Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Bison AIs]

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question.

Going through Rec Guide 24 and trying to figure out how/why Atlas C has CASE. 

Oldest related errata thread I found (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,13662.msg1670146.html#msg1670146) seems to dead end at just 'add case'.

Rec. Guide 24 Atlas fluff includes:
"...a rudimentary refit protocol was created for the Atlas C, which upgraded the weapons, and was later commonly implemented on captured Inner Sphere Atlases during Operation Revival...All our ArcShips can perform both upgrades on most existing Atlas chassis."

This sounds like the resulting tech base would be Mixed Tech w/ Inner Sphere Chassis, following  some other clan refits like the Archer C.

Unlike something like the Archer C, the Atlas C sheet has CASE as if it were a Mixed Tech w/ Clan Chassis.

The rec-guide sheets don't show base chassis though...

Question: Is the Atlas C refit more extensive so as to be 'built with clan internal' (per TM) so as to have clan CASE by default? Or does it still have an IS chassis with a rare instance of clan CASE being bolted in? Something else perhaps?

[nckestrel]

Question: Is the Atlas C refit more extensive so as to be 'built with clan internal' (per TM) so as to have clan CASE by default? Or does it still have an IS chassis with a rare instance of clan CASE being bolted in? Something else perhaps?

There is no requirement that Clan CASE require replacing the entire chassis.  Clan CASE is its own component, even when free tonnage/space.
TechManual says "units built with clan internal structure...are presumed to incorporate CASE automatically" not that it is required to have clan internal structure to have clan CASE.
A Mixed tech unit can add Clan CASE to an inner sphere chassis.

[Empyrus]

Technically there are even Clan-chassis mechs without Clan CASE. One or two TRO Golden Century early Clan 'Mechs with mixed tech use Clan endo but IS-grade CASE.

[Bison AIs]

Apologies for the confusion, my question is not with regards to the possibility of an IS chassis carrying Clan case.

My first question is what kind of chassis does the Atlas C have?

The record-sheet does not specify chassis. The fluff says the refit is a 'weapons upgrade'. Case isn't a weapon and neither is a chassis. So one or the other is being glossed in the description (which is totally fine) but I'm left with ambiguity about the chassis. (It's also in recent MM releases as having a clan chassis, hence some of my curiosity. [Edit: I'm assuming it's because it's not possible for their system to indicate clan case on an IS chassis but...])

My second question is between fluff and real world.

Early Atlas C printings had no clan case. That changed. I'm trying to learn if that change was meant to align it to some fluff (that I'm probably not aware of) or if there is some other behind the scenes reason, especially because it wasn't a blanket change (not all C refits got clan case [even when they were errata'd to be tonnage accurate]).

Hope this clarifies. Sorry to steal attention on this small matter.

[jymset]

Hi! You may be interested in an earlier post I wrote about the evolution of the Clan C 'Mechs, which the folks at Sarna ported over to the wiki.

[Bison AIs]

Hi! You may be interested in an earlier post I wrote about the evolution of the Clan C 'Mechs, which the folks at Sarna ported over to the wiki.

🙌 Ayyyyyyy! Thank you! Better info than what I was even hoping for!


Given you're in touch with this stuff, forgive me another question. 🙏

That the C units being underweight was so disagreeable is surprising to me and I'm curious if you have more perspective on that.

There seems to be a variety of common precedents like emptied ammo bins, lost limbs and armor, omni mechs capable of carrying battle armor but not doing it right now, empty cargo bays etc. I coulda've also sworn I'd seen advanced rules for 'under weight' units at some point somewhere around the same time that mixed tech rules existed (though maybe I'm imaging this!).

Thanks for your help!

[truetanker]

Every mech can run underweight, like technically a 100 ton Dire Wolf with only twenty-five tons of pod space being used, that means 25.5 not filled, still moves at 3/5! Even when it's 75 (well 74.5) tons current weight... Shouldn't that get a "boost" in speed for being lighter?

Also, you can dump ammo per slot, which means you dumping full tons... I've always wanted to know if you can dump a half ton of MG ammo, if the slot had 100+ salvos left?

Like Warhammer -6R, carries that ammo bomb of 200... Technically, I can dump the slot, but can I dump half of that or is it all or nothing? Also with such amount, you can choose to allow so many ammunition in homebrews, but not tournament. Full slot and dump on turn one only.

TT

[Alfaryn]

Posting the following report here, because I don't see an errata thread for this product.

Alpha Strike Quick Start Rules 2019-08.pdf available in the downloads section of the main Battletech boardgame site.

p. 25, Attack Modifiers Table, Range Modifiers subtable, "Long" line, "Distance" column.

>24” to 48”
Change to:
>24” to 42”

[Miannes]

Hello,

We need a clarification on the rules in Alpha Strike Commander Edtion for transporting battle armor.  On page 38 it says when they dismount they can move half their MV rounded down and they "can only use jump movement mode from an airborne transport or if mechanized (see below)." 

Now on page 39 in the example, Lara has 2 squads of IS standard battle armor.  They have 6"j MV.  It explains mounting but during the dismount it says "They may then move half their MV value, for 1”f MV."  Nothing about this makes sense so we need some help.  Half their move would be 3"j MV since they are MEC.

I looked in the errata post and a mod made this suggestion change:

"p39, transport example
"They may then move half their MV value, for 1"f MV."
change to
"As they were not mechanized battle armor, they cannot jump when dismounting. They may move half their MV value, for 3" MV. ""

The confusion is that IS standard battle armor is MEC.  They should be able to dismount and jump 3"j MV as far as we can tell.  It seems like the original example and the correction are both wrong in some way.  Shouldn't it just be "As they are mechanized battle armor, they can jump when dismounting. They may move half their MV value, for 3"j MV. "

Please let me know if we misunderstand.  We thought BA could ride in transports and not just on omni mech or omni vehicles.  The Maxim looks like it would be ok.

Thanks

[nckestrel]

A unit is not mechanized, it has tue ability to be mechanized.  To jump dismount, you must be using the em Jan odd battle armor rules, by riding an Omni unit externally. The example transport is not an Omni, so they are not currently mechanized battle armor.

[nikarus2370]

Tactical Operations:Advanced Rules, p.40 "Extreme Depth Table".

So this caused a bit of an argument among my players. But as written, Column 1 "Walk/Cruise Modifier" appears to be a bonus to the movement speed of a given unit when it's supposed to be a penalty of additional MP needed per hex. (in other books, a positive "movement modifier" means you walk farther being the main gist of the argument)

Perhaps this heading could be changed to something like "MP Cost Per Hex/Terrain Cost" or "MP Cost Per Hex" as in Total Warfare, p.52's "Movement Cost's Table" for clarity?

Secondly, Column 2 "Weapon Attack MP Modifier", I don't think the MP is supposed to be there (I think it was supposed to be in column 1's header)

[Scotty]

🙌 Ayyyyyyy! Thank you! Better info than what I was even hoping for!


Given you're in touch with this stuff, forgive me another question. 🙏

That the C units being underweight was so disagreeable is surprising to me and I'm curious if you have more perspective on that.

There seems to be a variety of common precedents like emptied ammo bins, lost limbs and armor, omni mechs capable of carrying battle armor but not doing it right now, empty cargo bays etc. I coulda've also sworn I'd seen advanced rules for 'under weight' units at some point somewhere around the same time that mixed tech rules existed (though maybe I'm imaging this!).

Thanks for your help!

Being underweight is not illegal in the first place, but (and I'm not speaking from a position of knowledge here, this is speculation) if the Clans were already putting these units in for refit in the first place it makes little sense to leave them underweight when doing so isn't going to change the difficulty or class of the refit.

[Kilter]

The ATMO special isn’t defined in the AS:CE, even though it is used on AS:CE p.196 of the Eridani Light Horse Recon Lance.

It looks like this special was dropped in the “rollover” from the AS & AS Companion.

If it was dropped it should be removed from the 4 references in the Eridani Light Horse Recon Lance.

Here’s the rule from AS Companion:

“Atmospheric Only (ATMO)
An aerospace unit with this special ability uses an “air-breathing” engine or structural design, and thus cannot exit a planetary atmosphere. This includes operating at the Outer Ring of an atmospheric Radar Map.

This special looks like it’s been superseded by the Atmospheric Density environmental conditions section in AS:CE on p. 61:
“**VACUUM**
Non-BattleMech units that lack the **SOA** or **SEAL** special abilities, or units that possess the **EE** special (even if they do have the **SEAL** special), cannot operate in vacuum, nor can any vehicles using the VTOL, WiGE, hover, or airship motive types.”

[logion567]

Using the Record Sheet from page 307 "Record Sheets:3150" I noticed that the Svartalfa 3 is 100kg overweight.

750kg for the cockpit. 2,500kg for the Engine. 1,400kg for the Internal Structure. 7,500kg for the weapons and ammo, and 1,950kg for the Armor. Add these up and you get 14,100kg.

In fact when loading up the unit in MegaMekLab it immediately yells at you that the machine is overweight. Removing 2 points of armor from the head would fix the weight issue and also change the BattleValue to 486, a reduction of 7 BV.

[Kharn01]

Little question about Empire Alone:

Randall has schown Empire Alone as a reprint from china in the last Kickstarter update and mentioned it would be the second printing.

In this thread Ray mentioned earlier that a 2nd print will come with unit description under the ilustrations.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,79244.msg1876669.html#msg1876669

Will this be inculded in the 2nd printing?

[Cache]

Received email about a BattleMech Manual update. There are 2 versions available for download: 5th printing and 7th printing. Seems odd. Which is intended to be current?

[Sartris]

7th

[ArcFurnace]

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 would still do something about the movement penalty ...

[Praetorian Hard]

Alpha Strike Commander’s Edition 6th Printing PDF (downloaded as of August this year)

Page 47 Artillery Attacks -

Error - “Indirect Fire: Artillery can be fired indirectly (see Indirect Fire, p . 41) . When fired indirectly, apply an additional –1 Target Number modifier if the spotter has the TAG or LTAG special ability and is within 24” of the target (6” for LTAG).”

(Conflicts with 6th printing TAG rules)

Correction “Indirect Fire: Artillery can be fired indirectly (see Indirect Fire, p . 41) .”

[nckestrel]

Alpha Strike Commander’s Edition 6th Printing PDF (downloaded as of August this year)

Page 47 Artillery Attacks -

Error - “Indirect Fire: Artillery can be fired indirectly (see Indirect Fire, p . 41) . When fired indirectly, apply an additional –1 Target Number modifier if the spotter has the TAG or LTAG special ability and is within 24” of the target (6” for LTAG).”

(Conflicts with 6th printing TAG rules)

Correction “Indirect Fire: Artillery can be fired indirectly (see Indirect Fire, p . 41) .”

This should not be changed.  https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,83044.0.html

[Praetorian Hard]

I would recommend the passive benefits of TAG, when spotting for artillery, get mentioned or referenced in the special abilities section on page 90. I thought the 6th printing change had made TAG exclusively an active ability (you must make a successful TAG roll to benefit from it) given there’s no mention of a passive benefit on page 90. Hence why I thought they were in conflict.

Currently says “ TAG is used to paint a target with a laser to designate targets . A TAG-(or LTAG)-equipped unit can make a special weapons attack in order to designate a target . A TAG attack uses all appropriate rules for a standard weapon attack . LTAG works only at Short range, while TAG works at Short and Medium range . Designating a target is an additional attack that can be made in addition to any other weapon or physical attacks that same turn . The target of a painting attack need not be the same target used for the unit’s weapon or physical attacks . Unlike most effects, TAG designation takes place immediately and can be used by other attacks in the same turn, and only that turn . A successfully designated target is spotted for indirect fire by the TAG-equipped unit, with no spotter attacked modifier . In addition, a designated target can be attacked by semi-guided LRMs (see p . 150) and homing artillery (see p . 152) .”

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I was looking through Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade Unabridged and I noticed that the AXM-4D Axman has single heatsinks listed.  Is that correct?  It's definitely an odd choice since no other Axman has them, it's the latest model in that book, and there's no reason it should have them like lack of space since all its heatsinks are internal.

[Jal Phoenix]

Do we have an errata thread for pilot cards? I vaguely remember asking before, but I've forgotten both the answer, and the reason I might have asked. However, I just got my grubby paws on my first Inner Sphere Heavy Battle Lance featuring the Nightstar, with a pilot card for Shelly Brubaker. It implies that she used her Nightstar at the Battle of Luthien, which occurred several years before the Nightstar's reintroduction. It's too much handwavium to think that this is somehow a surviving 'Mech from 3005, so, errata.

[Xotl]

Yes: the Force Pack errata thread is here:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,75914.0.html

[jymset]

I was looking through Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade Unabridged and I noticed that the AXM-4D Axman has single heatsinks listed.  Is that correct?  It's definitely an odd choice since no other Axman has them, it's the latest model in that book, and there's no reason it should have them like lack of space since all its heatsinks are internal.

I did a double take when redoing the 3050U RS to TW standard back in 2011, but (alas), TRO 3050U explicitly states: "...has superior accuracy and heat management capabilities (despite a cost-cutting decision to employ standard sinks)..."

So yeah. Those SHS were a choice.

[Cache]

The link to BattleTech CGL-Era Fiction thread located in the Errata Index post is broken.

[Sartris]

turns out several are

MUL Feedback Thread III

Alpha Strike: Box Set
BattleTech Legends
Battle of Tukayyid
Battle of Tukayyid Supplemental
Campaign Operations (Revised 2021)
Clan Invasion Box
Dominions Divided
Empire Alone
XTRO: Caveat Emptor
Interstellar Operations (original single volume)
Interstellar Operations: Alternate Eras
Interstellar Operations: BattleForce
MapPack: Grasslands
Psudotech: Arcade Operations
Record Sheets: 3145
Record Sheets: 3150
Record Sheets: Dark Age
Record Sheets: Jihad
Shrapnel Magazine
Tactical Operations (original single volume)
Tamar Rising
Technical Readout: Irregulars
Turning Points: Foster
Turning Points: Helm
Turning Points: Tyrfing

[Daryk]

What does "engine rating" mean for Support Vehicles in the latest TM developer errata (post #69 in that thread)?  The table on page 127 lays out weight and movement factor, but not "engine rating".  Is it intended to replace movement factor?

[Hammer]

What does "engine rating" mean for Support Vehicles in the latest TM developer errata (post #69 in that thread)?  The table on page 127 lays out weight and movement factor, but not "engine rating".  Is it intended to replace movement factor?

The intention of the errata is to provide a Engine Rating value as used in Engine Explosions and Booby Traps. It is an additional rating not a replacement value for anything. 

[Daryk]

Ah, thanks!  It might be worth noting that in TM, since the Engine Explosion rules are in TacOps...