Register Register

Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 88433 times)

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • Professor of Errata
Link recreated.  Thanks.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #871 on: 06 June 2018, 03:27:12 »
New errata for the year.  Mostly small, and it's all stuff to do with the core book line reprints that I worked on some months back; it's just now that they're being formally released.  The only thing that's completely new is the BattleMech Manual release, which isn't getting a reprint but since it's my baby I'm keeping up on it.

TW got a new release because I forgot to list a couple of the changes that made it into the reprint.  There were no such problems with TM, TO, and SO, so they're staying the same.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Alfaryn

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 171
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #872 on: 07 June 2018, 09:50:20 »
Hi, I've noticed small issues with a couple of entries in the recently published TW errata v5.01 document.
Quote
* Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement (p. 168)
Before the “Vehicles” paragraph insert the following new paragraph:
WiGEs: While WiGEs cannot enter a building, a WiGE moving over a building immediately collapses that building if its tonnage x 0.25 exceeds the building’s current CF (see Collapse, p. 176).
In my TW book (Corrected Third Printing. Second Printing by Catalyst Game Labs, 2011 print edition) there is no such section title as "Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement" on p. 168 or the preceding page. Unless something changed in later printings "Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement (p. 168)" in the errata document should be replaced with something like "'Mechs and Vehicles [continued] (p. 168)".
Quote
* Fighting Off Swarm Attacks (p. 222)
Under “Mechanized Battle Armor”, right column, delete the first full paragraph on the page (“Even if the …”).
The paragraph in question is the first paragraph on the page as the errata document states, just the first paragraph in the right column.
« Last Edit: 07 June 2018, 09:53:13 by Alfaryn »

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #873 on: 07 June 2018, 12:43:51 »
Perfect, thanks.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3424
  • Having a Good time with the Missus!
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #874 on: 07 June 2018, 14:04:19 »
Hi, I've noticed small issues with a couple of entries in the recently published TW errata v5.01 document.In my TW book (Corrected Third Printing. Second Printing by Catalyst Game Labs, 2011 print edition) there is no such section title as "Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement" on p. 168 or the preceding page. Unless something changed in later printings "Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement (p. 168)" in the errata document should be replaced with something like "'Mechs and Vehicles [continued] (p. 168)"

Just thought I'd point out, the Corrected 4th Edition (C) 2013 also does not have this section.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #875 on: 07 June 2018, 17:18:16 »
I've made a silent update to the TW errata on the webpage to correct those typos.  Same version number, as it doesn't meaningfully change any of the answers.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Alfaryn

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 171
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #876 on: 08 June 2018, 09:13:20 »
Good to know, thanks.

pheonixstorm

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4689
Re: Campaign Operations
« Reply #877 on: 09 June 2018, 14:38:54 »
 ::) I shoulda say that coming...

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9219
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #878 on: 20 June 2018, 22:24:35 »
There's some weirdness going on with some Battle Armor cards.  The Golem Assault Armor (Rock Golem) card for the 6-man squad has a damage profile of 3/3*/0, and I have absolutely no clue what could possibly have happened behind the scenes to make "3*" a thing.

The Warg (Reactive) also somehow manages to conjure a point of long range damage in the 6-man, where there's no damage there at all before.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #879 on: 20 June 2018, 23:59:26 »
There's some work going on behind the scenes to roll in the new PV update.  That perhaps is responsible.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

BLOODWOLF

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 694
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #880 on: 24 June 2018, 18:23:45 »
Megamek has caught this error in the Clan Diamond Shark and Ghost Bear Dominion transport dropship RATs from FM 3085 and the Clan Sea Fox transport dropships RAT from ER 3145.

Code: [Select]
The unit Mule C (2842) could not be found in the 3085 Clan Diamond Shark Transport Dropships RAT (default.zip:(3076 - 3100) - FM 3085/Clan/Clan Diamond Shark/Aerospace/3085 Clan Diamond Shark Transport Dropships.txt)
The unit Mule C (2842) could not be found in the 3085 Ghost Bear Dominion Transport Dropships RAT (default.zip:(3076 - 3100) - FM 3085/Clan/Ghost Bear Dominion/Aerospace/3085 Ghost Bear Dominion Transport Dropships.txt)
The unit Mule C (2842) could not be found in the Clan Sea Fox Dropships - 3135+ RAT (default.zip:(3135+) - ER 3145/Clan/Clan Sea Fox/Aerospace/Dropships.txt)

In FM 3085 it calls for a Mule(TR3057) pg 224 for Diamond Shark.
Same Mule for Ghost Bear pg 226.
Mule(3057) for Sea Fox ER 3145 pg 180.

A clan version of the Mule doesnt exist so, what clan dropship should replace that Mule for these RATs?

These are all we have for the Mule:
« Last Edit: 03 July 2018, 19:08:25 by BLOODWOLF »

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #881 on: 03 July 2018, 00:27:24 »
The formal Alpha Strike  (and ASC) errata has been uploaded to the errata section of the website.  They're functionally the same as the PRE versions: just a couple of typo corrections (and the removal of "PRE").
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

BrokenMnemonic

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1443
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #882 on: 20 July 2018, 14:00:54 »
I wanted to check if this was intentional or errata before posting in the relevant thread. In Historical: Reunification War, there's a section on how the Star League Defense Force was built. In each of the Great House sections, there's a subsection entitled "Integration with the SLDF" that includes the number of regiments and WarShips that particular nation passed to the SLDF, with the exception of the entry for the Lyran Commonwealth on p40. I'm not sure if the omission is deliberate or not; I noticed it because I was re-reading the book and thought I'd be able to work out how much the HAF provided to the SLDF from the numbers, and suddenly realised I was missing the Lyran details.

It's more interesting than optimal, and therefore better. O0 - Weirdo

pascal

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
BattleMech Manual
« Reply #883 on: 22 July 2018, 13:21:41 »
I have some questions/suggestions regarding the BattleMech Manual, which aren't quite errata, but probably should affect a future (re-)printing of the product:

On page 8, the book has a mini mech sheet illustrated, but the book has no full size sheet in the back, given the denseness of the sheet, having a full size version in the book would seem like a good idea. Given the new soon-to-be-released starter set, I would suggest considering to include full size mech sheets for both the Griffin and the Wolverine in the back of a future edition of the BattleMech Manual.  (BTW the mini mech sheet on page 8, still has the old battletech logo :)

On page 22, Line of Sight paragraph, the paragraph talks about when line of sight overlaps a hex-to-hex border exactly, where the defenders gets to choose which hex is used to terrain rules purposes. However then the rules refer to the Line of Sight between two hexes diagram, which suddenly drastically changes the line of sight path, from an undefined point in the attackers hex (as opposed to center), to the same, but still undefined point in the defenders hex. So the rules seem incoherent with the diagram, and the diagram itself isn't unambiguous either. My guess is that the rules are correct as written, but the diagram is misleading. Especially since the diagram itself doesn't make it clear that these alternate paths may only be taken when the primary line of sight path runs perfectly along a hex-to-hex boundary.

On page 47, the Ammunition Critical Hits Effects paragraph is a bit terse on how to calculate damage, and the examples given, assume that you know some weapon statistics by heart already. The Missile Launchers bit on page 102, does a much better job of explaining critical hit damage. Please consider changing the wording on page 47 to something more in line with better example on page 102.

Why isn't the BV2 Pilot Skill Adjustment Table (TechManual Pg. 314?) included into this book? It would seem rather important to be able to balance out a force point wise, and lugging around the TechManual just for pretty much one table isn't great either. I would argue that a future edition of this book should have this table for reference at least in the back of the book.

Also it seems the BattleMech Manual is missing generic scenarios (or any scenarios at all). Given that the BattleMech Manual is all one should need for mech-on-mech combat, I would have expected 6 (so D6 randomization is easy) well playtested generic scenarios (similar in concept to the, unrelated, scenarios in the Alpha Strike Companion).

The BattleMech Manual also seems to miss an index, but I'm probably not the first to point that out.

I hope you'll consider the above for a (hopefully soon) reprinting of the BattleMech Manual.

cavingjan

  • Sang-Wei MUL
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4313
  • grumpy ESOB
    • warrenborn
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #884 on: 22 July 2018, 17:04:10 »
I've made a silent update to the TW errata on the webpage to correct those typos.  Same version number, as it doesn't meaningfully change any of the answers.

Minor suggestion for when this is done: add an "e" or epsilon after the version. I indicates that it has been edited. It will help explain the minor differences if someone ends up comparing them later.

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • Professor of Errata
Re: BattleMech Manual
« Reply #885 on: 22 July 2018, 17:46:33 »
I have some questions/suggestions regarding the BattleMech Manual, which aren't quite errata, but probably should affect a future (re-)printing of the product:

Thanks for taking the time to give your feedback: I really appreciate it.

Some things I can't help you with.  For example, I strongly advocated Scenarios be in the book because it's an area that I think BT has needlessly fallen down on and I think they would have fit very well here, but no one else agreed (though to be fair, other avenues are being explored in that regard).  Similarly, an index was deemed not necessary by senior command; I regret the absence.

BV modifiers were left out because there's no BV in the entire book.  If Scenarios were in, I'm sure it would have been in, but as it is such a table makes no sense when a reader would otherwise have no clue as to what BV was.

There's no blank record sheets because there's no design rules.  The book assumes you're using pre-filled sheets.  Blank sheets don't make sense without a procedure to fill them in.

Page 22: Not sure about.

Page 47: I agree.  I've rewritten it completely, and if the book gets a reprint (fingers crossed), you'll see it there.  Sample text below:

A critical hit to an ammo slot only explodes the ammo in that slot. Exploded missile ammo deals damage equal to the number of missiles remaining in the slot times their Damage Value. All other ammunition types deal damage equal to the number of shots remaining times their Damage Value. For example, one ton of exploding machine gun ammo deals 400 points of damage (200 shots x 2 damage), while one ton of SRM-2 ammo deals 200 points of damage (2 missiles per shot x 50 shots x 2 damage per missile). Apply the resulting damage to the Internal Structure Diagram (ammunition explosion damage starts the damage resolution process at Step 2, as described on p. XX).
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5811
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #886 on: 22 July 2018, 18:19:33 »
Xotl, if my two cents can help on the index issue, I back one 100% (and have asked in the Line Developer sub-forum about it, and for IO).  I'm more than a little mystified how anyone contemplating a hard copy book would deliberately leave out an index.  Sure, the search function works just fine for pdfs, but the dead tree implementation of that is an index.

pascal

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #887 on: 24 July 2018, 13:03:51 »
Xotl, thanks for the response.

The BattleMech Manual was a spectacularly good idea to begin with.

With regard to the scenarios, I assumed it was due to release commitment pressure or something along those lines. A conscious decision to leave them out baffles me. Pretty much every high(-ish) volume commercially published wargame rulebook in the last few decades has at least a few generic ones. Even if you'll release a nice scenarios book, or a PDF people can print themselves, we'll still be lugging around two books to be able to properly play the game, which is unfortunate...

With regard to the BV2 Pilot Skill Adjustment Table, and surrounding force building guidance, seems essential be to able to play a fair and varied game. It's a significant omission.

With regard to the record sheet, I didn't mean blank ones, it would have been nice to have one or two completely filled out example mech sheets. So you always have some mech sheets handy while reading the rules (particularly for newer players, and/or for example while traveling?). In light of the new starter, picking the Griffin and Wolverine would make heaps of sense.

With regard to Page 22/Line of Sight, I hope you can stir some internal discussion about that.

With regard to Page 47: And there was much rejoycing :)

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3524
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #888 on: 07 August 2018, 07:53:42 »
Errata report. www.battletechisawesome.com, first release. Several unit names are misspelled. Suggested fix: Replace content in bold with content in italics

-Pestch Pesht Regulars
-Davion Briade Brigade of Guards
-Deneg Deneb Light Cavalry
-Confedeation Confederation Reserve Cavalry
-Eight Eighth Army (ComStar)
-Eight Eighth Division (Word of Blake)

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4259
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #889 on: 19 August 2018, 08:08:19 »
Not really sure if its worth reporting, but I figure some discussion might help...

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62526.msg1438046#msg1438046

As you see there, the Grand Crusader originally had the Directional Mount Quirk for its LRM20s, but lost it during the beta process. The reasoning given is apparently "Because all the variants don't have the LRM20s."

But all the variants of the Grand Crusader DO have the LRM20s in the Torso. The 01 and the 02. Those are the only two Grand Crusader variants out there, and they have the LRM20s in the torso.

True, the Grand Crusader II doesn't have the LRM20 torso mounts, but the Grand Crusader II is a completely separate design (hence the II designation) and has its own list of quirks.

So is this something that's worth reporting in the Errata thread for the BMM, or is it something that's been dead set against?

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8462
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #890 on: 19 August 2018, 13:17:45 »
This is already noted in the current errata, so the original GC does have a Directional Mount again.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Waritec

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Re: Campaign Operations
« Reply #891 on: 21 September 2018, 12:02:54 »
Page 62. Anvil lance
Requirements: ...all units must... possess at least 40 points of armor.
 Isn't it too low for an assault lance variation?  Maybe it should be 140 points of armor?

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14104
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #892 on: 21 September 2018, 13:40:06 »
Page 62. Anvil lance
Requirements: ...all units must... possess at least 40 points of armor.
 Isn't it too low for an assault lance variation?  Maybe it should be 140 points of armor?

Questions should not be put into the errata thread.  You might do better to put this in Ask the Writers, honestly.

Waritec

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #893 on: 22 September 2018, 02:27:30 »
Oh sorry. Thank you.