Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[GRUD]

I realize that a LOT of time and effort was put into A Time of War Companion, but I recently got my print copy and was simply AMAZED at the huge number of typos I've seen so far.  I read the story, and found probably 2-3 typos in each chapter.  Several of the Quotes above various subjects have typos, and I spotted several typos in some of the text in various areas.  I haven't read through the entire book, but if I were to do so, then submit an "Errata Report", it would probably cover 2-3 pages once I posted it.  I realize "Spell Check" doesn't get EVERYTHING, but were ANY human proofreaders even used?  :-\  I wasn't even looking through it TRYING to find any typos either, and was simply reading the story, plus scanning some of the sections.  I know it's not a big deal to some people, but it's a bit jarring to me to be reading a "Professional" product like this, and see so many typos.  The first two BattleCorps Anthologies were riddled with typos as well, but Volume Three was practically free of them.


One example from AtoWC:


Page 70

Environmental Specialist (Miscellaneous)
"What are you complaining about? When you've been on one snowstorm, you've been in them all."

Should be:
"What are you complaining about? When you've been in one snowstorm, you've been in them all."

[Xotl]

We welcome even typo reports, so if you have errata reports to make then please make them, but there's no need to be insulting while doing so.  I assure you that real humans in fact read every Catalyst product.  Thank you.

[FedComGirl]

I hate it when the Errata document is wrong
Errata document, page 11, possibly others
"SHD-X2 Shadow Hawk LAM (p. 291)"
The SHD-X2's stat block is on page 290, not 291

Judging by copyright dates, first printing
Lacking a copy of RS:3085 and without access to the LAM construction rules I can' be 100% sure, but under previous editions LAMs required the two remaining CT crit slots for transformation gear so
Page 297, WSP-100 WASP LAM MKI stat block move SRM 2(OS) from CT(R) to somewhere else and
Page 301 PHX-HK1 PHOENIX HAWK LAM MK I stat block move the JJ from CT to somewhere else
Also for some reason the leg mounted JJ's aren't group together on 301, suggest grouping (or double checking placement)

I don't remember there ever being there being any transformation gear crits.  ??? But no errata for the LAMs concerning it are necessary since there aren't any transformation gear crits. According to the Record Sheets, LAMs have Landing Gear and Avionics Crits. Each take up 3 critical slots each, 1 in 3 different locations. Only 1 space in the Center Torso is devoted to Landing gear leaving 1 critical slot empty for other items. The other occupied slots are in the head and side torsos.

I hope that helps clear up any confusion. :)

[Xotl]

Please note that the official errata page on the website has been updated to contain the latest core rulebook errata, including the new TacOps errata release.  I'll be working to get other errata releases currently found only on the forums up there.

[Moonsword]

Ladies and gentlemen, please follow the errata rules.

1) NO DISCUSSION IN ERRATA THREADS
If you're not making a report, don't post in an errata thread unless the thread has been noted as discussion-friendly (only writers, developers, and MUL Team members may ignore this rule).  This will speed up errata compiling and help ensure your report is not lost in general chatter.

If you want to discuss something about a particular piece of errata, or any other part of the errata process, please use the stickied Errata Discussion Thread.

[Xotl]

TechManual: AC/20, Ultra AC-20, LB 20-X (both Clan & IS versions for all three autocannons), Heavy Gauss Rifle, HAG/30 and HAG/40.
Tactical Operations: Sniper Artillery Cannon, Long Tom Artillery Cannon, Clan Rotary AC/5, NLRM 20, ELRM 20.

Plus the Arrow IV, Sniper, and Thumper full artillery pieces that prompted this whole discussion and were previously allowed in the Battletech Master Rules.

Not applicable:
Equipment, physical weapons.  That is not to say that examples of such will never be splittable, but rather that each is considered non-splittable unless, as with all things, rulings in a specific instance override the general.

Under the current rules the MRM-40 with the MRM "Apollo" Fire Control System and the NLRM-20 and ELRM-20 also meet the splittable requirements, should this be the case?

It's odd that the Clan RAC/5 is large enough to enable splitting but not the IS version

SCC: your post has been moved here because no discussion is allowed in errata threads.

The Apollo+MRM launcher is only treated as single item for non-mech units, so it wouldn't apply in this case.  As for the NLRM- and ELRM-20s, the post you quote already has them listed.  Lastly, as for the RAC/5 oddity, well, that's just the way the crits work out.

[BirdofPrey]

Relating to this http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,26515.0.html
I notice, while Battlemech armor is listed on the Barrier armor table (AToW pg 187), I can't actually find any passages that say the BAR at AToW scale are the same as the BAR at TW scale.

Should a sentence or two be added that you use the BAR a support vehicle would use the TW scale BAR listed on the record sheet as well as a note that mechs, combat vehicles and ASFs posses a BAR of 10 unless otherwise listed (only exception I can think of is Commercial armor with a BAR of 5)?

[Moonsword]

Would you repost that in the Time of War Rules Question board, please?

[BirdofPrey]

For future reference:


For ATOW, the cargo carrying capacity of Battle Armor units is based on the STR of the user, plus any bonuses provided by the suit, plus a bonus based on the type of suit:
PA(L) = +1 STR
Light = +2 STR
Medium = +4 STR
Heavy = +6 STR
Assault = +8 STR

That will be errata'd into p. 169 of ATOW, under encumbrance.
So, an STR 10 guy in an assault suit would math to STR18 for encumbrance purposes, so at 270kg, the encumbered penalty starts kicking in.

A Myomer Booster adds +4 STR.
In combat, it's a +0M/12 advantage.

emphasis mine
First off, I am confused how +4 strength equates to +12BD; an assault BA suit has a bonus of 8 strength and only gets an AP/BP bonus of +3M/+3 (medium suits with 4 strength get a bonus of +2M/+2), and melee attacks only get a damage bonus of STR/4.
Second, should that line be added to the table on pg. 216

[Xotl]

emphasis mine
First off, I am confused how +4 strength equates to +12BD; an assault BA suit has a bonus of 8 strength and only gets an AP/BP bonus of +3M/+3 (medium suits with 4 strength get a bonus of +2M/+2), and melee attacks only get a damage bonus of STR/4.
Second, should that line be added to the table on pg. 216

Yes, the +0M/12 would be the line item we'd have to add to p.216 for a myomer booster.
In battle armor combat, the operator's STR does not affect the damage the suit will do.
The disconnect between +4 STR for carrying purposes and +12BD is because there is a difference between faster motion and lifting capability. Nearly all the strength from the myomers in a suit is utilized to cancel out the significant mass of the suit itself, leaving very little in the way of actual lift capability. A major component of the damage enhancement from suit types is due to their bulk.
Myomer boosters are not designed to help the suit carry more, so it doesn't.

Also remember that encumbrance indicates when penalties kick in, so a suit with myomer boosters will still be faster than a suit without myomer boosters when it's encumbered because of the speed bonus the booster provides.

[BirdofPrey]

In battle armor combat, the operator's STR does not affect the damage the suit will do.

The example on page 218 (PDF printing) disagrees with this statement and given the nature of what a battle armor suit is, I wouldn't have thought to question that fact; being worn it would stand to reason the operator's traits and abilities directly affect the aggregate performance of the suit.

The disconnect between +4 STR for carrying purposes and +12BD is because there is a difference between faster motion and lifting capability. Nearly all the strength from the myomers in a suit is utilized to cancel out the significant mass of the suit itself, leaving very little in the way of actual lift capability. A major component of the damage enhancement from suit types is due to their bulk.
Myomer boosters are not designed to help the suit carry more, so it doesn't.

I understand that, and get that there are going to be some differences between the strength ratings used to determine melee damage, and carrying capacity (and movement), but the way melee damage works, that damage bonus is equivalent to boosting the strength by 48 points, which is why it seems so extreme.  I thought it might be a mistake, and I appear to not be the only one (see similar post in TW questions).  I am actually interested to hear how you came up with that number.



On a side note to fill out ALL of the effects (except the handling of BA MP, of course) of Myomer Boosters you need to add a footnote on the table on AToW page 218 that BA Myomer boosters reduce the E/I/C rating to x/0/x due to the heat generated.

[Xotl]

Best take any further discussion on this to your current AToW thread.  Paul will be able to help you better than I can on this one.

[BirdofPrey]

Gimme a few moments, but don;t forget about the effect of myomer boosters on stealth (namely that the heat signature makes it pointless)

[jymset]

Third release PDF, p. 282, Armorred Components, first paragraph, last sentence:

"The only exception is the cockpit location, which adds 1 ton of armor to the cockpit weight."
Change to:
"The only exception is cockpit systems (including Cockpit Command Consoles), which adds 1 ton of armor to the cockpit weight."

Hi Xotl, quick clarification: per crit, right?

[BirdofPrey]

Are there any cockpit systems that take up more than one crit?

[Xotl]

Yeah, I'm not clear why that matters - the console only occupies 1 crit.  What's up?

[jymset]

My bad, I misread that. To my silly head the Console was a 2-crit, 6-ton item. Mea maxima culpa.

[jymset]

<looks at bloated FM3085 thread>
[AAAH]

EvilOverlordX, if you read through a book and make a point of diligently reporting all errors, it may be worth doing so once you are finished with it? You know, in a single, big post?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

You can create a word processor document and record each error as you come to it, then copy-paste the whole thing into a post if remembering the different errors is a problem.

[Xotl]

Just to be clear, I don't mind people editing their posts in order to collect multiple reports in one, especially if most of the errors are small (typos and the like).  I will generally post when I'm preparing an errata release for a particular book, so people will know not to edit at that stage.

[EvilOverlordX]

Sorry, will do going forward.  I wasn't expecting to find many typos, and didn't think about it.

[Xotl]

No problem - what you're doing is greatly appreciated.

[Pa Weasley]

Regarding this posted added to the Total Warfare errata today by Paul:

PDF, third printing, p. 305

REPLACE:
"Man-Portable Plasma Rifle DE 2"

WITH"
"Man-Portable Plasma Rifle DE 2§§"

Since this weapon now has the option to cause damage or heat, should the type be changed to "DE, H"?

[Paul]

Regarding this posted added to the Total Warfare errata today by Paul:
Since this weapon now has the option to cause damage or heat, should the type be changed to "DE, H"?

Yep. Fixing.

[Weirdo]

Posting here instead of the TRO 3075 thread since this is a question instead of an errata.

Looking at the Prometheus CSBL on page 220: The vehicle has a fusion engine, but also devotes three tons of heat sinks for its medium laser. Said laser is the only heat-generating equipment on the tank. AM I missing something where support vees don't get to use in-engine heat sinks for energy guns, or should those heat sinks be errataed out?

[jymset]

AM I missing something where support vees don't get to use in-engine heat sinks for energy guns

Basically yup. P. 133, TM, bottom of first column. It's more that SV don't get any weight-free heat sinks at all, no matter which engine.

[Weirdo]

I figured that's what it was, but I had to ask.

[GRUD]

You're right.  I checked the TRO and it says the prototypes were built from converted Kintaro Battlemechs. I just thought the lack of the word "SalvageMech" (after Hyena HYN-KTO) was a typo also. I guess I should've checked the TRO FIRST, huh?   [metalhealth]


Nevermind. :D

[Moonsword]

Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads.  The exceptions to this are outlined in the special rules for this forum.

[Xotl]

Note that the 1993 errata sheet for Mercenary's Handbook 3055 has been added to the Historical Errata thread.  Big thanks to Kit deSummersville for scanning this one for me.