Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 305830 times)

GnomesofZurich

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #480 on: 02 December 2014, 19:33:53 »
Is the version from BattleCorps more recently updated than the one from DriveThruRPG? The version I have from there is shown to have been last updated 2010-02-16. If there's a more recent version with fixes, I'd appreciate it being sent over to DriveThruRPG.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #481 on: 02 December 2014, 21:52:55 »
Is the version from BattleCorps more recently updated than the one from DriveThruRPG? The version I have from there is shown to have been last updated 2010-02-16. If there's a more recent version with fixes, I'd appreciate it being sent over to DriveThruRPG.

There is no newer version that I'm aware of.

In the future, please keep questions out of the errata threads, as per the rules sticky at the top of this forum.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

BirdofPrey

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4118
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #482 on: 11 December 2014, 04:28:11 »
Did AToW get new errata?
I don't see anything new, but I got an email saying the PDF was updated.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #483 on: 11 December 2014, 06:41:01 »
I'm checking into it.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19827
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #484 on: 11 December 2014, 13:23:46 »
The copyright information in the front was changed to 2015 though it still says Corrected Second Printing.

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?

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #485 on: 11 December 2014, 16:00:18 »
Essentially what happened with the AToW update is that the errata originally came out last Christmas, in preparation for a new printing that was intended to come out around then.  However, that printing has been delayed until this upcoming new year, so it was decided to re-release the pdf with current dating information (there were also some technical issues with the pdf that needed fixing while they were at it, but that's not really a rules content thing).

So this new pdf is still the second printing, and the current errata is still the current errata.

I will be updating the errata pdf to a 2.01 to reflect the proper dating and printing information (as there was as silent update back then, this also ensures that everyone is for certain on the same page).  If there are any other changes that were included that I find, I'll be sure to note them in the AToW errata thread.  Thanks.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Feenix74

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3026
  • Lam's Phoenix Hawks
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #486 on: 20 January 2015, 01:05:05 »
Is there an errata thread for CAT35700 "BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction"? Are we taking errata for it?

I had a quick skim through the Errata sub-forum and could not find a thread for it. I have just purchased a copy and think I might have found a typo when I flicked through it.
Incoming fire has the right of way.

The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.

Always remember that your weapon was built by the lowest bidder.


                                   - excepts from Murphy's Laws of Combat

Hammer

  • Numerorum Malleo
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4101
    • MegaMek Website
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #487 on: 23 January 2015, 12:44:01 »
Out of curiosity is there any word/timeline of the SO errata updates?
MegaMek Projects Wiki
Bug Trackers
MegaMek Tracker
MekHQ Tracker
MegaMekLab Tracker
New Units and RAT's aren't added until after the 2 month release moratorium is passed.
Join the official MegaMek Discord

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #488 on: 23 January 2015, 13:00:10 »
Out of curiosity is there any word/timeline of the SO errata updates?

I am afraid not.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

mikewoo

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #489 on: 07 February 2015, 11:55:38 »
RS 3050Uu-IS, p.204, the "Orion ON1-K Kerensky" indicates it carries a Snub-Nose PPC in the Left Torso.

According to the MUL, this unit was introduced in 2753, which would appear to be in line with Kerensky's personal mech.

Tech Manual errata document shows the Snub-Nose PPC wasn't introduced until 2784.

Rules for primitive equipment allow items to be used 10 years before their official introduction, but 31 years is a bit too much. I am unsure how to resolve this apparent discrepancy.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #490 on: 07 February 2015, 23:17:36 »
As per Welshman's request:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/ask-the-lead-developers/shogun-shg-2h-intro-date/


All TROs with info on this unit say it was an "SLDF design" and intended for Kerensky's war against the Amaris Empire. But in 2771, the production date, the SLDF was nowhere near Graham IV or Mitchell Vehicles' satellite installations. They didn't arrive to liberate this world until 2776. So...

(1) Was this a design commissioned by the SLDF during the Reunification War, but put into service with by Amaris Empire?

..or..

(2) Is the 2771 intro date in error?
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

mikewoo

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #491 on: 11 February 2015, 23:28:01 »
RS3050Uu-IS, p.241, the Shogun SHG-2E

This  record sheet shows 2 CASE systems in the LT and RT. The MUL identifies this unit as introduced in 3005.

However, as shown in Tech Manual, p.210, in the Inner Sphere CASE went extinct in 2840 and was not reintroduced until 3036. The MUL date of 3005 is squarely inside the centuries-long extinction period.

So, either the SHG-2E's intro date from MUL is wrong, or Tech Manual's CASE dates are wrong, or this unit cannot carry CASE. Can anyone identify the proper solution?

Simply removing the CASE systems would reduce the Rules Level to Introductory, but also leaves the design a ton underweight. For this reason, I suspect one of the dates must be in error.

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8648
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #492 on: 12 February 2015, 00:21:48 »
The SHG-2E was brought to the Inner Sphere by Wolf's Dragoons, and thus does not follow the usual guidelines on equipment dates. Also, do keep in mind that extinction dates are subject to some leeway, especially during the Succession Wars. It is fully conceivable that variants may be published that mount equipment that was technically extinct, yet hoarded for limited deployment. The PHX-2, with its ECM Suite, is a prime example.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

mikewoo

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #493 on: 12 February 2015, 02:24:35 »
Hmm. I completely missed the possibility of an import via the Dragoons. And I hadn't even considered equipment hoarding as an answer. This will surely prove to be an ongoing issue with some factions, especially ComStar.

Thank you, ColBosch, for pointing out both of these issues. Makes the enforcement of dates more difficult, but certainly more interesting.

Well, this means my prior post just above regarding the SHG-2E isn't actually an error, just a lack of forethought on my part. Much apologizings.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #494 on: 12 February 2015, 11:25:06 »
The SHG-2E was brought to the Inner Sphere by Wolf's Dragoons, and thus does not follow the usual guidelines on equipment dates. Also, do keep in mind that extinction dates are subject to some leeway, especially during the Succession Wars. It is fully conceivable that variants may be published that mount equipment that was technically extinct, yet hoarded for limited deployment. The PHX-2, with its ECM Suite, is a prime example.

The case could also be made that "production" specifically refers to machining and automated manufacturing. If there is an assembly line, it's in production. If the line is blown up, it's extinct.
 
But someone adapting a supercharger to a 300-rated Fusion Engine by hand in a machine shop doesn't mean the supercharger is "in production." It exists, just as the ECM Suite on a PXH-2 exists, but has no specific factory churning out parts. I see that as a similar scenario for the Succession Wars, where parts could be repaired or fabricated, but are not being produced in great numbers.
 
The caveat being that some materials (ES, FF) require entire facilities to make them and would not exist at all. Though if someone came upon a cache of Endo Steel, they could easily fabricate some CASE by hand.
« Last Edit: 12 February 2015, 11:27:32 by TigerShark »
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8648
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #495 on: 12 February 2015, 12:51:40 »
Hmm. I completely missed the possibility of an import via the Dragoons. And I hadn't even considered equipment hoarding as an answer. This will surely prove to be an ongoing issue with some factions, especially ComStar.

The Dragoons are basically the special case, and we've already seen all their unique material from the period. ComStar were much more content to hoard their Star League-vintage 'Mechs than to modify them, so we're unlikely to see "new" variants in the future. You really did just stumble on one of the very few exceptions to the guidelines.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Question

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #496 on: 17 February 2015, 10:17:58 »
Oops, thanks.  It should read:

  •   When firing an Arrow IV Homing Missile either directly or indirectly, the player must first choose a mapsheet within range of the launcher. Next they choose a hex on the selected mapsheet. On the turn the homing missile arrives, it may attack any unit successfully designated by friendly TAG within 8 hexes of the chosen hex. If there are no such targets when the homing missile arrives, it explodes harmlessly over the battlefield. (Undirected or misdirected Arrow IV Homing Missiles do not scatter.)

I'm going to up a 3.3 soon that will have this corrected, along with a few new entries.

Does this mean that the artillery unit may select ANY hex on the selected map sheet?

Also, v3.3 of the errata does not include the updated rules on tandem charge missles (the bit about instant killing BA on a roll of a 10+). My copy of tac ops does not include any mention of TC missles intant killing BA. Is it possible to add it to the errata?

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #497 on: 17 February 2015, 12:40:08 »
Also, v3.3 of the errata does not include the updated rules on tandem charge missles (the bit about instant killing BA on a roll of a 10+). My copy of tac ops does not include any mention of TC missles intant killing BA. Is it possible to add it to the errata?

As always, do not post questions and comments in errata threads - that belongs here.  Please read the forum rules.

What updated rules are you referring to?  Can you provide a link please?

Quote
Does this mean that the artillery unit may select ANY hex on the selected map sheet?

The next part reads, "On the turn the homing missile arrives, it may attack any unit successfully designated by friendly TAG within 8 hexes of the chosen hex."  So yes, it appears any hex may be chosen.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Question

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #498 on: 18 February 2015, 23:30:46 »
Xotl : If people aren't allowed to post in the errata threads, why is http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/tactical-operations-4-june-2014-%28v3-3%29/60/ full of people posting? Even on the 3rd page, i'm not the only who has made posts.

Also my bad about the TC miissles, that was a mistake.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #499 on: 19 February 2015, 00:27:27 »
Hmm, fair enough - allow me to clarify.  It's not that you're not supposed to post, it's that your not supposed to do anything but make errata reports (including errata for the errata).  I suppose asking about how errata text is worded is close enough, so my apologies.  But in general we're trying to keep the threads clean for ease of report gathering.
« Last Edit: 19 February 2015, 00:36:55 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #500 on: 19 February 2015, 00:33:03 »
errata should be the actual change that needs to be made. It should be in the errata format (this exact text should be changed to this exact text).  If there's a question about the change or what change needs to be made, that conversation should take elsewhere so that the errata thread is filled with only the answers (errata).
It's just to keep the errata threads clean and useful.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8648
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #501 on: 19 February 2015, 00:52:47 »
The rules of thumb I hoped people would use are: if you're sure it's an error, post an errata report with the fix. If you're not sure, ask in the Rules Questions subforums. If you see an errata report and want to comment on it, don't. If you're authorized to post responses to errata, then you already know who you are, and if you're not sure, you're not authorized. For example, I've not posted any responses to errata reports on Era Digest: Age of War, despite being the author, because I am no longer affiliated with Catalyst Game Labs and thus am not authorized to comment directly. (That, and they're all correct, dammit.)

"Someone else posted first" is not a valid excuse. Just let it go, the Errata guys and the developers know what they're doing and will strike and ignore reports made in error.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Question

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #502 on: 20 February 2015, 04:54:58 »
Noted, i wont ask questions in the errata threads anymore.

Can someone please clarify this bit in the TW errata, page 21, ASF additional facing changes : “However, they may not do so if they have already changed facing in that hex or if this is the first hex of their movement on the low-altitude map. On the ground map, each such change must be preceded by at least eight hexes of movement.”

Can the 8 hexes be split between this turn and last turn, like with facing changes?

“Before it can make a facing change on the low-altitude map, a unit must move in a straight line at least the number of hexes shown on the Straight Movement Table below. When moving on the ground map, multiply the minimum number of hexes required by eight. In both cases, this movement may be split across two turns.”

Edit : Okay i've looked at the strat ops errata and the advanced aerospace combat section, but nowhere does it clearly say how to calculate angle of attack vs a warship. The beginning of the section says that unless otherwise stated, the units use the rules in the aerospace units section of TW. However the aerospace units section of TW makes no mention whatsoever of how to calculate angle of attack vs anything other than fighters and dropships, the diagram on page 238 of TW only says "Fighters & Dropships".

There is a firing arc diagram for warships on page 95 of stratops, but it's not mentioned at all whether we should use this to determine the angle of attack vs the warship. Looking at the firing arc diagram, if i am in hex 1114, do i use use the aft or side angle when firing on the warship?

Can we at least get an errata making it clear where we can find the rules for determining angle of attack vs warships, jumpships, space stations, etc?
« Last Edit: 20 February 2015, 08:09:14 by Question »

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #503 on: 20 February 2015, 13:42:37 »
Question: could you post this in the TW rules question forum please?  That's the place where these sort of things get tackled.  Thanks.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Dragon41673

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2332
    • Aries Games & Miniatures
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #504 on: 20 February 2015, 22:06:30 »
Question...

In Historical Turning Points: Tortuga, the Brigand Variant LDT-XPR4 is listed as having Improved Jump Jets...is this supposed to be correct? If so...what was the reasoning behind this decision rather than using standard Jump Jets?
Owner - Aries Games & Miniatures

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #505 on: 20 February 2015, 22:25:16 »
Authorial whim, I presume.  This isn't really errata, so if you want an answer from the actual author, your best bet is to post it in Ask The Writers, which was designed just for your sort of questions.  Cheers.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Dragon41673

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2332
    • Aries Games & Miniatures
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #506 on: 20 February 2015, 22:30:07 »
Ok...thank you!
Owner - Aries Games & Miniatures

GreekFire

  • Aeternus Ignis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3881
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #507 on: 04 March 2015, 10:58:02 »
Question involving the RATs in FM:3145..

The Orochi is in the 15 slot for the FedSuns tables, making it the most common Assault 'Mech in A-Rated FedSun units. Yeah, RATs aren't the be-all end-all guide to what factions field, I know. But crosschecking with the MUL only gives the DC access to it, which is why I'm wondering.

Errata, or no?
Tu habites au Québec? Tu veux jouer au BattleTech? Envoie-moi un message!

Question

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #508 on: 10 March 2015, 09:46:02 »
I think i might have spotted a missing errata. In the later versions of tac ops, page 131 for the building construction rules, step 3, "heavy and capital weapons". Apparently the later versions say that gun emplacements may mount weapon tonnage equal to CF/3 and castle brians do not divide their CF for the amount of weapons they may mount, but my version of tacops stops at "The rules and limits for mounting Heavy and Capital weapons on buildings are the same as those used for mounting such weapons on Mobile Structures (see pp. 266-267)."

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #509 on: 10 March 2015, 10:39:49 »
Huh, you're right: this was changed in the latest printing, the changes to which I supervised, but I have no record of the change.  Weird.

I'll add it to the errata. Thanks for the catch.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

 

Register