. Back in 2021 Xotl put the following report in Clan Invasion box set errata thread:

The reference card in the boxed set doesn't have a "3" column on the cluster table.

However the exact contents of that column were never published in that thread or in any official errata document for the product. Could Xotl or anyone else involved in maintaining official errata either post the relevant numbers in that thread or release a document containing these numbers (official errata document or corrected reference card for CI box) and link it in the thread for the sake of people who own old printings of CI box but no product with the full table (like TW or BMM)? I would've done the former myself, except I don't feel comfortable posting fragments of official BT products online unrelated to my own rules questions or errata reports.

[Xotl]

I've edited the post to add the missing column.

[Kastor]

Alpha Strike, Commander's Edition, 6th printing, p. 138, "Arming a Building". This is not about the "division by 5" errata point from here.

First, determine a maximum number of damage points the building’s weapons may deliver per weapon emplacement by taking the building’s CF These damage points must then be distributed among the emplacement’s Short, Medium, and Long range damage values.

wall method says:
If the wall method is chosen, a building may place one weapon emplacement in each of its outer walls, as long as each wall has a different facing direction.

rooftop method says:
If the rooftop method is chosen, the armed building may feature one rooftop turret for every (non-overlapping) 2-inch diameter area the building’s shape takes up on the underlying terrain.

Assuming a CF18 building (high range of Heavy), the wall method indicates that I get, say, 4 weapon emplacements, each 6/6/6. I'd also argue that rooftop method uses "turret" as another way to say "weapon emplacement" (since "Weapon Placement:" talks about multiples of those).

This seems not to be as intended? The intent seems to be for the player to divide those 18 points among all weapon placements (resulting in, for example, three turrets of 3/3/0 damage values). If this is the case, "Arming a Building" should specify "among all weapon emplacements" or to this effect, instead of "per weapon emplacement".

[Kastor]

Anyone, please? :|

[Paul]

It can sometimes take a little time for a report to be evaluated.

[Kastor]

It can sometimes take a little time for a report to be evaluated.

I'm seeing people get answered to the same day or the day after. It's been several days though. Is this such a complex question or are folks away on vacation or such?

[Paul]

Sure, or maybe they're spending time on other things. The quick responses are a luxury, not a requirement. Please be patient, you will get a reaction.

[Kargush]

I have some errors to report in The Art of Food, specifically the conversion chart on page 4.

In the book:

Dimensions
¹⁄₁₆ inch = 2 mm
⅛ inch = 3 mm
¼ inch = 1.5 cm
½ inch = 2 cm
1 inch = 2.5 cm

More correct values would be

Dimensions
¹⁄₁₆ inch = 1.5 mm
⅛ inch = 3 mm
¼ inch = 6 mm
½ inch = 1.27 cm
1 inch = 2.54 cm

[Kilter]

Xotl / NCKestrel: The AS:CE v7-pre errata doesn’t appear to include the fix for designated spotters and shooting?

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65710.msg1985214#msg1985214

That was confirmed as errata in https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=83653.msg1985148#msg1985148

Will it be included as Errata for v7?