BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

Catalyst Game Labs => BattleTech Game Errata => Topic started by: Xotl on 15 May 2011, 21:59:10

Title: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 May 2011, 21:59:10
Hi there.  For ease of errata collection there is to be no discussion in the individual errata threads themselves.  However, if you want to request a new errata thread be opened, feel a piece of errata or someone else's report is in error, or have something else errata-related you want to discuss, we'd be happy to hear what you have to say in this thread.  As always, sources with exact page numbers are needed when relevant if we're to properly examine anything.  Thanks.

Quickie errata guideline:
Basically, if there's a rules problem and you know what the solution is, it's probably errata.  If there's a rules problem but you don't know the solution, it's probably a rules question first and then, once you have an answer, it's errata.

But best to read the stickied errata rules thread for all the nitty gritty details.

Looking for a list of all errata threads?
http://tinyurl.com/p7a6gty

Looking for the official BattleTech errata webpage?
http://bg.battletech.com/errata/

SPECIAL

Errata-corrected infantry sheets:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z89atupo1d0xdif/Infantry%20RS.pdf?dl=0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BeeRockxs on 17 May 2011, 07:06:42
Will the stuff that has been reported in the now-closed threads be added to the compiled errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 May 2011, 07:56:18
Will the stuff that has been reported in the now-closed threads be added to the compiled errata?

Absolutely.  When I'm told to assemble errata for a given product all the material in the closed threads will be gone over as well: there's no need to report it all again.

EDIT: except RS 3085 - if you had something in there and it's not currently posted in this forum, please repost it, because we might have missed it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: sfsct on 19 May 2011, 07:16:34
Jihad: 3072 has some issues with the Manei Domini calculations and a couple other hiccups I think.  I would recommend a new errata stream for Jihad:3072
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 19 May 2011, 09:57:59
*Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade (print)
*Appears to be first edition.
*P. 30 (DASHER PRIME - actual pages unnumbered)
*Error: In the critical hit table next to "Right Arm" it says "(CASE)."  TRO does not indicate that this configuration has CASE (and no space is allocated to CASE).
*Delete "(CASE)."

That's not an error. Clan units have CASE integrated. It takes up no critical space and no weight.
The moment a Clan unit has ammo or other explosive equipment loaded, CASE will show up on the Record Sheet
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 22 May 2011, 21:03:18
Will the Strat Ops thread be reopened any time soon?  Or did I miss my window to cross-post the answer to my personnel carried as cargo question from the rules forum?  Welshman had asked me to post an errata when the permissions were fixed, but I seem to have missed that happening, and now the thread is locked.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 May 2011, 23:13:37
We're readying a new version of the errata for the next StraOps reprint - as soon as it's ready I'll start a new thread and you can post it there.  I have no ETA at the moment, but I'd appreciate you keeping an eye out and posting what you have then.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 23 May 2011, 05:10:09
Ah, roger.  Sorry I missed the window to get it into the reprint.  It's a fairly glaring contradiction between pages 44 and 155 regarding the amount of consumables required to support personnel transported as cargo.  Welshman said page 44 is right.  I'll try to keep better track going forward.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 May 2011, 10:53:53
You'll be pleased to learn that your errata did in fact make it into the new errata revision - I combed the rules forum as well as the old errata threads for stuff to add.  So, no need to report it after all.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 23 May 2011, 18:06:41
Excellent!  Thank you, kind sir.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 27 May 2011, 17:47:02
I need a thread for XTRO: Marik, please.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 May 2011, 18:35:10
And one for XTRO: Liao if you don't mind.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trace Coburn on 30 May 2011, 07:57:47
  It might pay to create a thread for Era Report: 3062.  I've only skimmed a few portions in the half-hour I've had it, and I've already found three four typos....  :-\
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: roosterboy on 31 May 2011, 13:16:19
Please open threads for Operational Turning Points: Falcon Incursion and Field Report: DCMS.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 03 June 2011, 23:22:29
Please open a thread for Unit Digest: 1065th Millerton Armored. Many thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 04 June 2011, 09:51:10
The new MUL site erroneously uses the graphic for the Combat Vehicle for the Naval Vehicle as well (on the Getting Started page).

Hope this helps,
Rev
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 04 June 2011, 12:55:45
Hey Xotl, could you open a thread for Era Digest: Age of War? Found a p. XX reference.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 05 June 2011, 07:34:42
Suggestion: Add the old MUL back to the Download page as an alternative source. [EDIT: I'm referencing the XL spreadsheet database, not the beta MUL released a few months back.]

Since the old MUL is the only comprehensive source for dates of manufacture, it's appropriate that the old MUL still be available for download. While some will definitely find this new database compelling, it creates a lot more work for people like myself who run period-specific campaigns, forcing you to read through the TRO to fish out this data. That defeats the entire purpose of an MUL, IMO.

I disagree. Many of the dates from that document are strongly suspect - i.e., I personally made some serious mistakes - and the MUL Beta can not be relied upon as a source. It also has problems with Battle Value. Keep in mind that it was meant purely for outside review and has served its purpose.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 05 June 2011, 08:07:33
I have in my hands official errata for Strategic Operations, labeled version 1.2. I've looked on the Errata Information page (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=Errata (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=Errata)) to see if its been updated, but can't find the link.

I thought, too, we had a stickied thread that listed links to each errata specific thread, in alpha-order. Am I mis-remembering that?

- Rev


Edit: okay, I found the thread and ColBosch's attachment; same version I have. If its official, though, shouldn't it be listed on the CBT Errata Information page?

Edit2: Can we please get the Strategic Operations thread unlocked or maybe a new one opened? In the mean time, I'll store my suggestions here.

Edit3: Removed 3 suggestions that were included in Errata v1.3.
 
Edit4: Moved to new errata thread.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 June 2011, 12:23:27
The CBT webpage errata list is lagging behind the production of official errata: it will be updated as soon as the time can be found.

As you've noticed, version 1.2 is still the official version.  However, a 1.3 is in the final stages of review and will hopefully be posted soon; that is why the current StratOps thread is closed.  The moment 1.3 is ready a new thread will be opened: please save your reports for it.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 05 June 2011, 12:33:41
Copy all, Xotl. Thanks.

I'll just save my reports in my last post (for the time being). Otherwise, I'll never remember them whenever the new official errata thread opens.

- Rev
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 07 June 2011, 03:47:32
Could we get a new thread for Print RS 3085? Unless I'm blind and there already is one...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 07 June 2011, 22:02:07
I need one for Klondike's record sheets and preferred methods of submitting BV calculations.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ronalmb on 13 June 2011, 12:50:52
Strategic Operations : Equipment Rating and Quality Rating, pg. 167, 168 tables.

I believe that the A - F designations that is reversed from earlier incarnations of these systems (Field Manual Ratings, Dragoons Rating, etc) is counter intuitive to what most folks would be familiar with.

What I mean is that under the current Strategic Operations Tables, A is the worst (Salvage) while F is the best (Excellent). Typically, things graded as A are considered excellent, while things graded F are considered awful.  I believe that the change in scale creates unnecessary confusion without adding anything to the game other than reversing the ratings. While this is a minor issue, I hope that others might agree and that this might be reversed back in the next printing/future editions.

Thank you for an excellent product.

Edited for Clarity, correction of an error
Edited II: Moonsword's correction. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 13 June 2011, 16:34:50
I would note that Tech Rating operates the same way the Equipment and Quality Ratings do.  The simpler end of things is toward A.  Clan gear is generally F.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ronalmb on 14 June 2011, 05:59:52
Moonsword,

Quite right. I stand corrected and have fixed "Tech Rating" to "Field Manual Equipment Rating" which is what I meant.  I still believe that an A (good) F (Bad) rating is more intuitive, user friendly, and consistant with previous rating scales that it is something to consider.

While a minor topic, I believe that the change is easier to remember - which can be handy for newer players, and consistant with earlier products - which can be handy for veterans.

An obvious Con is of course that it reverses a table that some folk may have become accustomed to, which certainly risks muddying the waters. Still, I believe that its a change worth considering.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 16 June 2011, 21:06:49
The Phoenix Hawk IIC 7's tonnage is correct. (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5929.msg156592.html#msg156592)  Both SSW and sitting there and adding the numbers on page 281 of TRO3085 up with a calculator call this one wrong.  All the numbers are correct, too.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 16 June 2011, 23:28:33
The Phoenix Hawk IIC 7's tonnage is correct. (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5929.msg156592.html#msg156592)  Both SSW and sitting there and adding the numbers on page 281 of TRO3085 up with a calculator call this one wrong.  All the numbers are correct, too.

I got the same results.  80 tons, 5 free crits
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chunga on 27 June 2011, 10:55:23
The Reunification War thread seems to be filled with grammar suggestions. Is that really errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BeeRockxs on 27 June 2011, 12:40:42
Outright grammatical errors should be errataed, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 27 June 2011, 13:28:50
When I was doing this, I used two simple rules of thumb: 1) is this an actual error of tense, number agreement, etc.; 2) if not an outright mistake, does the text as-is get the point across? In other words, unless what was printed was simply wrong by basic rules of grammar, I wouldn't pass on a change unless it was also hard to understand.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trace Coburn on 27 June 2011, 20:14:40
Outright grammatical errors should be errataed, in my opinion.
  No disrespect, ColBosch, but I agree with BeeRocksx, which is why I did a comprehensive read-through on ER: 3062 for such errors and intend to do so for H:RW in the next couple of days, hopefully in time for the corrections to go into the print version.  Maybe it's just the kind of mind I have, but to me hitting glaring punctuation/grammar errors like that is more annoying than hearing a record skipping on a given spot for an hour straight.  #P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 27 June 2011, 20:28:27
+1 more to that sentiment.  I edit a lot of writing at work, and even small mistakes interrupt the flow of reading.  I've begun noticing it my favorite science fiction novels, too.  I suspect a growing reliance on automated spelling and grammar checkers is driving it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 27 June 2011, 23:11:44
Er, did you guys read my post? I said outright errors should be fixed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 27 June 2011, 23:20:24
hopefully in time for the corrections to go into the print version.
No...errors spotted at "this point" affecting the print version is the exception, not the rule.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 28 June 2011, 05:02:35
Er, did you guys read my post? I said outright errors should be fixed.
The qualifier "outright" left a bit of room.  My point was that automated spelling and grammar checkers will pass things that are wrong, outright or otherwise.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 June 2011, 07:52:21
I have no specific guidelines concenring errata and grammar, so unless told otherwise I'll be accepting them all.  Bosch's guideline's are generally what I'm working off of as well.

Some will be trivial or incorrect, but that's true of rules-based posts as well - they'll get weeded out when the time comes to assemble the errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 28 June 2011, 08:25:45
Also note that I was talking about how I handled reports when assembling the final errata, and not in any way, shape, or form telling people what to post or not. I gave up THAT privilege when I resigned. ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kojak on 30 June 2011, 01:26:33
The Reunification War thread seems to be filled with grammar suggestions. Is that really errata?

Speaking as the one who's submitted most of those, I'd say yes. Incorrect grammar is no different from incorrect spelling or incorrect word usage: a mistake in need of correction. That's what errata is for (along with correcting factual inconsistencies and the like).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 02 July 2011, 14:37:54
Xotl,
Just to be clear: when you post with "Designer Errata", that means that is official errata and not to be confused with fan posts that offer errata suggestions?

Also, when you do post "Designer Errata", is that replacing the one-stop errata pages accessible from the main page? Or will your posts be incorporated into those?

I ask because my policy is to print out the errata pages and make changes as time allows, and refer to the print-outs when I haven't completed my pen-'n-ink changes. If the most up-to-date errata will now reside here, I'll modify my procedures.

Thanks,
Rev
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 July 2011, 16:14:20
Just to be clear: when you post with "Designer Errata", that means that is official errata and not to be confused with fan posts that offer errata suggestions?

That's correct.  I'm in the middle of organizing it right now, but the opening post of each thread (the introductory one made by me) will also have a section called Developer-Level Errata (if necessary).  These are rulings made by developers, and are fully official.  You can consider them previews of future errata revision documents.

Quote
Also, when you do post "Designer Errata", is that replacing the one-stop errata pages accessible from the main page? Or will your posts be incorporated into those?

Developer-Level Errata is supplemental to the CBT webpage errata section.  The rulings only replace CBT webpage errata if specifically noted (for example, the TechManual thread has a new BV table that overrides a ruling currently sitting on the CBT TechManual errata webpage).

Quote
I ask because my policy is to print out the errata pages and make changes as time allows, and refer to the print-outs when I haven't completed my pen-'n-ink changes. If the most up-to-date errata will now reside here, I'll modify my procedures.

It will always be easier for me to keep a forum and a word document up to date than it will be to find the time to update the website.  In addition, the website will only have full errata revisions, made as a result of the rulings in this forum, rather than individual rulings, so this forum will always be ahead.  That having been said, we do plan to update the CBT webpage errata section whenever the time and manpower can be spared.

So, to sum up, Developer-Level errata is fully official, will appear in future full errata revisions, and from there will eventually make it onto the CBT Errata webpage section.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 02 July 2011, 16:35:41
That's correct.  I'm in the middle of organizing it right now [Rev's italics], but the opening post of each thread (the introductory one made by me) will also have a section called Developer-Level Errata (if necessary).  These are rulings made by developers, and are fully official.  You can consider them previews of future errata revision documents.

I presume the threads where you have "Designer Errata" in different posts will be consolidated in the first, then?

Quote
So, to sum up, Developer-Level errata is fully official, will appear in future full errata revisions, and from there will eventually make it onto the CBT Errata webpage section.

This method sounds like its the go-to-idea for up-to-date errata. Thanks for the quick and informative reply (and for fixing my previous code-cursed post).

- Rev

Edit1: Can you please open a new thread for Strategic Operations (since the new PDF was just released). Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 July 2011, 16:48:50
I presume the threads where you have "Designer Errata" in different posts will be consolidated in the first, then?

Yes: that's the "middle of" part - I've spent my weekend so far cleaning up the forum.  I think only TacOps is left - check the Total Warfare or TechManual threads for how it is supposed to look.

Quote
This method sounds like its the go-to-idea for up-to-date errata. Thanks for the quick and informative reply (and for fixing my previous code-cursed post).

No problem - happy to help.

Quote
Edit1: Can you please open a new thread for Strategic Operations (since the new PDF was just released). Thanks.

Hmmm, so it has.  I'll get working on that right away (may take a while, as I have verify that everything was successfully integrated before I post the new errata revision.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 July 2011, 18:04:54
Annnnd it's up.  Thanks everyone for your reports - the latest printing of Strategic Operations is a great one.

P.S. Thanks Revanche for listing your typos earlier in the thread - I was able to sneak all but one of them in before the book went out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 02 July 2011, 18:46:49
P.S. Thanks Revanche for listing your typos earlier in the thread - I was able to sneak all but one of them in before the book went out.

That's awesome. Thanks for the shout-out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 02:02:57
Just to let everyone know that TechManual, Total Warfare, and Tactical Operations have all had their first posts extensively updated to incorporate all developer-level errata to date and in a nice, orderly fashion.  I've found a couple of contradictions, and will be attempting to get them resolved.

More importantly, the Tactical Operations thread has had a couple of new pieces added to it - a construction section for Chain Whips, and a new attachment featuring Mechanized SCUBA infantry and Infantry TAG systems.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 July 2011, 02:11:53
* Clan Weapons and Equipment BV Table [Addendum] (p. 385)
Change the BV for the Arrow IV from 168 to 268; Ammo BV remains unchanged.

This appears to have accidentally migrated from the TO list to the TM list and contradicts something already on the TO list.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 02:24:15
I just finished correcting some other contradictions - I'll check on this one too.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 July 2011, 02:31:05
The term Arrow IV just happened to leap out at me when I was idly poking through the TM errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 03:04:18
I've left the one that is listed on the website and that matches the current versions of SSW and MML.  The other I've sent off for verification, along with a trio of TechManual oddballs.  Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 July 2011, 13:53:04
Regarding this report (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,7572.msg173593.html#msg173593), they're talking about the experimental model in that context, not the 6S.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 14:15:45
Agreed, but even then it's still an error - the prototype was only twenty kilos faster than the original, not thirty.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 July 2011, 14:16:57
p. 30, Cavalry Infiltrator / Capabilities
Every Cavalry capable of transporting infantry had a 4 tons bay already. There is no variant with 3 trons.

Suggested ciorrection: drop expansion and state only an increasing demand for the Cavalry.

No, the Infantry Cavalry had errata posted (currently offline) that clarified it carried 3 tons of infantry.

At the same time a (BA) variant was introduced with 4 tons, but the main Infantry Cavalry indeed carries 3.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Demos on 03 July 2011, 14:46:46
No, the Infantry Cavalry had errata posted (currently offline) that clarified it carried 3 tons of infantry.

At the same time a (BA) variant was introduced with 4 tons, but the main Infantry Cavalry indeed carries 3.
Look, the MUL shows only one Infantry variant, the RS shows only one Infantry variant (and this has 4 tons).
I know that the Cavalry had previously only 3 or 3.5 tons, but after the armor was errata'd is had the 4 ton bay.

To base the description on a "unseen" variant is a bit - weird?  ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 14:52:57
There is a current XTR Davion errata thread open, but it has no posts.  That errata doesn't show in either of the old XTR Davion threads, meaning it must have been lost in the post-crash chaos.  jymset - would you mind making a fresh errata report for the current XTR Davion thread covering the Calvary Cadence Rain?

EDIT: oops, nevermind, you were talking about the TR3058U Cavalry.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 July 2011, 14:56:14
Look, the MUL shows only one Infantry variant, the RS shows only one Infantry variant (and this has 4 tons).
I know that the Cavalry had previously only 3 or 3.5 tons, but after the armor was errata'd is had the 4 ton bay.

To base the description on a "unseen" variant is a bit - weird?  ;)

Yes, I messed up that RS, plus a small handful of others in RS 3058U. Yes, that messed up sheet had an effect on the MUL.

I apologise to you - and Xotl - for not making it fully clear that I was talking about RS 3058U (though I did talk about the "Infantry" Cavalry).

Xotl, I'll make updating RS 3058U thread my first priority.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 July 2011, 15:23:01
Done deed (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5933.msg173715.html#msg173715), I hope that helps. Sorry about the inconvenience.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 04 July 2011, 01:47:50
[quote author=Snake Eyes link=topic=7572.msg174185#msg174185 date=1309761795 <A href='www.pickitisbn:1309761795'><img style='border: 0px none' src='https://www.citavi.com/softlink?linkid=findit' title='Titel anhand dieser ISBN in Citavi-Projekt übernehmen'/></A>]
PDF, pg. 71 "Garuda Heavy VTOL":
The stat bloc for the number of locations for the IS and Armor need to be fixed as this VTOL is considered a Superheavy Vee, per Tac Ops pg. 378, which means it is suppossed to have six hit-locations, not four as shown in the TRO
[/quote]

As per the newest block of TO errata (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5926.0.html), VTOLs are exempt from this:

Quote
* Super-Heavy Vehicles (p. 378)First column, last paragraph.  Change
"All Super-Heavy Combat Vehicles use the Super-Heavy Vehicle Hit Locations Table, and must apply armor and structure to 6 facings (plus any rotors or mounted turrets) rather than 4." to
"All Super-Heavy Combat Vehicles apart from VTOLs use the Super-Heavy Vehicle Hit Locations Table, and must apply armor and structure to 6 facings (plus any mounted turrets) rather than 4."

Please note that this would have always been the intentions of the rules, as witnessed by both the template in the book, as well as the way heavy support VTOLs are handled.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 July 2011, 23:34:29
As per the newest block of TO errata (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5926.0.html), VTOLs are exempt from this:

Please note that this would have always been the intentions of the rules, as witnessed by both the template in the book, as well as the way heavy support VTOLs are handled.
Thank you Jymset jymset for pointing that out
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 06 July 2011, 02:08:16
Since we're not supposed to be yakking at each other in the errata threads, I figured I'd express my thanks for the errata credit in here.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 06 July 2011, 13:39:59
In case my comment get deleted in the errata thread.......Thank You Herb for the errata acknowledgement
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Peter Smith on 06 July 2011, 19:16:35
I don't think http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,7572.msg176567.html#msg176567 is a legitimate errata. The sentence preceeding the line in question is talking about both weapon systems. The only way for the errata suggestion to be true is if the line spoke about each weapon system individually.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: roosterboy on 06 July 2011, 19:23:00
I think it does need a correction, but 00Dawg has the wrong correction listed.

IMO, it should be "These modern descendants of the original weapons deliver firepower with greater accuracy and ammo-efficiency."

That better indicates that it's talking about both weapon systems upgrades.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 08 July 2011, 05:25:30
This might have been a bit overzealous (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,7597.msg178030.html#msg178030), but I figured since RS: Phoenix Upgrades is no longer for sale or in the errata rotation, it would need to be done anyway.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 July 2011, 20:18:22
Ah.  It gets better.  If it has been changed, it's probably errata for the Hwacha.  I checked the errata after seeing the Hwacha behaved the way I'm describing in that report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 20 July 2011, 21:15:26
I'll go report the Hwacha, then, and scrub the Marsden I report.

EDIT: Or add it to the existing Hwacha report, anyway.  I'd forgotten I'd reported anything on there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 28 July 2011, 13:44:21
Source TRO for the Cossack C-1FC is listed as TRO 3060. While the base model the C-SK1 Cossack is described in TRO 3060 no variants are mentioned. The C-1FC is described in a milispecs article from BattleCorps.

Solution: Change Source TRO to BattleCorps.

The MilSpecs descriptions were provided for BattleCorps subscribers to make some fluff - fluff that isn't guaranteed to be accurate and is not subject to errata - for the new variants in RS3060 Unabridged.  Since every single variant in there is sourced to TRO3060, either they're all wrong or this is a deliberate decision to refer things to TRO3060.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 28 July 2011, 13:50:54
Possible errata: pp. 291 version 1.2 .pdf

The Large Laser is given an extinction date; If the medium laser doesn't have one, then it stands to reason nether does the large.

The medium and large laser extinction dates in my version are for the Clans, not the IS.  They're supposed to be there in the former case.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 July 2011, 14:13:37
The MilSpecs descriptions were provided for BattleCorps subscribers to make some fluff - fluff that isn't guaranteed to be accurate and is not subject to errata - for the new variants in RS3060 Unabridged.  Since every single variant in there is sourced to TRO3060, either they're all wrong or this is a deliberate decision to refer things to TRO3060.

I believe I just forgot to change those after the Milspecs articles were announced.  Ie. They're (RS 3060u new variants/written up in Milspecs) all wrong.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 28 July 2011, 16:33:04
Could we get an errata thread for Field Report: Periphery, please?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 July 2011, 16:53:28
I need one for TRO3050U.

EDIT: Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 31 July 2011, 23:26:41
And I could use one for XTRO: Clans if you would.  There's a problem on the new Elemental.

Never mind.  Misread something in TacOps - that part of the rules is easy to misread if you're not looking at it carefully.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 01 August 2011, 09:53:39
Xotl, can we please have threads opened for Handbook: Major Periphery States and Handbook: House Davion? Thanks.
 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 01 August 2011, 10:01:35
That was extremely quick. Thanks, Xotl.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 01 August 2011, 10:02:21
No problem - I'm camping the forums right now working on TacOps errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 August 2011, 15:32:17
I may need one for Wars of Reaving.  I found a mistake in one of the previews on Ben's blog.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 01 August 2011, 16:56:43
I'm not sure that would be the way to handle it.  I think it best if you were to directly leave a comment on the blog itself.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 August 2011, 17:00:48
I'm not sure that would be the way to handle it.  I think it best if you were to directly leave a comment on the blog itself.

Actually, I'm planning to verify it's there in the PDF and report it then.  It's a very minor error.

EDIT: That's on reflection, not my initial intent.  Call it being a bit loopy.

EDIT 2: Could I have one for Handbook: House Marik?

EDIT 3: Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 03 August 2011, 13:48:01
Can we get an Errata for XTRO-Clans, i think i found a mistake with the Rogue Bear BA
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 03 August 2011, 14:15:27
Already there: http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,8660.0.html
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 03 August 2011, 15:04:19
Already there: http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,8660.0.html
oops, thanks DarkISI
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 04 August 2011, 23:00:15
Oy vey... (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5929.msg203806.html#msg203806)

mikewoo is correct that TechManual's listing is 8 tons.  However, per every TRO I checked and the BMRr, TechManual is wrong - both the most recent version and the old pre-DTF FanPro version of the PDF have the error.  I'm reporting it.

EDIT: Done.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 05 August 2011, 00:10:16
Oy vey... (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5929.msg203806.html#msg203806)

mikewoo is correct that TechManual's listing is 8 tons.  However, per every TRO I checked and the BMRr, TechManual is wrong - both the most recent version and the old pre-DTF FanPro version of the PDF have the error.  I'm reporting it.

EDIT: Done.

Damn straight, you better not be questioning my unit-building skillz!

Actually, blame this one on me. I noticed the error almost a year ago and never reported it. :(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 August 2011, 01:01:28
Don't feel too bad, at least you saw it.  I've looked at that chart myself and never spotted it before mikewoo's report made me sit there and run the numbers in increasing disquiet until it occurred to me to look at the Dire Wolf Prime and then the BMRr.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 August 2011, 07:41:33
I think it's because it's one of those foundational weapons, twenty years old.  No one actually looks at the chart to see how to use one anymore.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 08 August 2011, 21:23:08
I didn't want to post this in the regular TechManual errata thread incase its not errata......But the TechMnual shows that the Clan Large Pulse Laser and Heavy Large Laser has (NA) under Protos, but the ER Large Pulse and Improved Heavy Large Laser is available to Protos.....
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 08 August 2011, 21:29:57
The relevant page numbers are 343 for TechManual and 407 for Tactical Operations.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 08 August 2011, 22:36:54
The relevant page numbers are 343 for TechManual and 407 for Tactical Operations.
Ah, oops......thanks Moonsword
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 08 August 2011, 22:44:49
You're welcome.  I just figured I'd save people some time looking things up.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 August 2011, 23:16:49
I didn't want to post this in the regular TechManual errata thread incase its not errata......But the TechMnual shows that the Clan Large Pulse Laser and Heavy Large Laser has (NA) under Protos, but the ER Large Pulse and Improved Heavy Large Laser is available to Protos.....

A question like this ("is this how the rules are supposed to work?") belongs in the rules question forums.  I only deal in confirmed (or presumed confirmed) errors.  Since the TechManual weapons are at issue, I'd ask this question in that forum.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 09 August 2011, 00:07:27
Ok, thanks Xotl for pointing that out.......i wasn't sure where to ask before
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 10 August 2011, 02:15:21
Moonsword, please remove "BA" from the following:




Page 57, Searchlights

Not a problem, per se, but some sort of reference to the searchlight construction rules on page 237 of TechManual may be appropriate so people know that BA, support vehicles, and aerospace units are equipped with hand-held searchlights by default.




BA searchlights are covered on p. 269 and are not available as a free option to the units.

(Yes, you'd completely derailed me there for a few days! Poor Xotl... :D )
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 10 August 2011, 08:55:22
Right.  It said all units on page 237, I took that at face value.  It didn't even occur to me to check the infantry section.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 10 August 2011, 09:31:39
I did exactly the same. And started stressing Xotl. And only upon third (or so) reading of it did it click. :-[

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 15 August 2011, 10:51:01
Page 228, last paragraph under "Basic Manipulator".

<snip>

This is because the Tech Manual, page 167, the table, specifies that 2 Basic Manipulators are required, and as its a later product, it overrules previous products.

No - TW has always been correct and TM has had errata implemented to the p. 167 table accordingly. Please refer to the table attached to the end of the TM errata post (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5932.0.html).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 15 August 2011, 15:40:50
TRO3085, Page 11, Angerona   
   Standard anti mech should be No/No/No/Yes, as 2 armored gloves is not listed for a MEDIUM battle armor requirement for those attacks (TM167)
   Recon anti-mech should note that it cannot make an AP attack.
TRO3085, Page 13, Kopis   
   The Anti-Infantry variant has the weight of the MPL rounded up to the nearest 5 (800.41 to 805), but the Flamer is 160kg and should be 155 (rounded up from 151 kg)

Angerona: The standard variant has 2x Basic Manipulators, so Y/Y/Y/Y is accurate. The Recon variant has Armored Gloves and thus gains the AP ability automatically.

Kopis: The MPL rounds up from 804.92 to 805 kg for the addition of 1 extra clip. The Flamer adds 2 extra clips at 0.5 x 10 = 5 kg each.

Thank you for your input, but please familiarise yourself with the construction rules before posting such errata.

And please also refer to the TM errata  (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5932.0.html) when reporting:

TRO 3085 Supplemental, Page 11, Ravager   
   The HRR is actually 375kg for the Inner Sphere, putting this design overweight.  Recommend downgrading the HRR to a MRR or simply dropping the rocket launchers.

No, the HRR is actually 325 kg.

I will address 3058U and 3075 in length - the latter's detailed public errata was lost in the recent errata admin change and will be reconstructed. You nailed the RL errata :) As for the clips - TM may be slightly confusing, but the weight listed is the weight of a single shot. That is then multiplied by the clip size (given in brackets).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Bad_Syntax on 15 August 2011, 17:09:43
Thank you for your input, but please familiarise yourself with the construction rules before posting such errata.

I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them.  The PROBLEM is that there are multiple sources for errata, some contradicting each other, and apparently no desire to keep the PDF's I paid for, ON TOP of the cost of the DTF, updated with the most recent data.

Heck, I had to errata your *official* errata links off the home page http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5936.msg214940.html#msg214940 (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5936.msg214940.html#msg214940), how insulting, I was trying to help as every single time I go through any book, I find tons of errors, and this just makes me not want to bother.

And please also refer to the TM errata  (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5932.0.html) when reporting:

And what about http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual)?  If its no longer valid take it down, and give a link to the *forum* errata page.  Its a huge PITA to try to parse all this crap, and its *impossible* to consisently build any kind of unit in the universe due to excessive issues (need I even mention that grenade launchers *still* aren't fixed from TM, and I've mentioned that 3 times before!).

I will address 3058U and 3075 in length - the latter's detailed public errata was lost in the recent errata admin change and will be reconstructed. You nailed the RL errata :) As for the clips - TM may be slightly confusing, but the weight listed is the weight of a single shot. That is then multiplied by the clip size (given in brackets).

Oh, you mean like how the battle armor table lists the number of shots per missile at (0), or the number of shots for one-shot rocket launchers at (1)?

It isn't like I'm not trying to get answers:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html)
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html)
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html)
plus all those ones before the board crashed :(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chunga on 15 August 2011, 18:26:19
Quote
I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them. 

A level of hyperbole NOT needed in these discussions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 August 2011, 21:40:34
I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them.

Over and above Chunga's very correct point that claiming to be the greatest construction rules guru the game has ever seen is not conducive to polite discussion, you can't expect jymset to remember the claimed construction aptitude of every poster here or have any idea just how much you use the rules in general.  You made mistakes and were corrected, rather politely I might add - please accept such corrections with good grace.

Quote
The PROBLEM is that there are multiple sources for errata, some contradicting each other,

Errata is admittedly not in the greatest shape right now.  However, I assure you that the devs and myself are working hard to get that in order.  I've spent the last month handling nothing but TechManual and TacOps errata, to the exclusion of any other MUL duties.  As we speak, Welshman is pouring over dozens of TacOps questions I've handed him, some of which were yours, and probably praying for my untimely demise.

Basic errata priority is that the most recent version of the collected errata is the basis to start off of.  From there, rulings made by the devs since then are added in - I am in the process of collecting all of these as I find them and adding them to each core book's errata thread.  Newer rulings always take priority.  As this might not have been clear, I am making edits to posts to clarify this.

Quote
and apparently no desire to keep the PDF's I paid for, ON TOP of the cost of the DTF, updated with the most recent data.

There's no malicious intent to withhold pdf updates.  The problem is that Catalyst is a smaller company, and incorporating errata requires the same people that produce new books.  Not surprisingly, new material takes priority.  Catalyst is working hard to get everything up to date, but it can't help but be a slow process.  Our apologies for the delay.

Quote
And what about http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual)?  If its no longer valid take it down, and give a link to the *forum* errata page.  Its a huge PITA to try to parse all this crap, and its *impossible* to consisently build any kind of unit in the universe due to excessive issues (need I even mention that grenade launchers *still* aren't fixed from TM, and I've mentioned that 3 times before!).

We're aware of the website errata being out of date in some cases, and are trying to find the time to resolve this.  The particular link to the CBT webpage you posted is the most recent collected TM errata - it is not obsolete.  However, there have been new rulings made since then.  These newer rulings only add to the collected errata; for the most part they do not replace it.

As for your issue with grenade launchers, I have nothing on them at the moment - it is possible your request was lost in the shuffle between forums and/or errata coordinators.  By all means, please post your problem in the TechManual thread and I'll be happy to add it to either the internal errata collection or the list of questions to be forwarded to the devs for resolution.

Quote
Oh, you mean like how the battle armor table lists the number of shots per missile at (0), or the number of shots for one-shot rocket launchers at (1)?

It isn't like I'm not trying to get answers:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html)
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html)
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html)
plus all those ones before the board crashed :(

You'll note you've already had literally dozens of questions answered.  I've gone all the way back to the release of TechManual in my search for unanswered questions to add to the current internal errata: I hope to be able to resolve some of your others.  ANY question that can be treated as outright errata (e.g. contradictions, missing info, but not issues with unclear wordings, which belong in the rules forums) you can post in the current threads and I will ensure they are passed along.  Don't worry about possible repeats - if it's not in the archived errata threads or already posted as dev-level errata, make a concise report with page refs to the current thread.

We're committed to making the books as good as we can, but 300+ pages of construction rules is not easy to get right the first time around.  Your dedication to the game is appreciated, and hopefully you'll use it to ensure that the next TechManual release meets your approval.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 21 August 2011, 07:50:54
PDF Copyright 2008, page 127

Problem:
Rock Golem
The Rock Golem's DWP-mounted Heavy Recoilless Rifles are listed at 245 kg.
75% of 375 kg, rounded up to the nearest 5 tons, should be 285 kgs. This makes the Rock Golem 80 kgs overweight.

Suggestion:
Under "Rock Golem", change both Heavy Recoilless Rifle (Detachable Weapon Pack) weight to 245 kg.
I think the easiest way to find the missing 80 kgs is to change the armor from Fire Resistant to Standard.

No, HRR weigh 325 kgs, please check the TM errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 21 August 2011, 10:06:35
Initial PDF release
Improved ATM, p.201-202

The iATM systems indicate their Type as M,C,S in the stat box on p.202. However, the text on p.201 indicates they are treated as Streak launchers - either all missiles hit or the weapon doesn't fire, no roll on the Cluster table needed.

Since iATMs aren't rolling on the Cluster table, they shouldn't be marked as Cluster weapons.

Suggested Fix: change Type to M,S in the stat box on p.202

The Type is correct.  Streak launchers are Cluster weapons and are marked as such in both Total Warfare and Tactical Operations with a note to see their game rules as they're an exception to the normal rule that Cluster weapons have to use the chart; this convention is followed in Wars of Reaving.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 22 August 2011, 03:24:16
RS 3085 Unabridged: The Cutting Edge

Aeron Strike VTOL

*problem: The numbers simply do not add up. The weight is wrong by 5.5 tons.

*solution: Change fusion engine to XL, change armor to ferro-fibrous, reduce rear armor to 11 and the numbers then do add up. BV becomes 858

The Aeron is correct in its basic stats, only the Engine is wrong:
Aeron Strike VTOL should have XL Engine and armor is Heavy Ferro (as per TRO entry). Nothing to change, except the engine type.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Diamondfist on 27 August 2011, 00:44:01
In regards to the errata from the closed threads, will there be errata posted for the new A Time of War book too? I made a minor submission for it and was hoping errata was in the works for this book too. Thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 August 2011, 01:34:42
All errata posted to the older threads in this version of the forum has been preserved (well, except the second page of the old RS 3085 thread, which I lost - if you made any post in that thread that hasn't been reposted, make it again please).

If errata is coming soon for a book (soon being relative and no more specific than that), you'll all know of it very shortly after I do: I'll make a stickied post in this forum asking folks to give it an extra-thorough going-over in the lead-up to the errata revision (as I'm doing now with TacOps).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 27 August 2011, 07:37:37
Which reminds me, I need to finish reviewing the index for errors.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 03 September 2011, 13:54:12
PDF Copyright 2008, page 127

Problem:
Rock Golem
The Rock Golem's DWP-mounted Heavy Recoilless Rifles are listed at 245 kg.
75% of 375 kg, rounded up to the nearest 5 tons, should be 285 kgs. This makes the Rock Golem 80 kgs overweight.

Suggestion:
Under "Rock Golem", change both Heavy Recoilless Rifle (Detachable Weapon Pack) weight to 245 kg.
I think the easiest way to find the missing 80 kgs is to change the armor from Fire Resistant to Standard.


No errata:

As per the other threads, the current TM errata clarifies that the HRR does in fact have a weight of 325 kg.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 September 2011, 15:19:16
No, HRR weigh 325 kgs, please check the TM errata thread.

No errata:

:D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 03 September 2011, 15:55:27
:D

I didn't mean you. I meant Adgar and quoted you for explanation. Granted, I could have made it a bit less confusing :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 September 2011, 17:26:14
I was referring to the fact that I'd addressed the same mis-report a few posts above you :P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 September 2011, 19:46:06
Problem
Firebee is 4 tons underweight at 4/6 movement profile.

Fix
Change fluff and record sheet to reflect the 5/8 movement profile.

There's nothing in TRO3075 about the speed.  It's correct as written.  This is purely a record sheet problem and needs to be reported here (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5938.0.html), along with page number (228) and PDF version.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 September 2011, 00:58:39
Am I overlooking a thread for Masters & Minions?

I've compiled an index that lists all errata threads curently open, and provides links to them.  You can find it here:

http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290

No M&M link at the moment, but I'll open one up in the next day or so (out of town at the moment).  Please repost that there at that time.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 September 2011, 01:13:00
Also, I know general policy has been to only allow actual errata posts in threads, no exceptions,  but that was Bosch's policy that I've maintained.  Upon further reflection though, I'd like to handle things a bit differently.

Any MUL team member, writer, or of course developer is now asked to post corrections and commentary to errata posts directly in the appropriate threads, rather than in here.

It's easier for me to keep track of these things this way.  If it's a correction pointing out a wrong report, it will often be deleted in a few days along with the report.  Otherwise I'll leave it there.

Other forum posters should keep their comments in this thread, as normal.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 04 September 2011, 03:45:26
I was referring to the fact that I'd addressed the same mis-report a few posts above you :P

Too much confusion... my poor vacation riddled brain  #P




 ;D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 04 September 2011, 09:13:33
Also, I know general policy has been to only allow actual errata posts in threads, no exceptions,  but that was Bosch's policy that I've maintained.  Upon further reflection though, I'd like to handle things a bit differently.

Any MUL team member, writer, or of course developer is now asked to post corrections and commentary to errata posts directly in the appropriate threads, rather than in here.

It's easier for me to keep track of these things this way.  If it's a correction pointing out a wrong report, it will often be deleted in a few days along with the report.  Otherwise I'll leave it there.

Other forum posters should keep their comments in this thread, as normal.  Thanks.

I think I actually had that in place right before the forum crash. It's a good idea.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 17 September 2011, 09:34:51
Requesting a thread for Objectives: Draconis Combine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 17 September 2011, 21:06:42
Not totally sure if this is errata or not.....but the Hauberk Commando in TRO Prototypes (print) still shows the
Magshot (DWP) as 135 kg. with only 10 shots. but the Magshot comes with 20 shots for 175 kg. then add the DWP to reduce the weight, so it should have 20 shots for 135 kg.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 18 September 2011, 16:45:16
Not totally sure if this is errata or not.....but the Hauberk Commando in TRO Prototypes (print) still shows the
Magshot (DWP) as 135 kg. with only 10 shots. but the Magshot comes with 20 shots for 175 kg. then add the DWP to reduce the weight, so it should have 20 shots for 135 kg.

Per TM, p. 346, a Magshot comes with 10 shot clips, not 20 shot clips.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 18 September 2011, 17:04:32
Quote
Per TM, p. 346, a Magshot comes with 10 shot clips, not 20 shot clips.
Ok, thanks jymset
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: obe34 on 19 September 2011, 07:24:55
Im a little stuck on this one, i really like the variant and i hope someone sees how to make it work or sees the mistake i made.

From TRO Protypes:
* pg 96
    * "A number of units fielding multiple Dolas have instituted a field refit know as the DOL - 1A2. with the 1A1 already providing sensor jamming, the 1A2 swaps the standard sword and Angel ECM for TAG and a light vibroblade. These Yoh Ti Ts'angs, as they have been nick-named, have proven extremely popular amongst the Warrior Houses." The Angel ECM + Sword is 3.5 tons. The TAG + light vibroblade = 4 tons. This refit seems to be illegal. Also this assumes light vibroblade is a small vibroblade. If there is a new level of vibroblade that is only 2.5 tons that would do it.
    * I am not sure what to suggest here. A clan Light tag is .5 tons so it would work, or the battle armor's light tag, or the tag can be dropped and switched to more armor or an ERsmall or some other thing i dont see
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 19 September 2011, 07:29:19
Im a little stuck on this one, i really like the variant and i hope someone sees how to make it work or sees the mistake i made.

From TRO Protypes:
* pg 96
    * "A number of units fielding multiple Dolas have instituted a field refit know as the DOL - 1A2. with the 1A1 already providing sensor jamming, the 1A2 swaps the standard sword and Angel ECM for TAG and a light vibroblade. These Yoh Ti Ts'angs, as they have been nick-named, have proven extremely popular amongst the Warrior Houses." The Angel ECM + Sword is 3.5 tons. The TAG + light vibroblade = 4 tons. This refit seems to be illegal. Also this assumes light vibroblade is a small vibroblade. If there is a new level of vibroblade that is only 2.5 tons that would do it.
    * I am not sure what to suggest here. A clan Light tag is .5 tons so it would work, or the battle armor's light tag, or the tag can be dropped and switched to more armor or an ERsmall or some other thing i dont see

There is no mistake. The variant descriptions don't always describe every single change between the TRO version and the variant. Here, some change was left out, because it was deemed unimportant. You will have to wait for the Record Sheet to see what piece of information is missing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: obe34 on 19 September 2011, 23:28:16
well that is good and bad, I get to use the thing eventually, but i cant yet :P


Thanks
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 21 September 2011, 12:34:08
I apologize if this has been requested already, but could an Errata thread for Record Sheets: 3060 Unabridged be opened?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 September 2011, 14:49:03
There's already a thread open for that product.  Ctrl-f the first page of the errata forum for "3060" and you'll see it.

Alternatively, check the errata index, stickied at the top of the forum, for links to all open errata threads.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 21 September 2011, 15:14:23
Weird, I just searched for it and couldn't find it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 21 September 2011, 16:01:51
I bring the blessed link (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,4021.0.html).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 25 September 2011, 06:03:47
The Supercharger rules in TacOps (p. 345) could stand cleanup as far as vehicles are concerned. If I read this thread (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2088.msg45270.html#msg45270) right, the instruction to "roll on the unit's appropriate Determining Critical Hits Table" is downright wrong, since the actual intent seems to be that vehicles should use the stock Determining Critical Hits Table for 'Mechs on Total Warfare p. 124 (which they would normally skip altogether in favor of simply applying a single potential hit) in this particular case.

Exactly how any resulting hits should be applied to the Motive System Damage Table could also be made more clear, especially since -- at least as I understand it -- despite there being only one box for each on the record sheet templates there's currently nothing preventing the exact same motive system hit from happening more than once (i.e., a second "Moderate Damage" hit following an earlier one simply applies another -1 MP as per current errata; it does not get promoted to "Heavy Damage" just because the "+2" box on the sheet is already full).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Klat on 19 October 2011, 18:21:33
Before I post this I wanted to check that I'm not repeating what has already been said. A search yielded nothing but I don't like posting errata without checking here first:

RS: 3075u pg. 234 Koschei KSC-5I it appears that the design has 5 points of armor unallocated. While I do not know what the armor allocation should be allocating the remaining 5 points brings the BV to 1961
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 November 2011, 10:13:27
I need one for RS3039 Upgrade.  I spotted a minor issue in the new version.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Peter Smith on 19 November 2011, 10:29:39
I need one for RS3039 Upgrade.  I spotted a minor issue in the new version.

If it involves a Planetlifter, Light Strike Fighter Suzume "Sparrow" or the Corsair Regulus...we know.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 19 November 2011, 13:59:53
Do you know about the Chippewa?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 November 2011, 16:50:01
If it involves a Planetlifter, Light Strike Fighter Suzume "Sparrow" or the Corsair Regulus...we know.

I haven't even looked at the fighters yet, actually.  Everything I've found is on vehicles.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CitizenErased on 19 November 2011, 20:18:38
I also have one or two for the new RS:3039, and not just for vehicles.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trace Coburn on 22 November 2011, 05:28:50
I also have one or two for the new RS:3039, and not just for vehicles.
  Neufeld just put his finger on something in the RS'55Uu preview that's been bugging me since I downloaded it: the Sabutai X has Art-V, but its LRM-20s are showing up at 12 damage each, not 16.  Might pay to start a thread for that product....  :-X
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dark_Falcon on 24 November 2011, 12:08:51
  Neufeld just put his finger on something in the RS'55Uu preview that's been bugging me since I downloaded it: the Sabutai X has Art-V, but its LRM-20s are showing up at 12 damage each, not 16.  Might pay to start a thread for that product....  :-X

Agreed.  I checked TacOps and that damage figure should indeed be 16.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ladob on 24 November 2011, 17:07:47
I started comparing my old PDF of RS3055 Unabridged and the new updated one. Among the new units (  O0 ) I found a little mistake:

The Salamander 7T is written as 7S on the new file (page. 113).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 24 November 2011, 17:35:19
The mistake was in the old RS volume. This was deliberate errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 24 November 2011, 17:38:20
Oh, and the Artemis problem is noted, thanks very much, guys! Due to it being a problem with sheet generation rather than creation, the issue will automatically resolve itself come next time, so there is no further need to note it once a RS55Uu thread is opened.

Thanks again!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 22 December 2011, 04:42:56
Actually they are in there jymset, pg. 280 TM has a "SUPPORT VEHICLE STRUCTURAL COSTS AND AVAILABILITY" table but there is no IS rating

cropped version of what I'd written, emphasis added:

The chassis availability ratings found in Combat Equipment, p. 88, were forgotten, yet they are needed for the Availability calculation (starting TM, p. 286).

The Availability part of CE p. 88, 4th column is needed as an addition in TechManual, p. 280 - Support Vehicle Structural Costs and Availability in order to be able to calculate the proper unit availability.

The report pertains to what is missing on p. 280, not missing availability ratings as a whole. Please use this thread for discussion. Thank you very much!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Davion_Boy_74 on 24 December 2011, 12:07:30
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask this question - before it's put into the errata thread -

Jihad Turning Point Tharkad pdf FNR-4A Fafnir Peter has a hand Actuator on the left arm, but no lower arn actuator to go with it, does any one know what the correct thing is ?, either add the missing lower arm actuator (though this would be hard to do no free crit spaces on the design) or dorop the hand from the RS.

Thanks.

Dave.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Nebfer on 28 December 2011, 14:30:38
It seems that Hex pack Promotion 1 has some errors in its crewing

for example
According to the PDF a Hardened Command Fort (clan invasion) has the following equipment and crew
Crew: 14 Officers, 8 crew, 12 gunners and 58 bay personnel.

Weapons & Equipment
Hex 1
3x search lights, 12x crew quarters, MASH with 2x theaters 4x light vehicle bays & 20 tons of cargo
Weapons: turret mounted, Arrow IV, non turret mounted: 6x MGs, 3x ERPPCs, 3x Medium pulse lasers & 12 tons of ammo for the Arrow IV

Hex 2
3x search lights, 12x crew quarters, 2x field kitchen, 7 tons coms gear, 6x infantry bays, mobile field base, power generator, 50 tons of cargo.
Weapons: Turret mounted, Gauss Rifle, ER Large laser, non turret mounted: 6x MGs, 3x ER large lasers, 3x medium pulse lasers & 5t ammo for the Gauss rifle

Now from from what I can see on Tac ops pg 132
The non gunnery crews should be 28 (7t coms gear, 2x kitchen, field base and 2x MASH theaters)
The Gunnery crews is one gunner per 5 tons of heavy weapon rounding up (per weapon), so Hex 1 should have 18 gunners, Hex 2 should have 16 gunners
Officers is 1/10th of the total number of gunners and non gunners rounding up

So the total crew should be 28 Non gunners, 34 gunners & 7 officers (69 total).
Bay personnel it seems not to be factored as part of the crew, but 4x light vehicle and 6x infantry bays would add an extra 188 personnel. Though I would suppose that some of the infantry bays could be quarters for the facility's crew (never mind the fact that the "base" might not be housing any infantry or vehicles from time to time)...

Another example is the Fire base (age of war)
It should have 11 gunners for it's weapons
3x for the AC-10 (12t/5 round up = 3), 2x for the large lasers (5t/5 =1), and 6x for the MGs (.5t/5 round up =1), the non gunnery crew should be 6, 3x for the coms gear and 3x for the field kitchen, their should also be 2 officers (17 gunners and crew / 10, round up = 2 officers).
This is compared to the 2 officers, 4 gunners, 4 crew and 6 bay personnel it's listed as having.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 January 2012, 11:03:12
The Supercharger rules in TacOps (p. 345) could stand cleanup as far as vehicles are concerned.

Just to let you know, the current, provisional wording on errata for this issue is:

"1)   Under Game Rules, second bullet point, change the last sentence to read: “For non-’Mechs, these critical hits are applied as sequential motive system or flight stabilizer hits and then (after these are all marked off) transfer inward to the engine itself, destroying the engine immediately on the first hit.”

Does that address all the issues?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 06 January 2012, 21:50:02
What is the current, official way to calculate MASC weight? Round to the nearest ton, or round UP to the nearest ton?

Depending on the answer, the Hellfire 2 may or may not be overweight.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 06 January 2012, 23:02:42
According to the current errata (http://bg.battletech.com/errata_files/CAT35002_TechManual_Errata_2.1.pdf):

Quote from: Errata
"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure to the nearest full ton/critical slot (.5 rounds up)."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 06 January 2012, 23:14:03
What is the current, official way to calculate MASC weight? Round to the nearest ton, or round UP to the nearest ton?

Depending on the answer, the Hellfire 2 may or may not be overweight.

According to the current errata (http://bg.battletech.com/errata_files/CAT35002_TechManual_Errata_2.1.pdf): "*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure to the nearest full ton/critical slot (.5 rounds up)."

Yes but the errata says


"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure to the nearest full ton/critical slot."
Change to:
"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure to the nearest full ton/critical slot (.5
rounds up)."


while my TM says

Percentage of the BattleMech’s total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the
nearest full ton/critical slot.


which doesn't match either the replaced or replacement sentence.....
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 06 January 2012, 23:23:13
Which printing do you have? The errata is based on 2.0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 06 January 2012, 23:55:59
Which printing do you have? The errata is based on 2.0
Ah, ok. looking closer, I think I'm living in the past.  Mine is pretty old and beat up (2nd hand from the guy at my gaming store) and has WK not Catalyst on it.

So I guess the Hellfire 2 is just fine...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 08 January 2012, 18:33:57
Or perhaps not: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,14775.0.html

What's correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 January 2012, 19:28:36
Sorry Chuzzwozza - I've been busy.

Both the first and second prints of TM say "*Percentage of the BattleMech’s total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the nearest full ton/critical slot."  So, when I said in the other thread that you'd found errata for the errata, what I meant was that the word "up" had been left out - it appears the errata is itself in error in that regard.

I'm sure it should read:

* BattleMech MASC and TSM Table (p. 52)
Under “BattleMech MASC and TSM Table”, footnote text

"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the nearest full ton/critical slot."
Change to:
"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the nearest full ton/critical slot (.5 rounds up)."

The only correction being the clarification that 0.5 tons rounds up.  That having been said, I haven't checked this against official designs with MASC yet, so let's see what happens when we match the errata against what's in the wild.


EDIT: I'm mistaken - issue resolved below.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 08 January 2012, 19:39:53
Thanks Xotl.

I'm pretty sure that's going to make some MUL designs overweight (e.g. the Hellfire 2).

Just a thought: if the errata should have had "up" on both sentences, then there would have been no reason for the errata clarification to be published at all  (no need to clarify which way 0.5 should be rounded, because *everything* rounds up...)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 January 2012, 19:53:02
Yeah, I just realized the same thing and came back to correct that.

Based on the wording, it may have been intended to read:

"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the nearest full ton/critical slot."
Change to:
"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure normally to the nearest full ton/critical slot."

Where "normally" is as defined on p. 22 of TM (and would mean that 0.5 rounds up).  I'll check some designs to see how things are done.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 08 January 2012, 20:33:35
Yes, that would make sense...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 08 January 2012, 23:00:36
Have got a corrected answer here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,14775.msg342336.html#msg342336 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,14775.msg342336.html#msg342336)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 January 2012, 00:30:47
Perfect - confirms my suspicions.  Internal TM errata updated accordingly.

Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 09 January 2012, 11:49:46
Just to let you know, the current, provisional wording on errata for this issue is:

"1)   Under Game Rules, second bullet point, change the last sentence to read: “For non-’Mechs, these critical hits are applied as sequential motive system or flight stabilizer hits and then (after these are all marked off) transfer inward to the engine itself, destroying the engine immediately on the first hit.”

Does that address all the issues?

Hmmm...I'm afraid I don't think so. First of all, if you just change that last sentence, the first sentence still instructs you to roll "on the unit's appropriate Determining Critical Hits Table" -- vehicles, which normally only take at most one critical hit per opportunity, would still need to be explicitly pointed back to the "standard" table on TW p. 124 if a supercharger malfunction is to generate the chance for up to three "critical" hits.

And second, it's not wholly clear how these "sequential" hits are supposed to interact with previous motive system damage. As I understand it -- and correct me if I'm wrong, though the current wording of rules plus errata would seem to support my view --, any given motive system hit can normally readily happen multiple times; despite the presence of boxes on the record sheet suggesting otherwise they are not actually "marked off" as they occur. Thus, for example, a second 'minor' hit doesn't scroll up to 'moderate' just because a first one happened earlier...

...which of course means that the worst a supercharger failure can technically inflict on a ground or naval vehicle is one minor, one moderate, and one heavy motive system hit. This may reduce its MP to 0, but won't suffice to technically immobilize it, let alone kill its engine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 January 2012, 00:09:10
I'll do some research and talk to some people and hopefully their people will call my people.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 13 January 2012, 10:56:28
Hey Xotl, may we please have a thread for RS: 3075 - Print edition? Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 13 January 2012, 17:28:30
In the FM: 3085 thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,14979.msg346365.html#msg346365):

Quote from: Maingunnary
P. 208, Mercenary Mech RAT

There are a highly large amount of 3039 Mech variants in this RAT, they go so far as roll 27 of 44.  This RAT is periphery grade and many of these variants are less available then more modern variants. Please update the Mechs with 3039 variant from roll 14 and up.

'I don't like it' isn't errata, those 'Mechs were chosen for those locations, they are not in error.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 January 2012, 17:35:40
Thanks Kit, although per the rules you as a writer can reply directly in the thread without setting a bad example. :)

I've invited him to continue the discussion here if he wishes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MarauderD on 14 January 2012, 00:11:25
Re: FM: 3085

Pg. 197, Federated Suns RAT

This isn't an "I don't like it" post but more of an "I wonder why the author did that" post.  :)

On the Heavy column, there was no inclusion of the WHM-8D Warhammer. Objectives: FS states that in 3079 it has been in steady construction at Crofton, and I think we can assume still is. It seems that the other 4 successor states have numerous Project Phoenix mechs in their RATs, and was curious if the author purposefully left it out or it was just overlooked perhaps?

I know the RATs are just suggestions, and I'm free to include all the PP mechs in my FedSuns forces as I see fit, but was just curious about the WHM.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 14 January 2012, 00:55:58
RATs aren't reflective of what are units are being built by a faction.  They're just for random force generation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 January 2012, 02:00:56
RATs can never include everything.  In general, the goal was to capture a wide range of weights, battle values, and book sources.  I don't recall any deliberate decision to exclude the -8D but, looking at the FedSuns list, I don't really see anything I'd cut to fit it in.  The -8D is as you say a perfect valid entry, but then again so are the others (and the Davion heavy column does have three unseen units in it already).

If I missed the fact that one of the units on there is actually pretty rare by 3085, then the -8D would be the likely candidate to replace it, assuming the weight/BV ranges were reasonably close (the -8D is not an A-level unit, for instance, so I'd never fit it there).  But RATs are ultimately just guidelines, and you can certainly feel free to replace a heavy mech with the -8D with solid canonical backing.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MarauderD on 14 January 2012, 10:59:25
Thanks Xotl!  Very kind response.

Now you've raised my curiousity as to what are considered "A"level mechs on the RATS.  Since front line units add 8 to their rolls, I assume it would be anything 10+ on the tables for the House RATs?

Cheers,

Mad
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 January 2012, 11:23:57
Thanks Xotl!  Very kind response.

Now you've raised my curiousity as to what are considered "A"level mechs on the RATS.  Since front line units add 8 to their rolls, I assume it would be anything 10+ on the tables for the House RATs?

That's correct.  I didn't make all the RATs, so the other authors had their own methods of handling things.  For myself, I tried to pick heavier mechs with higher BVs for the A-level stuff, with the caveat that I haven't gamed with every last one of them.  That meant that occasionally a dog slipped in their and fellow fact checkers politely pointed out that anyone rolling up that unit for an A-level would want to lynch me.

That having been said, fluff came first, so if there was a statement saying that X mech was assigned to elite units, then they were stuffed in the A levels, no matter how good it was.  Also, "12" slots are not necessarily the best mechs, but rare and unusual ones, such as the #12 Drac assault, which is an Atlas with double C3 masters.

If there are any further questions I'd ask that you please take it to PM, as I'd rather leave this thread for the errata-type discussion it was intended for.  I shouldn't set a bad example. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 14 January 2012, 21:53:02
Re: VTOLs (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,15022.msg347228.html#msg347228)...

VTOLs are an exception to that.  See the TacOps Errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 15 January 2012, 04:07:23
Where do we report FM3085:RAT vs MUL conflicts? In the FM3085 or the MUL thread?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 15 January 2012, 08:45:42
Where do we report FM3085:RAT vs MUL conflicts? In the FM3085 or the MUL thread?

MUL, because it's not errata.  But the MUL takes suggestions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 February 2012, 00:38:59
But you didn't actually check?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 08 February 2012, 00:01:11
Despite it obviously being perfect, we should have a thread for Objectives: Lyran Alliance so I can correct folks on their misconceptions.  ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 February 2012, 11:17:27
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,15022.msg366221.html#msg366221
As noted in the MUL thread, the Jihad era is being extended through 3085.  So RS: Prototypes that intro before 3086 are correct in being labeled Jihad era. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trebuchet3025 on 10 February 2012, 16:08:06
Can anyone direct me to errata for the Wolf and Blake starterbook? All Google gives me are broken links. -- Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 February 2012, 16:20:12
I'm afraid there is no Wolf & Blake errata currently - it was all lost when the forum archive was removed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trebuchet3025 on 10 February 2012, 17:54:00
That is as I suspected, but at least I know not to keep looking. I will start my own list and report back.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 06 March 2012, 18:12:44
Not sure if this is an error or not, but is the Neptune not in RS3039u?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Peter Smith on 07 March 2012, 10:18:04
No template for it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 March 2012, 23:57:08
New HB: House Steiner thread opened (along with a few other missing threads).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 30 March 2012, 03:12:29
Page 19
Annihilator 2AX armor does not match description on page 6

Possible Solution
Correct whichever armour value is incorrect.

Record sheet armor on page 19 makes the design two ton underweight, page 6 armor makes the design exactly 100t.


Xotl: noted, thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 01 April 2012, 07:11:42
Can we get a thread for Turning Point St. Ives?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 13 April 2012, 13:48:50
Xotl, I had to restrain myself to post here rather than clutter up the new thread: congratulations to you on the Herculean task involved with the errata. Well done, well done indeed, kind sir!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 13 April 2012, 14:35:11
Yeah.  I can't imagine how much of a pain it must have been wading through all those reports.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 April 2012, 14:45:54
From start to finish it took about a year :D (albeit with pauses as other projects took priority).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 13 April 2012, 17:17:33
Some clarification on the point of whether or not 'Mech mortars are covered by the same note on not getting the immobile bonus when targeting hexes might be useful.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 14 April 2012, 04:14:29
So 7.5 kg per shot for BA Tube? This is the one that matters the most as it's tracked at TW level

Yes, 7.5 kg per shot.
Edit: the notation 15 kg (2) indicates that 2 ammo actually only take up one "shot" as per TM, p. 171.

Just a reminder. Please use this thread for congratulations, discussion, queries, etc. That way the TO thread can be for concrete errata reports only. Thanks! O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Davion_Boy_74 on 14 April 2012, 04:39:24
Has the weight of the BA Arty been released yet ?, or have I totally missed that in the errata pdf ?.
Thanks.

Dave.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 14 April 2012, 04:40:46
p. 51 of the errata document
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Davion_Boy_74 on 14 April 2012, 04:42:06
p. 51 of the errata document

Thanks.

Dave,
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 22 April 2012, 03:41:52
Can we get an errata thread for the Wars of Reaving Supplemental?  Or is that considered to be part of Wars of Reaving?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 April 2012, 22:46:32
No, it gets its own thread - I was just out of town.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 April 2012, 02:19:06
Okay, I just wasn't sure if I should post the things I've found under the standard WoR errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sabelkatten on 24 April 2012, 15:47:52
Yes, 7.5 kg per shot.
Edit: the notation 15 kg (2) indicates that 2 ammo actually only take up one "shot" as per TM, p. 171.
Just want to be sure...

A Tube Arty gun with 16 rounds is 620 kg (500 + 7.5 * 16) and 6 slots (4 + 16 / 8)?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 24 April 2012, 15:53:15
bingo >:(

<kicks jymset in the crotch>

Sorry, as all BA ammo, the weight is multiplied by clip size. Thus each shot actually weighs 15 kg and the clip of 2 comes to 30.

Since the errata's posting, I've been saying that incorrectly, despite having drafted the durned weapon myself. >:(

I apologise for the inconvenience.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sabelkatten on 25 April 2012, 14:01:55
bingo >:(

<kicks jymset in the crotch>

Sorry, as all BA ammo, the weight is multiplied by clip size. Thus each shot actually weighs 15 kg and the clip of 2 comes to 30.

Since the errata's posting, I've been saying that incorrectly, despite having drafted the durned weapon myself. >:(

I apologise for the inconvenience.
OK, so a gun plus 16 rounds is 740 kg.

Is it 6, 8 or 12 slots total? ???
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 25 April 2012, 14:07:35
The ammo is correct, it's 2 slots, for a weapons+ammo total of 6.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: sillybrit on 25 April 2012, 14:14:53
OK, so a gun plus 16 rounds is 740 kg.

Is it 6, 8 or 12 slots total? ???

The ammo is correct, it's 2 slots, for a weapons+ammo total of 6.

To explain for others, treat each 2-round clip as a missile salvo.

16 rounds requires 8 clips, which can be compared to 8 missile salvos, which would require 2 slots.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: tomaddamz on 25 April 2012, 16:23:05
Xotl,

You, myself, Moonsword, Randall & Joel had discussed eliminating the -4 immobile target bonus for area-effect mortar rounds, and it was my understanding it was agreed upon, but it doesn't seem to appear in this errata.  Could you see to it that it is added?  I can forward all the relevent emails to you again if necessary.

Aww,  now I'm bummed.  I have to admit though, before this last erratamech mortars were hideously effective.  Somehow I think it's my fault for figuring this out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 25 April 2012, 16:29:17
Please put any non-errata reports for publications in here.

The -4 modifier simply isn't supposed to apply to AE in general.  This is part and parcel of clarifying that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 25 April 2012, 17:15:30
I just noticed that the ammo weight for the BA heavy flamer is 1kg(10), but the ammo weight for the regular flamer is
5kg(10)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 25 April 2012, 18:16:21
Heh, almost. The weight for the regular Flamer is 0.5 (10) O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 25 April 2012, 18:18:32
Heh, almost. The weight for the regular Flamer is 0.5 (10) O0
Ok, thanks for pointing that out :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: tomaddamz on 25 April 2012, 18:21:37
Please put any non-errata reports for publications in here.

The -4 modifier simply isn't supposed to apply to AE in general.  This is part and parcel of clarifying that.
as I read the errata, as well as the previous rules as written, APERS was not, and is still not an area effect weapon( thankfully, as I can still fire them " danger close").   Not that I disagree with the errata, mech mortars were mean with the -4 to hit.  I do like the new bonus against conventional infantry :)

Please correct me if I am mistaken, I am reading this on my phone at work.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 25 April 2012, 18:53:12
Both airburst and anti-personnel say "are fired at a hex, rather than at a target unit" which is why they were errataed the way they were.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Urban Kufahl on 26 April 2012, 08:41:40
@Wantec : source of your Coyote RAT ?
No Hellbringer and the RAT give less chance of omni than the other  :-\
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Savage Coyote on 26 April 2012, 11:45:00
Those were the Coyote RAT's presented in the playtest/fact check that wantech and myself saw before publication...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Urban Kufahl on 26 April 2012, 15:12:57
So it does not match with other statement about the Hellibringer still in use into the Coyote forces (Discarded tools of war p 17). And also it does not match with the statement about the Coyote still fielding the greatest % of Omni (Tactic of War, Clan Coyote p 15).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Savage Coyote on 26 April 2012, 15:21:42
Yes, I reported the Hellbringer missing in the playtest/fact check... whether it was fixed or not I do not know!  The Savage Coyote in the medium table managed to sneak through as well so the Hellbringer issue might have too.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FedComGirl on 28 April 2012, 05:50:35
Errata for Errata?

Page 33) Combat Vehicle Fuel Cell:

New text is "Introduced: circa 2470 (Terran Alliance [Primitive]); 2470 (Terran Hegemony [Modern])"

I assume, based on the old text, that the primitive date should be 2046.

I think the 2046 date would apply to non "Rated" engine such as those used by support vehicles. I think 2300 would fit the Primitive date better since that's when Indutrial Mechs were first introduced.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 28 April 2012, 10:18:56
As a reminder, folks, discussions regarding errata belong in the General Discussion thread.  Please do not place them in the errata threads themselves with the exception of the MUL thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 02 May 2012, 16:41:39
After rereading TRO:3067 I have an odd question about the Osiris 4D.
According to the TRO (both the old one and the reprint) the 4D uses 2 medium pulse lasers "The
SRM 6 and the machine gun are removed,
freeing up mass to increase the ’Mech’s jumping
capacity and to add two medium pulse lasers."
However, the old hardcover RS:3067, Heavymetal pro and SSW use another version with 1 pulse laser and max jump.
According to the MUL the BV of the Osiris 4D is 1230 which supports the one laser version.
Which version is correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 May 2012, 05:32:01
Just so you know, that point was raised internally to the MUL team.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 05 May 2012, 05:44:57
Thank you for your reply Moonsword.
The Osiris 4D is IMHO the best Davion light mech by far, and I really hope the 4D will remain with 1 pulse laser and 8 jump
instead of going the usual Davion overgunned/undersinked route.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 May 2012, 05:52:46
*shrugs*  We'll see what the decision is but it might take a little time.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: LastChanceCav on 06 May 2012, 18:54:51
With Xotl on vacation where should we put errata for the new TRO 3067? I should have read more closely when the original errata call went out a while back, but I think in the Solitaire fluff, "Most Solitaire pilots break from their lance early ..." should be changed to "Most Solitaire pilots break from their star early ..." since the Clans don't use lances - or is this proof that CDS started selling the design early to the IS  8)

Cheers,
LCC

EDIT: I know there's a thread for the original FanPro version, but I'm wondering if I should post there or wait for a new thread for the Catalyst product.

EDIT2: There's a typo for the Spirit too, change "The heart of the Spirit is a 240-rated XL fusion power plant" to "The heart of the Spirit is a 245-rated XL fusion power plant".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 07 May 2012, 16:33:29
I'll kick that one up the chain of command.

EDIT: Implementing order solution now...

EDIT 2: And done.  Thanks for raising that one with us!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 May 2012, 12:25:19
I'm back and this time it's personal.  Vacation was fun, but giant robots call me back to duty.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 28 May 2012, 13:43:54
Welcome back!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 14 June 2012, 07:50:56
From the FM:3085 thread:
Possible errata:
p 201
Wolf Clan RAT
Medium entry #6 says "Lobo 2 (TR3067)"
This 'Mech does not appear to exist, at least as far as I can find it.  There is mention of a desire for an OmniMech version of the Lobo in TR3067, but the "Lobo 2" is not flagged as being such and is in the wrong place if it is an OmniMech.
This may simply be a standard "Lobo" unless there is a record sheet somewhere (or will be in a future proper RS:3067 product); if that is the case the (TR3067) sourcing needs to be updated.
The Lobo 2, along with some other new variants of units from TR3067, seem to be added from a yet-to-be-released product. If you look at the RATs in the WOR Supplemental, you'll see other new variants from TR3067 units.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 June 2012, 17:37:41
That's correct: RS 3067 is nearing completion, and was close enough at the time FM 3085 went to press that we thought it would be fun to feature some of the upcoming new variants from it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 17 June 2012, 19:10:54
I just found something on the MUL website that I am not sure if it's an error.
Rhino Battle armor.
An extinct clan BA introduced in 2872.
Does anyone know what's this? Is it a mistake?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 17 June 2012, 19:31:30
It's mentioned in TRO3058U, page 50.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 17 June 2012, 19:34:32
thank you
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 22 June 2012, 03:11:06
Something I noticed just today: The TacOps Advanced Engine Master Table on p. 308 has a "Vehicle/Fighter" column for additional item slots taken up by the engine, complete with a (confusing) footnote trying to explain how to apply those slots to fighters. In addition to the types introduced in TacOps itself, the table also lists the stock Total Warfare engine types (sans internal combustion for some reason), with their extra slots taken up...

In every case, the number of extra slots is apparently the same for vehicles and fighters. So, while the TechManual states that none of the engines permitted for fighters there occupy extra critical spaces, Tactical Operations technically informs us that for example an IS XL engine does in fact take up two slots...and isn't even clear on where. ("[...] Fighter slots (if applicable) are located in the rear, with any extras divided evenly among the side wings." -- so, which of those two slots, if any, would be considered "extra", as obviously a single slot can't be evenly distributed between two locations and splitting both between the wings leaves nothing for the rear?)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 22 June 2012, 15:54:41
Put this in the Rules Questions area, please.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 23 June 2012, 00:05:54
Put this in the Rules Questions area, please.

*nod* Done. Wasn't altogether sure whether it belonged more here or there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 June 2012, 01:56:26
I don't have any guidelines in the errata rules thread, so I'll add some.

Basically, a general guideline is if there's a rules problem and you know what the solution is, it's probably errata.  If there's a rules problem but you don't know the solution, it's probably a rules question first and then, once you have an answer, it's errata.

Thanks for your help.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 23 June 2012, 07:45:39
That's a great guideline, Xotl.  You may want to sticky that at the top of the forum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 June 2012, 09:26:23
I've added it to the stickied rules post.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 June 2012, 09:46:49
I've posted threads for a pair of out-of-print but relatively recent and not superceded products - Historicals Brush Wars and War Of 3039.  Please bear in mind that some items, such as references to older rulebooks or RATs that don't reflect newer background information (as found in TR 3039 etc), should be ignored.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 08 July 2012, 15:01:09
Mauser IIC (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,12145.msg466101.html#msg466101)

This should obviously be rated "Clan (F)" and beyond common sense, this is confirmed by Combat Equipment, p. 11.


Recently, a lot of discussion is happening in individual errata threads. Per this sub-forum's rules, please move all discussion of reports, etc, into this thread, linking the original posting.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trace Coburn on 13 July 2012, 07:33:27
  Could we get an errata thread for FM: SLDF, please?  O:-)  I've only spotted a couple of typos so far, but I suspect that'll change as soon as I get a chance to read the whole thing....  :-X
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 July 2012, 23:28:12
No problem. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 16 July 2012, 04:31:36
Not sure if this is errata, but...

Era Report 2750 pg. 54 lists the 7th Royal BattleMech Division (Keid Division) as comprised of mostly "Striker" regiments (light and medium) with quite a few extra LAMs added in.

FM:SLDF pg 41 lists the 7th Royal BattleMech Division (Keid Division) with its 1st Brigade comprised of Heavy-assault regiments, notably 2/3rds of which are made up of Pillagers.

Now, I suppose it could be alright. The 1st Brigade is Heavy Assault, while the second Brigade is all Striker, but it seems sort of odd to see two such extremes in the division, and neither writeup mentions the other extreme. The line from Era report "composed almost entirely of Striker regiments" seems quite odd, since if we agree they're the same division, then only half the units would be Striker, the other half Heavy Assault. Again, its entirely possible I suppose, it just came across as quite odd.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 25 July 2012, 05:02:22
I'm not sure what this qualifies as, but I'll throw it out here.  In TechManual, there are a few references to rules that will be seen (at the time of writing) in Tactical Operations

Quote from: TechManual pg 236
Game Rules: The remote sensor dispenser has no impact in Total Warfare; its use will be covered in Tactical Operations.

I think  it would be appropriate to change the text to actually cite a page number in TacOps where those rules can be found, in this case TO 375.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: obe34 on 25 July 2012, 10:36:35
Im not sure where to list this or if it is an error at all so i thought id try here

the MUL lists a CRD 4L as a mech and says it can be found in 3085 project phoenix

so far as I can tell, no such mech exists.

So can anyone help me here,

whats in error my PP record sheet or the MUL?

should i make an error report and for which one?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 25 July 2012, 10:46:17
My RS: 3085 Project Phoneix doesn't have a CRD-4L either
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 25 July 2012, 11:07:35
I think the reason may be that the MUL points to RS: 3085 Unabridged...which isn't actually the same product as plain old RS: 3085.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 25 July 2012, 11:10:49
This is the one I'm looking at.

http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2652
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 25 July 2012, 11:28:43
Im not sure where to list this or if it is an error at all so i thought id try here

the MUL lists a CRD 4L as a mech and says it can be found in 3085 project phoenix

so far as I can tell, no such mech exists.

CRD-4L and CRD-4D are the same 'mech with two different names.  So the RS for the CRD-4D is the one you are looking for.
(Victor 9K/9D is another one). 
Eventually we plan on having a field for when a Record Sheet is in another name, but we don't have anywhere to store it right now.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 25 July 2012, 11:34:52
CRD-4L and CRD-4D are the same 'mech with two different names.  So the RS for the CRD-4D is the one you are looking for.
(Victor 9K/9D is another one). 
Eventually we plan on having a field for when a Record Sheet is in another name, but we don't have anywhere to store it right now.

Ah cool, thanks for the info
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: obe34 on 06 August 2012, 14:02:31
Ah thx for the clarification
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 August 2012, 09:10:55
Do rules clarifications like the discussion in this (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,22089.0.html) thread and this ruling (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,21089) count as errata?  I wasn't sure since it's not technically a correction of an error, but an addendum that would more clearly define existing rules.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 August 2012, 16:39:03
Do rules clarifications like the discussion in this (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,22089.0.html) thread and this ruling (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,21089) count as errata?  I wasn't sure since it's not technically a correction of an error, but an addendum that would more clearly define existing rules.

Good question.  In general, yes, yes they do.  When it comes time to compile errata for the core rulebooks I go through the whole rules question forum for that book and take a note of any questions that arose due to genuinine ambiguity in the rules wording.  I then edit the wording of that rule and add it as errata.

Usually a poster who asks a question like that is happy with his answer and doesn't repost it in the errata forum.  However, this post by Jim1701:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5943.msg495061.html#msg495061
is a good way to handle it that ensures that everyone will get the benefit of the ruling.  I encourage anyone who's received an official answer to repost their ruling as errata in the appropriate thread.  However, I also keep an eye on the rules forum, so some answers I will just repost on my own.

Thanks for your question.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 August 2012, 07:55:15
I've started a new thread for obsolete books; feel free to chat about it here.  Anyone who has items not included there should by all means post about it here (although more is to come).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 18 August 2012, 13:10:31
I used to have a bunch of notes on mistakes in, and changes to, older books. I'll see if they still exist.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 August 2012, 20:00:57
That would great.  Thanks for checking.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 August 2012, 21:08:58
New updates to Historical Errata.  More probably tomorrow.

EDIT: new Record Sheet stuff posted, plus a new copy of the Tactical Handbook errata is available, due to the low quality of the previous scan.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 23 August 2012, 02:20:55
Historical Errata Thread:
Um, you have listed TRO:3055U [Catalyst] version as non-supported. It should probably be TRO:3055U [FanPro] instead.
The TRO:3067 in the thread should probably also be TRO:3067 [FanPro], since Catalyst has released a version of TRO:3067 this year.


Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 August 2012, 02:37:41
Historical Errata Thread:
Um, you have listed TRO:3055U [Catalyst] version as non-supported. It should probably be TRO:3055U [FanPro] instead.
The TRO:3067 in the thread should probably also be TRO:3067 [FanPro], since Catalyst has released a version of TRO:3067 this year.

Good points - corrections made.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 August 2012, 15:17:51
BattleSpace corrections and a set of 1986 corrections for various 1st edition products added to the Historical Errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 September 2012, 09:08:53
Historical Errata request.  There was an errata sheet issued for Mercenary's Handbook 3055.  If anyone has it and could scan it I would be extremely grateful.  As far as I know it's never been posted online.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Col.Hengist on 14 September 2012, 08:01:28
  IN the RATS of FM:2750 on page 148 it shouws the Thorn THN-F as the varient to use.It states it is from RS 3039U. The MUL supports that there is a "F" varient. When i asked about this in the errata for the RS 39U i was told that the "S" and the "F" are the same mech and redirected here because i didn't follow some protocol.

 Why did it show the "F" when there is no "F" in the 39U, only the "S" which is the same varient and why are both in the MUL if there is only the record sheet for one? It is very confusing. Which is the right one,the "F" or the "S"? A;so, since they are presumably the same mech, why have one mech with 2 different numbers? It's just very confusing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 September 2012, 09:13:07
Why did it show the "F" when there is no "F" in the 39U, only the "S" which is the same varient and why are both in the MUL if there is only the record sheet for one?

There are two different Thorns that, thanks to in-universe reasons, wind up with the same configuration, though spaced centuries apart.  The original Thorn (the -F) has the 2490 date, and is the one that first came off the assembly line.  It was later removed from service as upgraded models with Star League tech came along to replace it (the -N).  The later Thorn (the -S) is the one ComStar provided to the Combine in the run-up to the War of 3039.  By stripping the Star League models of all their advanced tech, ComStar created a "new" model functionally identical to the original -F models that came off the line all those years ago.  The MUL preserves the two different entries because, depending on when you're playing and the filters you apply, you're going to be looking for different names.

Quote
It is very confusing. Which is the right one,the "F" or the "S"? A;so, since they are presumably the same mech, why have one mech with 2 different numbers? It's just very confusing.

They're both "right", but RS3039 would have it listed as the -S because that's how the mech was known then, and because there were no original -Fs still in existence anywhere.  This is a legacy of the fluff, decided many years ago, not a choice on our part - if we were to skip one name, someone else woould wonder what was going on there.  There is a Victor with two designations for the same design as well, because the same machine was produced in both the Combine and FedSuns, and was named differently by each - again, years-old fluff forces our hand (and quite frankly, these little hiccups make things a little more "real" to me, so I tend to enjoy the odd one now and again).

The MUL should probably attempt to do something about the -F being listed as appearing in 3039u, since as you mention that exact designation does not appear in that book.  I'll see what we can do.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Col.Hengist on 14 September 2012, 09:37:06
Thank you, thats what i thought was going on but i wanted to be sure. Is there any way to redirect some one on the MUL if they are looking for one or the other or give an explanation of what's going on?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 September 2012, 23:16:51
Hengist - questions about the MUL are best asked in the MUL thread in this subforum, and as the MUL being actively remodeled at the moment, now is the time to do so.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Col.Hengist on 24 September 2012, 08:28:58
I only mentioned the MUL because you had also mentioned it also. I wasn't trying to have an off topic discussion .
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 24 September 2012, 08:30:42
The notes field in the MUL now explains for the VTR-9D, THN-F, and CRD-4L where to find the correct record sheet.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 September 2012, 08:35:24
I only mentioned the MUL because you had also mentioned it also. I wasn't trying to have an off topic discussion.

Don't worry - I wasn't giving you hell.  I just wanted to make sure you had the chance to get your feedback in while it was the best time to do so.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 19 October 2012, 05:01:54
For future integration into errata, p. 238:

1) Damage is averaged over a number of clusters number of shots fired. In the case of RAC, would that be 6?  Or do RACs still use the previous ruling where they do damage in clusters equal to the single shot damage (in 4 clusters)?

RACs do damage in the amount of their base damage.  So a RAC/5 does four 5 point hits against a ground target.


2) What happens when damage does not divide evenly?  Does the last shot just get the remainder or is damage spread as evenly as possible between shots i.e. and RAC/2 does 8 damage in clusters of 2,2,1,1,1,1?  Would a UAC/10 do 15 damage as a cluster of 8 and 7?

RACs are always even.  Ultras you would do the greater damage in the first shot.

 ???
This errata is confusing me. Changing the way RACs works in a series of questions does not work.
So does a RAC/2 do damage in 5, 3 clusters (the old way clear way from before the errata), as 2,2,1,1,1,1, as 2,2,2,2 or as 4,4?

Can we assume that the following in the TW is no longer true?:
Quote from: TW, page 238
The Attack Value of all cluster weapons except Plasma weapons
and Ultra Autocannons (or all cluster weapon bays except Ultra
Autocannon bays) is divided into 5-point Attack Value groupings,
with any remaining damage assigned to its own grouping.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 October 2012, 08:41:57
The wording on the answer is bad: you have thr right way for RACs - nothing has changed there that I know.   I'll just edit that part out for now (the real errata is how to round for UACs).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 20 October 2012, 05:35:52
The wording on the answer is bad: you have thr right way for RACs - nothing has changed there that I know.   I'll just edit that part out for now (the real errata is how to round for UACs).

The first part still refer to RACs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wellspring on 31 October 2012, 12:57:53
Quick question: it was suggested that I post it here.

Some of the errata hasn't made its way into reprints. Is this a typesetting issue or is some errata being held for later updates?

Thanks

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 31 October 2012, 13:53:45
It comes down to time and money.

Layout is perhaps the most precious resource, in that Catalyst has far more writers and artists available than it does layout guys.  To work in errata takes time from them that is needed to ready new books for print.  And errata only makes it to books when it is time for them to be reprinted - not all books are, because some times it's simply not economically feasible to reprint them.

In some cases errata is overlooked as well, though I'm striving to reduce the occasions of that.

If you have any other questions, feel free to post them here.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Schottenjaeger on 08 November 2012, 03:45:13
I have uncovered an errata question for TRO: Vehicle annex, but there is no thread. What should I do?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 08 November 2012, 03:49:58
Basically, TRO VA is being revamped from the ground up. As such, most errata will no longer be applicable.

That said, please feel free to post it right here :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 20 November 2012, 10:20:45
XTRO: Succession Wars Volume 1. First PDF release, page 18, Flea record sheet.


FWIW, my record sheet for the Flea is missing internal structure dots, just like Ryumo's (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,24736.msg555294.html#msg555294)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 27 November 2012, 13:11:42
Ladies and gentlemen, please use the errata template when reporting issues, and as a reminder, please do not discuss anything in the normal errata threads.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Gallard on 29 November 2012, 19:55:27
Hi, I've been trying to find it but have come up short. Could someone tell me which print/dead-tree books have reprintings including errata ? I'm specifically interested in Core Book reprintings, but pointing me to other products would be handy as well.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 29 November 2012, 23:12:10
Hi, this is something on my to-do list, but I haven't had the chance to track down a master list yet.  In general, it's only the core rulebooks and technical readouts that receive reprints.  All reprints and pdf-only releases of the core rulebooks are detailed in each of their threads.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jellico on 12 December 2012, 21:47:24
A-pods were introduced in 2850, which is Succession War era.
The problem is the fluff says that the A-Pods were installed when the twin Arrow IV Bowman was modified. Therefore the twin Arrow IV Bowman can't have A-Pods and be the "original" Bowman.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 12 December 2012, 22:37:06
The problem is the fluff says that the A-Pods were installed when the twin Arrow IV Bowman was modified. Therefore the twin Arrow IV Bowman can't have A-Pods and be the "original" Bowman.

1) You probably should be a little clearer about that in your errata post.
2) You are probably jumping the gun, assuming that it is supposed to be the "original" Bowman at this point.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 13 December 2012, 12:31:31
2) You are probably jumping the gun, assuming that it is supposed to be the "original" Bowman at this point.

No, he isn't, he posted that for me. So I guess he forgot the "Dev-level" tag.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 13 December 2012, 14:01:48
No, he isn't, he posted that for me. So I guess he forgot the "Dev-level" tag.
So it's all your fault. ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GRUD on 23 December 2012, 05:39:05
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."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 December 2012, 14:43:40
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FedComGirl on 02 January 2013, 21:20:21
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. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 January 2013, 23:45:18
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 26 January 2013, 06:03:32
Ladies and gentlemen, please follow the errata rules.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 29 January 2013, 00:51:03
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.

Quote from: SCC
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 29 January 2013, 02:22:34
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)?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 January 2013, 12:33:38
Would you repost that in the Time of War Rules Question board, please?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 19 February 2013, 00:52:38
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 February 2013, 01:02:48
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 21 February 2013, 01:56:40
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 February 2013, 02:10:37
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 21 February 2013, 02:30:42
Gimme a few moments, but don;t forget about the effect of myomer boosters on stealth (namely that the heat signature makes it pointless)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 23 February 2013, 13:59:28
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 23 February 2013, 14:57:42
Are there any cockpit systems that take up more than one crit?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 February 2013, 15:09:36
Yeah, I'm not clear why that matters - the console only occupies 1 crit.  What's up?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 23 February 2013, 17:10:01
My bad, I misread that. To my silly head the Console was a 2-crit, 6-ton item. Mea maxima culpa.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 28 February 2013, 04:39:02
<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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 28 February 2013, 15:22:29
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 February 2013, 15:41:14
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: EvilOverlordX on 28 February 2013, 15:54:50
Sorry, will do going forward.  I wasn't expecting to find many typos, and didn't think about it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 February 2013, 16:02:35
No problem - what you're doing is greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Pa Weasley on 22 March 2013, 17:42:16
Regarding this posted added to the Total Warfare errata today by Paul:
Quote
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"?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 22 March 2013, 23:16:57
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 29 March 2013, 11:41:43
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 29 March 2013, 12:23:15
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 29 March 2013, 14:40:16
I figured that's what it was, but I had to ask.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GRUD on 01 April 2013, 09:05:39
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 April 2013, 12:15:48
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 April 2013, 10:03:54
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ntin on 03 April 2013, 19:39:10
Not sure if this is a big deal but on the Total Warfare thread post #60 (http://"http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5943.msg639960.html#msg639960") has the errata

WITH:
"F: Flak. When used by any unit against airborne aerospace units or VTOLs and WiGEs, apply a –2 to-hit modifier in addition to any other modifiers such weapons might convey."

The wrong conjunction is being used in the first half of the sentence in “or VTOLs and WiGEs”. For the rule to follow the second unit identified would need to be both a VTOL and WiGE. It is also somewhat ambiguous as aerospace is classified as a type of unit where VTOLs and WiGEs are not. 

"F: Flak. When used by any unit against airborne aerospace, VTOL, or WiGE, units apply a –2 to-hit modifier in addition to any other modifiers such weapons might convey."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 03 April 2013, 20:22:37
I see what you mean. I think the issue is that VTOLs are WIGE are both technically Ground Units, who have some special rules associated with them, and the phrasing tries to grasp at that. I'll clean up the phrasing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 April 2013, 13:42:48
I just down loaded the updated infantry tables, i've gotta ask, the listing for the Federated-Barrett M61A Laser Rifle shows 3.83 damage, is this per rifle or for the whole infantry platoon. Same question regarding the Mauser IIC (9.82 damage)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 April 2013, 13:49:48
As far as I know that is per weapon, just like it always has been.  That does mean a Mauser IIC is as good as a Heavy Support Laser though, which surprises me.  However, I know earlier reports of inflated damage were confirmed as accurate, so... 

You might want to post a question in Ask the Writers with any values you feel are out of whack.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 April 2013, 14:44:48
As far as I know that is per weapon, just like it always has been.  That does mean a Mauser IIC is as good as a Heavy Support Laser though, which surprises me.  However, I know earlier reports of inflated damage were confirmed as accurate, so... 

You might want to post a question in Ask the Writers with any values you feel are out of whack.
Ok, will do
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 04 April 2013, 15:16:14
Hi,

I just down loaded the updated infantry tables, i've gotta ask, the listing for the Federated-Barrett M61A Laser Rifle shows 3.83 damage, is this per rifle or for the whole infantry platoon. Same question regarding the Mauser IIC (9.82 damage)

I show the Federated-Barrett M61A as 0.75 damage, and the Mauser IIC as 1.37 w/ non-infantro ammo (0.90 w/ Inferno ammo) in my latest errata (dated 29 March 2013)

The values you quoted are actually the Battle Values per rifle.

Thanks,

- Herb
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 April 2013, 15:44:50
Yeah, I missed that damage was mentioned, but BV was being used.  I take it that everything is all clear then, Snake Eyes?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 April 2013, 16:42:12
Yeah, I missed that damage was mentioned, but BV was being used.  I take it that everything is all clear then, Snake Eyes?
Thanks Herb & Xotl, that does clear things up O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 09 April 2013, 15:53:01
Not sure if this deserves errata, but it seems that every variant of the Mad Cat Mk IV has 2 tons left over, and enough room to add either extra heat sinks or ammo
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 09 April 2013, 15:55:57
Did you notice the armored gyro?

And yes, errors like that would require errata in the respective TRO. While underweight designs are permissible by the rules, we don't make em that way.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 09 April 2013, 16:01:25
Did you notice the armored gyro?

And yes, errors like that would require errata in the respective TRO. While underweight designs are permissible by the rules, we don't make em that way.
Ok, now i know i have bad eyes #P

Thanks Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 09 April 2013, 16:07:43
Ok, now i know i have bad eyes #P

Thanks Paul

No worries, it's easy to miss.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Mr Balk on 11 April 2013, 22:22:55
The Wars of Reaving Supplemental

Just noticed the Osteon loadout MOD and noticed that a number of these actually have hand actuators noted on the Record Sheets:
B Page76
C Page 77
D Page 78
Jaguar page 83 

What is troubling is that the D (RA & LA hands) and Jaguar (LA with the retractable blade arm) being relases by IWM as Online Exclusive models do not have the hands present.

Is the error in The Wars of Reaving Supplemental or a quality check issue on approving the mini for IWM to produce?

Mr Balk
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 15 April 2013, 19:14:56
I looked in the TRO-3075 errata & the RS-3075 errata, but it seems that the JES 1 is 4 tons underweight....has there been a correction to this?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 16 April 2013, 00:11:01
I get 50 tons when I count it all up?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 23 April 2013, 20:14:25
The Wars of Reaving Supplemental

Just noticed the Osteon loadout MOD and noticed that a number of these actually have hand actuators noted on the Record Sheets:
B Page76
C Page 77
D Page 78
Jaguar page 83 

What is troubling is that the D (RA & LA hands) and Jaguar (LA with the retractable blade arm) being relases by IWM as Online Exclusive models do not have the hands present.

Is the error in The Wars of Reaving Supplemental or a quality check issue on approving the mini for IWM to produce?

Mr Balk

There are a lot of people waiting to hear back on this question...could someone please look in to it & post in here...thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 24 April 2013, 07:19:22
Huh, if only there was a place one could ask questions of the lead developers....
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 03 May 2013, 12:46:12
Hello,

That's not an error. The data presented is as intended.

Thanks,

- Herb

So it would be safe to assume that

(a) the Clan Small Aerospace Cockpit is functionally identical to and follows the same rules as the Inner Sphere model (as is the case for their BattleMech equivalents, except that there it's explicitly pointed out in a footnote) and

(b) "~3081" covers both the level transition and the Clan introduction date?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 03 May 2013, 13:47:13
Hi,

Yup.

Thanks,

- Herb
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 04 May 2013, 14:23:02
Ladies and gentlemen, again, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads.  The exceptions to this are outlined in the special rules for this forum.  I've moved the offending post and the response by the line developer into this thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: WeaponX on 21 May 2013, 19:20:21
As there's no errata thread for TRO 3057 Revised and this somewhat relates a rule on page 296 of Strategic Operations regarding how to calculate the maximum number of Dropships a Jumpship could carry (Jumpship Tonnage divided by 50000, rounded down), I'd like to point out that the Starlord (274,000 tons, 6 Dropships) and Monolith (430,000 tons, 9 Dropships) in TRO 3057 Revised don't adhere to the rules as the Starlord should only be able to carry 5 Dropships (274,000/50000 = 5.48, rounded down to 5) and the Monolith 8 Dropships (430000/50000 =  8.6, rounded down to 8 ). 

The way I see it there are two options, either change the stats on TRO 3057 Revised, or simply tweak the rule in Strategic Operations into something like:  To determine the maximum Dropship carrying capacity of a Jumpship or Warship, divide its Tonnage by 50000, and for ships under 250000 tons, round down the calculated figure to get a whole number, but for ships 250000 tons and over, round up the calculated figure instead.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 22 May 2013, 05:28:55
Found what may be an error in the current TacOps errata document (version 3.03). It states on p. 111 that the C-bill cost for the Extended LRM-15 should be 218,750. This doesn't seem to fit well into the general ELRM cost progression (see below), but would appear to be a better match for the Enhanced LRM-15, whose C-bill cost is indeed a bit the odd one out:

ELRM-5: 60,000 C-bills
ELRM-10: 200,000 C-bills
ELRM-15: 350,000 C-bills pre-, 218,750 (?) post-errata
ELRM-20: 500,000 C-bills

NLRM-5: 37,500 C-bills
NLRM-10: 125,000 C-bills
NLRM-15: 157,000 C-bills
NLRM-20: 312,500 C-bills

So...typo? Should that erratum refer to the Enhanced LRM-15 instead of the Extended one?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 22 May 2013, 11:17:05
Post that in Ask the Writers, please.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 22 May 2013, 11:25:16
As there's no errata thread for TRO 3057 Revised and this somewhat relates a rule on page 296 of Strategic Operations regarding how to calculate the maximum number of Dropships a Jumpship could carry (Jumpship Tonnage divided by 50000, rounded down), I'd like to point out that the Starlord (274,000 tons, 6 Dropships) and Monolith (430,000 tons, 9 Dropships) in TRO 3057 Revised don't adhere to the rules as the Starlord should only be able to carry 5 Dropships (274,000/50000 = 5.48, rounded down to 5) and the Monolith 8 Dropships (430000/50000 =  8.6, rounded down to 8 ). 

The way I see it there are two options, either change the stats on TRO 3057 Revised, or simply tweak the rule in Strategic Operations into something like:  To determine the maximum Dropship carrying capacity of a Jumpship or Warship, divide its Tonnage by 50000, and for ships under 250000 tons, round down the calculated figure to get a whole number, but for ships 250000 tons and over, round up the calculated figure instead.

Technical Readout: 3057 Revised has a number of issues in its stats.  To my understanding, we're not currently collecting errata for those statistics (hence the lack of an errata thread).  I have forwarded the matter on for greater review, however.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 June 2013, 02:33:41
The ECM is part of the Interdictor configuration and is mounted in the turret.
If thats the case, then the two need to be separated into to two entries the way other TROs have them.....
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 04 June 2013, 05:04:04
Ladies and gentlemen, again, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads even if you're responding to someone like a member of the MUL Team who is authorized to reply in those threads.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 04 June 2013, 09:08:07
If thats the case, then the two need to be separated into to two entries the way other TROs have them.....

There's 6 configurations indicated, to separate them all would've taken up too much space.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 June 2013, 12:14:38
Ladies and gentlemen, again, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads even if you're responding to someone like a member of the MUL Team who is authorized to reply in those threads.
Sorry about that, lack of sleep and too much caffeine...

@Paul: Yeah, looking at the Shen Long again, i just realized that all modular BA are listed the same...
fault on my end
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 04 June 2013, 12:20:58
@Paul: Yeah, looking at the Shen Long again, i just realized that all modular BA are listed the same...
fault on my end

No worries.
But does that mean you once thought it had ALL those weapons at once? Because that's an awesome visual. Even the guns have guns! =)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 June 2013, 19:15:57
No worries.
But does that mean you once thought it had ALL those weapons at once? Because that's an awesome visual. Even the guns have guns! =)
;D Yeah, thats exactly what i was thinking ;D
That would be cool to have all those weapons mounted at once....

The problem is i knew those were different variants, but my brain was telling me otherwise......that will be the last time i try reading the TRO while adding units to HMBA
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 June 2013, 05:36:44
This is the second time I've had to post this in two days:

Ladies and gentlemen, again, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads even if you're responding to someone like a member of the MUL Team who is authorized to reply in those threads.

Please read the errata rules, ladies and gentlemen.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: LastChanceCav on 08 June 2013, 20:04:47
Could we get an errata thread for TRO FS 3145?

Thanks,
LCC
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 10 June 2013, 05:14:45
I'll take care of it this afternoon.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: LastChanceCav on 14 June 2013, 08:03:17
p. 41
CN11-D Centurion Configuration D

That configuration pod mounts a shield, however TacOps p. 288 says:

"BattleMech Melee Weapons: All of the advanced BattleMech melee weapons described in these rules may be mounted in accordance with all standard ’Mech
construction rules, with special construction rules as noted below. Except for the shield (which may only be installed as fixed equipment)"

I could not find anything in the errata v3.03 for TacOps that says differently.

Fix:
Remove shield and replace with other equipment.

I will also post this as a question in the TacOps rules section.

Cheers,
LCC
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 14 June 2013, 15:01:55
I've removed this in here.  The rule question has been forwarded.

When you think there's a reasonable chance there's a rules error instead of a construction error (i.e., we would need to errata TacOps in this case), please put it in the appropriate Rules Question board to avoid cluttering the errata threads up.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 18 June 2013, 22:17:59
Crap guess I missed the cutoff, but while you are amending the E/I/C table, you should probably add a footnote that BA using a myomer booster has an I rating of 0.
(TO 287 "Battlesuits equipped with Myomer Boosters generate excessive heat, making them incapable of operating as hidden units and rendering any Stealth
or Mimetic Armor ineff ective. ECM systems will still affect other electronic systems that pass through the ECM “bubble,” but the suits themselves remain
visible on sensors due to their heat signature.
")
emphasis mine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: AJC46 on 18 June 2013, 22:42:36
p. 41
CN11-D Centurion Configuration D

That configuration pod mounts a shield, however TacOps p. 288 says:

"BattleMech Melee Weapons: All of the advanced BattleMech melee weapons described in these rules may be mounted in accordance with all standard ’Mech
construction rules, with special construction rules as noted below. Except for the shield (which may only be installed as fixed equipment)"

I could not find anything in the errata v3.03 for TacOps that says differently.

Fix:
Remove shield and replace with other equipment.


according to this months battlechat with Herb on this he gives a explanation that the Centurion-O's D config could actually not a omnimech config and actually a related standard Battlemech or a totally different omnimech that comes with a shield in the base config and that there is a misinformation thing going on to confuse the Fedsuns enemies over what Centurion version is what.

although that's probably what a in-universe fluff explanation for what seems to be a Out of-universe rules crunch violation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 18 June 2013, 22:44:18
Crap guess I missed the cutoff, but while you are amending the E/I/C table, you should probably add a footnote that BA using a myomer booster has an I rating of 0.

Hah! Nice, good catch.


according to this months battlechat with Herb on this he gives a explanation that the Centurion-O's D config could actually not a omnimech config and actually a related standard Battlemech or a totally different omnimech that comes with a shield in the base config and that there is a misinformation thing going on to confuse the Fedsuns enemies over what Centurion version is what.

although that's probably what a in-universe fluff explanation for what seems to be a Out of-universe rules crunch violation.

We've already got a thread on that, working to solution.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,30397.0.html

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Highball on 10 July 2013, 15:57:42
Where is the Errata for TRO 3057 & TRO 3057r?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 10 July 2013, 16:10:10
Where is the Errata for TRO 3057 & TRO 3057r?

TR3057 is an obsolete source for a long out-of-print system, and has been replaced with a new edition, has no errata thread. TR3057 Revised is rife with so many issues that there was no call for public errata; it needs a ground-up redesign of nearly every unit.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 July 2013, 04:50:33
Still on vacation, but I got access to a real computer briefly and thought I'd stop by.  I doubt the two threads I just made will feature very many posts, but I wanted to be complete.  Thanks to Moonsword for holding down the fort whlie I'm away.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 11 July 2013, 09:19:03
Still on vacation, but I got access to a real computer briefly and thought I'd stop by.

Who are you, and where'd you get that red beemer?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 11 July 2013, 16:30:33
I don't know!  I just logged in one day and BAM!  Suddenly I've got phenomenal cosmic power and everyone thinks I'm a ham-fisted fascist.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 11 July 2013, 16:35:39
I don't know!  I just logged in one day and BAM!  Suddenly I've got phenomenal cosmic power and everyone thinks I'm a ham-fisted fascist.

Get out! Get out while you still can!

...and seriously, congratulations. If you've got any questions about the gig...well, my information is probably out of date, but I'll help where I can.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 11 July 2013, 17:24:13
Xotl gave me a pretty good rundown before he left.  I've mostly been trying to keep things on an even keel in between bouts of panic when I realize I'm the one in charge of a major errata effort.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 11 July 2013, 18:00:43
Major errata effort?  haven't all the core books been covered now?  What's next?

On a side note, when can we expect the compiled AToW errata to go up?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 July 2013, 18:03:41
Who are you, and where'd you get that red beemer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyxLGSMtqtM&t=0m45s
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 11 July 2013, 18:25:03
Major errata effort?  haven't all the core books been covered now?  What's next?

The job of keeping everything up to date with corrections, clarifications, and (sometimes) outright changes is a massive undertaking. There is no "finished" at any point. BattleTech's rules systems and universe are intricate and complicated to the point of chaos, and often one change can have a ripple effect through several published products and rules. When I first volunteered to the position of errata guy a few years back, there was no centralized process to solicit and track such things. Now BattleTech leads the industry in getting fixes available where needed, as fast as possible. It's a lot of ongoing work, though; every day sees new reports. The errata guy has to separate the wheat from the chaff, recognize where something may have already been covered and point the reporter to the current fix, and integrate new rulings in the proper style and format...plus give detailed and inclusive reports on demand.

So, there doesn't need to be a certain publication that's "under focus" for there to be a "major effort," and nothing is ever truly finished.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 11 July 2013, 20:26:36
I do understand it's a big job; I've certainly had enough back and forth with the devs on the rules board to see where interconnectivity issues arise.

I just took "major effort" to indicate something more than the day to day checks and submissions going on, so I figured that meant another book was going to have it's errata actually compiled.  I know the work won't be done, since it's pretty hard to eliminate all bugs, and 100% clarity is an impossible goal since you can't anticipate every edge case, but the core rule books have all gotten errata checks in the past few months.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 July 2013, 11:28:53
It did refer to a major compile effort: Moonsword was responsible for putting together the upcoming AToW errata, which was just completed.  He also handled wrapping up the TW release, when I had to go just before it was finished.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 12 July 2013, 11:33:51
It did refer to a major compile effort: Moonsword was responsible for putting together the upcoming AToW errata, which was just completed.  He also handled wrapping up the TW release, when I had to go just before it was finished.

Oh. Well then. *whistles nonchalantly*
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 July 2013, 19:36:36
Well, you're right too, especially now that the rules team is so tightly integrated with errata production and collation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 26 July 2013, 08:53:54
Since it's not likely to get a whole errata thread, I thought I should post this here:

Alpha Strike Preview 1, First Printing, page 14, Movement Example:

The dotted line indicating the top/bottom borders of the example is located in the wrong place. The bottom border is along the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Suggested fix:
Move to bottom of example text.
Remove bottom border completely, as in examples on pages 15 and 17.

Fixed in production release.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 29 July 2013, 13:36:56
In the absence of a thread for it yet:

TRO3145 Lyran Commonwealth, pg. 27
The Weapons and Ammo section lists the base model as having two sets of three Flamers in the Left Arm.  The record sheets (and common sense) disagree with this.

Suggested fix:
Display one set of three Flamers in both the Right and Left Arms on the base model.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 July 2013, 15:30:18
There's one now, please repost that in there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BloodReaper on 30 July 2013, 11:32:45
there are a lot of errata threads, but only a few have consolidated update lists.  is all posted errata in all the errata threads good enough for me to mark the changes in my books or is it subject to change? thank you

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 30 July 2013, 11:37:27
It's all subject to review.  Anything that isn't specifically developer errata is not necessarily final.  In general, errata derived from rules questions is usually valid as well.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 30 July 2013, 11:45:51
To expand on that a bit:
Developer level errata is usually either put in by a member of the MUL team, a writer, Paul or someone with a white/grey Battlemaster. Nobody else will put out developer level errata.
Rules level errata falls under the same rule, but is usually put in by even less members, the MUL team is cut out with the exception of Xotl, who runs the errata.

As long as it is not put into a thread by any of those people, it is not final.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 30 July 2013, 11:48:13
On rare occasions writers will toss in some developer errata on their stuff. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 30 July 2013, 11:54:46
Writers... that nerdy little bunch ;)
Fixed my list :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BloodReaper on 31 July 2013, 08:56:01
thanks.  will the errata on the home page have all the other products at some point then?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 31 July 2013, 09:07:57
Those docs are updated when a reprint occurs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Garner on 31 July 2013, 14:13:52
A family member recently tried to order Total Warfare from the Battleshop for my birthday and was told it was out of production. Is it safe to assume that the new errata compilation means a new reprint, and if so could you give me any hint when that might be likely to be available for ordering?

(I expect this is probably a "it's done when it's done" question, or possibly it belongs in another forum, so apologies if this is the wrong place to ask)

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 31 July 2013, 14:17:56
Probably not the best place to ask, no...
But to answer the question: it's work in progress right now, but is waiting in line behind other recent projects that kind of all happened at the same time, IE, Alpha Strike. Generally speaking, CGL doesn't announce when they expect something to release, only when they have a street date. They get those based on when new material arrives at the main warehouse.

While not ideal, would it be an adequate intermediate solution to get the Total Warfare PDF?

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 31 July 2013, 14:41:41
Those docs are updated when a reprint occurs.
That actually makes a lot of the errata threads seem like a waste of time since the TROs and sourcebooks never seem to see a reprint.  That means official errata never seems to get made for most of them so why bother collecting it in the first place (yeah sure, I usually skim stuff to make a note of it, and most of it IS just typos, but it doesn't change the fact there is nothing verified.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 31 July 2013, 14:44:17
It's possible we'll start adding Errata PDFs/docs to the site at a future point; it's a workload bandwidth issue as far as getting that done. Note that it's not enough for wee monkeys like myself to collect errata, Herb still has to review and approve them as well for them to become 100% official and published. Normally, that's done as a step of the reprint workload, hence why those are closer to where we'd like it all to be.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 31 July 2013, 14:49:53
I definitely understand.  I was originally going to ask if it would help if Xotl got a minion or two to help to balance the workload, but if Herb is the bottleneck, that changes things.
Can we clone him a few times?  Seems like a few things get caught up on that Line dev bottleneck.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 31 July 2013, 14:55:39
I definitely understand.  I was originally going to ask if it would help if Xotl got a minion or two to help to balance the workload, but if Herb is the bottleneck, that changes things.
Can we clone him a few times?  Seems like a few things get caught up on that Line dev bottleneck.

More Xotl minions won't hurt neither, but that's someone else' call.

Herb bottleneck: there's sometimes no getting around that. It's his universe, his gameline. Who cares what I think, stuff has to conform to his sense of aesthetics far more than it has to conform to mine.

That said, we have plots to improve things even further, so that might work out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 August 2013, 14:12:27
I'm back.  Huge thanks to Moonsword for keeping things in tip-top shape!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 05 September 2013, 04:41:01
The Fast Learner and Slow Learner effects are each 20%, not 10%.

p.118:
"resulting in a 10 percent increase to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill."

CHANGE TO:
"resulting in a 10 percent increase to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill. This is cumulative with Fast and Slow Learner, which can result in a 0 percent or 20 percent increase respectively."

p.125:
"resulting in a 10 percent decrease to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill."

CHANGE TO:
"resulting in a 10 percent decrease to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill. This is cumulative with Fast and Slow Learner, which can result in a 20 percent or 0 percent decrease respectively."


Now I'm confused.

I assume you want it to directly stack to

p.118:
"resulting in a 10 percent increase to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill."

CHANGE TO:
"resulting in a 10 percent increase to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill. This is cumulative with Fast and Slow Learner, which can result in a 10 percent or 30 percent increase respectively."

p.125:
"resulting in a 10 percent decrease to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill."

CHANGE TO:
"resulting in a 10 percent decrease to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill. This is cumulative with Fast and Slow Learner, which can result in a 30 percent or 10 percent decrease respectively."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 05 September 2013, 04:42:11
Welcome back, Xotl.

It's been awhile for me too.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 September 2013, 11:20:05
Ladies and gentlemen, please read and follow the Errata rules (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.0.html).

Specifically, I'm talking about this one:
1) NO DISCUSSION IN ERRATA THREADS
If you're not making a report, don't post in an errata thread (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 a piece of errata, or any other part of the errata process, please use the stickied Errata Discussion Thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5884.0.html).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 06 September 2013, 02:59:26
Ladies and gentlemen, please read and follow the Errata rules (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.0.html).

Specifically, I'm talking about this one:

GAHG! My fault. Thank you for that, and the move.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 06 September 2013, 17:02:53
It's not a problem as long as you don't make a habit of it.  That's why I didn't call you out specifically, just posted a general reminder.

I'm just keeping things tidy to help Xotl out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 10 September 2013, 07:19:22
Field Manual: 3145, first PDF printing, page 74, First Avalon Hussars description, last sentence:

Quote
...to try and re-one their...

Replace "re-one" with "re-hone".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 10 September 2013, 07:36:10
While I wanted to wait till the official post is shown:

PDF:
Page 130:
Commonwealth Jaegers description:

Quote
In 3133, amid concerns of questionable loyalty
and suspected ties to separatist movements, the Skye Jaegers were disbanded as well.

Based on the novel: "Bonfire of Worlds" during the assassination attempt at Melissa Steiner at February 22. 3141 - a Skye Jaeger Fafnir guarding the throne room.
Could be a typo in both ways - but I would think a disbanding - in 43 would make more sense.

Page 245
TSEMP description

Quote
TSEMP weapons are only effective against targets weighing more than 200 tons and cannot be effectively used
against conventional infantry at all.

I can't believe that any unit will mount the TSEMP as primary weapons (like the Yinghuochong, Raven II or the Catapult II) when it is only usable vs Drop Ships
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 10 September 2013, 16:16:04
Guys, when you do things like this, you just make it so someone has to repost the reports later once an official thread opens up.  Ask for one and let us get to it, then post your reports.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 10 September 2013, 18:27:54
What exactly do we do with discovered discrepancies then? I thought we put them here for discussion/review.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 10 September 2013, 18:45:04
If you believe it to be wrong, list it in the appropriate errata thread. If you aren't sure, ask the developers/writers or ask a rules question. If you think someone is incorrect in their errata, discuss it here.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 10 September 2013, 19:00:11
What exactly do we do with discovered discrepancies then? I thought we put them here for discussion/review.

If the thread isn't open yet, just wait.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 September 2013, 19:07:20
In the future, waiting would indeed be appreciated.  But thank you for your enthusiasm.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 10 September 2013, 19:16:46
Speaking of errata that has no thread, Xotl, your signature still has "Away until September" in it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 September 2013, 19:41:55
How could I be errata guy if my sig didn't have errata?

Seriously, thanks - I never use sigs, so I forgot about that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 10 September 2013, 20:48:50
It's AToW, the errata thread is open. Should I rewrite my post in proper format and put it back in there? I'm still confused.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 September 2013, 20:58:30
We're referring to the recent flurry of misplaced FM 3145 posts, not your post on AToW from a few days ago.

If you think there's a problem, but you're not sure, feel free to post it in the appropriate rules forum.  Then, when you know for sure that it's in error, post it in the errata thread.  So in your case I'd invite you to make a new thread in the AToW rules forum asking for a sanity check on Paul's errata (that's what I'm assuming you're talking about).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 10 September 2013, 21:30:32
Yes and thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 12 September 2013, 15:47:38
Not sure if this deserves an errata, but, all the super heavy mech record sheets have a jump MP slot, but according to the rules, super heavy mechs are too heavy to mount JJs
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: AJC46 on 12 September 2013, 18:29:19
i noticed that too probably someone not watching what they are C&Ping and that sneaked by.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: solmanian on 14 September 2013, 17:36:18
*probably not the place for this.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: solmanian on 15 September 2013, 02:12:11
p 213.  PDF

In the chart for Equipment levels on mechs Stone's brigade receives a +24 to rolls. The Hastati Sentinels receive a +16 to rolls.

On the actual RAT the Republic only goes up to 28 results. So anything above a roll of two would push Stone's Brigade off the chart.

Suggested Correction:

Stone's Brigade +16
Hastati Sentinels +12

I assumed that you just get to keep the top mech i.e. mad cat IV for heavies...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 15 September 2013, 06:33:41
Ladies and gentlemen, the Errata Coordinator has already posted a notice in the Field Manual 3145 thread once about not following the errata rules.  That means no responses to other people's posts and no extraneous commentary. (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg52587.html#msg52587)  We appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to help improve BattleTech products but we need you to follow the rules so things stay organized and the errata coordinator's job is easier when it comes time to compile the reports.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SCC on 16 September 2013, 23:06:35
I'm unaware if this is a deliberate change or simply an error but on page 219 of Tech Manual (PDF, First Printing) the Gauss Rifle images seem to have been mixed up, the Heavy Gauss Rifle has what is traditionally the normal Gauss Rifle art while the Light and normal Gauss Rifles have the same art

Additionally the Anti-Missile System art on page 202 seems to have been edited to remove the classic MO artist's signature
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 September 2013, 02:37:51
Hello.  Below is a link to a document that will update the BattleForce and Quick Strike rulesets, as found in the second printing of Strategic Operations, to the new Alpha Strike ruleset:

https://db.tt/Vx32YJyw

If you have any questions about this, please ask in this thread.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 September 2013, 10:43:00
I'm unaware if this is a deliberate change or simply an error but on page 219 of Tech Manual (PDF, First Printing) the Gauss Rifle images seem to have been mixed up, the Heavy Gauss Rifle has what is traditionally the normal Gauss Rifle art while the Light and normal Gauss Rifles have the same art

Additionally the Anti-Missile System art on page 202 seems to have been edited to remove the classic MO artist's signature

Take all of that to Ask the Writers so the internal inquiry can sort it out, please, as the Errata Rules direct you to do (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg52587.html#msg52587).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 September 2013, 21:01:28
New update to Total Warfare has been released.  This is errata intended for the upcoming fourth printing of that book, scheduled for some time this year.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 September 2013, 21:38:47
No, the Medium Shield it carries drops its walking speed by one.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 24 September 2013, 11:39:45
I am excited! Where can I get the e-version of the errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 24 September 2013, 11:44:29
I am excited! Where can I get the e-version of the errata?

The current errata version is 4.0, and can be found here:
https://db.tt/LbQ498HO
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 24 September 2013, 16:08:59
Got a problem with your C3 eratta regarding LOS

First of all, unit B is at elevation 10, so a level 2 hill wouldn't actually block LOS.  Second, the wording says that C and D would not be able to target unit A if B's line of sight is blocked, which is not the case. Units C and D could still target A but would not be able to use B's range to target; in this case they would use C's range as it is the closest unit to A with line of sight.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 September 2013, 20:26:34
Thanks.  I'll see if I can correct the text before the reprint.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 25 September 2013, 10:20:01
First of all, unit B is at elevation 10, so a level 2 hill wouldn't actually block LOS.

It does, because that hill is adjacent to unit A, and equal to or higher than it.
p.100:
"The terrain or feature is adjacent to the target and equal to or higher than the target’s level."


Quote
Second, the wording says that C and D would not be able to target unit A if B's line of sight is blocked, which is not the case. Units C and D could still target A but would not be able to use B's range to target; in this case they would use C's range as it is the closest unit to A with line of sight.

Agreed, the sentence should be rephrased to:

the units in Hexes C and D would not be able to benefit from the unit in Hex B, and instead would resolve weapons fire as if the ’Mech in Hex A was at range 4 (using the 'Mech in Hex C to determine range)
It seems the water clause is an artifact of the change to requiring LOS.

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 25 September 2013, 11:37:34
I've made corrections and sent them in.  They may or may not make the reprint.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: casperionx on 29 September 2013, 00:18:15
Clairification - is that ALL C3 types or just the C3/C3 master (ie not C3 improved)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 30 September 2013, 11:04:16
Ladies and gentlemen, please follow the Errata Template and other errata rules when reporting issues.

Welcome to the errata forum.

WHAT IS ERRATA?
In general, if there's a problem AND you know the answer, make an errata report.

 - if there's a rules problem but you don't know the answer, ask in the appropriate Rules Questions (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  Once you have your answer, then make an errata report.
 - if there's a problem that doesn't belong in the above two forums (typos, record sheet errors, etc.) just go ahead and post it as errata.



In addition to the normal forum rules (http://bg.battletech.com/index.php?page_id=1005), there are a couple of additional rules that all errata reports should follow.  Posts that fail to follow these rules will be edited or deleted.

1) NO DISCUSSION IN ERRATA THREADS
If you're not making a report, don't post in an errata thread (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 a piece of errata, or any other part of the errata process, please use the stickied Errata Discussion Thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5884.0.html).

2) FOLLOW THE ERRATA TEMPLATE
All errata reports should be laid out in the same manner, following the template described in the next post (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290).  If posts follow a consistent template I can work much faster, and am far less likely to miss your report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Yu Kigono on 05 October 2013, 01:49:28
I think there is a problem with the Centurion CN-11OD

The engine would be a 200 XL, so 8 of the HS would be internal to the engine leaving 2 double HS to place.

but the Record sheet doesn't show the 2 that would be placed.

The reduced MP is from the Medium Shield, which imposes a -1 to Walk MP, not a smaller engine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 06 October 2013, 08:39:35
Ladies and gentlemen, please follow the Errata Template and other errata rules when reporting issues.

Welcome to the errata forum.

WHAT IS ERRATA?
In general, if there's a problem AND you know the answer, make an errata report.

 - if there's a rules problem but you don't know the answer, ask in the appropriate Rules Questions (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  Once you have your answer, then make an errata report.
 - if there's a problem that doesn't belong in the above two forums (typos, record sheet errors, etc.) just go ahead and post it as errata.



In addition to the normal forum rules (http://bg.battletech.com/index.php?page_id=1005), there are a couple of additional rules that all errata reports should follow.  Posts that fail to follow these rules will be edited or deleted.

1) NO DISCUSSION IN ERRATA THREADS
If you're not making a report, don't post in an errata thread (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 a piece of errata, or any other part of the errata process, please use the stickied Errata Discussion Thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5884.0.html).

2) FOLLOW THE ERRATA TEMPLATE
All errata reports should be laid out in the same manner, following the template described in the next post (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290).  If posts follow a consistent template I can work much faster, and am far less likely to miss your report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 15 October 2013, 07:54:54
IS base [see: "Mixed Tech (I.S.)"], so no CASE.

Ah...yeah, sorry about that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 15 October 2013, 10:45:54
Ladies and gentlemen, if you're not cleared to post replies in errata threads, don't post replies in the errata threads.  If you need to comment on someone else's report or reply to one of the CGL volunteers or staff replying to you, do it in here.  Only the MUL Team, developers, or writers should be posting replies.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 16 October 2013, 04:07:39
https://db.tt/KMoGxIsY

404ing
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 16 October 2013, 07:43:09
404ing

They did a small update to the document so the url changed from the original... the correct link is in the TW errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 21 October 2013, 09:48:23
Trebaruna TR-XH - is coming out four tons underweight.
Not replying in the thread per rules.

Not sure what the problem is, I get it perfect weight. I had it 4.5 tons overweight until I realized it had a composite structure.

But I'm not sure how he's getting it underweight by 4 tons. The only way I could get it that much underweight is to not add the ERPPC to the turret, use a standard Heavy Gauss instead of an Improved one, and forget the ton of gauss ammo in the head.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Taneru on 21 October 2013, 10:35:30
Maybe missing the fourth iJJ? For a 95 ton mech, that would be exactly 4 tons, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jal Phoenix on 01 November 2013, 23:03:21
Not sure if errata, but the logo used throughout the book is the redone Xin Sheng logo, not the original logo that would have been in use in 2765.  This is kind of like using the Lyran Alliance logo for the Steiner report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 02 November 2013, 09:57:43
As with Jal Phoenix, i have something that maybe and maybe not be a errant.

I've found that the actual name for the product is spelled/arranged differently throughout the the PDF.  Including this errant as well.

Field Report 2765: Capellan Confederation - Where - Throughout the PDF on the banner top of pages with text.
Field Report: Capellan Confederation 2765 - Where - page "a" aka Cover only
2765 Field Report: Capellan Confederation -  Where - page "b" aka write up text bottom of the page.

Please note that BattleCorp and New Products for sale on the forums does list the PDF as BattleTech Field Report 2765 CCAF.

Its rather confusing what the original name is with everything mixed up everywhere including the product.

 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 November 2013, 10:00:11
Gentlemen, can I please direct your attention to the Errata rules (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg52587.html#msg52587)?

Specifically, this part, and this is not the first instance of it I've observed in the last week or so:

WHAT IS ERRATA?
In general, if there's a problem AND you know the answer, make an errata report.

 - if there's a rules problem but you don't know the answer, ask in the appropriate Rules Questions (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  Once you have your answer, then make an errata report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mordel on 14 November 2013, 11:45:09
Under Claws it says it takes up 1 crit and 1 ton per 15 tons rounded up to the nearest 1/2 ton. Naturally you can't have 1/2 a crit. Looking at SSW it rounds both up to the nearest full ton. Is this listed as an errata anywhere yet (if it even is)?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 14 November 2013, 11:53:01
Please read the Errata rules (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg52587.html#msg52587).  The errata threads are not the correct place to ask questions.  If you're curious if something's been reported or we're aware of the specific issue and you don't think it's better handled as a rules question, put it in this thread.

Trust me, we're watching this one too.

WHAT IS ERRATA?
In general, if there's a problem AND you know the answer, make an errata report.

 - if there's a rules problem but you don't know the answer, ask in the appropriate Rules Questions (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  Once you have your answer, then make an errata report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 03 December 2013, 19:06:32
Requesting a thread for Field Report 2765 DCMS. (Pretty please!)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 December 2013, 19:12:21
Sure thing, gimme just a minute.

EDIT: Done!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 03 December 2013, 19:18:41
Sure thing, gimme just a minute.

EDIT: Done!
Thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jiraiya1969 on 04 January 2014, 13:01:14
Sorry I will have it fixed in a couple of days.

J69
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 January 2014, 13:46:30
You're not supposed to post replies in the errata threads, either.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 January 2014, 16:26:53
I've updated the main website errata page with the new TechManual and the most recent Tactical Operations errata.  I'll be adding the newer Total Warfare update in the next little while.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Savage Coyote on 09 January 2014, 23:18:37
I was going through 3145 Republic TRO pdf and was looking at the record sheet for the Ares Hesphestus.  It shows clan large pulse lasers in each arm while the write up and weapons inventory shows ERLL's in the LA while the RA should have two LPL's in it.  The crit layout treats each LPL as a single crit for each arm.  Problem here is the RA is full of crits and can't accommodate two more crits to fill the second LPL.  Am I missing something with the construction rules?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 January 2014, 23:35:56
Superheavies only use half the crits for equipment?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Savage Coyote on 10 January 2014, 08:16:15
Okay, what I get for not going back and rereading the construction rules.  I blame being tired and late and stuff  :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 15 January 2014, 15:33:42
Is the latest AToW errata available yet?
I have certainly noticed a number of changes to the latest (PDF) printing but still like to do a quick parse of changes to make sure my mind updates itself.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 January 2014, 15:50:20
There's one in the process of being finalized.  I hope to have it ready in the next week or two, depending on how much time people up the chain have available.  But making books, as always, has priority.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 January 2014, 12:43:59
The link to the AToW errata document is coming up as a 404 error for me.

https://db.tt/z4cQavot
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 January 2014, 14:39:09
Sorry - forgot to update the link when I uploaded the corrected version.  There's a new link in the thread that should work now.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 January 2014, 15:04:40
Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ijewett on 20 February 2014, 20:46:46
I have the 4 core rule books in PDF format that were put on sale for the holiday season for $5 each. It was my understanding that these were up to date as far as integrating Errata into them. However a friend has the Tac-Ops 3.1 errata dated 20-9-13. These two documents are not the same. Which is the correct up to date rules?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 20 February 2014, 21:03:26
The core rulebook pdfs always have the latest changes that have been incorporated to date.  That does not mean, however, that they have all available errata.  Here's how errata releases work:

Errata v#.#

The first number is what release of the book it relates to.  So TacOps Errata v3.0 is all the errata that is included in the third release of TacOps (the version you have).

The second number, if higher than 0, is for errata releases not yet reflected in print.  So, any release marked v3.1 or higher are releases with new errata not found in any current printing of TacOps.  When a fourth release of Tactical Operations comes out (if it does), you'll see TacOps errata v4.0, and then everything in the errata to that point will be reflected in the fourth TacOps PDF release.

You can check the website proper (i.e. not the forums) and see what all the current errata releases are for the main rulebooks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ijewett on 21 February 2014, 16:44:57
That clarifies it immensely. We were going to give ghost targeting a try and were not sure which rules to use.

Thank you much.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 14 March 2014, 18:15:59
I am a bit confused by the Arrow IV errata, the first paragraph in the errata says "An Arrow IV Homing Missile targets a mapsheet, not a hex" then the next bullet point says "within 8 hexes of the target hex"
There seems to be a disagreement there as far as targeting goes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 02 April 2014, 12:47:48
Is there errata for the new box set? Because the quick-start record sheets have "Rigth Arm" written on all of them.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 05 April 2014, 20:03:39
Need a thread for the XTRO: Fantasy...it's got several errors in it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 April 2014, 01:54:32
Need a thread for the XTRO: Fantasy...it's got several errors in it.

It's up as requested.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 28 April 2014, 16:04:48

I seem to have found a conflict between Aquilla Primitive Jumpship introduction date and the public draft of 'IO_Alternate Eras' (page 74). In the MUL and IO draft the introduction date is stated as being 2148, but the IO tables and how its constructed seems to point to an earlier date.

I think that this can either be solved by removing the 2130 line in the Primitive JumpShip Maximum Weight LIMIT Table. Or by revising the introduction date to around 30 years earlier.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 April 2014, 10:48:27
Could you provide some more details on why you think the construction is a problem?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 29 April 2014, 11:06:30
Could you provide some more details on why you think the construction is a problem?

From IO_Aternate Eras (p74)
Code: [Select]
Primitive JumpShip Maximum Weight LIMIT Table
Weight Limit (in tons)
Period Terran Alliance Terran Hegemony Great Houses Periphery
2110 100,000 NA NA NA
2130 150,000 NA NA NA
2150 200,000 NA NA NA

Quote
<<<begin example text>>>
   David decides he wants the Aquilla to be a truly ancient design, built by the Terran Alliance when the human race was first colonizing. He decides to give it a 2148 introduction date, which means the maximum weight is 100,000 tons.
<<<end example text>>>
According to the table the maximum weight in 2148 is 150,000 tons. If we want to keep the fluff and the weight, then an earlier intro date might be needed.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 12 May 2014, 15:01:25
What happens on a 1?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 12 May 2014, 15:52:00
You're not supposed to ask questions in the Errata threads.

To answer it, that's an unmodified 2d6 roll.  The minimum result is 2.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 12 May 2014, 16:03:54
That'll teach me to read. #P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 12 May 2014, 16:10:36
Eh, it's fine.  We all have the occasional brain misfire.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MarikMilitaMan on 16 May 2014, 09:37:58
Hi, not sure I should put this here but I saw in this thread http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,38692.0.html that the FWL Fleet would be erratad but can't find it anywhere, would/will this be the place it will turn up?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 18 May 2014, 08:33:51
Hi, welcome to the boards.  To answer your question, that would be where any errata for the product will turn up.

In general, you shouldn't post anything but an actual errata report in the errata threads.  I've quoted the relevant piece of the rules for this section below.  Don't worry, you're not in trouble.  I've moved your post here into the discussion thread to keep things tidy, that's all.

WHAT IS ERRATA?
In general, if there's a problem AND you know the answer, make an errata report.

 - if there's a rules problem but you don't know the answer, ask in the appropriate Rules Questions (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  Once you have your answer, then make an errata report.
 - if there's a problem that doesn't belong in the above two forums (typos, record sheet errors, etc.) just go ahead and post it as errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MarikMilitaMan on 18 May 2014, 10:13:58
Hi, welcome to the boards.  To answer your question, that would be where any errata for the product will turn up.

In general, you shouldn't post anything but an actual errata report in the errata threads.  I've quoted the relevant piece of the rules for this section below.  Don't worry, you're not in trouble.  I've moved your post here into the discussion thread to keep things tidy, that's all.

Thanks, wasn't 100% sure.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 June 2014, 02:11:44
Just a quick note that Moonsword will be running the errata forum until I return from vacation in late August.  Play nice. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 June 2014, 03:01:36
Please do not post errata in the wrong threads.  If there is no thread yet for the product that you wish to make a report on, request a new errata thread here and hold on to your reports until the new thread is made, rather than making reports in the wrong place.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 28 June 2014, 11:47:59
Can we have a Thread for the ALPHA STRIKE COMPANION please and thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SpudBot on 27 July 2014, 09:55:40
I'm also new here, catching up on my BT history!  I noticed a missing/duplicate page in my .pdf of The Fourth Succession War Military Atlas, vol. I and just wanted to make Catalyst aware (pg. 60 appears where pg. 64 should be).  Didn't see that product listed anywhere.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 22 September 2014, 12:39:19
Is:

"Sprite 2
Tech level is "Experimental", no experimental tech is mounted. Change to "Advanced"
500kg overweight. Suggest to remove Light TAG"

...official developer level errata? Another quick and simple fix would be to ditch the jump jets and the single point of added armor (compared to the other Sprites), which is why I'm asking.

From this thread:http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,18465.msg572389.html#msg572389
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 October 2014, 10:05:25
Howdy.  I've gotten rid of the requirement to note a product's format (PDF or Print) when making an errata report.  It's tedious badgering people all the time to do it when I'm not sure it has ever mattered.

If for some reason it becomes relevant, I'll note it in a specific thread that requires it.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 05 October 2014, 07:31:42
Could we get a thread for RS:VA Industrialmechs & Exoskeletons?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vandervecken on 07 October 2014, 09:16:44
Question:  When full versions of errata are released (like Total Warfare v4.1) are PDFs purchased in the Battleshop updated to reflect the changes?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 07 October 2014, 09:28:41
Question:  When full versions of errata are released (like Total Warfare v4.1) are PDFs purchased in the Battleshop updated to reflect the changes?

For full version numbers.  So the Total Warfare PDF is v4.0, same as the most recent printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 October 2014, 09:36:31
Errata updates coincide with pdf updates/book reprints on X.0 releases.  The number X on the errata release coincides with the printing.  So Total Warfare 4.0 means its all the errata that found its way into the fourth printing of TW.

"Point" releases (X.X: like 3.3, or 4.1) are just updates to the errata - they are never in print anywhere.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 07 October 2014, 11:19:02
I was certain a couple of PDFs have been updated at point releases.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vandervecken on 07 October 2014, 12:31:36
How would you recommend integrating extensive errata into physical books in a good way?  I could print it all out and stuff it in the back but that typically means you don't know there's errata.  How do other folks do it?

This is especially an issue in the core rulebooks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 07 October 2014, 14:37:06
I was certain a couple of PDFs have been updated at point releases.

Impossible; the integer (X.0) is incremented when the main book is updated, not the other way around. Here's how it works:

A book is published; it is designated Version 1.0.
Errata is found and compiled. If only minor issues are discovered, there might not be any compilations. If big bugs are found, "between-printings" errata compilations will be issued as 1.1, 1.2, etc.
The book comes up for reprinting. At that time, the current errata compilation (if any) and any outstanding issues the devs are aware of are folded into an updated document; the printing and a compiled errata document are designated Version 2.0.
Any further issues are collected as errata compilations 2.1, 2.2, etc.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 07 October 2014, 18:22:28
Yes but I could have swore there were a couple of books that got updated between reprints (which would mean a PDF update but no print versions with new errata)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 October 2014, 19:34:34
Yes but I could have swore there were a couple of books that got updated between reprints (which would mean a PDF update but no print versions with new errata)

There were two - the second TacOps release and the recent TechManual re-release were both pdf-only.  In both cases it was a re-release nonetheless, and so I believe had a X.0 errata release to accompany it (I think so anyways: the TacOps release was before my time and version numbering was a bit chaotic if you go back far enough.  My archives for Total Warfare have errata that goes from v2 to v4 back to v2, for example.  But I know the TechManual one is numbered right).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 08 October 2014, 05:11:52
Yes but I could have swore there were a couple of books that got updated between reprints (which would mean a PDF update but no print versions with new errata)

Maybe.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 15 October 2014, 22:16:24
From this thread here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/field-manual-3145/msg778504/#msg778504

Nobody commented on this:

3) Periphery (General) Battle Armour rolls for A should be +6, with presumably +4 for B, and +2 for C.

However, current RATs for the Periphery only allow A or B-rated units to field BA. Is what Bergie posted correct, with a continuation to +0 for D? Or should it *just* be +6 for A and +0 for B, N/A for the rest?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scorpion on 06 November 2014, 17:20:22
Hey, I'm new here. I just purchased the Alpha Strike PDF from battlecorps and noticed that the changes from the Alpha Strike Errata v2.0 PDF aren't included. Is there something I'm missing?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 06 November 2014, 17:45:25
No. Errata is rolled into the document when the book goes for a new printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scorpion on 06 November 2014, 19:03:08
No. Errata is rolled into the document when the book goes for a new printing.

Ok so, just to clarify, does that mean there is going to be a new Alpha Strike Pdf with the changes included?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 06 November 2014, 20:31:35
If and when a second printing is done, a new pdf will be prepared.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 November 2014, 20:42:32
Ok so, just to clarify, does that mean there is going to be a new Alpha Strike Pdf with the changes included?

Yes, that's it exactly.  I don't do a X.0 release until I know there's going to be a new printing/pdf release.  So a second print of Alpha Strike is currently planned, and all the errata will appear in it, though I have no idea when it will hit stores.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Amlop on 07 November 2014, 10:06:44
Apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place or something, but none of the errata pdf links are working here: http://bg.battletech.com/errata/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 07 November 2014, 10:22:12
Apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place or something, but none of the errata pdf links are working here: http://bg.battletech.com/errata/

I tried the top three (Total Warfare, Tech Manual, Tactical Operations) and all three opened the errata PDFs for me.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Amlop on 07 November 2014, 19:54:21
I tried the top three (Total Warfare, Tech Manual, Tactical Operations) and all three opened the errata PDFs for me.

? Weird....

They still won't work for me, they just give me 404s.

It doesn't give much information, but here's the message (for one of the links - the others are similar) it gives:
Not Found
The requested URL /wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Total-Warfare-v4.1-2014-05-19.pdf was not found on this server.
Apache Server at bg.battletech.com Port 443


I get the same result for both Firefox and Chrome.  I'm in Sydney, Australia, if that's of any interest.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 November 2014, 22:38:14
? Weird....

They still won't work for me, they just give me 404s.

It doesn't give much information, but here's the message (for one of the links - the others are similar) it gives:
Not Found
The requested URL /wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Total-Warfare-v4.1-2014-05-19.pdf was not found on this server.
Apache Server at bg.battletech.com Port 443


I get the same result for both Firefox and Chrome.  I'm in Sydney, Australia, if that's of any interest.

I've had this happen once before, though I don't know why.  Go to each book's thread: in the first post of each will be the errata file for that book.  I host those personally on Dropbox, so it should work fine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Amlop on 07 November 2014, 23:09:54
I've had this happen once before, though I don't know why.  Go to each book's thread: in the first post of each will be the errata file for that book.  I host those personally on Dropbox, so it should work fine.

These work, thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 11 November 2014, 00:04:31
-More than one image from this period has the Toro being fielded, which is notably absent from the Taurian tables.

As per TRO 3075, the Toro was extinct during this period.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 11 November 2014, 02:52:58
As per TRO 3075, the Toro was extinct during this period.

Indeed. That's what the TRO says, but it keeps popping up in the art from LoT. :-\ Artistic license, perhaps?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 11 November 2014, 04:57:15
Gentlemen, you're not supposed to have discussions in the Errata threads.  Bring it in here next time, please.

Indeed. That's what the TRO says, but it keeps popping up in the art from LoT. :-\ Artistic license, perhaps?

Art does not trump TRO text.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 12 November 2014, 00:29:16
BTW: What is this House-specific Wolverine mentioned in the Taurian Concordat's section?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 12 November 2014, 05:18:16
I have no idea.  It may not have even been statted out.  Put it in Ask the Writers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GnomesofZurich 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 December 2014, 06:41:01
I'm checking into it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 11 December 2014, 13:23:46
The copyright information in the front was changed to 2015 though it still says Corrected Second Printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Feenix74 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hammer on 23 January 2015, 12:44:01
Out of curiosity is there any word/timeline of the SO errata updates?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 January 2015, 13:00:10
Out of curiosity is there any word/timeline of the SO errata updates?

I am afraid not.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mikewoo 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark 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/ (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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mikewoo 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mikewoo 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question 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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question 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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 20 February 2015, 22:30:07
Ok...thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire 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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question 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)."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 01 April 2015, 12:31:17
I suck. We need an errata thread for California.

1 kg = 2.2 lbs.
You'll note I'm off by a factor of 10
on page 27...

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 01 April 2015, 14:24:31
I suck. We need an errata thread for California.

1 kg = 2.2 lbs.
You'll note I'm off by a factor of 10
on page 27...

Paul

*sigh* I seem to recall us screwing up AToW character sheets with a similar effect on heights...

-
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 01 April 2015, 14:27:25
*sigh* I seem to recall us screwing up AToW character sheets with a similar effect on heights...

Us? Oh no, that was 101% you. ;p
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 01 April 2015, 14:30:25
Us? Oh no, that was 101% you. ;p

Horse-poopery!

-
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 08 April 2015, 16:37:50
Bumping to say that the Wars of Reaving Supplemental (version 2) never got updated with the Septicemia Prime record sheet. It was first dropped after v.1 got its RATs fixed, so it has to be out there somewhere.

Also asking if this post by Dark ISI: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/the-wars-of-reaving-supplemental/msg572340/#msg572340 concerning the Osteon D can be considered a dev. level fix.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 08 April 2015, 18:20:47
Sure, give the widdle guy 2 more DHS.
Weird, I wonder how I made some of the errors I did.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 08 April 2015, 18:25:31
Weird, I wonder how I made some of the errors I did.

You didn't get me to do the RS :P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 08 April 2015, 18:49:48
So no hands which means the original mini was correct. (Which means I was right to not put them on since it looked cooler that way.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 08 April 2015, 18:53:48
Cool, thanks. Any ideas if a v.3 of WoRS with the missing record sheet will be possible at some point?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 08 April 2015, 19:38:57
I'd rather see if they want to put some time in to clean my Protomech mistakes (with or without me)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 22 April 2015, 11:52:10
I'd rather see if they want to put some time in to clean my Protomech mistakes (with or without me)
Ooo, ooo, ooo! Pick me! Pick me!

Sure, give the widdle guy 2 more DHS.
Weird, I wonder how I made some of the errors I did.
B/c all the stuff with errors wasn't in the draft copies I saw.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 22 April 2015, 12:22:38
So are you saying you never saw the proto variants I made, or that someone else made the errors?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 23 April 2015, 12:19:48
So are you saying you never saw the proto variants I made, or that someone else made the errors?
Never saw the proto stats, only the rules and the society omnis. And the Osteon D wasn't in the variants file I have.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 23 April 2015, 12:26:31
Never saw the proto stats, only the rules and the society omnis. And the Osteon D wasn't in the variants file I have.

Good. For a minute there, I was afraid this *wasn't* my fault somehow. Still is, everyone get back to work. ;)

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 28 April 2015, 13:51:17
p. 37, replace the IATM entry with the following:

Improved ATM (IATM#/#/#)
Improved Inferno: Using this alternate munition attack, the unit’s normal attack is reduced by 1 point at both Short and Medium range. But if this attack hits a target in those range brackets, the target also suffers the effects of a HT#/#/# special attack equal to the numerical value of the unit’s IATM#/#/# special at those ranges (i.e., IATM2/1/- will translate to a HT2/1/- effect).

I have some misgivings about this one.  Reducing the short and medium range damage by one to generate HT for all IATM damage in that bracket does some wacky things like the Septicemia A-Z (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5812/pariah-septicemia-a-z) gaining nearly double damage in the medium range bracket against non-heat tracking units (and an obscene 17 points of short range).

Suggest making the tradeoff greater, possibly by making the tradeoff a fraction (round up) of the IATM damage value instead of just one point regardless.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 April 2015, 14:00:21
HT is limited to 2 points.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 April 2015, 14:03:18
I'll make the text clearer to ensure that people don't assume this allows you to break the normal HT rules.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Syzyx on 11 May 2015, 19:57:32
If this is in the wrong place, please correct me, but I've noticed in my copy of XTRO: Succession Wars the Flea has no internal structure dots on the record sheet. I didn't see this in any other errata threads (and, in fact, I could not find an XTRO: SW errata thread). I thought you might want to be informed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 11 May 2015, 20:09:05
Found it in case anybody else needs it.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/experimental-technical-readout-succession-wars-(all-volumes)/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 12 May 2015, 06:08:02
Found it in case anybody else needs it.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/experimental-technical-readout-succession-wars-(all-volumes)/
...And yes, the Flea has been mentioned already, but thank you Syzyx for double-checking that we have it. http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/experimental-technical-readout-succession-wars-%28all-volumes%29/msg555294/#msg555294
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 May 2015, 07:48:45
All current products should have threads, even the April Fools ones.  There's an index stickied at the top of this forum with alphabetical links to all errata threads.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 15 May 2015, 19:11:04
Doing research for a ASMOTW article, I stumbled across the fact that LECM has a phenomenal range of 2 whole inches.  Is it really that gimpy?  That feels really low (or maybe it's just because the Raven -1X is upset that it loses 2/3rds of the range for the only reason to ever use the 'Mech ever anyway).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2015, 12:41:14
The new 6th of June Alpha Strike, TacOps, and TW errata has been uploaded to the main webpage.  If you've downloaded from the forums before now, please download them again (either from the forums or the webpage), as slight tweaks were made in response to feedback.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 07 June 2015, 12:59:49
Wait, infantry can dismount without burning MP from the carrying unit now?

On a side note, is there a reason battle armor can hang onto a jumping mech but not a flying unit (or jumping vehicle)?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2015, 13:05:00
For the infantry, that's been true since the last errata.  I just missed a couple of leftover references to the old wya that still had to be excised.
Stacking limits still apply.

As for the wheres and whys of battle armour mechanization, there were a variety of fluff and rules issues (mostly the first).  Broadly, mechs are more versatile, and strictly flying/swimming units rely on good dynamics to move around, which clumps of BA disrupt, and one or two other thigns.  We decided on a blanket ruling to avoid making it an annoying list of per-unit and per-environmental exceptions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 07 June 2015, 13:07:47
For the infantry, that's been true since the last errata.  I just missed a couple of leftover references to the old wya that still had to be excised.
Stacking limits still apply.
Oh, guess I missed the ones where it WAS excised.  Whoops, been playing wrong for a while then.

Quote
As for the wheres and whys of battle armour mechanization, there were a variety of fluff and rules issues (mostly the first).  Broadly, mechs are more versatile, and strictly flying/swimming units rely on good dynamics to move around, which clumps of BA disrupt, and one or two other thigns.  We decided on a blanket ruling to avoid making it an annoying list of per-unit and per-environmental exceptions.
Fair enough.



Also
Quote
Change to:
Airborne aerospace units make strafing and striking attacks against airborne non-aerospace units (WiGE and VTOL
vehicles, or other units expending VTOL MP, such as battle armor) just like any other ground target. Such units cannot be
subject to dive-bombing or level bombing attacks, however, with the exception of bombs that strike a building or water
hex
I'm confused how a bomb hitting a building or water affects airborne units.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2015, 13:14:27
Also I'm confused how a bomb hitting a building or water affects airborne units.

Go to the original quote on p. 243: the text that I left out to keep the errata size down explains it.  Essentially, area effect weapons can do so.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 16 June 2015, 15:14:08
quick (and potentially stupid) question about the arrow-iv errata - when targeting a hex with homing rounds, is it treated as a normal artillery attack in terms of calculating the TN?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 June 2015, 23:44:13
quick (and potentially stupid) question about the arrow-iv errata - when targeting a hex with homing rounds, is it treated as a normal artillery attack in terms of calculating the TN?

Yes.  It may be made either directly or indirectly.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 17 June 2015, 00:27:29
This may or may not be errata; it was proposed to me outside of forum channels, but it does have me thinking:

Field Guns. At present, they cover ballistic, direct-fire weapons only. But, considering the only requirement is the tonnage for the gun and ammo, and the requisite number of people to fire said monstrosity (equal to the gun's weight), why can it not cover energy weapons and missile weapons as well? The essential rules would work like those for handheld weapons: Energy guns need to add the tonnage of their requisite single-type sinks, plus perhaps energy capacitors to reflect their battlefield batteries, to the total weight, while missiles just use the same weapon tonnage + ammo tonnage rules mechanic as their ballistic versions? Would also include the likes of rocket launchers and Mech mortars, of course.

Anyway, tossing it in as a thought grenade.

- Herb
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 17 June 2015, 01:16:31
28 RL-10s in a platoon. 14 SRM-2s. 7 SRM-6s (better!) 9 LRM-5s, 3 LRM-15s, or 2 LRM-20s. Yup, they're good ;)

5 IS MLs. One IS ERLL, LPL or PPC. Hmmm, the heavier energy option isn't actually bad.

Would Clan Field Gun platoons get benefit of DHS for cERMLs, cLPLs, etc?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 17 June 2015, 04:32:11
Nope. Way I figure it, they'd all have to follow the "vehicle rules" for weaponry. So, if you want a Towed ER Medium Laser, each gun is 6.1 tons; 1 for the gun, 5 for the sinks, plus .1 tons for the power capacitor. That's one towed laser per 7-man squad, or 4 lasers per platoon.

For the LRM-20, the real sickness is apparent between Clan and IS. 10 tons for launcher, plus 1 ton of ammo for an IS launcher -> 2 LRM-20s per 28-man platoon. 5 tons for Clan LRM-20, plus 1 ton of ammo, gets us 3 launchers per 25-man Clan platoon.

An ER PPC? 7 tons + 15 tons for sinks + 0.7 tons for capacitors = 22.7 tons per gun. An IS platoon can drag only one along. Clan version is only 1.1 tons lighter for the same number of weapons per platoon.

- Herb
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 17 June 2015, 05:33:04
W/o looking up the rules, isn't there a minimum crew number for the smaller weapons (besides one)? Love the idea and wish i would have brought it up in the forums much much earlier (thank you whoever asked Herb about it!).

Hope you guys decide to add this. Or at least the missile varieties. Energy would be nice too but might be more of a bother.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 17 June 2015, 06:41:35
Energy weapons seems like a stretch to me(you'd need a generator as well as feed those capacitors), but missiles would be nice. Given that such weapons are only available to motor or mech troops, they'd essentially be Katyusha batteries.

I'd request that 'Mech Mortars be added to that list as well. >:D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 June 2015, 08:31:21
Give me star of clan platoons with three streak LRM-15s per point.

An IS platoon with seven SSRM-4s using hidden units would also be suitable to my needs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 17 June 2015, 09:18:10
why can it not cover energy weapons and missile weapons as well?

Missile weapons: fine, though get ready for some truly heinous firepower. You thought LRM carriers were bad? Clan platoons can wield 4 LRM-20s. Or 1 SRM4 for every 2 troopers. That's literally 48 SRMs every turn. From 1 platoon. "Forever".
IS, you could take 30 man platoons and hand each one a RL-15. 450 damage potential, once. Talk about an anti-Mech claymore.


Energy weapons: no ****** way. It's bad enough we let people use them with just an ICE engine as the generator. Energy weapons ought to be fusion-engine only. Failing that, they should still be out of reach for infantry.

Heck, I think it's too generous for infantry to get the same accuracy out of field guns, without them having to pay for the targeting and tracking gear vehicles and Mechs have.

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 17 June 2015, 10:30:13
As much as I would love to see where this goes let us not forget what THREAD we are in. Don't you think we should move these past few posts over to general discussion or the developer forum?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 June 2015, 10:58:38
Fair point, pheonixstorm, but in this case, since there's not really a proper place for new rules (since Catalyst doesn't accept external suggestions), and because any change along the lines proposed would have to be implemented as errata, I'm okay with it being here.

But thanks for trying to keep things tidy.  It's appreciated.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 11:20:02
I think energy weapons are fine.  Heat sinks make them significantly less efficient than ballistic guns, arguably to the point that they're actually balanced with each other.

Missiles, I think, need some help getting back down to normal power.  Either a minimum crew requirement, or require heat sinks as well.  Clan LRMs are scary, but when you need 12 tons to field one and at most two hits of any size disable the second launcher on a point, it's a bit more reasonable.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 17 June 2015, 11:44:30
This may or may not be errata; it was proposed to me outside of forum channels, but it does have me thinking:

Field Guns. At present, they cover ballistic, direct-fire weapons only. But, considering the only requirement is the tonnage for the gun and ammo, and the requisite number of people to fire said monstrosity (equal to the gun's weight), why can it not cover energy weapons and missile weapons as well? The essential rules would work like those for handheld weapons: Energy guns need to add the tonnage of their requisite single-type sinks, plus perhaps energy capacitors to reflect their battlefield batteries, to the total weight, while missiles just use the same weapon tonnage + ammo tonnage rules mechanic as their ballistic versions? Would also include the likes of rocket launchers and Mech mortars, of course.

Anyway, tossing it in as a thought grenade.

- Herb
Funny you should mention that.
I asked about that when Wars of Reaving was announced (there's a line that one of the iATM ammo types disable DE field guns), and was told by YOU it was for just in case purposes.

I could go for non-ballistic field guns.  Energy seems fine, the smaller lasers tend to have better damage:mass ratio after the heatsinks and power amplifiers, but the more damaging ones, owing to heat generation, come out worse than ballistics, so it seems reasonable, though part of me wonders what's generating the power (even with power amplifiers, it seems odd for a jeep to be able to drive a PPC)

Missiles kinda scare me.

I'd assume you can't round the 0.x tons from power amplifiers for crew purposes (eg. have 4 of those 6.1 ton lasers run by a 25 man platoon)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 17 June 2015, 12:01:37
Energy weapons seems like a stretch to me(you'd need a generator as well as feed those capacitors), but missiles would be nice. Given that such weapons are only available to motor or mech troops, they'd essentially be Katyusha batteries.

I'd request that 'Mech Mortars be added to that list as well. >:D
Maybe give the energy weapons larger capacitors (to represent battery packs) and give them a limited number of shots (like BA energy weapons or infantry laser weapons).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 17 June 2015, 12:07:22
Clarification on a recent Errata in the TacOps thread:
Ejection and Abandoning Units (p. 197)
Under "'Mechs", second paragraph (first on the page), second sentence

If the auto-eject function is operational, the pilot will automatically eject at the end of any Phase in which an ammo explosion takes place (the pilot still receives the automatic 2 Damage Points for the ammo explosion; see Ammunition, p. 125, TW).
Change to:
If the auto-eject function is operational and an ammo explosion occurs, the pilot will automatically eject before damage to the 'Mech is resolved (though the pilot still takes 2 points of damage due to ammo explosion feedback; see Ammunition, p. 125, TW).
Just to clarify, if there's multiple explodie things (Gauss, improved Heavy Lasers, ammo, etc) in a single location and one of them is hit, the resulting feedback sets off the autoeject, but the pilot still takes 2 pilot hits. Since this happens before the damage is resolved, if the damage from the first explosion sets off a second explosion, the pilot won't suffer any feedback from the second explosion b/c he's already ejected. Correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 June 2015, 12:29:51
That is correct.  Based on this revised timing, ejection will rescue the pilot from the feedback effect from secondary explosions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 17 June 2015, 13:08:36
Ok, so heres my take on all things Field Gun/Artillery

First, the rules for a proper Transport Bay might need to be clarified.

Second, for all those who think Missile field guns are OP think again. First you have to deal with minimum ranges for IS gear and the fact that an LRM 20 (IS) only gets 6 shots per ton of ammo. Can you really say that is more powerful than an LRM Carrier? The limit is the ammo for any field gun. 1 ton does not go very far at all. So an IS LRM 20 infantry platoon can only field 2 LRM 20s with 2 tons of ammo. 6 rounds of combat compared to 3LRM 20s and 4 tons of ammo (8 combat rounds). Add to that fact on how easy infantry are to kill. SRMs on the other hand have a longer fighting life due to larger ammo loads, but even then... Infantry die quickly.

While rocket launchers may have no minimum range they do have penalties for their cluster roll IIRC. Not sure if they have a penalty for their to-hit (too lazy to look it up). Considering the balance issues I would not allow any one shot wonders. The other issues we all know of for Field Guns though are plain. Move or shoot? This alone limits their use to defensive roles or as hidden units. Once you shoot though... it won't be long before they are dead from artillery or long range fire. So with the exception or Rocket infantry (OP but would be sooo cool to play with) they might not get the chance to use up much of their ammo before getting killed off.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 17 June 2015, 13:52:52
Well, there is a minimum crew requirement for field gunners already, albeit a low one; you need at least two troopers per "gun". That ought to at least prevent the Clan LRM 5 Point from becoming quite the nightmare it would otherwise be...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 17 June 2015, 16:04:03
My thoughts on Field Guns.

First, based on Construction rules (page 310 and Page 311, Tactical Operations), ammo says minimum two tons. Sure for LRM's and what not, that means way more shots, but also means a lot more tonnage to carry around per launcher.

Second, Field guns require the designation of facing as per the rules for Field Guns page 311, so I am assuming all field guns must face the same direction.

And, that is all.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 17 June 2015, 16:06:55
Energy weapons: no ****** way. It's bad enough we let people use them with just an ICE engine as the generator. Energy weapons ought to be fusion-engine only. Failing that, they should still be out of reach for infantry.

I would point out than any size of fusion engine can provide power to as many energy weapons as can be fit on a chassis, and the smallest standard fusion engine weighs less than almost all energy weapons. With that in mind I could see requiring a one ton power source to be included in addition to heat sinks for an energy field gun.

This of course ignores battle armor scale energy weapons, which do run off of battery power and get as big as medium vsp lasers. At the very least I could see those re-purposed as conventional infantry field guns.

Also BA tube artillery. I would squee at a high enough pitch to break all of the glass in this house if we got BA tube artillery re-purposed as light infantry artillery.  Something for a small squad to cart around.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 17 June 2015, 16:53:52
First, based on Construction rules (page 310 and Page 311, Tactical Operations), ammo says minimum two tons.

Incorrect per 3.4 errata
Quote
The platoon receives 1 ton of ammunition per field gun it possesses; each ton may be of a varying type. Ammunition expenditure must be tracked, but only at the platoon level; ammunition is not assigned to any specific gun or squad, and isn’t reduced by personnel loss.
Granted that is for autocannons but should (mostly) hold true for other types.

As for an energy source, I would suggest half ton or full ton fusion generator per weapon. There are/were portable fusion generators listed as equipment in one of the old books. Not sure if it still available though. That way it is tied into each weapon instead of 1 for all weapons (much like heat sinks or ammo are per weapon).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 17 June 2015, 17:00:26
Ahh...color me wrong then...

Still, i will stand by all weapons need to follow same facing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 17:59:37
Also BA tube artillery. I would squee at a high enough pitch to break all of the glass in this house if we got BA tube artillery re-purposed as light infantry artillery.  Something for a small squad to cart around.

Somewhere, Weirdo just began salivating and does not know why.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Draco on 17 June 2015, 18:40:43
Never had a problem with the idea of missile field guns, with the exception that crew requirements get to be really low for SRMs and non-ATM clan launchers. I figured doubling the crew requirements would help reduce the missile spam, and it can be justified in game by saying the extra crew are needed to load all those tubes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 17 June 2015, 18:48:23
Thing is, a ballistic fieldgun isn't using hand-loading - it's almost certainly firing from a fixed ammo bin or clip. Otherwise one would be able to posit an ammo carrier alongside a fieldgun giving it greater endurance.

(firstly, they're called autocannons, which really tilts strongly at automatic loading. Secondly, they're the same weapons as 'Mech mounted, and I'm pretty sure 'Mech-mounted autocannons don't get loaded manually. Lastly, although there's no canon on autocannon calibre, there's the whole "large bore firing slowly, or small bore firing hordes", both of which speak against hand-loading.)

One would presume that missile launchers would have similar autoloading functions. And let's not forget Rocket Launchers! 28 RL-10s would be a real rude awakening ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 19:38:09
Minimum crew requirements.  Seriously.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 17 June 2015, 19:40:25
Which then have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons.

It's too late to go back & totally change the approach taken & have field weapon units as something separate from an infantry formation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 19:44:30
I disagree.  It doesn't have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons in either A) the autocannons meet the minimum trooper requirement as a matter of course or B) the minimum troop requirement only applies to towed missile weapons.  Energy weapons are already made roughly balanced by the heat sink requirement.

I fail to see any reason why B can't happen, especially since this is expressly a balance decision.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 17 June 2015, 20:58:33
I disagree.  It doesn't have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons in either A) the autocannons meet the minimum trooper requirement as a matter of course or B) the minimum troop requirement only applies to towed missile weapons.  Energy weapons are already made roughly balanced by the heat sink requirement.

I fail to see any reason why B can't happen, especially since this is expressly a balance decision.

I agree. There's too much potential for abuse without stricter limitations, such as noted with RL-10s. Find the balance point first, then handwave it however needed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alexander Knight on 17 June 2015, 21:09:43
Which then have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons.

It's too late to go back & totally change the approach taken & have field weapon units as something separate from an infantry formation.

All extant canon field gun platoons more than surpass the minimum crew per gun.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 17 June 2015, 21:53:25
I could have swore there was a canon platoon with magshot Gauss cannons
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 June 2015, 21:54:00
I could have swore there was a canon platoon with magshot Gauss cannons

ninja'd while I was typing. was going to say...

I forget... can gauss weapons be used as field guns? MagShot is almost as abusable as rocket launchers. Also machine guns.

The lightest autocannon is the LAC/2 at 4 tons.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 17 June 2015, 21:54:43
All extant canon field gun platoons more than surpass the minimum crew per gun.

Taurian field gun platoon. 6 light ac 5s manned by 30 men.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 22:06:28
...Doesn't sound legal, unless LAC/5s dropped down to 4 tons while I wasn't looking to make room for that ammo.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 17 June 2015, 22:07:09
Ammo doesn't count for crew requirements.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alexander Knight on 17 June 2015, 23:32:05
Taurian field gun platoon. 6 light ac 5s manned by 30 men.

Hyep.  And 5 men per gun is above the minimum.  :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 18 June 2015, 00:25:01
Hyep.  And 5 men per gun is above the minimum.  :)

Five men per gun is the minimum for LAC 5s. :P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alexander Knight on 18 June 2015, 00:26:32
Five men per gun is the minimum for LAC 5s. :P

But 2 men per gun is the minimum under discussion.  Hence, the LAC/5 platoon is above the minimum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 18 June 2015, 00:41:09
Just think 28 SRM-2s.  Okay, saw AK's comment, still 14 SRM-2s. Or 14 SRM-4s, worse.

Would it be ridiculous to propose a 5 or 7 man minimum? Yes, 7 would nerf the canon Taurian 5-LAC platoon, but is it such a huge change?

I'm still uncomfortable with a 30-man platoon carrying 3 LRM-20s (IS), or 6 (Clan). Even with only 6 shots, that's pretty unholy. Two Gauss Rifles or UAC-20s in a platoon is also pretty unholy, admittedly.

(New Capellan unit - Miners. 30-man platoon, with 3 LRM-20s loaded with Thunder-Aug. You spend the first 3 turns spreading the joy liberally, then ditch the launchers to act as a slightly oversized standard infantry unit.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 18 June 2015, 00:43:49
I say again: require missile weapons to use heat sinks as additional tonnage when determining personnel requirements.

Suddenly an LRM-20 that masses 16 tons isn't as attractive.  An SRM-2 that masses 3 loses a lot of the frightening bite that a single ton version does.  A five ton SRM-4 likewise.  It also neatly keeps RLs from getting absolutely out of control.  Even on the Clan side, it's suddenly 11 tons per LRM-20, which means a maximum of two of them per standard Clan point.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 18 June 2015, 00:52:00
Requiring heat sinks for missile weapons would balance things, but it adds a unique complication not found in autocannons in field guns, and distinct from the operation of autocannons and missile weapons in vehicles. Not saying it doesn't help.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 18 June 2015, 01:30:27
Balance first, fluff second.  That's the reason we've got weapon ranges that can be measured in tens of meters, and it has served BT well enough.

Since we're already talking about infantry, arguably the single unit type in the game that shares the least in terms of operation and rules with any other kind of unit, I'm inclined to say that a single exception to the effect of "towed missile weapons must account for weapon heat" isn't going to make them too terribly more complicated.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 18 June 2015, 02:02:53
You really don't have to nerf Missiles so much as it is
Per latest (and earlier errata)
Quote
Each Field Gun requires a number of troopers equal to its weight in tonnage to operate, rounding up (to a minimum of 2 troopers per Field Gun). A platoon equipped with multiple Field Guns can only operate as many Field Guns as it can keep fully manned (any excess Field Guns are considered destroyed as the unit takes damage).

Just change that minimum 2 per Gun to a 3 or 4. Just look at the RAC/5 or an Ultra 20. They look powerful but aren't. And Ultra AC/20 gets one ton of ammo. 5 SHOTS.  To be an Uber weapon you would have to stay hidden and do a point blank shot.

Even having a 30 man platoon doesn't give your field gunners much of a chance in most games. Besides, only a Motorized platoon gets 30 men. Tracked 28, and wheeled 24.

Besides and alteration of minimum crew size your could also make sure that Missile field guns are restricted to Mechanized infantry only. Fluff it up to a matter of trailer size compared to the smaller autocannons (since most fluff has ACs using mostly smaller caliber shells).

Another suggestion beyond a restricted motive and larger minimum crew. Cluster penalties. It was brought up a few posts back, but since Field Guns don't have any (known) fire control the to-hit could remain unchanged just make sure to apply a cluster penalty.

There are ways to make missile field guns as scary as AC field guns w/o creating odd rules. Or breaking most current canon field guns. A HS requirement is not a good direction to go.

So, a project for all those involved. Break out two random map boards, create a LRM Field Gun company (3 platoons) based on the current field gun rules (including the changes in the 3.4 errata), setup a lance of mechs. Run a few scenarios with normal field guns and then LRM field guns and give a report on how it played out. Make sure at least one of those scenarios were on the open terrain maps, or a blank map to see how they fare with no cover. This will give everyone the best idea of how they will need to be tweaked for balance reasons. Sound good?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 18 June 2015, 02:20:28
One suggestion: no (expletive deleted) Streak launchers for infantry.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 18 June 2015, 03:35:36
That could very easily be fluffed as to why they can't be field guns. No fire control, no targeting/tracking gear normally used in mechs/vees to get said lock.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 18 June 2015, 07:16:27
I disagree.  It doesn't have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons in either A) the autocannons meet the minimum trooper requirement as a matter of course or B) the minimum troop requirement only applies to towed missile weapons.  Energy weapons are already made roughly balanced by the heat sink requirement.

I fail to see any reason why B can't happen, especially since this is expressly a balance decision.

Energy weapons could be further balanced by having them incur a heat bloom effect like the one used by Battle Armor Myomer Booster,  so energy field guns can't deploy as hidden units. My thought is that the heat sinks used by the energy weapons aren't tied into a fusion reactor's control system and therefore don't run as efficiently.

Just think 28 SRM-2s.  Okay, saw AK's comment, still 14 SRM-2s. Or 14 SRM-4s, worse.

Would it be ridiculous to propose a 5 or 7 man minimum? Yes, 7 would nerf the canon Taurian 5-LAC platoon, but is it such a huge change?

I'm still uncomfortable with a 30-man platoon carrying 3 LRM-20s (IS), or 6 (Clan). Even with only 6 shots, that's pretty unholy. Two Gauss Rifles or UAC-20s in a platoon is also pretty unholy, admittedly.

(New Capellan unit - Miners. 30-man platoon, with 3 LRM-20s loaded with Thunder-Aug. You spend the first 3 turns spreading the joy liberally, then ditch the launchers to act as a slightly oversized standard infantry unit.)
How about reducing the ammunition from one ton to a half ton? Or making them One Shot versions? Still doesn't help with Rocket Launchers, but just wanted to suggest it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 18 June 2015, 10:47:15
The other thing that comes to my mind is that we already have infantry SRM and LRM launchers. Perhaps field gun versions of heavy weapon missile launchers would be redundant.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 19 June 2015, 13:17:33
Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 19 June 2015, 13:27:25
Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?

No.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 19 June 2015, 16:41:07
Perhaps field gun versions of heavy weapon missile launchers would be redundant.

Not really as those infantry scale weapons don't do much compared to a true towed field unit. Remember there is also an infantry autocannon support weapon. Is that redundant?

If you limit all types of field guns to a minimum crew of three then you can keep the smaller launchers (RL, SRM 2/4/6, LRM 5/10) to a more manageable number. It might not be perfect, but the rules don't allow for perfect. There is also a tradeoff somewhere.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 19 June 2015, 17:36:53
even with a minimum crew of three, you're allowed some horrific beatsticks like x10 IS SSRM-4s. That's 80 potential damage, which outperforms pretty much any autocannon-equipped platoon by a bunch.

I like the idea of lasers feeling cumbersome as field guns with all that added weight for heat sinks and power amplifiers. I feel like four as the minimum allows for less egregious exploitation while still lining up with the lightest Autocannon (LAC/2). If I had my druthers, I'd probably set the minimum to five as to hard cap the number of field guns in any platoon at 6.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 19 June 2015, 18:50:16
How about reducing the ammunition from one ton to a half ton? Or making them One Shot versions? Still doesn't help with Rocket Launchers, but just wanted to suggest it.
A combination of higher minimum crew per towed weapon combined with One-Shot versions would nerf the Field Launchers.

As for Field Gun energy weapons, ideas:
- Having them run on batteries/capacitors (like BA weapons). The number of shots can be made as a function of the weapon weight (weapon+SHS), thus more weight  = less shots.
- Or forcing them near a stationary combat vehicle (2 hexes?) that provides power, forcing the player to either take out the power source or the guns.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 19 June 2015, 20:49:08
It's probably better to have it be a function of damage rather than mass.
Near as I can tell,  ballistics have around 100 damage in a ton of ammo, though gauss runs a but higher.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 20 June 2015, 00:00:00
Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?

I believe it basically has no real effect at the Alpha Strike level.

-
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 20 June 2015, 01:08:26
Evidently.  That seems silly.  It's certainly neither a stretch nor difficult to apply the typical *1.1 multiplier to weapons mounted in a limb with AES, just like a targeting computer.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 20 June 2015, 01:35:38
We're examining the AES issue.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 20 June 2015, 02:51:44
Evidently.  That seems silly.  It's certainly neither a stretch nor difficult to apply the typical *1.1 multiplier to weapons mounted in a limb with AES, just like a targeting computer.
Makes sense, but there's also the matter of AES giving a bonus to piloting rolls (arm AES gives a -1 to melee attacks, and leg mounted AES gives a -2 to PSRs)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 20 June 2015, 02:54:29
It's a fact of life that Alpha Strike is an abstraction of an abstraction. There may be no way to fit everything in.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 20 June 2015, 13:43:17
Poor M-Pods... :'(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 20 June 2015, 14:09:41
Makes sense, but there's also the matter of AES giving a bonus to piloting rolls (arm AES gives a -1 to melee attacks, and leg mounted AES gives a -2 to PSRs)

I'd be much happier if AES included weapon damage modifiers under the AS ruleset and nothing else than the current absolute zero effect.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 20 June 2015, 15:14:51
It's probably better to have it be a function of damage rather than mass.
Near as I can tell,  ballistics have around 100 damage in a ton of ammo, though gauss runs a but higher.
So?:
The number of shots that a Field Weapon has is equal to 100 divided by the weapon damage (rounded down) or that of a single ton of ammunition, choose whichever option has the least number of shots. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 22 June 2015, 15:23:43
Will the notable pilots' 'Mechs from the Alpha Strike Lance Packs be added to the MUL at any point?  Several are non-standard, and at present a sufficiently dedicated stickler could claim that by not appearing on the MUL they're not canon.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 22 June 2015, 15:48:59
Will the notable pilots' 'Mechs from the Alpha Strike Lance Packs be added to the MUL at any point?  Several are non-standard, and at present a sufficiently dedicated stickler could claim that by not appearing on the MUL they're not canon.

Ok, I can make a listing for them.  Wouldn't want a stickler to miss out.
But I presume you really want to know is whether or not the Alpha Strike cards would also be included on the MUL.  To that, I don't know yet.  I need to go ask.
This should really be in the MUL thread though, this isn't errata.

EDIT: And...Nope, we won't be adding those cards to the MUL at this time.

EDIT2: Note that except for the Vulcan (Carras) and Catapult "Butterbee 2", all of the rest are already on the MUL.  Many just have different pilots.   The Battlemaster from the Ad Hoc deck is a K3.  The Nightstar is a 9J.  The Zeus is a Zeus (Leonidas).  The Hellstar...is a Hellstar.  From the Lance Packs, the Wolfhound (Finn) is a WFL-1 (Allard).  The Grasshopper "Gravedigger" is on the MUL already.  Awesome (Mink) is an Awesome (Smith).   The Grand Dragon (Kisomata) is the Grand Dragon 5K (Mark).  The Banshee (Bauer) is a copy of the Banshee (Vandergriff).   Only the Vulcan and Catapult were new designs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 22 June 2015, 17:20:10
I put it in this thread because it specifically says "Questions HERE" :D

The Vulcan is up on my next Alpha Strike 'Mech of the Week article, so that's a little unfortunate.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 June 2015, 17:27:17
The MUL thread is kind of a weirdo.  If you have any questions concerning it, they definitely fit best there.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 05 July 2015, 02:01:23
So, apparently, I never updated my copy of AToW when the second printing was released (and the download link is expired, which means I have to bug the support guys to see if they can reactivate it).

Did this
EDIT by Paul:

Battle Armor and encumbrance:

p. 169:
"Encumbering Items: A character already encumbered by
weight limit issues who in turn carries encumbering equipment
raises his encumbrance factor by one level. For example, if a
character with a STR of 5 is carrying more than 30 kg of gear, he
is considered encumbered; if he also is wearing a suit of ballistic
plate armor (noted as an encumbering item in its statistics), the
character is treated as if very encumbered."

AFTER THIS ADD:
"Battle Armor: To determine encumbrance when wearing Battle Armor, use the operators STR and apply a bonus based on the suit type: PA(L) = +1 STR, Light = +2 STR, Medium = +4 STR, Heavy = +6 STR and Assault = +8 STR. An additional +4 STR bonus applies if the suit has a Myomer Booster."

p. 216:
"Other Features"

BELOW THIS ADD:

"Has Myomer Booster   +0M/12   +2   +2"


ever make it into the updated version, because I'm not seeing it in the errata document.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 July 2015, 02:49:09
This was added to the second printing, but it seems it was missed in the errata.  I'll update the errata immediately.  Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 05 July 2015, 02:54:27
Good to know while I am waiting to actually get my copy updated.

There isn't a note that myomer boosters negate stealth bonuses, though, is there?  I remember asking about it a while ago, but it's not something I remember making it into any errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 July 2015, 03:06:07
Not that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 05 July 2015, 03:12:26
I thought as much.

An unfortunate omission
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 July 2015, 03:16:57
If you could find the thread in question I'd appreciate it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 05 July 2015, 03:56:53
Ah, that's in my (second) BA questions thread of doom, though I am certain I mentioned it elsewhere too.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/a-time-of-war/(research)-ba-questions-continued/

Also a small note.  I noticed with the recent AToW errata the vehicular stealth table on pg. 218 got an update, but I should note BA Myomer boosters are supposed to prevent BA from hiding due to the heat output so for the next eratta round (whenever that is) you should probably add a note that BA with a myomer booster always have 0 for their I rating.

The relevant rule for TW scale play is in TO Pg. 287
Quote
Battlesuits equipped with Myomer Boosters generate excessive heat, making them incapable of operating as hidden units and rendering any Stealth
or Mimetic Armor ineffective. ECM systems will still affect other electronic systems that pass through the ECM “bubble,” but the suits themselves remain
visible on sensors due to their heat signature.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 06 July 2015, 17:49:15
p77, Cluster artillery munitions (section begins on previous page)
after
"For targets outside the original template but within the expanded AoE template, the cluster artillery delivers half its modified damage (rounded down)."
add
"An initial value of 1 would be halved to 0* (see Minimal Damage p XX)."

Does that also affect Thumper cluster shots?  The damage technically starts at 1, reduced by 1 for the cluster to 0, and I don't actually know whether that would be 0* all around or not.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 06 July 2015, 17:56:25
check the updated errata post and see if that covers it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 06 July 2015, 17:58:17
Certainly does.  Thanks for the quick responses.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dohon on 09 July 2015, 07:56:23
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6625/scourge-scg-wf1

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:Scourge.jpg

The unit image for the Scourge SCG-WF1 on the MUL does not match the image in TRO:3145 Lyran Commanwealth (Sarna link to original image provided above for reference). Is the current image on the MUL for the other variant (SCG-WD1) of the Scourge? Or is it for a new version of the Scourge, one that hasn't been published yet?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 July 2015, 08:22:18
Scourge image fixed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dohon on 09 July 2015, 09:24:25
Scourge image fixed.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 11 July 2015, 21:21:26
So I'm looking at Remote Sensor Dispensers in Alpha Strike, and struggling to divine any magical secret about why I should bother or care about them.  Probes uncover hidden units much, much better and more effectively, they're fragile, and a +3 in addition to normal indirect fire mods when spotting is crippling beyond anything could possibly useful in Alpha Strike.  A cumulative +4 in order to hit indirectly?  Utterly, completely not worth it.

So, I guess my question is: was that +3 decided on for Alpha Strike, or did it carry over from standard?  It seems... prohibitively high for Alpha Strike, where I've not ever seen anything get that high (especially in addition to more inherent mods!).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 11 July 2015, 21:33:59
Intentional as they are. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 11 July 2015, 22:38:00
Given how insanely easy it would be to flood a battlefield with remote sensors, the limitations seem vital to avoid retroactively invalidating large amounts of existing electronic warfare equipment.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 11 July 2015, 22:59:40
I found a use for them.  Carry on.

I may edit the use I found for them into the artillery article at some point.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 July 2015, 13:02:19
A quick perusal of the Companion on a whim discovers that NOVA equipment does not actually pay a points premium for the C3 capabilities it brings to the table.  It is notably absent from the Offensive Blanket Multipliers Table (Ground Units) on pg. 139.  Since NOVA deliberately doesn't get to swap between units in the end phase, I was curious if this omission was deliberate?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 13 July 2015, 13:49:39
I was going through the MUL.

Question: Phoenix Hawk LAM Mk 1,  it's role is NONE.  What heck that suppose to to mean?  Multi-mission Unit not good enough or scout which LAMs excel at be not a good role for it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 13 July 2015, 13:51:27
NOVA counts as c3 equipment.

None for role is the default, we haven't assigned one.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 July 2015, 13:53:57
NOVA counts as c3 equipment.

None for role is the default, we haven't assigned one.

It does, explicitly so in the Special description.  However, it does not actually give any sort of C3 that goes in the Special box, and NOVA is not mentioned in the Blanket Offensive Force Modifiers (Ground) Table (Which explicitly mentions C3 Specials, not equipment that acts like C3). 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 13 July 2015, 13:57:32
It does, explicitly so in the Special description.  However, it does not actually give any sort of C3 that goes in the Special box, and NOVA is not mentioned in the Blanket Offensive Force Modifiers (Ground) Table (Which explicitly mentions C3 Specials, not equipment that acts like C3).

So this isn't a question, we both know NOVA is C3 and should have the C3 cost, you just want (or NOVA) added as errata?

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 July 2015, 14:10:41
Yes.  I figured it'd be better to clarify that I wasn't making an erroneous assumption in this thread than in the actual Errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: EvilOverlordX on 13 August 2015, 15:02:56
Not to belabor the point, but swath and swathe have different definitions:

swath: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swath?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swath?s=t)

swathe: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swathe?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swathe?s=t)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 August 2015, 15:07:14
Not to belabor the point, but swath and swathe have different definitions:

swath: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swath?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swath?s=t)

swathe: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swathe?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swathe?s=t)

In American English, yes.  In British English the there is no noun/verb spelling separation (see Cambridge, Oxford dictionaries).

Please keep discussion to this thread.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 August 2015, 15:40:02
Now that we have LAMs in IO, should the way they're handled (particularly AirMech to-hit modifiers) be changed for Alpha Strike?  As is, they're currently still getting the +5 or +6 TMM they used to get for WIGE movement of that distance.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 13 August 2015, 15:42:48
Now that we have LAMs in IO, should the way they're handled (particularly AirMech to-hit modifiers) be changed for Alpha Strike?  As is, they're currently still getting the +5 or +6 TMM they used to get for WIGE movement of that distance.

I say they should get a flat +4 "TMM" to represent off-angle evasive movement. It seems like a nice simplification for AS.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 August 2015, 15:46:56
They're also not suffering to-hit mods for their exceptional speed, unlike in standard, and evasive only ups the penalties.  There'd need to be some sort of offensive penalty for +4 to be warranted or balanced.

EDIT: basically, "why not always use AirMech mode?" needs to be addressed in Alpha Strike, too.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 13 August 2015, 15:48:57
They're also not suffering to-hit mods for their exceptional speed, unlike in standard, and evasive only ups the penalties.  There'd need to be some sort of offensive penalty for +4 to be warranted or balanced.

Excellent point. Let me think on this, and study up on my Alpha Strike. Might take me a day to figure out how I'd resolve it; unlike yesterday when I could devote a few hours to studying all the different takes on LAMs, work is busy and I'm going out tonight. :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 13 August 2015, 16:06:52
IO is still in beta.  We can wait on changing Alpha Strike. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 18 August 2015, 06:33:33
Question on the recent errata to the Alpha Strike Companion for converting XXL engine heat.

p. 115, Special Case Heat Rules:

XXL Engine: If the unit’s Technical Readout shows that it mounts an XXL engine type, double its movement heat.
Change to:
XXL Engine: A BattleMech or IndustrialMech unit with an XXL engine ignores the regular movement heat calculations. Instead, it has a movement heat of 6 if it does not mount jump jets, or 2 per 2 inches of jumping Move if it does (to a minimum of +6 heat for such jumping units).
In TW play IJJ get half heat of normal jump jets (even when using a XXL engine) to the point that IJJ and an XXL engine generate 1 heat per hex of jump instead of normal jump jet's 2 heat per hex. Maybe I just haven't read the conversion rules close enough, but shouldn't there also be a separate conversion for improved jump jets?

Something like, "If the unit mounts improved jump jets it has a movement heat of 1 per 2 inches of jumping move (to a minimum of +6 heat for such jumping units)."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Pa Weasley on 18 August 2015, 07:31:23
ASC p. 115 just below the XXL Engine has conversion rules for Improved Jump Jets. I don't have it in front of me so I can't give you the exact wording, but it halves the heat generated for jump movement to a minimum of of +3. You could arguably add a note to that section along the lines of "or a minimum of +6 if the unit mounts an XXL engine."

Just to point out a tiny ... something. There's nothing in the IJJ conversion rules noting whether the resulting value should be rounded.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 August 2015, 12:13:46
I've updated the errata post to add in a section on IJJs covering rounding and the combination with XXL engines.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: RotS fan on 19 August 2015, 10:56:12
Question about quadvees and Alpha Strike.
By Interstellar Operations, pg. 133, wheeled quadvees receive a +1 movement bonus. The quadvee section in Alpha Strike Companion, pg 43-44, says nothing about this bonus. Is this errata or AS quadvees really don't get the bonus?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 19 August 2015, 12:06:33
The move bonus would already be reflected in the movement ratings of the unit?  You wouldn't then add it again when converting to AS.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: RotS fan on 19 August 2015, 13:04:40
The move bonus would already be reflected in the movement ratings of the unit?  You wouldn't then add it again when converting to AS.

Let me see if I understand correctly.
Tracked quadvee A has 4/6 movement profile in mech mode and 4/6 movement profile in vehicle mode.
Wheeled quadvee B has 4/6 movement profile in mech mode and 5/8 movement profile in vehicle mode.

ASC says "the movement rate in vehicle mode is identical to the unit’s non-jumping ’Mech mode" (page 44, second bullet). So Quadvee A will have MV 8" qt and Quadvee B will have MV 8" qw, right? I'm asking if the fact wheeled quadvees don't have different MV in vehicle mode (in this example, B would have 10") is errata or not.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 19 August 2015, 13:15:54
Ah, I didn't realize they only got the bonus in wheeled mode.  So yeah, presumably once IO is no longer in beta, ASC may need errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 21 August 2015, 16:42:26
That seems like it'd be easy enough to handle, with a movement profile of 8"/10"qw.  PV would be a bit weird, since there's a difference of TMM in there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 21 August 2015, 21:35:19
That seems like it'd be easy enough to handle, with a movement profile of 8"/10"qw.  PV would be a bit weird, since there's a difference of TMM in there.
Couldn't it be handled kinda like mismatched jump jets? Just calculate both sets of numbers and take the higher one?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 22 August 2015, 02:11:47
That seems reasonable.  Would that introduce any difficulty with QuadVees that mount mismatched jumpjets?  We have no canon examples yet, but it's possible in an edge case to have a QuadVee with movement modes 8"/6"j/10"qw or something similar.  Would that be handled the same way?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Panthros on 23 August 2015, 19:12:10
I noticed some great feedback in the Alpha Strike Companion thread, two pages of feedback.  Perhaps it is time for an errata?  What is the criteria for when an errata comes out?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 August 2015, 21:21:24
I noticed some great feedback in the Alpha Strike Companion thread, two pages of feedback.  Perhaps it is time for an errata?  What is the criteria for when an errata comes out?

Either 1) when an admin calls for it (almost always due to an upcoming reprint) or 2) when I have the time and am allowed to supervise it on my own.

Fortunately you're in luck, as I just realized the same thing you did a couple of days ago, and will try to find time to get an errata out next month.  If you check the thread I've already done some consolidating of errata from the same rules sections into single posts in preparation for this.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Pezmotion on 24 August 2015, 14:23:33
Total Warfare v4.2 Errata question:

On page 21 of the errata:
Quote
Attack Modifiers Table (p. 117)
Under “Target (modifiers cumulative)”, delete the row: Airborne VTOL unit +1

Airborne VTOL units still receive the "+1 additional" from the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)" modifier in the Attacks Modifier Table, correct? Does this mean that the following scenarios are correct?
1) An airborne VTOL decided to remain stationary this turn. Their Target modifier is 1: 0 for hexes moved, 1 for the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)".
2) An airborne VTOL used Cruising Movement Mode to move 2 hexes this turn. Their Target modifier is 1: 0 for hexes moved, 1 for the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)"
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 August 2015, 14:41:52
Total Warfare v4.2 Errata question:

On page 21 of the errata:
Airborne VTOL units still receive the "+1 additional" from the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)" modifier in the Attacks Modifier Table, correct? Does this mean that the following scenarios are correct?
1) An airborne VTOL decided to remain stationary this turn. Their Target modifier is 1: 0 for hexes moved, 1 for the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)".
2) An airborne VTOL used Cruising Movement Mode to move 2 hexes this turn. Their Target modifier is 1: 0 for hexes moved, 1 for the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)"

They still receive the +1, yes.  Your examples are correct.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 26 August 2015, 17:39:08
Alpha Strike Companion p.155 - Aerospace Formations

I have three errors to report of the PDF.

Under Transport Squadron.  Last sentence of the first paragraph:
Quote
...while the typically larger aerospace craft are used to materiel to, from, or through the battle zone.

Material is misspelled, and I believe the missing word should be "move" so that it reads:
"...larger aerospace craft are used to move material to, from, and through the battle zone."


Third error.

Still under Transport Squadron.  Last sentence of the second paragraph:
Quote
But sometimes, 

Not sure what should go there or if it should be omitted. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 01 September 2015, 11:54:59
Materiel is correct. It refers to military equipment and materials.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: VictorMorson on 10 September 2015, 01:47:21
Question about the Magistracy of Canopus:  In Handbook: Major Periphery States, they are given a price for Slavery (35 Bi-Weekly); it is given a footnote, however, talking about the Marian Hegemony.  Given that the Magistracy of Canopus seems the polar opposite of slavery in every way (being to the extreme about personal freedom), I'm guessing this was a typo?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 11 September 2015, 18:28:04
Question about the Magistracy of Canopus:  In Handbook: Major Periphery States, they are given a price for Slavery (35 Bi-Weekly); it is given a footnote, however, talking about the Marian Hegemony.  Given that the Magistracy of Canopus seems the polar opposite of slavery in every way (being to the extreme about personal freedom), I'm guessing this was a typo?

No, Herb discussed this at one point, it is a pay scale for those who sell themselves into slavery. It certainly is an extreme of personal freedom, but it's not like the MoC lacks for taking things to the extreme.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: VictorMorson on 14 September 2015, 05:40:03
Wow, that is interesting to know and definitely something I'll file away.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 03 October 2015, 14:56:16
General Errata Report: Fire Lance Pack

Problem: On the "Zeta" side of the Wolf's Dragoons card, the following line appears: "...a Zeta MechWarrior killed the sun of that group's leader, Wayne Waco..." Zeta Battalion is pretty bad-ass, but killing entire stars is beyond even them.

Correction: Replace the word "sun" with "son."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: caioaf on 07 November 2015, 20:17:45
I have some questions and observations:

1- In War of the Tripods! none of the tripods have their BV written. The absence of BV is errata-worthy or it was left blank intentionally?
2- These tripods will ever appear in the MUL and be converted to Alpha Strike?
3- MUL has Alpha Strike stats for Clan Interface Armor squads. However, deploying squads of 4, 5 or 6 CIAs do not make too much sense considering their purpose. Does it make sense to create a "Squad: 1" AS card exclusively for Interface armors?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FedComGirl on 09 November 2015, 05:23:55
No, Herb discussed this at one point, it is a pay scale for those who sell themselves into slavery. It certainly is an extreme of personal freedom, but it's not like the MoC lacks for taking things to the extreme.

Sort of like indentured servitude?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 17 November 2015, 16:52:36
I'm confused by TW Errata 4.2.

On page 13, regarding the facing changes (TW page 84):

“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.”

So up till velocity 6, ASFs can make 1 facing change for every 8 hexes on the ground map. In which case, what is the STRAIGHT MOVEMENT ON
GROUND MAPS TABLE (AERODYNE CRAFT ONLY) table on page 92 of TW for? The minimum straight movement costs there contradict the TW errata. Does the TW errata render this table defunct?

Page 92 of TW :

"Aerodyne units also use the facing changes rules for low-altitude movement, except that the straight movement required before making a facing change has a greater eff ect at this scale. See the column appropriate for the unit’s class on the Straight Movement on Ground Maps Table, below, for the minimum number of ground map hexes a unit must move in a straight line between one-hexside facing changes."

What's even more confusing is that page 84 of TW starts by talking about free facing changes :

"While operating in a atmosphere hex, fighters, aerodyne DropShips and aerodyne small craft need not spend Thrust Points to change facing. Instead, they use control surfaces built into their wings to change facing and altitude. These surfaces allow the unit to make a number of free facing changes, depending on unit type and velocity. The faster a unit moves, the fewer free facing changes it receives."

How does the free facing thing work now? I thought the straight movement table on page 84 was the number of hexes the unit must move before it gets a free facing change, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

The TW errata (page 2) also says :

"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, which may be split across two turns."

This is for additional facing changes, but ASFs on the ground map need to move at least 8 hexes before making ANY facing changes anyway....

Assuming page 92 is talking strictly about the minimum number of hexes ASFs can move before making facing changes on the ground map, then at velocity 2, a ASF would need to move 12 hexes before making ANY facing change. But this wouldn't really make sense because page 84 would allow the ASF to make free facing changes after every 8 hexes at velocity 2.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 November 2015, 13:20:28
I'm confused by TW Errata 4.2.

The section on p. 84 is referring to the standard high/low altitude rules.  The rules and table on p. 92 are for an entirely separate set of optional rules for movement directly on the ground mapsheet.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 23 November 2015, 17:45:36
The section on p. 84 is referring to the standard high/low altitude rules.  The rules and table on p. 92 are for an entirely separate set of optional rules for movement directly on the ground mapsheet.

Thanks, but if that's the case, why does the errata say "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.” when referencing the table on page 84?

If the rules and table on page 92 are for the optional rules, then what are the non-optional rules for movement directly on the ground mapsheet?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 23 November 2015, 17:53:35
If the rules and table on page 92 are for the optional rules, then what are the non-optional rules for movement directly on the ground mapsheet?

There aren't any. If you're using aeros directly on ground mapsheets, you are by definition using optional rules.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 23 November 2015, 18:01:40
There aren't any. If you're using aeros directly on ground mapsheets, you are by definition using optional rules.

But he's saying errata for p84 (the non optional part) _is_ referencing moving on a ground map.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 28 November 2015, 21:18:32
Uh...so does anyone have any clue why it says to use the table on page 84?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 28 November 2015, 21:24:35
For actual rules questions, please use the "Ask the Lead Developers" subforum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 28 November 2015, 23:54:34
But this is in regards to an errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 29 November 2015, 05:51:11
But this is in regards to an errata?

Page 84 covers movement on the Low Altitude map. This is most emphatically NOT the same as the Ground map. They are at different scales. Did you not notice the diagram on page 91 showing that each Low Altitude map hex is (roughly) the same size as an entire Ground scale mapsheet? The Straight Movement on Ground Maps Table (Aerodyne Only) (pg. 92) completely replaces the Straight Movement Table (pg. 84) when you're using aerospace units directly on the Ground map. See page 74 for definitions of the pertinent terms. Page 76 states that a Low Altitude map hex is 500 meters across; a Ground map hex is only 30 meters per page 31.

Also, you're quoting the wrong parts of the errata document. See the attached picture. The red boxes denote the old, incorrect text, which should be clear from the underlined (and circled in orange) Change to: lines. The corrections are in the green boxes.

And yes, if you believe an errata is in error, the proper procedure is get a ruling on the matter through the Ask the Lead Developers subforum. It's not an insult or challenge to the Errata guys, it's just a way of making sure that the situation gets addressed in a formal manner.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 29 November 2015, 21:36:05
I dont understand why you say i quoted the wrong parts, because it looks like i quoted the same parts you did.

The new errata on page 84 references the ground map and the table on page 84. If its only talking about the low altitude map, why would it say that for ground movement, use the low altitude table on page 84 and then multiple the number of hexes by 8?

Anyway i will post a question in the ask a developers forum i guess.

Edit : Actually it looks like that forum is only for story/universe questions? I posted it in the rules question forum anyway.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 29 November 2015, 23:46:14
Rules forums are correct for rules questions, as per the errata rules thread; thanks Question.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 25 December 2015, 18:01:36
Hi all.  I'm out of the country for a month.  While I'm away, Moonsword will be holding down the fort.  Have a good new year!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 25 December 2015, 18:35:34
Safe travels!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 26 December 2015, 17:49:13
Any word on the 2765 series and Errata? Been two years on these.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 26 December 2015, 17:51:00
I'm afraid not.  If I have any news on errata that I can release, I'll tell it the moment I have it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 28 December 2015, 17:41:45
Darn... wouldbe happy if we at least got the RAT fixed in 2765:P. :-\

But thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dravin on 03 January 2016, 21:53:27
OK, I'm new to the game and the forum, do if this is in the wrong place, a thousand apologies.

 I was going to purchase the tech manual PDF, but was informed that there are rumors of a new edition coming out. My question is, should I wait to buy it, or will the PDF update like it does for the TRO sheets? I just don't want to buy it if I have to basically but it again soon :-\
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 06 January 2016, 07:06:40
OK, I'm new to the game and the forum, do if this is in the wrong place, a thousand apologies.

 I was going to purchase the tech manual PDF, but was informed that there are rumors of a new edition coming out. My question is, should I wait to buy it, or will the PDF update like it does for the TRO sheets? I just don't want to buy it if I have to basically but it again soon :-\

if you buy the PDF from the Catalyst Battleshop or DrivethruRPG, you'll get a notification to download the errata'd version
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 January 2016, 14:12:03
Is it alright to post in the official threads about which RS is correct on a design? Or does that count as a discussion?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 February 2016, 00:46:23
I'm not clear exactly what you'd be reporting.  Feel free to report it here, and I'll move it where needed if needed.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 16 February 2016, 14:37:00
The design in question is the TR-A-1 Toro (the Primitive one). In the BC210 RS3075 Unabridged RS book, the design is a 3/5 with 11 single heat sinks and slightly more armor. In XTROPrimitive IV its a 4/6 design with 10 single heat sinks and slightly less armor.

Normally I'd say the second takes precedence, but since its a major change and both are legal, I figured I'd find someplace to ask which was correct.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 16 February 2016, 15:00:17
The XTR Primitives version of 3075 primitive were intentionally fixing those RS.  The Toro TR-A-1 was removed from RS 3075 Age of War because XTR Primitives is it's "correct" home.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 16 February 2016, 15:44:27
Okay, just making sure. Normally I would assume the newer would take precedence, but since there was nothing wrong with the old one, I figured I'd make sure it wasn't a case of someone not realizing a previous RS existed or something.

And a bigger, more wide ranging question.

Is it "Endo Steel" or "Endo-Steel" because looking at TechManual, on page 224, its always "Endo-Steel" yet on the charts in the BattleMech construction rules, its listed as "Endo Steel" (page 47 for example) and then later again in the examples for determining cost, its listed as "Endo Steel."

IO continues the ambiguity, with the writeup for Prototype Endo Steel on page 71 calling it "Endo Steel" which is repeated on page 103. Even the Ferro Fibrous armor states "As with Star League-era endo steel..."

And yet on the Universal Technology Advancement Table (p. 48), its listed as "Endo-Steel" for both BattleMech structure and Superheavy BattleMech structure. The superheavy 'Mech cost section also calls it "endo-steel."

Some sort of standard should be be in place by now, right?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 22 February 2016, 12:40:54
**bump**

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5884.msg1118240#msg1118240

Alpha Strike Companion p.155 - Aerospace Formations

I have three two errors to report of the PDF.

Under Transport Squadron.  Last sentence of the first paragraph:
Quote
...while the typically larger aerospace craft are used to materiel to, from, or through the battle zone.

I believe the missing word should be "move" so that it reads:
"...larger aerospace craft are used to move materiel to, from, and through the battle zone."


Third Second error.

Still under Transport Squadron.  Last sentence of the second paragraph:
Quote
But sometimes, 

Not sure what should go there or if it should be omitted. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: RaiderRed on 15 March 2016, 21:14:30
I was looking through the Random Assignment tables and noticed a Royal variant  of the Catapult missing from the list the base mech is there just not the royal? Is there a reason to not include it in that list?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 19 March 2016, 00:02:20
So the background fluff and introductory date for the DroST II dropship presented in Historical: Reunification War and XTRO Primitives IV both indicate that the ship was intended to be carried internally aboard a jumpship when first built (they actually predate the kf-boom)

However, the craft is 5300 tons, and the rules for internal dropshuttle bays limit each carried dropship to 5000 tons. So they're too big, as written, to be used as intended.

Where should the errata be aimed?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 19 March 2016, 11:14:19
Where should the errata be aimed?

I put one while ago, got no traction for it.  You may want do a Ask the Writers, see if that get TPTB to respond.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 March 2016, 11:15:19
I was looking through the Random Assignment tables and noticed a Royal variant  of the Catapult missing from the list the base mech is there just not the royal? Is there a reason to not include it in that list?

It wasn't published until after Klondike was in RS3039 Unabridged, so it's possible the 'Mech wasn't actually created at the time the RATs were written.  You'd do better to post in Ask the Writers for something like that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 March 2016, 11:19:22
So the background fluff and introductory date for the DroST II dropship presented in Historical: Reunification War and XTRO Primitives IV both indicate that the ship was intended to be carried internally aboard a jumpship when first built (they actually predate the kf-boom)

However, the craft is 5300 tons, and the rules for internal dropshuttle bays limit each carried dropship to 5000 tons. So they're too big, as written, to be used as intended.

Where should the errata be aimed?

This is in the errata rules thread.  Basically, for cases like these we ask that you take it to Ask The Writers.  If you get an answer, post it in the right thread (or in this case, threads) with a link to the answer.

Thanks a lot.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 30 March 2016, 07:03:02
From the Alpha Strike Companion Errata Thread:
p152, Pursuit Lance Bonus Ability
Add after the current line.
"The Pursuit Lance may choose an enemy Formation rather than a single unit as the target for the Blood Stalker SPA. All members of the Pursuit Lance must choose the same enemy Formation for the Blood Stalker SPA.  If all units in the chosen enemy Formation are destroyed, the Pursuit Lance must choose another enemy Formation for the Blood Stalker SPA."
Just to clarify, when starting the game, the player has the player has the option of using Blood Stalker individually for the Formation OR using it to target a whole enemy Formation?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 30 March 2016, 07:32:06
The Pursuit Lance as a whole chooses an entire Lance/Star/etc. as their target.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 30 March 2016, 10:51:41
The Pursuit Lance as a whole chooses an entire Lance/Star/etc. as their target.
I got that part, but I wasn't sure if this was the new (and only) bonus or if instead the members of the lance/star/etc. could still individually target enemies.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 30 March 2016, 11:19:03
This is in addition to the old text instead of replacing it, so both options are legal.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 03 April 2016, 20:14:59
Question:

While I have the stats for the Federated-Barrett M42B Rifle System, I do not have the Inferno stats for it's underslung Compact Grenade Launcher. Both in damage and BV2. Is there one or should I assume none is forth coming?

Stat Block as of 3.0 Errata, main page CBT Forum with BV2:

Grenade Launcher (Compact) IS / Clan (C) Small / Support (B) 1 0.16 3.0 kg / 0.2 kg (1) 1
Grenade Launcher (Compact) 0.49

Anyway to get Inferno Rounds with this?

Truetanker

(PS: Xotl summon button activated!  :) )
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 April 2016, 22:15:11
Question:
(PS: Xotl summon button activated!  :) )

You rang?
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=31220.msg773086#msg773086

The grenades are already factored into the weapon's considerable base damage.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 04 April 2016, 03:33:41
Right, but those appear to be the non-Inferno grenades.  The other rifles with integral grenade launchers have two entries...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2016, 12:19:23
This may not be errata, but here goes:

On pages 40 and 201, the conversion from A Time of War to Total Warfare skills omits Linked Attribute Modifiers (i.e. only skill level contributes).  Was this deliberate, or an oversight?  Page 40 does retain the TW limit of a "0" skill, so it seems deliberately leaving out attribute modifiers is an unnecessary additional limitation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 April 2016, 13:47:39
This may not be errata, but here goes:

On pages 40 and 201, the conversion from A Time of War to Total Warfare skills omits Linked Attribute Modifiers (i.e. only skill level contributes).  Was this deliberate, or an oversight?  Page 40 does retain the TW limit of a "0" skill, so it seems deliberately leaving out attribute modifiers is an unnecessary additional limitation.

As per the errata rules sticked at the top of the forum, if you're not sure yourself as to whether it's an error we ask that you post a rules question in the proper forum rather than an error report here.  I can't do anything about AToW stuff in particular until a dev weighs in on it, because I have no idea.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2016, 13:49:53
Will do, thanks.  I've seen questions like this bounced among errata to rules to lead developers to writers before so I figured I might as well start here.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 April 2016, 14:03:36
Will do, thanks.  I've seen questions like this bounced among errata to rules to lead developers to writers before so I figured I might as well start here.

Heh, yeah, that happens once in a while when you get edge-case questions.  Thanks for already re-asking your question.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 16 April 2016, 21:30:08
This may not be errata, but here goes:

On pages 40 and 201, the conversion from A Time of War to Total Warfare skills omits Linked Attribute Modifiers (i.e. only skill level contributes).  Was this deliberate, or an oversight?  Page 40 does retain the TW limit of a "0" skill, so it seems deliberately leaving out attribute modifiers is an unnecessary additional limitation.

Deliberate decision at the time.

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2016, 21:35:01
Ah, thank you!  Should I paste that in up in the rules question section as well?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 April 2016, 21:36:45
Heh, I just finished doing it and then I saw this.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2016, 21:40:40
And I'll thank you here as well!  O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 April 2016, 05:18:34
Is the BV Errata PDF From August 2014 the last word in BV Errata for TechManual?

http://d15yciz5bluc83.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TechManual-v3.0-Battle-Value.pdf?e42d90

for reference :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 April 2016, 10:10:04
Other than the following piece due in the upcoming errata, yes:

Inner Sphere Weapons and Equipment Table (p. 317)
1)   For the following items, after the Item BV add a ** footnote marker: Hatchet, Retractable Blade, Sword.

2)   In the footnotes section, add the following new footnote:

**These items may have their damage modified by other pieces of equipment the unit mounts. In all cases, the item’s BV is based on the final damage the item is capable of dealing after all modifications are applied.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 April 2016, 15:50:11
Hmm. Strange. That seems a really awkward way of putting that. Does TSM apply? Its a selective bonus and not a permanent one (which is why record sheets show you the base damage and not the TSM enhanced bonus). Compare that to Industrial TSM, which is always on and always provides a bonus.

So is TSM and Industrial TSM treated differently? Why not since one is a permanent bonus, and the other one isn't?

And why does only the Hatchet, Retractable Blade and sword get this footnote market? Why not the Backhoe as well, whose damage is modified by TSM, atleast according to the chart on page 146 of Total Warfare?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 April 2016, 15:57:56
Hmm. Strange. That seems a really awkward way of putting that. Does TSM apply? Its a selective bonus and not a permanent one (which is why record sheets show you the base damage and not the TSM enhanced bonus). Compare that to Industrial TSM, which is always on and always provides a bonus.

So is TSM and Industrial TSM treated differently? Why not since one is a permanent bonus, and the other one isn't?

It was based on an earlier errata ruling; I just tried to implement it the best I could.  If you have a clearer wording, I'd welcome it, based on the intent of the original ruling.

Quote
And why does only the Hatchet, Retractable Blade and sword get this footnote market? Why not the Backhoe as well, whose damage is modified by TSM, at least according to the chart on page 146 of Total Warfare?

Just forgot about it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 April 2016, 16:43:59
Well, for a clearer wording, I'd need to know what the rule is? Is it just "If mounted on a 'Mech with TSM, use the TSM-enhanced damage value to calculate BV"? Does it matter that TSM is a non-constant bonus (whereas something like Industrial TSM is a constant bonus?). Is it just TSM, or is there something else that modifies it, thus the need for a non-specific ruling?

I guess the second question would be, should this be on the Weapons and Equipment BV table where the Item BV is determined, or should this be part of the BV calculation itself? It seems to me that this would fit much better under the "Calculate Each Weapon's Modified BV" section of the actual BV Calculation, rather then sliding it in the chart in the back.

Does TacOps get this errata to for some of its weapons? I don't recall seeing it in the errata or the book...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ferret DerpDerp on 24 April 2016, 09:39:14
Just a quickie question: Is ALL the errata up to date and official?? Im really looking at the BV one. But since im here, Ill ask about all of them.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 24 April 2016, 09:48:10
Which errata are you referring to? The ones found in these threads or the pdf downloads? The pdfs are only generated once per year if I recall correctly. The threads are updated as things come up.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ferret DerpDerp on 24 April 2016, 10:09:01
This is what im talking about:   http://bg.battletech.com/errata/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 24 April 2016, 10:11:05
This is what im talking about:   http://bg.battletech.com/errata/

Those are the ones updated once a year around June.  The errata threads in this forum have other submitted errata (and errata for books not given an errata PDF).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ferret DerpDerp on 24 April 2016, 10:19:39
My main worry is the BV.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 24 April 2016, 10:52:35
The first post of each errata thread states when the version was compiled. Any posts in that thread after that date are not in the download. You just have to look up the matching thread to your download.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ferret DerpDerp on 24 April 2016, 11:09:35
ok, sounds good.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 April 2016, 14:11:41
The BV document is entirely up to date, except for one small ruling on modified damage for hatchets and other physical weapons, which was discussed directly above.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 25 April 2016, 14:51:31
Which I'm still wondering if it applies to TacOps weapons and especially how it applies to things Vibroblades who only get the occasional bonus :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 25 April 2016, 15:28:13
Which I'm still wondering if it applies to TacOps weapons and especially how it applies to things Vibroblades who only get the occasional bonus :)

I didn't miss your posts.  It's being worked on.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 26 April 2016, 06:38:39
Oh, I know. I figured. :) I also realized that I had forgotten to mention the Vibroblades specifically, since they're in such an odd situation, and wanted to clarify that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 26 April 2016, 16:01:57
Oh, I know. I figured. :) I also realized that I had forgotten to mention the Vibroblades specifically, since they're in such an odd situation, and wanted to clarify that.

I'll bet you'd like us to clarify the sound they make when two of them meet....
 ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 30 April 2016, 14:03:10
unsure if this was intended or a math error so i thought i'd ask here first.

Combat Manual Pg. 82

the infantry table suggests that the standard merc platoon is 40 men

(http://puu.sh/oBtfP/fe6895f8e1.png)

was the math done wrong (40 troops vs the traditional ~30 troops) or are merc infantry platoons indeed 40 man units?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 06 May 2016, 07:03:41
I noticed a thing of possible errata in First Succession War: The Rules Annex section's Special Case rules suggests using the SLDF Advanced Neurohelmet for games set during 1st SW... and the IO says the helmet went extinct in 2770.

At a glance, the obvious solution is to delete the line. But considering the greed of the Successor states and other things, this may be one of the rare eras when the helmet gets use, hence I regard this as merely possible because IO entry for the helmet notes at least ComStar and Clans had stockpiles of those helmets, and extending this to SLDF forces who defected to Successor States and the States could have captured stockpiles of the helmets. If so, the extinction date would refer to the tech to build them being lost only, rather than the item disappearing from the Inner Sphere, so the helmet would be usable during the early Succession Wars.

Or is the IO's extinction date for the SLDF Neurohelmet incorrect in light of this newer product?

Or am i adhering to extinction dates too much?

Or is the helmet listed there because ComStar has access to them throughout the Succession Wars, with IO implying they used them too in the rare cases they used their forces?

And finally, is this the right place for this or should I throw the question to Ask the Writers board?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 06 May 2016, 07:54:11
Extinction dates are when the equipment was no longer in production.  With a 2770 extinction date, it would be quite a while before the ones already produced would have all failed/be destroyed?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 06 May 2016, 08:54:52
I guess. So maybe not really errata, just a bit unclear as it isn't explained that the Successor States obtained those helmets as well.
Based on IO entry for the item, i got an impression it didn't spread beyond limited amount of elite SLDF forces.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: JadedFalcon on 12 May 2016, 19:12:56
Regarding Combat Manual: Mercenaries and the Availability Lists. The VND-1R and ASN-101 were recently errata'd off the General list (presumably because they have faction-specific availability on the MUL). My question is that since the DRG-1N Dragon (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/909/dragon-drg-1n) doesn't appear on the IS General list on the MUL, should it be moved to the Mercenary Availability List in the Combat Manual? The MUL listed it as being available to mercenaries.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 12 May 2016, 19:43:17
The MUL and the CMs have different systems for availability.  CM Mercs was changed because TR 3039 said only mercs working for Liao got Vindicators, and that the ASN-101 was only a handful with FS and nobody else. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 12 May 2016, 21:58:27
unsure if this is errata so i'm posting here

in the random scenario creation table for random maps on p.263 of TW, Deep Canyon #1 & Deep Canyon #2 (MS5, MSC2) are the only two canon non-Solaris VII maps (or the Imperial City/Kado-guchi Valley from Luthien) that do not appear. Oversight or intentional omission?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 May 2016, 22:37:12
Best post in Ask the Writers on that one, though I'm not sure if you'll get an answer.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 12 May 2016, 22:47:25
ok will do
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 26 May 2016, 15:53:43
Im not sure where to post this...the Gnome BA is listed as being produced in 3056 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1216/), yet it's advanced SRM-2 launcher isn't available till 3058, making the unit illegal...does this need an errata to the dates?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 26 May 2016, 16:23:34
Probably best in the MUL thread, since it ultimately deals with unit availability; thanks for asking.

I'll shuffle your post over there shortly.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 27 May 2016, 13:20:11
I just noticed the A-pod availability rating is listed as XXDC in the Interstellar Operations. Tech Manual has it as XXD as well. The problem here seems to be that it is introduced by the Clans during the Succession Wars era, so X cannot be really true, unless the tables are from the IS perspective.
If so, shouldn't there be an alternative listing offered for Clans or some way of determining that otherwise? Or have i somehow managed to skip over that explanation where-ever it may be? (Usually i don't find this information relevant, so i may well have missed it.)

EDIT
Asking to be sure but this really looks like errata: The Light Active Probe (Clan) has availability rating of XXED, despite being introduced during the Succession wars as well. Presumably this is in error and should be either E or F for the SW-era.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 27 May 2016, 19:02:47
Tech Manual uses the same availability code for the light active probe. Presumably the Smoke Jaguars never saw the need to actually produce any until the clan invasion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 03 June 2016, 19:18:47
I think there may be a problem with the section about overheat value calculations in AS Companion.
It says the difference between unadjusted and adjusted M (or S) damage value becomes the Overheat Value. But it does not specify what happens if this value is not a whole number. I assume the number is rounded normally? Also, i'm assuming the non-final (not rounded) damage values used for calculating Overheat Value, am i correct?

This problem does seem obvious but i figure i'll ask first before submitting it as an errata.

(In the conversion i'm doing, unadjusted M damage value is 3.27, adjusted value is 2.725 and final value is 3. If my interpretation is right, i get 3.27-2.725=0.545, rounded normally to 1, giving my unit OV value of 1 at S and M ranges.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 03 June 2016, 19:26:15
There is errata being posted soon specifically on this, but it amounts to you compare final values.  What the final value would be without heat, and the final value with heat.  That difference is OV. (And final values are always whole numbers).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 03 June 2016, 19:38:12
Oh, i see. So in my case, the result would end up being 3-3=0 as values with and without heat would round to 3, so no Overheat Value at all.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 03 June 2016, 20:10:13
Exactly.  OV is how much heat modification affected the final result.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2016, 10:30:13
Hello all.  It's the 6th of June, and with it comes the year's errata.  Continuing the trend, there's less of it this year than the year before.  Specifics will be going into each thread shortly, but some general notes:

 - The Alpha Strike Companion errata is still in the works, and will be delayed a couple of weeks at least as we hash out a couple of larger pieces.  There's an interim document dealing with heat conversion that has been posted in the meantime.
 - The Strategic Operations release is basically just to tide people over until we can get something better out (i.e., something that tackles the maintenance issues properly)
 - New Additions is now found at the end of all the documents.  It's always meant to just be a reference, rather than being printed off, and putting it at the beginning was just throwing off the page count when people printed off the Full Errata.
 - For Alpha Strike, Tactical Operations, and Total Warfare, I've added cut-down version of the documents that only deal with the latest printing.  So, if you own the newest release, you don't have to wade through oceans of old errata to find what you need.

The documents can be found in the first post of their respective errata threads.  Let me know if you find any issues (unclear/troublesome entries, typos, extra line breaks/other broken formatting; post comments here, rather than in the other threads, please).  If it all passes muster here, I'll send it all up to the main BT webpage in about a week.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 07 June 2016, 11:20:46
The new errata for AlphaStrike (2.2) changing how Transports and Infantry mount have me confused...
v2.2 1st Printing p.8
v2.2 2nd Printing p.3

As it reads now (2.2), the Transports spends 2" of it's own Movement to Mount an Infantry Unit... but then... there's no detail on how much it costs to Deploy/Dismount that Infantry Unit.

Is the Dismounting value now "free"?  Is the value double for same-turn dismounts? (i.e. Mount = 2", Dismount = 2") ...Does the Infantry spend their own movement to deploy? (contrary to the first indented paragraph in AlphaStrike p.33  starting with "Regardless...")

One of the previously errata (I think 2.0?) the Infantry Unit spent its own Movement to Mount/Board a Transport (2"), then the Transport would (at the end of it's movement) Deploy/Dismount the Infantry Unit at a rate of 2" per unit (I am inferring the rate based on those Transports with a higher carrying capacity and sufficient Movement).

While I think [the previous Errata] was pretty clear and fair, I'm not so sure I understand what the v2.2 was trying to fix

**[Note: I cannot find the original Errata to verify this, but my PDF has the word "Transport" in "Infantry Transport" strike-through (omitted)]**
**Edit-- reference for AlphaStrike errata**
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 June 2016, 12:36:11
Units do not expend MP to allow infantry to dismount any longer.  I'll add a specific note addressing this.


EDIT: both documents have been updated with the clarifying note.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 June 2016, 13:32:24
Hello all.  The Total Warfare, TechManual, Tactical Operations, and Strategic Operations errata is now live on the official website.  If you downloaded the TechManual errata prior to today, please download it again.  The others received no updates from when they were first previewed here.

The Alpha Strike and Alpha Strike Companion errata still have one or two issues awaiting settlement, and so I'm holding those for another day or two.

Thanks as always for all your help in making the BT rules as solid as they can be.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 June 2016, 14:08:25
The Alpha Strike errata is heading up to the website shortly.  I've just made one other change (regarding Stealth), so download it from there to be sure you have the most recent (and final) version.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Tai Dai Cultist on 24 June 2016, 11:53:18
Blood Stalker/Pursuit Lance errata feedback:

Before the ASC errata doc gets finalized, I think it should be clarified as to whether the pursuit lance formation ability is compatible in any way with the added functionality of Blood Stalker erratum on page 4 of the doc. 

i.e. may a pursuit lance decline to pick a formation or must it pick a formation?  Are members of a pursuit lance that are blood stalking a formation, with no members of that formation in LOS eligible to pick new prey?  If so, what happens if the original formation is destroyed while that unit is still stalking its new prey?

I presume that the intent is the pursuit lance offers the option to use a 2nd version of the SPA, and it's not intended that the two different kinds of "prey selection" mechanics are ever meant to stack.  But it's not necessarily clear in the text as is.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Tai Dai Cultist on 24 June 2016, 12:02:57
Additional feedback:

I didn't see any errata addressing infantry vs infantry in the same building being so much harder to than boarding actions in a moving building (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52973.msg1222487#msg1222487).  Just bringing it up in case it fell into a crack :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 24 June 2016, 18:50:03
I've seen people report this several times, and it is not an error:

Materiel is a real word, distinct from material. It is used to denote military equipment and supplies in general, as opposed to "material's" connotations of raw goods. Its usage should not be reported as potential errata unless the context is incorrect. For example, "construction materiel" would be wrong, but "tanks and other materiel" would be right.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 28 June 2016, 23:06:12
Not sure where to put this, but..

The Inner Sphere at War maps mentioned Here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.msg1218489#msg1218489) have a small issue. In the 2786 map, the Periphery nations (MoC, OA and TC) are missing their political subdivisions.

You can see errata notes about the subdivisions (and about them being missing) from HB:MPS Here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8672.msg483185#msg483185).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 29 June 2016, 09:14:38
Not errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 29 June 2016, 13:50:00
Not errata because its not a product, and thus doesn't belong in the errata section and should be mentioned someplace else, or not errata because the maps have changed, which means HB:MPS needs more errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 29 June 2016, 14:06:56
I would guess not errata because there's no requirement that the maps show political subdivisions.  I know relatively nothing about ISW, but I don't recall anything requiring political subdivisions on the map.  Errata isn't for things that would be nice to have, but changes that are necessary.  If the maps don't need the subdivisions, then there's no errata needed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 29 June 2016, 15:28:01
It wasn't errata on HMPS and it's not errata on these.

I would guess not errata because there's no requirement that the maps show political subdivisions.
Correct, and more so on the Periphery states. They only every had them when they were territories under the Star League.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cache on 30 June 2016, 17:33:58
The Locust 1E entry on p. 155 in First Succession War has "No Torso Twist" listed as a design quirk. That was an obvious quirk for the Unseen artwork, however, the nuSeen Locust artwork has a noticeable waist. Does this quirk still apply?

edit: answers from ask the writers...
Yup. At least for now.

-

Quirks, of course, being an optional rule.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 June 2016, 18:01:25
The Locust 1E entry on p. 155 in First Succession War has "No Torso Twist" listed as a design quirk. That was an obvious quirk for the Unseen artwork, however, the nuSeen Locust artwork has a noticeable waist. Does this quirk still apply?

Try Ask The Writers: they might be able to help.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 03 July 2016, 06:39:50

Question about Campaign Ops:

page 146, both Clan Coyote and Clan Cloud Cobra use the same color in the map legend. So which one uses the light blue?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 03 July 2016, 16:02:10
Coyote is light blue.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: KCmasterpiece on 09 July 2016, 21:13:03
Campaign Ops pg. 103

Step 3: Filling Orbital Slots

The text says to use the "outer system" column beyond the life zone but the example uses a +2 roll modifier on the "inner system" column.  Which is correct?

Also, if the "outer system" column should be used it is missing a result for a value of 8.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: JadedFalcon on 10 July 2016, 20:21:30
Couple questions on the new Combat Manual: Kurita.

First, more dumb questions on the availability lists. Right now it appears that the only way to get a CRD-3K Crusader or a WVR-6K Wolverine is to use a special character. Is this intentional?

Also, Mechwarriors of the DCMS on page 91. Orland Yamashita's SPA is Jumping Jack, yet he pilots a Hussar. I assume the SPA is an error and should to be corrected?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 10 July 2016, 21:18:57
CRD-3K and WVR-6K should be on Kurita list (errata).
CRD-3R should be on General list.
(looks like I need to go line by line and check what else I failed to copy over)

Yamashita should be Maneuvering Ace and Forward Observer (no Jumping Jack).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 11 July 2016, 00:00:15
CRD-3K and WVR-6K should be on Kurita list (errata).
CRD-3R should be on General list.
(looks like I need to go line by line and check what else I failed to copy over)

Yamashita should be Maneuvering Ace and Forward Observer (no Jumping Jack).

Similarly, the Phoenix Hawk LAM (IS General) and Samurai aerospace fighter (DracCom/FRR) are missing. I can't build Sorenson's Sabres. :'(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 11 July 2016, 11:55:49
Similarly, the Phoenix Hawk LAM (IS General) and Samurai aerospace fighter (DracCom/FRR) are missing. I can't build Sorenson's Sabres. :'(

Tr3039 "less than a few dozen Samurias..highest concentration in Outworlds Alliance"
I'm going to suggest CM:Kurita p79 (story availability) for Sorenson's Samurai :).

LAMs, ok, I (unintentionally) dodged the entire LAM question.  I'll have to think about that, see what Ray thinks, and check back.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 11 July 2016, 12:07:41
Tr3039 "less than a few dozen Samurias..highest concentration in Outworlds Alliance"
I'm going to suggest CM:Kurita p79 (story availability) for Sorenson's Samurai :).

LAMs, ok, I (unintentionally) dodged the entire LAM question.  I'll have to think about that, see what Ray thinks, and check back.

If anything, the Dracs should have the easiest time getting LAMs, given that they have the last factory...well, until the Cats wrecked it.

And thanks for pointing me to the new rule. Still, doesn't help that much since the list is also missing the Hermes III. ;) Per the MUL it's available to the Dracs, so I'll just use it anyway. Not like anyone can call me a munchkin for insisting on using that thing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 11 July 2016, 19:40:02
Not like anyone can call me a munchkin for insisting on using that thing.

Your a Munchkin ColBosch! A Munchkin I say!

But my question is where can I find the listing of the Minor Mercenaries, specifically The Fire Lizards. I skimmed it, but am unable to find anything on small units? While the name is from the old Dragoons book, as a Reg. unit for Draconis Combine from 3025.

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 11 July 2016, 19:50:11
We can't cover everything.  The Fire Lizards and most minor mercs are not covered.
If you'd like, CM:Mercs has rules for creating your own merc command.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 11 July 2016, 20:08:14
And I really wish 22 more days was here for GenCon!!!

Then I could just walk down the street to the convention center and grab it while I wave at the Booth Monkeys!

TT
( And deliver that free pizza to ya myself, nckestrel! )
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: JadedFalcon on 11 July 2016, 22:11:04
Thank you for your efforts nckestrel. Another thing in CM:Kurita grabbed my attention:

Page 85, Tactical Specialization (Combined Arms): "... the force has a -1 to-hit modifier to Initiative."

Should that be "the force has a -1 to-hit modifier for weapon attacks" or "the force has a +1 modifier to Initiative" or something else like -1 to hit and -1 to Initiative?

(Overall, a very fun supplement, looking forward to trying this stuff on the tabletop.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 11 July 2016, 22:20:54
I'm going to bed, somebody poke me if I forgot to check on that tommorrow.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 12 July 2016, 06:59:29
From the CM: Kurita thread:

Emma Wi is an example of a wider availability.  She is listed under the 1st Shin Legion.  If there were no available to mentioned, then she would only be available to the 1st Shin Legion.  But she does have an available to, and it says Shin Legions, so she can be used with the 1st or the 2nd.

Olivaw is listed under the 2nd An Ting.  By default, that would mean only available to the 2nd An Ting.  With an available to: An Ting Legions, he can be used with the 2nd or the 4th.

But, on Olander, he shouldn't have an available to.  He's listed under Gunzburg Eagles, and so doesn't really need an available to Gunzburg Eagles.

I think these could be clearer. Special characters should have their availability spelled out each and every time. So Olander should keep his Available To, and the others should have "Shin Legion (any)" and "An Ting Legions (any)," respectively.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 12 July 2016, 07:19:04
From the CM: Kurita thread:

I think these could be clearer. Special characters should have their availability spelled out each and every time. So Olander should keep his Available To, and the others should have "Shin Legion (any)" and "An Ting Legions (any)," respectively.

I will keep that in mind for the future CMs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 12 July 2016, 07:27:42
I will keep that in mind for the future CMs.

That's all I can ask. Thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 19 July 2016, 16:13:35
This is more of a request than a "X thing is wrong", and I am not sure I am putting it in the right place, but here goes: Can we get a chart for all the engine types in the Tech Manual that states what units can use that engine type? IE:

Standard: BM, IM, CV, AF, CF
ICE: IM, CV, CF
ETC.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 20 July 2016, 06:40:36
This is more of a request than a "X thing is wrong", and I am not sure I am putting it in the right place, but here goes: Can we get a chart for all the engine types in the Tech Manual that states what units can use that engine type? IE:

Standard: BM, IM, CV, AF, CF
ICE: IM, CV, CF
ETC.
You mean like the one at the bottom of pg 215 in TechManual?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 20 July 2016, 07:33:47
Yes, exactly like that one. Not sure how I missed it, but thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 26 July 2016, 13:51:53
If the webpage has spelling error, where would i post that.

The Latest Releases (http://bg.battletech.com/books/available-now/), lists Campaign Operations as Campaign Operations: Kurita [Book/PDF]. The page itself doesn't have the error.

Feel free to move this post to right place.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 26 July 2016, 14:38:01
Website and Forum Support
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=54.0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 09:50:56
Hey guys, is there a way to search the errata by topic instead of source book? I've got a rules question and, frankly, no idea which book it might be associated with.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 July 2016, 10:15:14
I don't believe so, other than by running a search with your topic to see where it was placed before.  Go ahead and post it here and I'll see how I can help you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 11:01:55
I discovered to my chagrin recently, in MM that you can't punch a mech in a height 1 building. Since mechs are height 2, physically, that should have logically been possible.

I was informed elsewhere after I made my post here, that buildings and combat are part of total warfare. I don't own that book, and my copy of the BMR is woefully outdated. I've searched the TW thread, and found nothing about this specific edge case.

So, my question is, "is there errata anywhere that addresses if/why a building only waist high blocks/allows physical attacks aimed at a mech's upper section such as punches, clubs, and dfas?"

Logically, a building only covering 1/2 of a mech should attack in a manner similar to partial cover.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 27 July 2016, 11:28:34
TW p171, Attacking Units Inside Buildings, Physical Attacks.
No need to errata, the rulebook states the rule itself.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 July 2016, 11:31:01
Ah, you're basically asking about how the game works today.  For questions like that, post in Ground Combat, rather than any of the rules forums, as the latter are for working out something that's unclear in the current rules, for the most part.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 11:49:04
Allow me to clarify.

I want to know if any errata has been published making an exception to the normal rules if the building is only height 1.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 27 July 2016, 12:12:09
Allow me to clarify.

I want to know if any errata has been published making an exception to the normal rules if the building is only height 1.

No. It has nothing to do with elevation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 12:25:27
Hmmm, that seems illogical. I'd like to follow up on this. Ask the devs why there is not an exception. Logically, it seems like a building only 1/2 a mech's height should work more like partial cover.

Who should I contact/where should I post to ask that question?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 27 July 2016, 14:43:57
I believe the issue is footing, not height.  A 'mech can't actually reach across an entire hex to punch a target.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hammer on 29 July 2016, 20:48:20
Question regarding Flare LRM's.

They are currently listed on Pg 61 of IO, but per this post

(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=41974.msg968286#msg968286) they have been removed.

Have they been returned to the game or is the IO reference an error?

EDIT. Adding another question rather than creating a new post:

TO references Thunder/FASCAM munitions for (Long Tom/Sniper/Thumper) but the tables on pg 59 in IO don't have them.  Searching the PDF for "FASCAM" I see them for LRMs and Bombs.

Want to confirm that FASCAM is still valid for tube artillery.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 24 August 2016, 00:18:04
Possible Errata for the Alpha Strike Companion, and retroactive Errata to the Master Unit List (specific links to units to follow).

Alpha Strike Companion p.113
. Clan Battle Armor Weapons Conversion Table --> Direct Fire Ballistics --> Battle Armor LB-X Autocannon
"Flak" is missing from the Notes section on the far right hand side.

Per TacOps p.286, the weapon is a coded "DB, C/F" for Direct Ballistic, Cluster/Flak.  The weapon deals up to 4 damage in 1-point clusters.

The damage appears to have already been calculated properly for Flak weapons in AlphaStrike (Cluster Hits table for "4" rack, avg 7 = 3; -1 flak multiplier = x1.05; 3 x 1.05 = 0.315).
As Battle Armor weapons are multiplied by their troop factor, when calculating their AlphaStrike weapon values, I have determined the following:
 . . (0.315 x 3.5 troop factor = 1.1025 damage at Short and Medium for CAR4, CAR5) = qualifies for FLK Special...
 . . (0.315 x 4.5 troop factor = 1.4175 damage at Short and Medium for CAR6) = qualifies for FLK Special...

Assuming this is actual errata, I have managed to find a handful of units that require Retroactive Updates based on their Record Sheets and respective TRO entries (at least until the Search function is restored on the MUL, or I find time to look up more units with the BA LB-X):

Black Wolf [LB-X] (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6243/black-wolf-lb-x): TRO3145 p.11, 66 (RS), RS3145_Unabridged p.422
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird (Upgrade) (LB-X) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6737/thunderbird-battle-armor-upgrade-lb-x): RS3145_Unabridged p.27
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird II (Standard) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7357/thunderbird-ii-battle-armor-standard): XTRO_Republic_2 p.16?
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 01 September 2016, 07:37:36
Got a juxtaposition of dates between TO and IO tables:

IO pdf, pp. 36-37, "Universal Technology Advancement Table":
"MechWarrior Combat Suit", Production (Faction) = 2790
"MechWarrior Cooling Suit", Production (Faction) = 2500

The Ref given in the notes, TO p. 317, "Conventional Infantry Armor Table", says these are reversed. Which is correct?
S.gage
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 30 September 2016, 18:00:13
Figured I'd ask this here instead of cluttering up the thread.

In XTRO Primitives, the PX-1R Phoenix is different from the PX-1R Phoenix in the old BC210 RS3075 Unabridged. Is this an errata worthy oversight or deliberate change?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 30 September 2016, 19:09:08
The Primitives series specifically overrides previous material.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 13 November 2016, 18:16:44
Going through the Tech Manual v3.0 Infantry Tables, I noticed a small problem with the Light Machine Gun.  Due to the vagaries of the conversion formula, it ends up doing less damage than the lighter (and non-support weapon) Auto Rifle.  As fixing this would imply changes to both AToW and Tech Manual, I'm not sure where it should go.  My proposed fix is below, with rationale.

On page 273 of AToW, recommend changing the Light Machine Gun stats as follows:
AP/BD: From 5B/3B to 4B/4B (matching the Auto Rifle's base damage and implying the same ammunition, similar to the M16 and M249 SAW)
Shots: From 45 to 60 (maintaining 3 bursts, to insure against future changes to how "shots" might be counted for Reload Factor)
Notes: From "Burst 15, Recoil -2" to "Burst 20, Recoil -2" (to increase its damage above the Auto Rifle and justify the extra weight)

This change would neatly place the Light Machine Gun's damage (0.60 with the changes above) between the Auto Rifle (0.52) and the Portable Machine Gun (0.65) where it logically should be.  It also leads to the below progression among the machine guns, analogous to the 5.56mm/7.62mm/.50 caliber progression of real life:

Code: [Select]
Weapon            AP/BD  Burst  TW Damage
Auto Rifle:       4B/4B    15     0.52 (unchanged)
Light MG:         4B/4B    20     0.60
Portable MG:      5B/4B    15     0.65 (unchanged)
Semi-Portable MG: 5B/4B    20     0.75 (unchanged)
Support MG:       5B/5B    20     0.94 (unchanged)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 19 November 2016, 19:14:35
I'm still going through the Tech Manual v3.0 Infantry Tables, and seem to have found another disconnect between it and AToW.

The M61A Combat System is listed as being 6kg in the table (with reload weight in line with being just a laser rifle), but 9kg in AToW (page 267, which also only lists reload weight for the laser rifle component, ignoring the compact grenade launcher (which was changed in AToW errata v2.2)).  I believe AToW at 9kg is the correct weight, but if I'm wrong, AToW needs the errata, not Tech Manual.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 02 December 2016, 16:06:09
I have a small error to report in the Alpha Strike Quick Start Rules PDF. I can't find an appropriate thread about this product, so for now I'll report it here.

The problem is with the second sentence of the first paragraph of the components section on page 11 "These items were described
in  brief  in  the  previous  chapter  (see  pp.  6-9)". There no previous rules chapter in this document, and the pages 6-9 contain only the last part of a Jason Schmetzer's story. The entire sentence looks like copied straight from the Alpha Strike book and can be simply removed from the quick start rules document.

How should I report such problems with products that have no errata threads? Should I start a new thread or post them here?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 December 2016, 16:07:24
Here is fine.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 December 2016, 07:22:05
Question: are the old errata files from prior to the reprints archived anywhere?  My hard copies are sufficiently old that they're missing things no longer listed in the current errata as changes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 11 December 2016, 08:02:51
Did you get the correct errata document? You would need the one for first printing. I suspect you have the one for second printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 December 2016, 08:18:39
I was looking at the one for the second printing, which is the only one available on the errata website.  I found a version of first printing errata buried in my archive, but shouldn't it be posted somewhere public too?  And do you know the latest first printing errata version number?  I'd like to know if the old copy I have has all the changes from first to second printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 11 December 2016, 08:54:19
It is in the first post of the TacOps errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 December 2016, 09:06:45
Got it, thanks!  Perhaps if the first link at battletech.com was listed with "(First Printing)" like the second link, it would be a little clearer.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 December 2016, 14:54:55
It doesn't say first printing because it's also intended for people with the second and third printings.  But I'll see about clearing it up some more.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 December 2016, 14:56:55
Thanks, Xotl.  It's possible I'm the only one who got tripped up by that, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 December 2016, 14:57:47
No problem.  I've added some extra wording below to clarify.  Thanks for the spot.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 16 January 2017, 20:48:23
Clan Capital Scale Weapons and Equipment BV Table [Addendum]
TO pg 384

Section titles (I think that is what they are called) 'Naval Guass', 'Naval Laser', 'Naval PPC', and 'Sub-Capital Missiles' each have a battle value assigned to them, despite not being actual weapons, and sometimes an ammo BV as well.

Those lines should be blank, similar to the 'Naval Autocannon' line on the same chart.



On a side note, all of the numbers on that chart that are supposed to be there are the same as the ones on the inner sphere chart. Room on the layout could probably be saved by removing that whole chart and renaming the inner sphere one to get rid of the faction alignment. The weapons and equipment stat tables already designate which ones each faction can use.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 January 2017, 23:39:44
This is, I believe, already addressed in the current TacOps errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 27 January 2017, 12:10:44
I had asked back in August, and unsure where else I should ask.  Please forgive me for a double-post; edited for clarity.

Two possible erratas: first in the Alpha Strike Companion, and then retroactive Errata to the Master Unit List (specific links below).

Alpha Strike Companion p.113
. Clan Battle Armor Weapons Conversion Table --> Direct Fire Ballistics --> Battle Armor LB-X Autocannon
"Flak" is missing from the Notes section on the far right hand side.

Per TacOps p.412 - "Battle Armor Combat Data table" the weapon is a coded "DB, C/F" for Direct Ballistic, Cluster/Flak.
p. 286 "Battle Armor LB-X Autocannon" reference: this weapon deals up to 4 damage in 1-point clusters, [resolve hits as if by Missile Attack (Cluster Hits Table = 4 x {#/active suits})

The damage appears to have already been calculated properly for Flak weapons in AlphaStrike (Cluster Hits table for "4" rack, avg 7 = 3; -1 flak multiplier = x1.05; 3 x 1.05 = 0.315).
As Battle Armor weapons are multiplied by their troop factor when calculating their AlphaStrike weapon values, I have determined the following:
 . . (0.315 x 3.5 troop factor = 1.1025 damage at Short and Medium for CAR4, CAR5) = qualifies for FLK Special...
 . . (0.315 x 4.5 troop factor = 1.4175 damage at Short and Medium for CAR6) = qualifies for FLK Special...

Assuming this is actual errata for the ASC, I have managed to find a handful of units that require Retroactive Updates based on their Record Sheets and respective TRO entries:

Black Wolf [LB-X] (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6243/black-wolf-lb-x): TRO3145 p.11, 66 (RS), RS3145_Unabridged p.422
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird (Upgrade) (LB-X) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6737/thunderbird-battle-armor-upgrade-lb-x): RS3145_Unabridged p.27
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird II (Standard) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7357/thunderbird-ii-battle-armor-standard): XTRO_Republic_2 p.16
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FrozenIceman on 12 February 2017, 21:11:53
I am currently working with a group of individuals on conventional infantry rules.  We just looked at the Tech Manual Errata 3.0.  I have a concern with the Mauser IIC

Regular Grenade Damage: 0.92->1.37
Regular Grenade BV: 2.2->9.82
Inferno Grenade Damage: 0.62 ->0.90
Inferno Grenade BV:  2.2->6.45

This is kind of a massive jump from what was previously published and will drastically effect all of the Clan units in TRO 3085 unabridged.

For example, the Clan Heavy Jump Infantry on page 305 will have the following stat changes.
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/609/clan-heavy-jump-infantry-heavy-infantry-point-91st-mechanized-assault-epsilon-galaxy <These Guys

Damage 20 Troopers: 24 -> 31 Damage
BV: 136 ->325 BV (199 without Anti Mech)

Just looking at that, I don't think I would ever dream of using these guys in Anti Mech operations with that kind of damage and point value.

Similarly if we go with a reinforced Jump squad (24 troopers, 6 per squad) and give them two Support Laser ER Heavy Clan the squad now has 32 damage out to 21 hexes (instead of 9) for a BV of 259.  You don't want to even know what happens when I try a Foot Platoon of 6 troopers each...

Was this intentional, both buffing the BV and the damage of the units instead of one or the other?  Just looking at this it completely destroys the rolls that were previously built for these units and creates an even larger divide between IS and Clan.  For example if we switched this over to a standard IS faction (with armor divisor 2 and used their Support ER Heavy IS version, 8 troopers per squad).  The most damage they could do is 16 out to 18 hexes (maybe around 20 damage if you use the updated Federated Barret M61A errata).

Was this intentional when the Tech Manual V3.0 infantry tables were updated?  If not, when can we see a revised 3085 unabridged (as well as the MUL)?  Without those updates the BV and damage potential are not even close.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BrokenMnemonic on 19 February 2017, 08:10:57
I'm not sure if this is an errata issue or a simple canon supercession, so I thought I'd ask. The original Technical Readout: 3025 had the 2nd Lyran Guards being destroyed on Port Moseby on 2786 (Firestarter entry, page 24). Technical Readout: 3025 Revised also had the 2nd Lyran Guards being destroyed on Port Moseby, but in 2789, rather than 2786. Technical Readout 3039 makes no mention of the event in the entry on the Firestarter.

First Succession War mentions the 2nd Lyran Guards several times during the timeline for the Bolan Thumb campaign - fighting on Radostov on 2790 and 2791, and Herzberg in 2801, before being destroyed on Finsterwalde in 2803.

The original House Steiner sourcebook has an entry on the 30th Lyran Guards on page 57, and mentions that the 30th included elements of the 2nd, which it states defeated Kuritan forces on Port Moseby (but doesn't give a date for that event).

Does the detail on the 2nd Lyran Guards in First Succession War mean that the Port Moseby detail from the two TRO 3025s is now no longer canon, meaning that the House Steiner book is referring to a battle at Port Moseby at some later point, with the 2nd Lyran Guards presumably having been rebuilt? Or should it be another unit fighting in the Bolan campaign?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 20 February 2017, 09:24:25
A question regarding jymset's dev-level errata post in the IO thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=50926.msg1286711#msg1286711):

Quote
Cut the following sentence - "In terms of game rules, Common items may be considered Tournament Legal."

I understand why this change was made, as items like artillery tubes have common dates. But how does one differentiate between TL items and non-TL items now? Is there some other marker that I'm missing?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 21 February 2017, 01:04:29
Not sure this is something that you guys would errata, but I think it should be, so I wanted to bring it up:

Interstellar Players 3 Interstellar Expeditions pg 114
PDF

The Bug Eye Surveillance Vessel has 12 passengers listed. In rebuilding it on my own, I found that those 12 passengers are the crew required to operate the Large NCSS, rather than 12 extra people that the word 'passengers' implies.

In SO pg 149 it states (underlined for emphasis):
Quote
The unit’s crew must be equal to (or, at the designer’s option, greater than) the sum of its minimum crew requirements (including any supplemental crew such as officers and those needed to man special equipment such as weapons, communications, kitchens and MASH theaters).

I would assume the 12 people needed to operate the Large NCSS would fall into that category, and be counted in as part of the crew number. While not important for tabletop play, it seems like it could throw off the fiction a bit, or possibly affect the RPG. It's probably the exact opposite of a huge deal, but I thought I would bring it up.

Also, discovered at the same time, but it seems to be .5 tons overweight, and I would have thought the cargo would have been 101.5 rather than rounded up to 102.  ;D

Possible solutions:
Delete the 12 passengers and increase the crew to 49 and officers to 10.
Change Cargo to 101.5.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 21 February 2017, 12:04:15
A question regarding jymset's dev-level errata post in the IO thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=50926.msg1286711#msg1286711):

I understand why this change was made, as items like artillery tubes have common dates. But how does one differentiate between TL items and non-TL items now? Is there some other marker that I'm missing?

Right now, the only official product which covers this are the Jihad and Dark Age Tech Advancement tables in TROs Prototypes and 3145 respectively.

While hardly ideal to have this hidden in non-rule books, the BattleMech Manual does implicitly differentiate, collecting all TL level equipment appropriate to Mechs and applicable to the 3145+ era.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 21 February 2017, 12:33:32
Right now, the only official product which covers this are the Jihad and Dark Age Tech Advancement tables in TROs Prototypes and 3145 respectively.

While hardly ideal to have this hidden in non-rule books, the BattleMech Manual does implicitly differentiate, collecting all TL level equipment appropriate to Mechs and applicable to the 3145+ era.

Ok, that was my next question. I was unclear whether those tables were rendered obsolete by IO.

Semi-related: Does the addition of a common date on the Apollo FCS in the IO errata thread make it TL or is it still considered advanced despite having a common date?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 21 February 2017, 15:43:33
Heh, I spammed the boards too much... :-[

Dev-level errata:

p. 215, Dark Age Technology Advancement Table

Between "Angel ECM" and "Armor", add:
Apollo MRM Fire Control System - Adv - ~3065 - TL - 3071 - IS

Hope that helps!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 21 February 2017, 16:28:07
Hope that helps!

It certainly does  ;D

gracias
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 17 March 2017, 09:45:34
I don't see a thread for the Spotlight On: Stone's Trackers, but I think I found an error:

pdf pg. 11, Under Abstract Combat System Combat Teams

The 3112 version has a unit type of "MX", which should be "CI". Per pg. 326 of IO, at least 2/3rds of the sub-units are the same type, "CI" therefore the whole unit should be "CI" not "MX".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 28 March 2017, 00:55:57
I've found a couple more broken links to compiled errata files in the first posts of their respective errata threads. Since those are just broken links, and not errors within the books themselves, I decided to report those here, and not in errata threads.

The threads in question are:
Technical Readout: 3075 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5936)
Technical Readout: 3085 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5929)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 March 2017, 09:52:36
Thanks, Alfaryn.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 04 April 2017, 20:14:44
Hey guys, I'm reading through the 3.5 version of the Tactical Operations errata and I noticed a change to how mud is handled.

Battlemechs are now effected and make checks like tanks.

This is a very poor choice for game balance reasons. You're taking the flagship unit of the franchise, and cutting away one of the major advantages it enjoys over tanks. Superior battlemech performance in bad conditions is one of the major reasons to bother using them instead of fielding armies of tanks.

Its also not fun. When you bring tanks, you implicitly accept the need to make checks in more situations. Forcing a mech to make a check every hex is a major drag.


Xotl: this is not an errata report, so it was removed from the errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 13 April 2017, 17:36:51
Not sure if this should be here or rules questions, but:
DropShuttle Bays in interstellar Operations page 119 say they have a max capacity of 10,000 tons.

I was wondering if that means the Defender class battle cruiser (pg 26 Field Report 2765: AFFS) and/or League class Destroyer Block I (pg 24  Field Report 2765: FWLM) need their DropShuttle Bays errata'd, since they claim to have 20,000 ton capacity each.

At first I thought they could just be 2 DropShuttle bays put together, but in the Defender's case that would exceed the maximum number of DropShuttle bays that can be put on a ship.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 19 April 2017, 08:17:19
Procedure question: I found some errata in TRO:3145 Federated Suns that hasn't been reported, but was apparently fixed in TRO:3150.

Should I still report the TRO:3145 FS error?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 April 2017, 10:31:58
Good question.  I'd say go ahead, just so those who only have the FedSuns TRO know it.  If you wouldn't mind, note that it's been fixed in 3150.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BritMech on 04 June 2017, 15:34:59
Trying to grab the lastest errata files, and they all time out. Server problem?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 June 2017, 15:41:10
Trying to grab the lastest errata files, and they all time out. Server problem?

Hi, long time no see.

Could you be more specific as to which file you're trying to get?  All the core book files I'm able to grab from the main BT website.  Dropbox changed how they link to files, so I had to change all the links I made to them in turn, so perhaps I missed some non-core ones.

Also, I'm releasing new errata tomorrow, so if it's core errata you want, you'll probably want to wait until then anyways.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 June 2017, 04:13:29
I'll be 100% unavailable for the next ten days or so, so if you have any questions on the errata releases, feel free to make them, but I won't be around for a bit to get to them.  However, Moonsword will be watching the store as usual.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 05 June 2017, 20:10:15
In my opinion there is one very minor editing problem with the new Total Warfare v4.4 errata documents (p. 20 of the errata document for the fourth printing, and p. 39 of the errata document for the first printing).

Both of those documents have two entries for Mechanized Battle Armor (p. 227). One of them details one change to Magnetic Clamps. The other one lists three items that need to be added to the Mechanized Battle Armor section. They should be probably merged into one list of four items, as it is the way such situations are handled pretty much everywhere else in the document.

---------------------

Also, shouldn't the first post in the Tactical Operations errata thread link to the Tactical Operations Landing Modifiers document in addition to the "main" errata documents?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 08 June 2017, 08:32:28
Interstellar Operations PDF pg 219
Additional Alternate Era Equipment Chart
Late Succession Wars Equipment

Prototype Ultra AC 5 is listed as 7 tons and 2 crits making the prototype inner sphere equipment not only better than the full production one (9 tons, 5 crits) but better than the clan ultra AC5 as well (7 tons 3 crits).

That's got to be a typo right?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Baldur Mekorig on 08 June 2017, 10:49:50
Are the new "Inner Sphere at War" maps in the download section a product that can be errated?

Maps in question: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.0 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.0)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 10 June 2017, 16:51:28
I'm posting it here, since I don't believe there is a separate thread for BattleForce Quick Start Rules.

BattleForce Quick Start Rules pdf, p. 8 (found in the downloads section on the official BattleTech boardgame site).

Points 2 and 5 of the "Applying Damage" list instruct to go to point 6 under certain conditions, but there is no point 6 on this list to go to.

Judging from p. 230 SO (which contains a full version of the list in question), and contents of the Quick Start rules pdf (no vehicles and no BAR special ability), you should probably either add point 6 saying "The attack is finished.", or simply change both instances of "Go to Step 6." on p. 8 of the pdf to "The attack is finished."

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ajcbm on 16 June 2017, 04:50:39
THE ERRATA TEMPLATE

    * VERSION: Field Manual: Capellan Confederation
If the product has multiple printings, note which one you're referring to.
    * LOCATION: p.75 and p.76
    * THE ERROR: Page 75 says the Capellan Defense Force was created just after the 4th SW. Page 76 says it was created in 3060.
    * THE CORRECTION: I believe the CDF was created in 3060. There is no CDF in the 20 Year Update book.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 June 2017, 13:19:17
Hi guys.  Just a quick reminder that, as per the errata forum rules, if you don't know if something actually is an error then generally you should post in the rules forums or Ask The Writers/Developers instead of here.  I try to keep the Errata Forum proper for confirmed answers, whereas in the question forums they're actually equipped to help get you an official answer.  I'll be moving a couple of posts to the appropriate rules question forums.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 June 2017, 06:50:27
The final 2017 versions of the Total Warfare and Tactical Operations errata are now available for download at the usual errata thread links.  I will be uploading them to the main website shortly.  Thanks all for the look-overs that caught a few formatting errors.  Substantive changes to the final are as follows:

TW: added new ruling on Hidden Units in buildings.
TacOps: finalized BV values for all Streak LRM launchers.

Each version has the proper 6 June date, rather than 5 June.

I'm still working on finalizing the Alpha Strike errata: just one or two more issues to double-check there.  I'll let you know as soon as it is ready,
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 19 June 2017, 09:33:12
The Origins Pre-release Second Succession Wars, page 94, 3rd paragraph. (See Converting ISW Combat Commands to other systems, p. XX).

That XX should probably be changed to page 122, per the Table of Contents.

(No thread for this product yet.)

Edit: Also p. 118, BattleMaster TRO entry. Infobox at top left column of page has Mass: 55 Tons and Mass: 85 tons listed. Suggested fix, remove Mass: 55 Tons line.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 June 2017, 16:29:17
Are the new "Inner Sphere at War" maps in the download section a product that can be errated?

Maps in question: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.0 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.0)

Yes, absolutely.  Go ahead and report any such errata in the Interstellar Ops errata thread, but make clear that you're talking about the separate maps (and link to them like you have here).  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: kamkaran on 13 July 2017, 02:39:06
Great!!
Thank you sir.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 July 2017, 04:12:49
As people may have noticed, we lost the last two weeks worth of posts in the restoration.  If you made an errata report in that time, please repost it.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CDAT on 13 July 2017, 16:03:57
A question came up and was posted here (lost with last hiccup), the question is about the LCT-1M according to the MUL is is listed as extinct (as of 2901) but several of us can find no sources other than the MUL that says it is/or should be extinct, on the other hand we can find sources that imply it is still active as late as 3039 at least.

According to TRO 3025 "The Model 1M Locust reduces its armor and carries two LRM 5-packs, 24 rounds of ammunition, and the popular Martell medium laser . This version is used mainly by House Davion's Ceti Hussars." It also goes on to say "Model 1E is the Locust variant least produced and least resembling the others . Reducing its armor in favor of more weaponry, the 1E carries two arm-mounted medium lasers as well as two small lasers." and then in TRO 3039 "The 1M variant, popular in Davion space, further reduces the Locust’s armor in order to mount two LRM-5 launchers." So if it is produced more than the 1E but the 1E is not extinct, and in 3039 it is popular in Davion space, also both TRO's talk about it in the present tense not past. So I guess the question is there a super special secret source that only the MUL folks have that says it is extinct as several of us have looked and can not find anything, or are we just missing the snake in front of our faces?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 July 2017, 12:54:49
As no errors were noted, the final version of the Alpha Strike Companion errata is now up on the main website.  Literally the only change is the alteration of the document date from 5 June to 6 June, to match the rest.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Punishermark on 24 July 2017, 10:54:50
Re: the BattleMech Manual errata reported to date: can CGL make these changes to the PDF for re-download?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 July 2017, 12:36:33
Re: the BattleMech Manual errata reported to date: can CGL make these changes to the PDF for re-download?

Hi Punishermark.  Your post was removed from the BMM thread because there is to be no discussion in errata threads, as per the stickied rules thread at the top of this forum.

Typically, errata is only rolled in when there's an actual reprint of the book.  So yes, but not immediately.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 29 July 2017, 13:33:28
Would there be any possibility of getting the A Time of War Companion's Infantry Construction weapons listed on the errata page? As it is, the weapons listed there would make a more diverse selections. Also is there any from the House Books that may need to find it essential to the listing?

Thanks,
Truetanker

( I ask because there is a need for errata. )
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Starbuck on 12 August 2017, 06:51:17
i am posting this here, because i am not a hundred percent sure what the correct numbers are, and there is no rules question sub-forum for the BattleMech Manual (yet?).

BattleMech Manual, PDF
p. 76, Battlefield Support

OFFENSIVE AEROSPACE SUPPORT
(STRIKES)
Light Strike Target Number: 4
Heavy Strike Target Number: 6


and

OFFENSIVE AEROSPACE SUPPORT
(BOMBING) [AE]
Light Bombing Target Number: 5
Heavy Bombing Target Number: 7


numbers differ from numbers given in the tables at p. 78 & p. 142.

table p. 78:

Offensive Aerospace Support
Light Strike       5
Light Bombing†     6
Heavy Strike       6
Heavy Bombing†    7
Strafing  7


so which target numbers are correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 August 2017, 08:03:24
Hi.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll get back to you with an answer on Monday.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 August 2017, 18:32:30
Both Light Strike and Light Bombing should have Target Numbers of 5.  I'll make an entry in the BMM errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hominid Mk II on 24 August 2017, 14:19:15
Posting this from an internet cafe, so can't check page numbers etc. at this time:

The Costs tables list the costs for Primitive Prototype Autocannons and their ammo as being the same as those of the standard production versions. The XTRO: Primitives series describes them as costing five times more.

Which is correct?

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 24 August 2017, 20:58:57
This belongs in Ask the Writers or the Rules Questions board.  It is not an errata report and has been removed from that thread.  Get an answer, then post it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xeno426 on 04 September 2017, 13:15:04
Bandit (C) Hovercraft G
uses 17 slots, 2 over maximum
Was anything decided for the Bandit (C) variant G? Or has this just been pending for six years? Should two MGs just be removed?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 September 2017, 00:20:37
Dear all,

I've just uploaded the initial release of the BattleMech Manual errata to the official website.  With this release, my tenure as BattleTech Errata Coordinator and Rules Team Admin comes to an end, at least for the time being.  Real-life demands mean that I need to give up on BT in general for about a couple of years, until I complete my schooling.  I've notified the higher-ups and they are currently in the process of searching for a new coordinator.  I will still be around, but not really posting much (other than perhaps with BattleMech Manual stuff -- that's my baby and I'll be watching over it still).  In particular, you'll likely notice a slow-down in the answering of rules questions, but I'm sure that will be short-term: I was only ever the face and groundskeeper of the rules team, while its heart was and continues to be the dedicated team members who crunched the info and produced the answers I typically wound up posting.  Please be patient with The Powers That Be while the necessary admin stuff is worked out to replace me.

I've been errata coordinator for over six years, and a rules team member for over five.  It's been a privilege to serve the community all that time, and I hope to still contribute where I can once in a while until such time as I can safely dive back into the game full-throttle.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 07 September 2017, 03:07:22
Best of luck Xotl!  Thanks for all you've done these past years.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 07 September 2017, 10:11:03
@Xotl-- you will be missed dearly.  Many thanks for your time, wisdom, and patience.  Best of luck to you in all your future endeavors.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 07 September 2017, 11:42:07
Good luck, sir. Best wishes with your studies!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 07 September 2017, 13:34:07
I cannot say enough good things about what Xotl's done. When I proposed the Errata Coordinator position, I hoped it would just streamline the errata process. (The main document I was given at the outset was a single, poorly-arranged spreadsheet, covering mostly long out of print books!) I know I left things in a bit of a mess due to my abrupt departure, but Xotl picked up the baton and ran with it. He has really worked hard the past six years to make this little subforum a force to be reckoned with. The BattleMech Manual is nothing short of awesome, and it's fully due to Xotl.

Glad to hear you're moving on to ever bigger and better things, sir, and I'm glad you'll still be around once in a while. O0

Edit: Okay, to be fair, Welshman briefly filled in before Xotl took over. ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Pat Payne on 07 September 2017, 18:48:42
Blessings upon you, Xotl, and the best of luck with your studies!  O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 September 2017, 18:56:48
Best wishes, and hope to see you again.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 06 October 2017, 15:34:33
Errata Query: Mine Dispensing in Alpha Strike.

Currently, there is no time frame (whether phase or action declaration) for units with the Mine Dispensing Special (MDS#) found in the Alpha Strike core rulebook, page 107.

A suitable solution has been found in TacOps under "Vehicle (and Battle Armor) Mine Dispenser", p.325 to resolve the action as "Part of Movement, at the beginning or end of a unit's Movement during the Movment Phase".

...I'm not sure who's in charge of adding Errata anymore, and didn't feel comfortable posting directly to the Alpha Strike Errata thread... so I am posting my finding here.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 30 October 2017, 17:29:20
I suspect they might have meant (E)B...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: snrdg091012 on 31 October 2017, 09:12:32
Morning from WA Daryk,

I suspect they might have meant (E)B...

Can you provide supporting information from one of the books for the special feature designation of the Hellbore Assault Laser?

I was not able to find anything.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 31 October 2017, 18:08:53
Correction: I bet they erroneously thought it was "(E)B".  It's a twin barreled weapon, but not actually burst fire (it alternates between the two barrels to mitigate the heat).  I pulled the above from Sarna, but it's referenced to "Lostech", a book I don't have, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 November 2017, 07:31:08
Do not post comments or questions in the errata reporting threads, please.  This is against the rules for this section of the boards outlined here:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=2412.0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: snrdg091012 on 01 November 2017, 09:55:21
Morning Moonsword,

Do not post comments or questions in the errata reporting threads, please.  This is against the rules for this section of the boards outlined here:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=2412.0

Thank you for the reminder and my apologies for the gaff I made and I have sent you a PM.

Respectfully,
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 02 November 2017, 11:27:18
I'm not sure if this has been discussed or not, but some of the various unit quirks have changed with the release of the Battlemech Manual (Improved communications now allows you to ignore the first level of Ghost Targets, IIRC, while before it allowed you to ignore the effects of ECM).

Are there plans to add these changes to the errata from the various other rulebooks. For instance, SO is where Improved Communications was originally, so has the original definition, but Improved Communications has also been defined in IO under the Strategic Battleforce section, and who knows where else. Are there plans to adjust everything across the board so its the same from point A to point Z?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 November 2017, 11:50:07
I had intended to errata SO at the very least, although now that my time for BT is pretty scarce I think I'll just put out a Quirk Update PDF that has the changes so as to address all the relevant books at once.  It won't contain the all-new quirks, nor the mech quirk list.

The quirks for Battleforce and other higher-level abstract rulesets won't change: we'll just let them do something different there in the interests of minimizing errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 04 December 2017, 13:34:50
I found an error in the BOX-SET Record Sheets PDF but see no-where to report it.

Where can I put it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 04 December 2017, 13:48:12
There seem to be a couple of problems with the current errata documents for the Second Printing of Tactical Operations regarding Conventional Infantry Armor Table (p. 317) (p. 26 of the errata document):

1. The change to the Environment Suit, Light is labelled (6) indicating, that it is a new change to the document, but it is not repeated in the New Additions section of the document (should be added around p. 43 of the document).

2. The errata document also says to change Introduced (Date) from 2790 to 2500 under MechWarrior Cooling Suit, but the table in the book already says 2500. I think, that it could be something, that was intended only for the first printing of the book, but was also left here by mistake. The second part of the entry (change the Cost from 500 to 5,000) seems correct.

1a. There seems to be the same problem, as 1. above, with the errata document for the First Printing (only the entry is on p. 59, and should be repeated around p. 93 of the document).

I'm posting it here as those seem to be problems with the errata documents themselves, and not with the TO book.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 06 December 2017, 09:59:14
Well, have not heard a response, so, here goes:

BOXED SET RECORD SHEETS (found here (http://bg.battletech.com/download/CAT3500A_BoxSet_RecordSheets_with_Counters.pdf?x64300)), has an Error on the HUNCHBACK Record sheet.

The RIGHT TORSO location 1-3, #3 is listed as an AC10, not an AC 20
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 December 2017, 11:49:05
There's a thread for the intro box set: check the index.

As we're working on the new box set, I'll double check this if the Hunchy is to be included.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 06 December 2017, 12:59:54
There's a thread for the intro box set: check the index.

As we're working on the new box set, I'll double check this if the Hunchy is to be included.  Thanks.

Found and already reported (back 2011)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 December 2017, 03:31:09
Okay, my last act as Errata Coordinator is today's big release.  Catalyst is working on print reprints of Total Warfare, TechManual, Tactical Operations, and Strategic Operations.  As such, all four are getting big errata updates that will in turn be folded into these reprints, as is standard for any Catalyst reprint.

Unfortunately we didn't receive a great deal of notice on these.  As such, you may notice that errata you reported didn't make it in.  That's because there was simply so much of it to deal with (83 pages, plus an additional BattleForce supplemental set of corrections for SO that runs another 14 pages) in so short an order that some things simply couldn't be checked and fixed in the time we had.  However, we were able to address the vast majority of issues.  If you see something that was missed, I'd appreciate it if you reported it again.

For the above four errata documents, you might notice that they are only for the previous printing.  That is, they don't list every change ever going back to the first printing, as is usually the case.  That is because these are going to layout and so information about all the stuff that was already fixed in previous printings was cut, because for layout (which doesn't need to know that) that info is only confusing.  If you have an older book, I suggest you keep the older errata documents so you know everything that changed.  I'm sorry, but there just wasn't time to do this the normal way; I'll try to find time to go back to the old way in the new year and release updated documents that match the older practice.

Additionally, since I was working on the text for the new box sets (and with the usual time passing and fresh reports coming in; special thanks here to Alfaryn) this prompted some additional errata for the BattleMech Manual.  It's not a lot, but I figured I might as well put it out as all this other stuff is coming out.  This ensures that the Manual, the box sets, and the upcoming TW/TO reprints are almost entirely in sync in terms of rulings.

As always, I have no street date for when the reprints are due.  When Catalyst is certain as to when they'll hit the shelf, you'll find out then.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 09 December 2017, 07:51:42
Thanks again for all you've done here, Xotl.  I had a couple of reports that were missed in the last iteration, and I already re-reported them.  Should I hit them a third time?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 December 2017, 09:39:46
I remember those reports.  Give me until later in the month to check them though; I have to fly out for a while and won't be around.

Hope I didn't miss anything vital; apologies.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 09 December 2017, 09:54:01
No worries, I know you've been super busy.  They were both in TacOps (one for clarity with regard to Bloodhound probes, the other to bring two infantry armor kits into line with the Companion conversion rule)... thanks for looking!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 09 December 2017, 16:00:25
That is both good and sad news. You've really done an fantastic job, Xotl.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 December 2017, 21:59:13
Thanks, man.  You set a good precedent. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 23 December 2017, 14:45:27
Hi, I've noticed, that a clarification about TAG Troopers ranges has been added to p. 341 TO in the ver. 3.0 of the TO errata, but there still is no entry for TAG Troopers in the Conventional Infantry Combat Data on pp. 412-413 TO. Shouldn't it be added there? See http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56272.0 for details, and some of the details, that I think should go to the table (like cost and weight of the infantry TAGs).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 January 2018, 23:48:23
For those of you who like old books, over in the Historical Errata thread I've added errata from the distant year 2000 for the Field Manual series of books, plus Clans: Warriors of Kerensky and Shattered Sphere.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=22155.0


EDIT: Field Manual series link corrected.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 29 January 2018, 09:39:41
 An oversight in TechManual (Fanpro) publishing and perhaps onwards allows aircraft dependent on atmosphere to operate within 18000m of a celestial body in a vacuum. Prop Fixed-Wing Support Vehicles and Airships with Environmental Sealing are permitted in vacuum despite having no ability to generate lift.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 29 January 2018, 12:37:44
Page numbers?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 23 February 2018, 20:58:59
While comparing my copies of Technical Readout 3075 (2008 Second Printing, Corrected), and Record Sheets 3075 (2010 print edition) for the purposes of a recent errata report, I've noticed plenty of disparities between Battle Values in the TRO, and the Master Units List. I've also found one such disparity between the RS and the MUL (there may be more of those - I didn't check all BV values in those books). None of those issues were addressed in the errata threads for TRO 3075, and RS 3075.

Errata files posted in the Historical Errata Thread for old TROs also don't contain any information about BV changes and because of change from BV 1.0 to BV 2.0 after at least some of those old TROs were published practically all BV values in those books are now wrong.

Since Master Units List seems to be de facto place for any BV related errata, and seemingly none of the BV corrections get reported in the TRO and the RS threads, why not make it official, and add a note in the Errata Forum Rules & Index, that all BV erratas are listed in the Master Units List (and should be reported in the MUL errata thread), and not in the threads for the TRO, RS, and other pdf or printed products containing BV information?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 23 April 2018, 06:59:54
Please don't reply to anything in the errata threads.  If you've got questions about an errata report, do it in here, per the rules posted here:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5884.0

I've done the errata collation thing once when I was subbing for Xotl because he was unavailable.  Trust me, having commentary in there would only make that job harder and it can be rough for the major books, especially when you're under the gun from a big release.

If there's something problematic in one of those threads, hit the "Report to moderator" link.  Even if we're on our phones, we can yank the post fairly readily.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: VhenRa on 15 May 2018, 00:19:03
There is a dead-link in the Record Sheets 3075 Unabridged thread for an updated Merkava VII record sheet. Kinda annoying, I was looking at Merkava specs and found my current record sheet for the VII is not-valid... but the updated one doesn't exist anymore.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 May 2018, 12:22:16
Link recreated.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2018, 02:27:12
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 07 June 2018, 08:50:20
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2018, 11:43:51
Perfect, thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 07 June 2018, 13:04:19
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2018, 16:18:16
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 08 June 2018, 08:13:20
Good to know, thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 09 June 2018, 13:38:54
 ::) I shoulda say that coming...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 20 June 2018, 21:24:35
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 20 June 2018, 22:59:26
There's some work going on behind the scenes to roll in the new PV update.  That perhaps is responsible.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BLOODWOLF on 24 June 2018, 17:23:45
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/TX4xnu2.png)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 July 2018, 23:27:24
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").
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BrokenMnemonic on 20 July 2018, 13:00:54
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pascal on 22 July 2018, 12:21:41
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 22 July 2018, 16:04:10
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 July 2018, 16:46:33
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).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 22 July 2018, 17:19:33
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pascal on 24 July 2018, 12:03:51
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 :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 07 August 2018, 06:53:42
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)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 August 2018, 07:08:19
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 August 2018, 12:17:45
This is already noted in the current errata, so the original GC does have a Directional Mount again.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Waritec on 21 September 2018, 11:02:54
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 21 September 2018, 12:40:06
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Waritec on 22 September 2018, 01:27:30
Oh sorry. Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 21 November 2018, 12:02:47
Possible Errata for Battle Armor LBX AC and missing content from latest printing "TacOps 3rd Printing" or the Retro-Art cover...

"Bandit Queen" posted the concern in the .here. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63345.0) and I can't seem to send the image properly in a PM, so I am sharing the image file here instead.

I opened my copy of the 2nd Printing PDF by mistake, found the line on p.384 for "BA-LBX" BV (answer: 20/-) but with the "3rd printing"  missing the single line item, I wasn't sure if it was deliberately left out or not

Here is the side by side image I tried to send via PM
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 November 2018, 13:08:09
Yep, it's been noted.  Some major content has also gone missing from pages 107-108.  I'm not sure what's happened, but if anyone notices anything else that has vanished please let me know.

Anything that's single-line will be just noted in the errata doc, but I've spoken to the layout fellow and he says he can generate some updated pages for the really large absences that we can hand out for free.  That should happen in January.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CVB on 10 February 2019, 15:03:55
When there are discrepancies between the MUL and a printed/PDF canon source, where should it be reported?
MUL errata thread or product errata thread?

(Example Slayer SL-15: MUL states introduction year as 2657, TRO 3039 states designers had little time to craft the airframe because the Amaris Crisis (2766+) was raging)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 February 2019, 15:20:55
*Ideally* the MUL should take preference, as it's intended to work that way and is an updateable source, unlike an old print book.

That having been said, like any human endeavour it can be wrong.  It's perfectly fine to report a contradiction you've spotted, because we may have overlooked something.  We'll take a look and see if we're talking about a deliberate change to fix some wider continuity issue, or a mistake / oversight on our part.  Use the MUL Errata thread, please.  If it's right, we'll make a note for the product errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 10 February 2019, 16:03:22
I think I mentioned this previously, but there's an anachronism on the IndustrialMechs. I don't think any of the Industrials in Historical: Reunification War (p 204) are shown as being invented before the 2600s. This would mean that the Periphery Powers had them, but they also didn't exist?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 10 February 2019, 17:42:49
I think I mentioned this previously, but there's an anachronism on the IndustrialMechs. I don't think any of the Industrials in Historical: Reunification War (p 204) are shown as being invented before the 2600s. This would mean that the Periphery Powers had them, but they also didn't exist?
Weren't those industrial 'Mechs intended to represent similar but older models? It is not like a lumberjack 'Mech changes much, a lumberjack or mining 'Mech predating the Mackie wouldn't be really different from one dating after the BattleMechs even got perfected.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 10 February 2019, 20:25:16
Weren't those industrial 'Mechs intended to represent similar but older models? It is not like a lumberjack 'Mech changes much, a lumberjack or mining 'Mech predating the Mackie wouldn't be really different from one dating after the BattleMechs even got perfected.
I could agree with that statement. But it does create a bit of an anachronism to call something specifically a CON-1 Carbine when it didn't exist for another 100+ years. Saying the 'Mech rolled out in 2491 instead of 2691 would fix the problem and not really interfere with the text in the Vehicle Annex. As opposed to creating a whole new set of Industrials for the Age of War period.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 10 February 2019, 20:30:15
We were given precise instructions that they were just generic, so we’re not using them to change intro dates.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 10 February 2019, 20:42:10
We were given precise instructions that they were just generic, so we’re not using them to change intro dates.
Ahhh. Ok. That makes sense then. So, basically, a Crosscut is just the brand name of the most-well-known version, not necessarily the first Industrial used for logging.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HuronWarrior on 09 March 2019, 09:48:15
Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask, but why was the Beagle Active Probe removed from the Raven -3L? And what was the weight replaced with?

I saw on the Sarna wiki that the errata (version 2.0) for Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade removed the BAP. And a google search found this thread, with a dropbox link: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8600.0 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8600.0)
But it doesn't say why the BAP is gone or what's in its place. Is the errata here in error?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 09 March 2019, 10:03:41
Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask, but why was the Beagle Active Probe removed from the Raven -3L? And what was the weight replaced with?

I saw on the Sarna wiki that the errata (version 2.0) for Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade removed the BAP. And a google search found this thread, with a dropbox link: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8600.0 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8600.0)
But it doesn't say why the BAP is gone or what's in its place. Is the errata here in error?

**EDIT**

The older one has the layout's a lot different and it is there...just 'buried'.


I'm not the errata Guy, but the Raven 3L shows as having a BAP.

There is currently two record sheets for 3050, one (C) 2007, and one (C) 2011. The 2007 omitted the BAP, but the 2011 has the BAP.

Make sure the cover looks like this (2011):

(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/d/d0/Record_Sheets_3050_Upgrades_Unabridged_Inner_Sphere.jpg/474px-21rik95e6w7y9w32azfe24l4uy6xvo6.jpg?timestamp=20111213151354)

as opposed to this (2007):

(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/3/30/RS3050U.IS.jpg/280px-mxaosb5rts0o5wkbtp3l9rcxw6j0329.jpg?timestamp=20080410021653)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 March 2019, 10:06:00
It was only removed from the Armament list.  It's still on the 'mech, it's just not a weapon.  It was just updating to stay consistent with what is listed in armaments.  The Firestarter has an active probe, but is not listed in Armaments for example.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 09 March 2019, 11:02:38
I think that's a bad move. The list should be weapons and equipment, so you have 1 spot to find everything the unit can do, as opposed to hoping you find the equipment on the crit sheet, and then also know what it does. It's making it harder, not easier.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HuronWarrior on 09 March 2019, 11:03:30
Thank you all for the clarification.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 March 2019, 11:10:50
I think that's a bad move. The list should be weapons and equipment, so you have 1 spot to find everything the unit can do, as opposed to hoping you find the equipment on the crit sheet, and then also know what it does. It's making it harder, not easier.

I agree.  I was looking through record sheets last night and noticed a few in 3145 that have Coolant Pods listed in the crit table but not under the weapons and equipment.  Makes them easier to accidentally overlook.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 March 2019, 11:12:11
I think that's a bad move. The list should be weapons and equipment, so you have 1 spot to find everything the unit can do, as opposed to hoping you find the equipment on the crit sheet, and then also know what it does. It's making it harder, not easier.
It’s listed on that page already under targeting and tracking. As ECM is under communications. The Beagle Probe was listed twice. Once under armament and again under targeting and tracking.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 March 2019, 11:12:57
I agree.  I was looking through record sheets last night and noticed a few in 3145 that have Coolant Pods listed in the crit table but not under the weapons and equipment.  Makes them easier to accidentally overlook.

We are not taking about the record sheet. We are talking about the Technical readout.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 09 March 2019, 12:21:26
it's still listed in the RS (see RS: Succession Wars for the most current example). The sheets were made in MML, which puts gear in the equipment box.

(http://puu.sh/CXuIb/458ae3f4a3.png)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 10 March 2019, 12:39:03
Ah, I misunderstood. Nothing to fix.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 27 March 2019, 22:16:05
So was looking at IO for various reasons, and noticed that the Universal Technology Advancement Table (pg 51) has the Availability rating for the Standard JumpShip Construction option as "DEDF".

Is this correct? It seems a bit off that the availability is even higher than it is for the Succession Wars.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2019, 14:01:46
New errata for the year is out.  Biggest changes are to StratOps by far, but note the unique situation with TO, as mentioned in the TO thread.

Not huge releases for the most part, as I'm still not around much.  SO gets a lot of love because it's been in-progress for years and neglected for almost as long.

I'm also going to be putting out a special quirks update thread in a minute.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 06 July 2019, 12:14:47
I noticed that Follow-the-leader missiles column in IO page 61 is mostly blank. And it doesn't quite agree with Tactical Operations (pg368).

TO says that FTL missiles are based on Star League's experimental missiles. The extinction date in IO's entry seems to refer to this then but lacks R&D start date. TO has R&D date for FedCom research only, and this date (3049) doesn't seem to match IO's retrieval date of '46 (though i suppose FTL missile research could start way later after the tech is found).

Does TO need original SL R&D date, or was the project minor enough FedCom R&D date is intended to be featured?
Regardless of that, IO needs a Star League intro date and column correction.


Also, flare missiles. IO has them listed, refers to Tech Manual which does indeed mention them but they lack rules of any kind as far as i can determine.
As i understand it, previous versions of BattleTech had flare missiles. So, are they mentioned because they exists in-universe but just lack rules in current version of BT?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 14 July 2019, 20:13:52
i doubt this counts as errata but it is something that might be fixable in possible future print runs

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65995.0

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 29 August 2019, 10:28:55
Thanks to nckestrel's hard work, Alpha Strike has had a full slate of errata documents released, available for preview in the first post of each thread as usual.  Please note that regular Alpha Strike will no longer receive errata documents, as it's been superceded by Alpha Strike Commander's Edition (the Companion still will, but such material won't be referencing stuff reprinted in ASCE from this point forward).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: sadlerbw on 06 September 2019, 15:57:25
p78, HEAT (HT#/#/#)
Add after the first paragraph
"A unit with a HEAT value at a range it does not normally deal damage at may make a special weapon attack in place of its standard weapon attack that only deals the effects of the HEAT special ability."

Is the special called HEAT, or should that just be HT? I don't have my book in front of me to check. Also, and this it totally minor, it my head it is easier to read if written like, "A unit with a HT value at a range at which it does not normally deal damage may make..."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 06 October 2019, 23:33:17
Can someone check something for me?

Is it just me, or on the Additional Alternate Era Weapons and Equipment chart (page 215+), is every single piece of equipment missing its Dark Age Availability Code?

Edit
In Interstellar Ops of course
/edit
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Nemesis on 15 November 2019, 11:50:08
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but where can I find all the official errata?

bg.battletech.com/errata only has errata for the core rulebooks. What about the TRO's, Record Sheets, etc?

I can read through the threads for each product, but that only tells me what people think might be an error, not what officially is one or what the correct stats would be. In many cases there's a contradiction between one product and another and the errata report is simply asking which one is correct, which points out what I should look at but still leaves me with the same question.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 15 November 2019, 12:49:47
Hmm, good question, but basically you're asking for something that doesn't exist.

Core rulebooks get an official, compiled errata.  There's no such thing for non-core rulebooks.
Errata for other books is a cooperative effort between official and fans. Generally, if it's posted here, it is considered errata, regardless of who posted it.  If it's wrong, it will hopefully get removed/official statement declaring the official answer at some point.

Questions shouldn't be in the errata threads,but sometimes we miss one.  (Even the official errata maintenance is volunteer). You can post the errata question here, or if it's a rules question to the rules question threads, or if it's background to ask the writers/developers to get it sorted out (which is where the question should have gone instead of errata threads).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 06 December 2019, 16:45:03
Just to be clear, the latest TacOps Errata document will be the LAST one for the combined volume, and new threads will be created for the split ones, right?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 December 2019, 17:19:04
Probably.  At the same time, it depends on what errata there is and how much free time I have.  Maybe I can support both versions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 06 December 2019, 17:31:27
I'll keep looking at the single volume then, until you let us know otherwise...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 06 December 2019, 21:49:37
Any word on if the next TM printing will fix the spine image misalignment? I’m anal retentive enough to spring for one if it’s been fixed 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 December 2019, 22:43:00
I don't know, I'm afraid.  Can you give me a shot to show me what you're referring to?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 08 December 2019, 00:50:25
I don't know, I'm afraid.  Can you give me a shot to show me what you're referring to?
i doubt this counts as errata but it is something that might be fixable in possible future print runs

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65995.0

i had posted it in this thread because i wasn't sure if it classified as errata
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 08 December 2019, 09:20:17
i had posted it in this thread because i wasn't sure if it classified as errata

Sorry to inject into this, Here is a shot of mine, same height etc.

Except on mine, the art does not line up.  :(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 08 December 2019, 09:26:23
I think that's identical to the problem Sartris pointed out, it's just that he shifted his books to line up the art.  If you look at the top of his image, you can see the top of one book is higher than the other.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 08 December 2019, 09:41:23
I think that's identical to the problem Sartris pointed out, it's just that he shifted his books to line up the art.  If you look at the top of his image, you can see the top of one book is higher than the other.

Could be...and why folks shouldn't post incomplete pics. ;)

I looked at his pic and initially thought, Hmm...my books are the same height.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 08 December 2019, 09:50:47
Could be...and why folks shouldn't post incomplete pics. ;)

i figured the red box clearly highlighting that the tops of the books didn't line up was sufficient

my bad
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 08 December 2019, 09:51:54
It's the internet... belt AND suspenders! ::)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 08 December 2019, 10:46:37
i figured the red box clearly highlighting that the tops of the books didn't line up was sufficient

my bad

I'll be honest...when I look at that I think "hey, one book is taller that the other. But looking at mine side-by-each I see now what you were showing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 08 December 2019, 12:33:38
It’s good you are on the scene to clear things up
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BATTLEMASTER on 01 March 2020, 08:38:38
Since the Clan Invasion Kickstarter is underway and rather popular, is there any chance that the spelling for the Inner Sphere codename for the Stormcrow can be fixed?

This came up in a fan article I posted awhile ago about the Stormcrow where it was demonstrated that the word "ryoken" is actually Japanese for "passport", whereas the spelling should have been "ryouken" or "ryöken", which means "hunting dog", which seems to be what the original intent was behind the codename the Draconis Combine assigned to the 'mech.

Here's the relevant post and discussion about it:  https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=45387.msg1047463#msg1047463
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 03 March 2020, 21:01:24
I think it's just a typo, not everybody has the ability to use symbols over a letter.

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BATTLEMASTER on 04 March 2020, 06:52:07
I think it's just a typo, not everybody has the ability to use symbols over a letter.

TT

Even with the "ryouken" spelling, it's a very long-lived typo  :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 21 March 2020, 04:41:47
I just did some math with regard to Rifle Cannons, and it appears the -3 damage against BAR 10 armor noted on page 338 of TacOps is in error.  Working through the AToW damage conversions and dropping the AP to 7 yields only -1 damage against BAR 10 armor, not -3.  Calculations here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68549.msg1591802#msg1591802
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 21 March 2020, 10:03:19
TO > ATOW in that regard.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 21 March 2020, 13:02:25
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=24895.msg564051#msg564051

Was this ever solved?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 21 March 2020, 22:03:40
TO > ATOW in that regard.
I thought the newer book (AToW) would trump the older one?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 23 March 2020, 00:31:17
Two different mechanisms. Despite an attempt at unification. The effect in TO is intended.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 23 March 2020, 03:37:57
Roger that... house rule for me then (to work toward that unification).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 28 March 2020, 14:00:33
question about Record Sheets: Clan Invasion

Does a potential mistake in the art used count as errata?



Assuming the answer is yes

-the blackjack and firestarter omnis use the standard 3025 art instead of the 3058 art

-the following use the nuSeen art for all of the variants, including the project phoenix designs.
Locust
Stinger
Wasp
Valkyrie
Phoenix Hawk
Wolverine
Rifleman
Thunderbolt
Archer
Warhammer
Marauder
BattleMaster
Marauder II (except the bounty hunter variant)

Which is correct?:
A) the phoenix designs should use phoenix art

OR

B) i have no idea what you're talking about! what's project phoenix? they've always looked like this! Why would there be alternate art?

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 28 March 2020, 17:21:40
One can only hope B) is right..  ::)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 28 March 2020, 17:46:09
There's been no indications whatsoever that Project Phoenix is retconned away. As it is, i understand that TRO Clan Invasion (and TRO Jihad) uses PP art?

Nothing's preventing one from using new classics though.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 28 March 2020, 17:54:38
No, but I asked the question in official space for an official answer to determine how much work I have to do to submit an accurate errata report
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 29 March 2020, 11:42:37
Better to ask in the Ask the Devs: I don't have answers to things like that, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 29 March 2020, 12:54:31
thanks. up the chain we go
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 29 March 2020, 14:17:04
Woo!  Answer B it is!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 29 March 2020, 14:56:14
Different B than the one posted above. They did NOT give either of the two answers he posted in this thread.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68714.0;topicseen
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 29 March 2020, 15:21:56
I changed the question in the ask the devs thread to include more options. It’s the “wrong art” option
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 29 March 2020, 16:30:46
Ah well... that's what I get for rushing...   :-[
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 02 April 2020, 12:46:00
A not insignificant number of mechs in RS: Clan Invasion have the 2 and 3 slots (life support and cockpit) flip-flopped in the head. Is this eratta?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cache on 02 April 2020, 13:03:20
A not insignificant number of mechs in RS: Clan Invasion have the 2 and 3 slots (life support and cockpit) flip-flopped in the head. Is this eratta?
It was for RS:SW. It's an issue with MegaMek Lab apparently: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64909.msg1581622#msg1581622
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 02 April 2020, 13:13:40
It was for RS:SW. It's an issue with MegaMek Lab apparently: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64909.msg1581622#msg1581622

"we will scan" works for me
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 03 April 2020, 17:31:03
TPTB are catching up on old errata? Cool!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 10 April 2020, 18:03:40
So not really sure which way this goes, but...

Page 20 of TR3145 The Clans lists the Hadur's armor as

"Compound VM22 Ferro-Fibrous"

However, the state block on page  21 doesn't list it as FF armor and the armor layout (22/20/20/16/18) = 96 points is correct for 6 tons of Standard Armor(6x16 = 96). It is however, ALSO correct for 5 tons of Clan FF Armor (16x5x1.2).

The record sheet in the back of the book doesn't show what kind of armor it is. The record sheet in RS3145u doesn't show what kind of armor it is.

Normally I'd just say the fluff is wrong and go with Standard armor, since the design works better with standard armor (it would be 1 ton underweight with FF armor, but still "technically" legal).

However, TR3150 restates the "Compound VM22 Ferro-Fibrous" armor for its description (though again, the statblock shows standard armor), AND under variants, states "The Hadur currently has two alternate configurations. The first replaces standard ferro-fibrous armor with reactive armor..."

So which way does it go? Which book needs errata? Is it going to be left a ton underweight, or will the armor be adjusted for 6 tons of Clan FF armor? Or will it stay with standard armor, and all instances of FF armor needs to be removed?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 10 April 2020, 18:18:04
I think the claim it has ferro-fibrous is in error. As you say, FF would leave it underweight, so it is probably just an error on the writer's part.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hammer on 16 April 2020, 19:34:25
From RS 3039

Planetlifter Air Transport "SuperPelican" aka "Waddle" (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2543/planetlifter-air-transport-superpelican-aka-waddle) with an introduction date of 2623, is sporting a SRM6 (OS) but launcher isn't around till 2676 (TM pg 291, IO pg 46 shows around 2665).

Suggested fix change Planetlifter to have a later introduction date.


Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 16 April 2020, 19:51:43
From RS 3039

Planetlifter Air Transport "SuperPelican" aka "Waddle" (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2543/planetlifter-air-transport-superpelican-aka-waddle) with an introduction date of 2623, is sporting a SRM6 (OS) but launcher isn't around till 2676 (TM pg 291, IO pg 46 shows around 2665).

Suggested fix change Planetlifter to have a later introduction date.

OK, done, but please put MUL requests/errata in the MUL thread in the future.  https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=47774.0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hammer on 16 April 2020, 19:54:42
OK, done, but please put MUL requests/errata in the MUL thread in the future.  https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=47774.0

Opps...wasn't paying attention to the thread I was in sorry about that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 02 May 2020, 17:51:31
With the ruling in this (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68830.0) thread it seems a few errata are in order to make things clearer.

I gave a wrong page reference for the problematic section of A Time of War but page 186 offers this:

Quote from: A Time of War page 186
Tactical Armor vs. Internal Structure: These rules also
consider a tactical unit’s internal structure identical to tactical
armor. Unless the unit is a battle armor suit (see below) or its
design notes state otherwise, the BAR value for any tactical
unit’s internal structure is presumed to be identical to that of its
exterior armor.

This is mostly troublesome because of Tactical Operations page 338 which offers this:

Quote from: Tactical Operations page 338
Game Rules: Rifles lack the power to function effectively at normal space-to-space ranges, but may be employed by aerospace units operating in atmosphere and their
ground-based counterparts, where they function as normal direct-fire ballistic weapons. However, because they lack the armor-penetrating power of modern autocannons,
rifles of all sizes must subtract 3 points of damage (to a minimum of 0) for successful attacks against any unit except for conventional infantry, battle armor, ’Mechs using
Commercial Armor, or Support Vehicles with a BAR rating below 8.

The easy answer would be to self-contain A Time of War page 186, which seems to be the intent but because of page 212:

Quote from: A Time of War page 212
VEHICULAR WEAPON TRAITS
All vehicular weapons—also called heavy weapons in Total
Warfare—are classified by various codes that indicate their
unique traits in combat. These weapons perform per their normal
Total Warfare-style rules when fired at opposing vehicular units,
but against infantry units in tactical combat, these weapon traits
(described on p. 113 in Total Warfare and shown in the equipment
tables on pp. 303-305 of that book) yield alternative features that
replace the normal anti-infantry effects in Total Warfare.

And the rule section quoted above saying unit with no mention of ignoring the -3 for internal structure or against buildings and it does get a bit confusing.

Then we have Penetrating Critical Hits:

Quote from: Total Warfare page 206
DAMAGE
Support Vehicles handle damage differently than Combat
Vehicles. Every time a Support Vehicle suffers a hit that exceeds
its BAR rating, a chance exists for a critical hit (called a penetrating critical hit), even if armor remains in that location. Penetrating
critical hits are rolled in the same fashion as standard critical hits
(see Critical Damage p. 192), with the following exceptions.

I'll skip to the next problematic wording:

Quote from: Total Warfare page 207
Penetrating critical hits may occur in addition to any normal
critical hits due to location or internal structure damage. The
Armored Chassis modification does not affect rolls for these
normal critical hits.

The underlined section in the first quote is frankly a weird way to word things if Internal Structure does not have a BAR of it's own and if Penetrating Criticals are only to be checked as long as Armor exists to provide even partial protection.

The second quoted section seems to back that Penetrating Criticals are check for in addition to Internal Structure damage.

So the easiest way to handle all this would be adding a few lines to Rifle Cannons about the exceptions to the -3 damage modifier for Internal Structure, Buildings, Terrain, any other valid targets not already listed that I might be forgetting, and exploding for full damage with a second errata to Total Warfare to make it clearer that Penetrating Critical Hits are only checked for as long as Armor exists in the location struck.

A Time of war page 186 would still be a bit confusing but like I said the intention seems to be for it to be self contained to A Time of War so I'm not sure how to fix it but because with the above changes it probably could be left as is for now especially as it only causes problems in a few specific cases(Rifle Cannons, possibly Mine Clearance, and I'm probably forgetting another).

That should also neatly solve my pending question about Patchwork Armor as it would make it entirely about the armor.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 May 2020, 21:03:26
With the ruling in this (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68830.0) thread it seems a few errata are in order to make things clearer.

We're going over this in light of the problems that have developed, though the trending line is "AToW is to be ignored here".  We'll get back to you (and the original thread) when it's all hashed out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 02 May 2020, 21:54:43
Like I said it does seem like the intention was for that to be self contained to AToW in the first place and with the alterations I propose I think it can mostly be as the rest is mostly just clearing things up because things were either outright omitted that probably should be included(Rifle Cannons doing full damage to Internal Structure) or some wording changed up(Penetrating Critical Hits).

So no worries xotl if AToW does need to be disregarded in this instance and if there is anything else I can do to help sort through things do let me know.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 03 May 2020, 05:04:01
We're going over this in light of the problems that have developed, though the trending line is "AToW is to be ignored here".
*snip*
That would be a shame.  Consistency from top to bottom is achievable.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 03 May 2020, 07:08:48
That would be a shame.  Consistency from top to bottom is achievable.

Not in this case. TW/BM > ATOW.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 03 May 2020, 10:47:54
To be clear though there may still need to be some errata to AToW pages 186-187 and 211-212 to make AToW internally consistent too to handle fringe cases like Rifle Cannons, Mine Clearance Munitions, and Patchwork Armor inside it's own rules.  Possibly Frankenmechs too but I 'm not sure they present any issues that could not be handled by any alterations to handle Patchwork Armor.

AToW giving things that are not Armor BAR and the table on 187 including unarmored structures may be the biggest issue there.

The good news is I think we can create a divide and conquer situation here with the errata to solve the varying issues.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 03 May 2020, 16:31:41
Not in this case. TW/BM > ATOW.
That would still be a shame.  Consistency is achievable with a minor tweak to TW/BM.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 03 May 2020, 17:10:54
Which I think we can get by making the alterations I suggest to make it clearer what the exceptions to the -3 of Rifle Cannons are and re-wording the two passages from Penetrating Critical hits I quoted to make it more clear that Armor still has to exist between Internal Structure and the shot because as they are now it really suggests if no armor exists you still check for Penetrating Critical hits*.

If I've parsed everything correctly such changes would cover all the issues outside of AToW.

The only things that might really need to be changed inside of AToW is 211 could use some unifying of terms as in the case of using Field Guns and Field Artillery it gets a little confusing which of the conditions to use there and if the space can be found on 212 to make it a little clearer that TW/TacOps overrules 186 and 187 even in fringe cases like Rifle Cannons.

*This is mostly to handle possible oddities from Patchwork Armor which I had some concerns about especially when it comes to IndustrialMechs, both as a distinct unit and as a component of a FrankenMech, but yes the wording could use some work if the intention is for armor to still exist to check for Penetrating Critical Hits because I don't think I've stressed enough how the existing wording supports the idea that you still check even if no armor exists.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 26 May 2020, 00:51:16
I actually thought about something that I'm either making a mountain out of a mole hill or really will throw a monkey wrench into things for Rifle Cannons with this whole mess I've started over them and BAR.

A rather specific case scenario I'll admit but there may now be some odd interactions due to damage transfer.

If a location struck due to previous damage only has internal structure left and not enough left to absorb a Rifle Cannon doing damage to it the procedure for transferring the remaining damage to the next section actually provides a possible way for a Rifle Cannon to at least partially ignore the -3 even though the next location has BAR 8 or higher armor.

I think it is only problematic if there is a way to put BAR 8 on an Industrial Mech as Support Vehicles don't transfer damage.

I guess it depends on if the ruling from 2013 stating patchwork armor rules do not change what armor types are available to a unit is upheld with Riflemech's question on patchwork armor as I don't think I can put BAR 8 on an Industrial Mech by any other means.  I'll have to research that and get back to you on that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 26 May 2020, 01:20:07
Okay I've determined it does depend on if the 2013 ruling on Patchwork Armor gets overturned or not if there is a significant enough problem here to worry about in terms of damage transfer.

Though it has made me start thinking about other damage transfer scenarios and penetrating critical hits.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 26 May 2020, 12:57:36
My completely unofficial stance on this (hooray, discussion thread!) is that this is mountain out of molehill.  You and the maybe two other people in the world who will ever encounter this potential problem can roll off for it and the winner decides for that game.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 26 May 2020, 14:19:19
I certainly grant it is a fair question to ask how often people use Patchwork Armor, Industrial Mechs, and Support Vehicles and thus how likely is it that anyone is going to run into some of these issues.

Though I think that actually makes it more worthwhile to make a few changes as I propose, to keep a lot of the odd interactions I've found/thought of fringe and obscure.

Upholding the 2013 ruling by Paul that Patchwork Armor doesn't change what armors are actually available to a unit would eliminate a lot of possible interactions and I would suggest a rewording of the last line on the third paragraph to go with it to make it more clear: change from
Quote from: TacOps page 377
A unit may
also not mount armor types illegal for that unit type to mount.
to
Quote
Patchwork armor rules do not change what armors are legally available to mount on units.

Then closing down Penetrating Critical Hits to make it more clear armor still has to exist seems like a really good idea to me too for much the same reason of to keep any remaining odd interactions even more fringe case.

Rifle Cannons and the AToW changes I propose are more to clear up wording than anything else to make certain things more clear.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 26 May 2020, 17:04:16
As one of those "two other people", I can assure you there's more than two of us.  There have been two whole threads related to this issue already, not counting monbvol's rules questions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 28 May 2020, 08:12:22
And I have thought of another counter point for why there needs to be official answers to these questions.

For a fair number of people MegaMek is the only way they get to play Battletech.  If one of the dozen or so people* who actually play with these rules want to use them in MegaMek it makes life a lot easier on the coders if there is an official and clear answer.

*Sorry Daryk.  As much as there may be a couple threads it is largely the same people in both threads.  So still a fairly tiny minority.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 May 2020, 08:31:23
Upholding the 2013 ruling by Paul that Patchwork Armor doesn't change what armors are actually available to a unit would eliminate a lot of possible interactions ..

Forgive me as I'm sure I've missed a good deal of this conversation, but why would we have to uphold a previous ruling? Was there a later ruling that undid it?

The stance regarding ATOW is that ATOW often goes into detail or directions that TW doesn't support.  That is known. We're not dragging all of that in to TW.  doesn't mean we will ignore everything, just that ATOW being different isn't by itself a problem.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 28 May 2020, 08:35:22
Mostly that there is an open question thread that really should be closed by that previous ruling but hasn't yet and thus brings into doubt if that ruling is still valid or not.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 May 2020, 08:46:42
Mostly that there is an open question thread that really should be closed by that previous ruling but hasn't yet and thus brings into doubt if that ruling is still valid or not.

the vast majority of open question threads are open because we each have only limited time and willpower.  previous rulings are rulings into explicitly said otherwise.  you can't have a player toss out a previous ruling by opening a question and demanding we answer it now (or any time period) or whatever ruling isn't valid.

which open question thread are you referring to?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 28 May 2020, 09:04:57
This (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68863.0) one marked research.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 May 2020, 09:19:08
This (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68863.0) one marked research.

Yeah, my previous answer definitely applies to that one, just underline willpower.  *heads back to Alpha Strike hidey-hole*
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 28 May 2020, 10:07:06
Just the way my brain works because it is marked research raised doubt if Paul's 2013 ruling that Patchwork Armor doesn't change legalities of armor in terms of what can be mounted on a unit was still valid or not.

But if it is still upheld then that does indeed close a fair number of possible weird interactions when it comes to Penetrating Critical Hits and Patchwork Armor.

To circle back to the AToW stuff, yeah I've pretty well determined 186 and 187 of AToW are intended to be self contained to AToW.  Just some odd wording on Penetrating Critical Hits that could stand to be cleaned up and the lack of clear exceptions to the -3 of Rifle Cannons for lack of better information did make them seem relevant to some questions I asked, one of which has been answered.

There is some unification of terminology that could be done to clear up some odd wording on 211 that I'd have to dig up again to be more specific and 212 is also not super clear on the rule that covers what happens when shooting a Heavy/Vehicular Weapon at certain targets does override what page 186 and 187 says, especially in cases where a weapon does have different effects based on a target's BAR.  In particular page 187 does have a table with sample bars that without knowing about the ruling on Weirdo's question about Rifle Cannons versus buildings or the ruling to my question about Rifle Cannons against internal structure and exploding for full effect in an ammo explosion would indicate that the -3 would apply against some targets that said rulings indicate it shouldn't.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 28 May 2020, 15:09:26
Unification is my ultimate goal, and it seems to me ridding ourselves of the singularity introduced by the flat -3 damage for Rifle Cannons is the shortest path to it.  A consistent system from top to bottom is possible.  Why not make it so?  As long as you assume the TW level is the one that all abstractions should simplify to, it shouldn't be that hard.  More granularity down to AToW, and more abstraction all the way up to ISaW.  Why think small?  BattleTech is by definition a niche market, and I propose we OWN that niche with the only system that operates at any scale, from personal one-on-one melee to interstellar war!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 28 May 2020, 15:13:56
A more mundane question, since I just saw Xotl's edit to the Inactive list.  Another thread recently pointed out that a JumpShip was statted out in 3026r, and I don't see any of those in 3039 or 3075.  I don't own 3026r, but I do have 3039 and 3075 and am at a total loss as to these stats.  I assume they're for the Quetzalcoatl variant of the Scout.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 May 2020, 15:21:29
You didn’t ask a question.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 28 May 2020, 15:50:11
Sorry... what book did the stats for this putative JumpShip listed in 3026r migrate to?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 May 2020, 15:54:18
It didn’t. The MUL lists the source for any unit, TR 3026r is the only listed source.  If there was a better one (better write-up or more available) we would have listed it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 28 May 2020, 15:56:50
Well, I hope they're right then!  ::)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 May 2020, 16:20:57
If we are wrong, we’ll just rip the page out of every copy until we are right :).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 28 May 2020, 16:51:08
Heh... I would expect no less of the CGL Rule Ninja Corps!  :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 05 June 2020, 19:19:46
And I already have a question.

The pdfs are marked fourth printing but since they are new products shouldn't they be first printing again?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 June 2020, 20:27:09
It's still Tactical Operations, so no.  It's the same content, just split in two.

(Also, it should be the third printing: the previous release was supposed to be the third printing, but was never released in print, so this is the third.  This borks the errata document numbering, so I'll need to jigger things around a bit).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 05 June 2020, 20:53:43
Just trying to figure out what I need to notate when submitting errata as I am still rather inclined to submit official errata for that word salad at the end of the third paragraph of Patchwork Armor.

I do not envy you your task, especially as people will just notate it as the fourth printing because that is what the pdfs list them as.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 June 2020, 21:18:57
Yeah, I've held off doing anything for TacOps for the past six months since this was coming and I wanted to have everything moved over to the new version. 

For notations in general, all TO references should now use the new two-volume version.  But yes, please do submit errata for it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2020, 13:28:50
Errata for the year is out, though it's only a handful of new rulings in three products.

Over the next while if I can find the time I'm going to try for an inaugural release for the two TacOps books, collecting whatever has generated since December.  But if there's not a lot then it just might wait until next year's June release instead.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 06 June 2020, 13:35:23
Hopefully you saw my PM...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dies Irae on 08 June 2020, 02:36:04
A bit of pedantry, but since there's no real way to submit errata for a novel?


BattleTech: Divided We Fall Novel

Print-on-Demand Edition
Page 120, Dominator Class BattleMech entry:

Power Plant: 225 XL Fusion (with Supercharger)

Possible typo as considering the 'Mechs speed is listed as a base 54 kph, would the Engine not be a 325 XL rather than a 225 XL?

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 11 June 2020, 21:39:31
Its also listed as a Biped OmniMech, despite it apparently being a standard mech (assuming the actuators aren't messed up).

I was sort of wondering for Shrapnel, since the sniper weapons have some some issues, like missing the Dark Age Equipment rating, and for some odd reason the Star League sniper rifle isn't available in the Star League era...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 17 August 2020, 00:02:48
Noticed something that I know I warned about here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68881.0) made it into the Total Warfare 6.1 errata document for page 207 and Penetrating Critical Hits.

Put a preliminary errata to the errata in the appropriate thread to make sure information is not duplicated.

Which leaves the question of what would be a better replacement to the 5th paragraph should be?

Personally I'd go with either an example of a strike going directly to internal structure, possibly doubling up with damage/critical transfer depending on how much space winds up being available.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 August 2020, 00:25:44
It's not supposed to be there at all: it was supposed to have been replaced.  Looks like it's been like that since the fourth printing.  I'll flag it again for deletion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 17 August 2020, 00:56:54
Maybe it is that I am making myself stay up past when my body is demanding sleep but I have a sneaking suspicion I need to restate what I'm getting at to be safe.

As Total Warfare stands in the corrected 6th printing:

A tracked Support Vehicle with an Armored Chassis
modification and a BAR of 7, with 12 armor points per side,
takes a hit from a large laser to its front side (Hit Location
Roll result of 7). Because the laser’s 8 points of damage
exceeds the Support Vehicle’s BAR, a penetrating critical
hit has occurred, even though 4 points of armor remain in
the front.

Because the Support Vehicle has an Armored Chassis
modification, however, the roll for the penetrating critical
is modified by –1. When the attacker rolls for the critical,
his result of 6 becomes a 5, narrowly saving the unit from
a possible critical hit.

In a later turn, the same Support Vehicle takes a second
large laser hit to its front, in this case from a Hit Location
Roll result of 2. The laser causes a penetrating critical hit, has
breached the armor, and has struck a location that gives the
attacker an additional possible critical hit. The attacker rolls
three times for critical hit effects, modifying only the first
roll—the one for penetrating critical hits—by –1.

If, on the other hand, the Support Vehicle were struck by
an AC/5 using armor-piercing rounds, it would be forced to
make a critical hit check regardless of its BAR (see ArmorPiercing Ammunition, p. 206). If it had a BAR of less than 10,
the vehicle would add a +2 modifier to this check.

If, on the other hand, the Support Vehicle were struck by
an AC/5 using armor-piercing rounds, the vehicle would be
treated as if it had a BAR of 4 (7 / 2 = 3.5, rounding up to
4) rather than 7 for purposes of determining penetrating
critical hits. Both hits might do critical damage because the
autocannon’s damage points exceed the unit’s effective BAR,
even though together the two autocannon hits would only
eliminate 10 of the Support Vehicle’s 12 armor points

I color coded the paragraphs to make them stand out a bit more.

Now we both agree as evidenced by the linked rules question that paragraph 5(red) is in error.

The 6.1 errata document has this:

Damage [example text] (p. 207)
Replace the fifth paragraph with the following:
“If, on the other hand, the Support Vehicle were struck by an AC/5 using armor-piercing rounds, it would be forced to
make a critical hit check regardless of its BAR (see Armor-Piercing Ammunition, p. 206). If it had a BAR of less than 10, the
vehicle would add a +2 modifier to this check.

This is a duplication of paragraph 4(green).

So yes 5 can just be deleted and all be fine but like I have suggested I think it would be better to replace it with a new example.

If my suspicion is incorrect, no worries.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 17 August 2020, 20:34:28
Hate to ask a stupid question, as I cannot find it easily on a search, but roughly how long does it typically take for a PDF to get updated with corrections?

I'm speaking specifically of the TRO Golden Century. I was going to buy it, but then I saw how many issues there are with it regarding incorrectly listed stuff within the record sheets...and am holding off.

Thanks
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 August 2020, 20:44:21
Not stupid at all, and we have no problem with questions here.

There's no "typically", I'm afraid.  In the past, errata (outside of particularly bad errors that force a re-release of the product in the first day or two) was only added to a product when it came up for a reprint.  That tended to limit it to core rulebooks and TROs, since most BT books aren't reprinted.

Print On Demand is a new process to CGL, and so there's no real established procedure for how often the file will be updated.  I gather than any changes mean that the file has to be updated on the points of sale and then needs to be reapproved for printing again, which takes some time.  As such, I wouldn't expect it to happen all that often.

If you want an official answer by someone in a position to know, I suggest you post this question in the Ask The Lead Developers forum.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 20 August 2020, 09:25:45
No problem...thanks Xotl!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 01 September 2020, 13:06:16
Regarding StratOps refitting rules, i really have to wonder if jump jets are truly within Class-B refits? For example, pull medium lasers from a BattleMaster and fit jump jets in place of those.
Logically, jump jets seem a bit more complicated than that. But i guess this is a case of "canonical examples exists" and "BattleTech Magic, don't think about it too closely"?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 01 September 2020, 13:14:47
There's two issues at play here: the desire to make these straightforward and simple (the previous version was more complex, and generated a ton of questions as a result), and the fact that there are a ton of refits out there in canon that I have to accomodate (in other words, the refits were made before the rules to allow them existed, and those designers were almost certainly not thinking about what should and should not be possible except in the broadest terms).

I don't want to introduce any more exceptions than I have to, and the existence of large numbers of refits in canon ties my hands a good deal.  For example, I'd prefer to have had refitting engine heat sinks something that can't be done in the field, but there's two mechs that are field refits that do that, so it has to be Class B.

So yeah, BattleTech Magic.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 01 September 2020, 13:22:21
I understand, was mostly wondering (and confirming) the jump jet thing. BattleTech technicians must be magicians  ;D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Simon Landmine on 31 October 2020, 21:04:42
Is there going to be an errata/query thread for the Tukayyid map pack?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 31 October 2020, 22:27:50
There traditionally hasn't been threads for such.  Feel free to post any issues you find here, and I'll get it to the right people if they're reprinted.  Put them together in a single post if there's multiple.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 01 November 2020, 00:22:11
in the Battle of Tukayyid previews, the Marauder's page lists the variant as the MAD-5C in the alpha strike block. it's designated as the MAD-5CS both at the bottom of the page and in the table of contents. minor typo?

(http://puu.sh/GISDL/132e11254c.png)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 01 November 2020, 00:51:18
Yep.  Already been corrected for a future reprint; thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Simon Landmine on 01 November 2020, 12:38:38
On the maps, the Clan Wolf map is marked "Pozoristu Mountains" (which is also the name found elsewhere), but on the Rules Sheet that details special terrain and movement rules, it is referred to as "Pozoritsu Mountains".


Xotl: Pozoristu is the correct spelling.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: captain_of_the_watch on 23 November 2020, 13:44:55
Hello!

How can I post errata for

CAT 35886 Mercenaries of the Inner Sphere II
Pilot Card: Charles Edward Smith II

Error: Card attributes his father as “David was a renowned Lancelot pilot...” Dad’s name is “Ed,” from TRO: 3039 notable pilot entry (also is this guy).

Thanks!

Thanks!



Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 26 November 2020, 21:31:36
CAT 35886 Mercenaries of the Inner Sphere II
Pilot Card: Sarr Noble

Error: Car notes that Noble was a terror on the battlefield in his Cicada, yet his BattleMech listed is an Orion ON1-K.  Essentially wrong mech is listed as his choice of mech.  Why change it to heavy, if he noted for the light?  I think this is an errant if this product is corrected.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 28 November 2020, 21:47:58
All reports above have been noted for an upcoming re-release (except the art bit, which we can't do anything about).

Thanks for your reports; please do not edit in any further detail into them.  Instead, make new posts below.
I figured as much about the art. You don't have any digital explosion "stickers" to cover it up? ;)

It just stood out to me, I thought I had missed something about a prototype version or two.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 02 December 2020, 14:19:50
possible typo in CampOps?

Anvil Lance P.62

Exclusive to House Marik Forces. All units must be medium or larger, possess at least 40 points of armor, and at least 50 percent of the units must have an autocannon, LRM or SRM.

seems like a weird number since i don't think there is a single medium in existance with fewer than 40 points of armor.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 02 December 2020, 14:30:27
Should be 105.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 02 December 2020, 14:32:36
should i toss it in the errata thread or is that documented internally?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 02 December 2020, 14:54:13
Please post errata,thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 December 2020, 15:40:26
Big errata day outside the usual 6 June, as we ready a bunch of books for reprinting.

TW errata updates to follow shortly.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 05 December 2020, 18:52:46
I wanted to post these here first since I wasn't sure if they were errata or excluded on purpose. The following are Mechs llisted as available in the MUL faction lists (and fairly common-ish), but not in the Tukayyid Supplement lists. Just let me know if any of these should be added to the errata thread.

Battle of Tukayyid Supplemental, PDF

p. 10, Heavy Mechs:
Add EXT-4D Exterminator

p. 11, Assault Mechs:
Add THG-11E Thug
Add HGN-732 Highlander
(only royals are included)

p.12, Medium Mechs:
Add VL-2T Vulcan

p.13, Heavy Mechs:
Add QKD-4H Quickdraw
Add GHR-5H Grasshopper
Add GHR-5J Grasshopper (a field refit in TROs)
Add GLT-3N Guillotine

p.13, Assault Mechs:
Add LGB-7Q Longbow

Also, the following are included in the main Tukayyid book's Clan 2nd-line Heavy Mechs (p. 30), but not in the Supplement's Clan 2nd-line Heavy Mechs (p.10):
Crossbow Prime
Mad Dog C
Summoner Prime


Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 01 January 2021, 00:21:12
I have notice that the Kokou and Kokou XL currently does not have a Alpha Strike PV listing.

Am I jumping the gun or is this currently, unavailable but forth coming, or just an oopsie?

Thank you MUL team!

Happy Holidays,
Truetanker
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 01 January 2021, 00:24:39
I have notice that the Kokou and Kokou XL currently does not have a Alpha Strike PV listing.

Am I jumping the gun or is this currently, unavailable but forth coming, or just an oopsie?

Currently unavailable, but on the to-do list.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 01 January 2021, 00:26:16
Currently unavailable, but on the to-do list.

 :thumbsup:

Cool beans...

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 09 January 2021, 00:26:35
Ran into an issue regarding the "Bandit (C)" specifically the G configuration and haven't been able to find an answer.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/record-sheets-3058-unabridged/msg132462/#msg132462
Unit source: RS3058_Upgrade_Unabridged_InnerSphere p.108

I did uncover the decade-old "Pending errata" (link) but have been unable to locate the actual resolution.

Originally attempted to play the version online (via MegaMek) but the unit was unavailable for deployment due to being "invalid construction"  ...I then decided to dive into the attached MekLab as well as my TechManual to verify/validate, and was able to confirm that the unit has 2 Items too many (17 of 15) disallowing it from Tabletop play as well.

After tinkering around in the lab, I do have a working solution ...but since my local guys prefer having "official" stuff and not customs, is there an official "fix" for this particular unit?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Tinyozora on 24 January 2021, 22:22:10
Pg. 12 Battle of Tukayyid Supplemental

Medium Mechs.
Is the duplicate Centurion CN9-A listed between the Wyvern WVE-9N and Crab CBR-27, supposed to be a Crab CBR-20?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 08 February 2021, 05:22:49
A TAG question, not sure if errata, a rule question, inability to find info or what, so asking here.

TAG use happens at the end of movement phase. But since it is before and separate from weapon attacks, this implies torso twists happen afterwards, right? (Meaning one should pay attention to facing if intending to use TAG.)
Is this actually said anywhere explicitly? Couldn't find anything in BMM or Total Warfare.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 February 2021, 11:18:41
TAG happens at the close of the Movement Phase.  Torso twisting happens in the Weapon Attack Phase that follows, and twisted torsos return to their standard position during the End Phase.

So yes, proper facing is essential as you'll never be able to take into account torso twisting to aim TAG.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 08 February 2021, 11:31:54
Makes sense, makes sense. Might a good addition for the BMM FAQ section if it gets updated some day, me thinks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 08 February 2021, 11:42:26
oh dang. i'll add that to the list of stuff i've been doing wrong since 1996
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 08 February 2021, 11:50:30
Think i'll need to start asking questions just about everything, just to make sure i read stuff right. And even if it doesn't benefit me, there's probably someone who does benefit :P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 08 February 2021, 18:24:07
Arm mounted TAG suddenly makes a LOT of sense...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 10 February 2021, 08:12:50
Okay, new weirdness, concerns multiple products. Some instances are reported as errata in relevant threads but the issue overall remains.

The Gargoyle's ferro-fibrous placement.

TRO3050U and Clan Invasion show one FF slot per arm, empty legs.
RS3050Uu all Gargoyle configurations shows one FF per leg, empty arms. It also replaces the Gargoyle C's extra A-pod with an ER Small Laser and MUL BV for it is based on the RS3050Uu version.

Battle of Tukayyid Supplemental follows RS3050Uu placement, except in the case of Gargoyle-C which follows the TRO version.
RecGuide 11 Gargoyle Record Sheets follow TRO placement.
RS3145NTNU Gargoyle T follows TRO placement.

I don't have RS Clan Invasion so i'm not sure how it shows the Gargoyle.
Based on some digging, TRO3050U/Clan Invasion ferro-fibrous placement is the original arrangement (like it was in the original TRO3050), and RS3050Uu changed that for some reason.

EDIT err, yes, the question is: Which one is right? So that stuff can be reported in specific threads accurately.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 10 February 2021, 09:12:16
snip

That is strange. I actually issued errata on Tukayyid's Gargoyle C based off of 3050u's sheets, but you're right--the sheets don't line up with the TRO itself. Some of the configs, like the E, had their crits extensively changed between the TRO and the sheets.

It looks like errata was posted in the RS:3050u thread regarding the Gargoyle. The Tukayyid sheets were build off of the 3050u ones, and it looks like the errata was missed when we made them. I'll confirm the errata is accurate, but it looks like the TRO entry layout/RecGuide12 is correct.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 10 February 2021, 09:25:44
I'll confirm the errata is accurate, but it looks like the TRO entry layout/RecGuide12 should be correct.
Which one? The one about ER Small laser instead of A-pod? (Which is a fortunate improvement.)

Didn't even realize the E configuration was affected, didn't check individual configurations in TROs, just the base chassis.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 10 February 2021, 09:29:19
Which one? The one about ER Small laser instead of A-pod? (Which is a fortunate improvement.)

Yeah, exactly that. I spotted it after the fact and thought it was an error...turns out it's the only sheet that was correct. Hah!
So yeah, the RecGuide layout is the correct one. I've altered Gargoyle errata for Tuk:Sup accordingly. Great catch!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 10 February 2021, 09:40:07
Means RS3050Uu-C (and probably RSCI) need errata reports about the E configuration then, to make it match the TRO description.
EDIT Wait, that's done. Though the same errata suggests the triple A-pods for the C.
EDIT2 Argh, wait, which one is the right one? Triple A-pods or ERSL?

And i need to rebuild the entire 'Mech in SSW  xp
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 10 February 2021, 10:41:10
EDIT2 Argh, wait, which one is the right one? Triple A-pods or ERSL?

Triple A-pods.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 10 February 2021, 10:43:27
Thanks, that's what i figured but managed to confuse myself.

That means http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2004/man-o-war-gargoyle-c needs to BV trimming to 2417.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 20 February 2021, 20:40:54
There appears to be an error in the recently published free "Force Pack Record Sheets" pdf. I post it here, since I don't see an errata thread dedicated to this product.

The problem is that in the rear armor diagrams of all 'Mechs in thew pdf the central section is labeled as "Center Torso" instead of "Center Torso Rear".

Also, are the years (2019) in the copyright notices at the bottoms of the sheets correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 08 March 2021, 16:15:04
ilClan Recognition Guide, Volume 11

Horned Owl (Peregrine), p. 6

This is not necessarily errata, it is possibly just a clarification. Variants, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence begins, "Based on an ancient prototype which drops the jump jets for armor and a targeting computer, ..."

"An ancient prototype" is open to a little interpretation. Since there is no date, we do not know if this was the prototype of the Horned Owl (Standard) which presumably began testing before 2835 (MUL), or a subsequent variant. My question is, does this prototype predate Clan Mongoose's standard Clan-spec targeting computer, which itself prototypes to 2850 and is "common" by 2860 (IO, p. 41)?

Even if the prototype mentioned in this passage predates the targeting computer, this still might not be errata, considering there could have been heretofore unpublished prototype targeting computers.

Thanks for the clarification!

S.gage
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 12 March 2021, 09:17:30
Could we get a thread for StratOps Third Printing, please? I need to make a submission for that.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 March 2021, 14:55:04
New SO and CO threads opened.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 20 March 2021, 18:26:35
Okay seems I need to actually either modify or redact an errata entry I put forward some time ago because it doesn't actually work with another errata that I'm reasonably certain wasn't incorporated in the pdf I had at the time.

Errata I need to modify/redact is here (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/a-time-of-war-companion/msg1597562/#msg1597562).

I do have a little more involved methodology to make it work but I'd like to see if I can make it a little simpler.

I think I'll make a dedicated thread for it else where to see what kind of help I can get from the relevant brain trusts.

For now the question is should I just flag down a mod to delete the relevant post or just make a modification to the post?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: monbvol on 21 March 2021, 10:17:38
Okay the fix is a lot simpler than I thought to make it work.

I was making a procedural error it turns out but there are two notes I probably should add.

Heavy/Mech scale Weapons should be treated as Energy Weapons for reload factor and should be treated as single fire weapons, burst of 0 until Herb's errata is accepted revert to 1 when it is.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 April 2021, 19:11:52
I've updated the website errata page with thumbnails of the various rulebook printings, so that people can have some hint as to what printing they have besides the copyright statements.  The images are small, but they still show the main changes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: WarrenLocke on 23 April 2021, 20:22:02
The Errata document for the Battlemech Manual has a major change to the Targeting Computer rules on p114 since version 3 - however, I have a corrected Third Printing of the manual and it still has the original, pre-errata text. Moreover I just ordered and downloaded the pdf for the new 4th printing, and the Targeting Computer text is still uncorrected. I'm guessing that the physical fourth printing will also still be unchanged.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 April 2021, 20:48:27
Damn.  Sometimes stuff gets lost during the updating process; this is certainly one such case.  I'll update the errata document to reflect this.  Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mvp7 on 27 April 2021, 09:30:17
There seems to be some weird mismatches in the BattleMech Manual quirks list errata and the physical 3rd printing (2020 copyright, "corrected third printing", Marauder cover).

If I have understood the errata document correctly, the BMM BattleMech Quirk Table errata fixes 1-6, 11 and 12 should have been fixed in 2nd printing with fix 10 added in 3rd printing. In the book the fix 1 is there (Anubis, add exposed actuators) but 2 is not (Battle Hawk, remove bad reputation). Fix 3 is there (Battle Master, remove jettison capable weapon, add weak head armor) but fix 10 (Phoenix Hawk, remove Jettison-Capable Weapon, add Command ’Mech) which is specifically marked in the errata document as a 2nd-to-3rd edition fix, is not there. There doesn't seem to be any pattern in this and it seems like the printed edition at least hasn't been kept in sync with the errata document.

Can someone who owns the PDF version (or even the new print if you have it already) check the latest 4th printing and how that matches up to the list in errata 4.11 document. If I'm reading this correctly the only fix that shouldn't be included in the 4th printing is the number 7 (Griffin, remove Jettison-Capable Weapon (PPC)).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 27 April 2021, 10:08:27
Re. mvp7's post above - changes to Battle Hawk, Battlemaster, Phoenix Hawk and (obviously) Griffin's quirks listed on p. 7 of the BattleMech Manual Errata v4.11 document have not been implemented in the BMM 4th edition pdf.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mvp7 on 27 April 2021, 12:35:07
Another matter related to the Quirk list:

3rd printing p.84 "Jettison-capable Weapon" quirk description lists BattleMaster, Griffin and Phoenix Hawk as examples (together with Wolverine). Those three no longer have jettison-capable weapons as of errata 4.11. Only wolverine has the quirk.

I won't post the actual errata report since I can't confirm what the situation is in the current edition.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 April 2021, 12:36:23
I'll go over the quirk list and update things on a per-printing basis.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 April 2021, 13:21:28
In a few cases for some of the Classics it will list a quirk that not all examples of the unit have, despite the quirk section text explaining how the section is intended to work.  I've updated the BMM errata document to reflect this state as best I can, and apologize for the confusion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 27 April 2021, 13:53:53
@Xotl

Actually now that I have taken a closer look at the entry about quirks in the errata document, the thing that confuses me the most is the note at the bottom:
Quote
Errata note: Remember that the BattleMech Manual only lists quirks for a unit if every variant of that unit would have that quirk.
Removing a quirk is thus not necessarily saying that some examples of that unit don’t have the quirk—only that all of them don’t.
Its first and second sentences contradict each other. Either every variant of that unit needs to have a given quirk in order for the quirk to be listed (in which case the first sentence of the note is true, and the second one is false), or you remove a quirk from the list only if all, not some, variants of a given unit don't have the quirk (in which case the first sentence is false, and the second one is true).

I imagine that you may want to edit this note. It may even be an opportunity to explain why you decided to restore some of these quirks not shared by all unit variants (like listing Jettison-Capable Weapon (PPC) on BattleMasters and Griffins despite the fact that not all variants of these 'Mechs mount PPCs).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 April 2021, 13:56:03
I'm painfully aware of the contradiction: the issue is that the Classics are doing something that the other 99.9% of the quirk list isn't, which will inevitably lead to issues like this.  I guess I can add an "except for the Classics, which are weird", which is unsatisfactory but probably clearer even if confusing in its own way.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 27 April 2021, 14:02:41
Yeah, but even leaving the issue of the classics aside the note in the errata document is self-contradictory - if some but not all of the variants of a 'Mech have a given quirk, then according to the first sentence of the note the quirk shouldn't appear on the list, but according to the second sentence of the note it shouldn't be removed from the list.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 27 April 2021, 14:14:19
Maybe something about how the quirk may only be meaningful on some models of tie chassis?
All Griffins have the jettision-capable (PPC) quirk, even though it is only meaningful to those with a PPC?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mvp7 on 27 April 2021, 15:39:56
I guess there will be some level of inaccuracy no matter what but how about listing the quirk as something more generic like "Jettision-capable weapon (right arm main)".

It would leave something for interpretation but personally I'd take that over quirks being removed entirely. They are optional rules after all so it still shouldn't become a massive problem in some tournament for example.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 27 April 2021, 15:50:53
@nckestrel

You mean something like making an exception under Base Designs vs. Variants on p. 89 for quirks that refer to a particular piece of equipment as long as all variants of a given 'Mech that mount that piece of equipment have this quirk, and update the tables accordingly? I guess it could work in theory, and would even be a very welcome change as far as I'm concerned, but consider that:
A. even considering all the work Xotl has already done on his Random Assignment Tables, I imagine it would take a lot of effort to make an update like that,
B. I'm afraid that such change would generate so many new entries to the BattleMech Quirk Table that it would be difficult to squeeze all of them on the six pages dedicated for it in BMM.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 April 2021, 16:02:35
I'll probably just change the errata document explanation for the next release to clarify what's going on.  Thanks all.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 27 April 2021, 16:08:24
@nckestrel

You mean something like making an exception under Base Designs vs. Variants on p. 89 for quirks that refer to a particular piece of equipment as long as all variants of a given 'Mech that mount that piece of equipment have this quirk, and update the tables accordingly? I guess it could work in theory, and would even be a very welcome change as far as I'm concerned, but consider that:
A. even considering all the work Xotl has already done on his Random Assignment Tables, I imagine it would take a lot of effort to make an update like that,
Xotl tables are awesome, but not relevant to discussion of official products.
Quote
B. I'm afraid that such change would generate so many new entries to the BattleMech Quirk Table that it would be difficult to squeeze all of them on the six pages dedicated for it in BMM.
I didn't suggest doing that.  I was suggesting how to cover the quirks TPTB clearly want included there, but clearly don't apply to all variants. 
It may be the issue is beyond the scope of just being about particular weapons though, so maybe it doesn't really answer the problem.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 27 April 2021, 19:07:19
Um, Xotl? You should probably remove the third page from that MechWarrior: Destiny errata document you've just published. It looks like it ended up there by mistake.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 April 2021, 19:13:37
Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Iceweb on 04 May 2021, 01:39:43
I know the April releases aren't really the biggest Errata concerns, but I saw something interesting in the Caveat Emptor TRO.  While reading the Phoenix Hawk I saw that it mounts a 45 engine, and then Hardened and Modular armor.  However it also mounts 2 improved jump jets giving a movement profile of 0/1/2. 

Now my understanding is with improved jump jets you can only mount jets up to your run speed, and if the run speed is reduced (such as with Hardened armor) it limits the number you can mount, instead of going up to the unmodified run speed. 

Now I understand that designers make mistakes, and that in character TRO authors get things wrong or just plain lie; And finally I know better to take anything in an April product as gospel.   

In any case since many of the mechs in this TRO have the illegal quirk, it seems Errataing this mech to have the illegal quirk (mounts improved jump jets greater than run speed) fixes the issue quite handily.   
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 04 May 2021, 01:51:09
not errata

Quote from: TO:AUE pg 93
This MP reduction does not affect the number of Improved Jump Jets that can be mounted

see also: the UrbanMech UM-R96 with a 2/2/3 movement profile
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Iceweb on 04 May 2021, 01:55:55
not errata

see also: the UrbanMech UM-R96 with a 2/2/3 movement profile

I've been doing it wrong then
Thank you for the info
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 06 May 2021, 21:51:01
Posting it here instead of the Total Warfare errata thread, because I'm not sure if it is just a problem with the recently published Total Warfare Errata v8.0 PRE document, or an omission that actually ended up in the TW 8th printing files sent to the printer.

The following change to Piloting/Driving Skill Roll Table:
Quote
Under “Building Movement”, change each instance of “entering/leaving” to “entering”
was supposed to be applied to both copies of the table on pp. 60 and 306 TW, but in the errata document it is mentioned only for p. 60, not 306.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 May 2021, 23:55:00
It made it to the print and I've updated the errata doc to match.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mvp7 on 19 May 2021, 14:13:58
The pre-release errata is up, with an aim to be finalized on 6 June.  Any items mentioned here but not included are either typo-like or still be wrangled over.
Does this mean typos and small fluff related issues are not listed in errata or that they are not changed in future printings?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 May 2021, 14:20:35
They are fixed when reprints happened but not mentioned in errata docs because no one cares when trying to find actual rulings (it's actually aggravating to wade through typo fixes when looking for stuff that actually affects gameplay).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mvp7 on 19 May 2021, 14:23:38
Okay, thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 21 May 2021, 10:26:47
Can anyone explain to me why has my suggestion for p. 19 of the AGoAC rulebook:
A ’Mech standing in Depth 1 water may attack ’Mechs in water with weapons not mounted in the legs.
change to:
A ’Mech standing in Depth 1 water may not attack with weapons mounted in the legs.
not ended up in the recently published v. 5.0 PRE errata document?

I thought my suggestion was reasonable, because in AGoAC level rules partially submerged 'Mechs shouldn't be able to make with leg-mounted weapons regardless of whether the target is in water or not (rules for such attacks appear only in TW and BMM). On top of it the rules for leg-mounted weapons on pp. 14-15 say that you can't attack with such weapons through a hex that provides the attacker with partial cover (as opposed to for example "through or from" such hex), which in case of partially submerged 'Mechs may be confusing since in this case it is the hex attacker is in, not the one next to him, that provides partial cover. The wording that I suggested makes it explicit that you can't fire with submerged weapons.

At the same time I don't believe that we need a rule that explicitly allows 'Mechs standing in depth 1 water to shoot at other 'Mechs standing in depth 1 water with weapons not mounted in legs since between the rules in the Water Hexes section on p. 14 and Partial Cover Modifier section on p. 17 make it clear that you can fire at partially submerged 'Mechs, and they get partial cover regardless of whether the attacker is standing in water or not, so if you just say that you can't shoot with leg-mounted weapons of a partially submerged 'Mech at all (as in my suggestion), you no longer need the current rule on p. 19 I suggested removing as long as you include the rule I suggested replacing it with.

TL;DR I think that the sentence I said to include on p. 19 solves existing rules ambiguity regarding shooting leg-mounted weapons from a partially submerged 'Mech and at the same time makes the rule on the same page I said to remove redundant (which is why I suggested removing it).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 May 2021, 10:29:19
I just didn't feel it warranted a formal errata entry.  The change was made for the upcoming 5th printing of the box, however.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 21 May 2021, 10:47:33
Thanks for the quick answer. Hopefully you're right and even without formal errata no one who owns first through fourth printings of the box will have a problem with the ambiguity regarding shooting submerged weapons I mentioned above. To be fair I think that it is not a problem that many people will even notice (much less be unable to correctly solve correctly). I guess I'm just maybe too attached to my take on Murphy's law for rulebooks which goes more or less like this - "Any ambiguous rule will be misinterpreted in the worst possible way".  ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 May 2021, 01:58:29
I agree with you and make tons of those sorts of changes to the BMM especially, and to AGOAC to a lesser degree.  For example, AGOAC's TMM section on the Attack Modifiers Table was redone after the first printing because I thought it implied a wrong idea as to what cumulative meant.  The Piloting Skill Roll Table in both were reordered recently to make a subtle distinction between causes of PSRs and things that just apply modifiers to PSRs.  Neither is really errata: just trying to be a bit clearer.  There's hundreds of untracked wording changes like that, or your comment, in those two.  I just don't want to document them all because I don't want another TacOps-style errata document of doom.

My philosophy is that if you could probably figure it out on your own, an improvement is not really errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 22 May 2021, 22:40:07
The link to the pre-release version of v. 5.0 errata posted in the AGoAC errata thread isn't working for me anymore. Have errata maintainers replaced the file on dropbox servers and forgotten to update the link?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 May 2021, 22:44:07
I thought I simply updated it, but I guess Dropbox didn't agree.  I'll fix the link.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 30 May 2021, 20:48:33
BattleTech Legends doesn't have a complied errata yet, will the errors pointed out be corrected in the forthcoming print edition? Posted in that thread before I saw this one, sorry  :-[
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 May 2021, 21:28:01
It will not.  Anytime there's errata to go with a printing there's a document to go with that (with the sole exception of Campaign Operations).  All noted issues will still appear in the first printing (which may be the only printing, for all I know).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2021, 21:00:33
Dear all,

It's the glorious Sixth of June, and with it the years' official errata has been uploaded to the website.  Thank you all for your reports.

New are:
AGOAC 5.0
TW 8.0
TM 4.1
TM Infantry Tables (one minor fix, IIRC)
TM BV Chapter (a couple of innocuous wording changes on turrets)
IO 1.2
ATOW Companion 1.1
Battle of Tukayyid 2.0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 08 June 2021, 11:07:58
I've noticed a typo in an errata thread title:

BattleTech Beginner Box & A Game of Armoured Combat

IIRC everywhere else in the official materials, including on the AGoAC box itself the American spelling (Armored) is used. ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 08 June 2021, 11:16:12
Xotl forgot to switch his spellcheck that day
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 June 2021, 11:47:15
God save the queen.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jmlee236 on 13 June 2021, 19:03:28
After doing some looking, is the FP cost listed in BoT for Elementals 9/11/12 correct?

Are they really worth more than a Comstar heavy mech? Especially in Alpha Strike, they’re fairly squishy.

Another reason I question this is replacing them with SPs costs half of what replacing a light mech costs, so shouldn’t they cost less FPs? More like a Comstar Light mech, 4/5/6 or something?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 15 June 2021, 08:53:51
I'm reviewing the Highlander in Recognition Guide: ilClan Volume 10 and when I enter it into Solaris Skunk Works (including errata changes 1 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/recognition-guide-ilclan-all-volumes/msg1679494/#msg1679494)  and 2 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/recognition-guide-ilclan-all-volumes/msg1679515/#msg1679515)) I end up missing a double heat sink and the design is 2.5 tons underweight.

Here's the output of SSW:
Highlander HGN-740

Mass: 95 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Experimental Tech
Era: All Eras (non-canon)
Tech Rating/Era Availability: F/X-X-F-D
Production Year: 0
Dry Cost: 10,263,240 C-Bills
Total Cost: 10,437,240 C-Bills
Battle Value: 2,254

Chassis: Unknown Standard
Power Plant: Unknown 285 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Jump Jets: Unknown
    Jump Capacity: 90 meters
Armor: Unknown Light Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
    1  ER PPC + PPC Capacitor
    1  LRM-20 w/ Artemis IV FCS
    1  Streak SRM-6
    2  ER Medium Lasers
    4  M-Pods
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard                     145 points                9.50
Engine:             Fusion Engine                285                      16.50
    Walking MP: 3
    Running MP: 5
    Jumping MP: 3 Standard
    Jump Jet Locations: 1 CT, 1 LT, 1 RT                                   6.00
Heat Sinks:         Double Heat Sink             15(30)                    5.00
    Heat Sink Locations: 2 RT, 1 LA, 1 RA
Gyro:               Standard                                               3.00
Cockpit:            Standard                                               3.00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA+H    R: SH+UA+LA+H
Armor:              Light Ferro-Fibrous          AV - 271                 16.00
    Armor Locations: 1 HD, 1 CT, 1 LT, 3 LA, 1 RA
    CASE II Locations: 1 LT                                                1.00

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     30           42       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  14       
                                           L/R Torso     20           28       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  10       
                                             L/R Arm     16           29       
                                             L/R Leg     20           36       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ER PPC + PPC Capacitor                       RA        20        3         7.00
    ER PPC + PPC Capacitor                   RA        5*        1         1.00
Streak SRM-6                                 LA        4         2         4.50
2 ER Medium Lasers                           RT        10        2         2.00
LRM-20                                       LT        6         5        10.00
    Artemis IV FCS                           LT        -         1         1.00
2 M-Pods                                     RL        0         2         2.00
2 M-Pods                                     LL        0         2         2.00
@LRM-20 (Artemis) (12)                       LT        -         2         2.00
@Streak SRM-6 (15)                           LT        -         1         1.00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 3

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      9    Points: 23
3j         3       4       2       0      4     1   Structure:  8
Special Abilities: CASEII, SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, IF 1




It looks like the engine accepts an additional heat sink, leaving only 4 to be placed in the critical hits table. Increasing the number of heat sinks to 16 fills the 3 empty critical slots in the right torso. This leaves 1.5 free tons and no free critical slots.

Changing from Light Ferro-Fibrous to standard plate armor uses up another ton, leaving a half ton free; Seven critical slots open up.

Can someone please check my math? Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 15 June 2021, 09:20:43
You problem is that your Highlander is 5 tons too heavy!
It is a 90-tonner, not 95.

The Highlander RS is missing CASE II and the PPC capacitor but i believe these have been reported already.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 16 June 2021, 06:03:47
You problem is that your Highlander is 5 tons too heavy!
It is a 90-tonner, not 95.

The Highlander RS is missing CASE II and the PPC capacitor but i believe these have been reported already.

Ah. Thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 20 July 2021, 23:23:23
What should we do about the Alpha Strike Cards? The Athena is missing...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 21 July 2021, 03:08:15
What should we do about the Alpha Strike Cards? The Athena is missing...

Nothing.  The units that are in it are the units that are in it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 21 July 2021, 07:14:14
Ah. That's a shame. Seems odd to randomly leave it out.

edit
Especially since it has a official RS and writeup, compared to say the Zalman and Ancestral Home.
/edit
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 21 July 2021, 07:54:12
It wasn't random.  This is a very long overdue project, that began before the Field Report series.  So it doesn't have more "recent" units from the Field Reports or Golden Century because those didn't exist when start working on this.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 22 July 2021, 09:50:02
Uncertain if error: The Zeus-11S from Recognition Guide 2 has its rear-mounted medium laser on the right torso, while the Zeus traditionally has that rear-laser on the left torso.
Since these new models all seem to be WYSIWYG, this seems to be an error... UNLESS the new Zeus model has the laser modeled on the right side? I can't find a pic from rear of the new model so can't confirm. (Old Zeus mini seems to have the laser in rear center for what it is worth.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Death_from_above on 22 July 2021, 10:28:49
The render for the Zeus on Anthony's Patreon has the rear laser on the LT..
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 22 July 2021, 12:01:48
The render for the Zeus on Anthony's Patreon has the rear laser on the LT..
Ah, thank you. In other words, now the introtech variants are not WYSIWYG ;D
So, not errata.


EDIT Argh, brain not working. So, should this be errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 22 July 2021, 14:43:56
Something i'll ask about before making an errata report, because i'm not sure where to report this:
TechManual page 57 notes that ranged weapons that take 8 or more slots can be split between two adjacent locations on 'Mechs but excludes legs.
The thing is, there is at least one canon 'Mech, the Goliath GOL-3S (RS3085U-PP pg 195) that splits an LB-20X between left torso and left rear leg.

If the rule is upheld, then the GOL-3S record sheet would be need to be corrected (and that would be messy). So perhaps the rule should be either removed or amended to allow splitting for QuadMechs at least?


Xotl: looking into this.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Elmoth on 05 August 2021, 13:19:31
Saracen LRM10 (2 tons mmo) + 3*SRM2
Striker LRM10 (1 ton ammo) + SRM6

Saracen has shooting of 1 2 1
Striker has shooting of 2 2 1

Given that the firepower of 3 srm2 and 1 srm6 is equivalent, one of those seem to be wrong.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 05 August 2021, 14:38:48
Saracen LRM10 (2 tons mmo) + 3*SRM2
Striker LRM10 (1 ton ammo) + SRM6

Saracen has shooting of 1 2 1
Striker has shooting of 2 2 1

Given that the firepower of 3 srm2 and 1 srm6 is equivalent, one of those seem to be wrong.

I see each 2 pack dealing .5 damage each with me not hitting with one. While the 6 pack does a solid 2 damage as average.

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 05 August 2021, 15:05:19
Saracen LRM10 (2 tons mmo) + 3*SRM2
Striker LRM10 (1 ton ammo) + SRM6

Saracen has shooting of 1 2 1
Striker has shooting of 2 2 1

Given that the firepower of 3 srm2 and 1 srm6 is equivalent, one of those seem to be wrong.

That's not how the conversion works. It uses the number of missiles that hit on a 7 on the cluster chart.   SRM-2 is one missile for .2 damage.   Three of them is .6.   SRM-6 is four missiles for .2 damage each.  Therefore for conversion purposes they are not equivalent.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 30 August 2021, 14:23:37
Where should we report errors in the Kickstarter items? Specifically the Lance/Star packs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 September 2021, 12:56:33
I'm not sure, I'm afraid.  I could make a thread here, but I'm not sure devs would see it in a timely fashion.  Perhaps make a post in Ask The Devs.  Note that the "Cirect Fire Lance" and "Rana Kerensky" typos have been noted, however.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 06 September 2021, 06:08:34
Needler weapons are complicated, with rules spread between AToW, the AToW Companion, and Tech Manual, so I'm posting this here instead of either the Tech Manual or AToW threads.

The infantry weapons table on page 350 of the current printing of Tech Manual (and the errata Infantry Weapon Table v4.1) list the Needler Rifle (Shredder Heavy) with the "N" code.  Per the AToW Companion page 171 conversion rules, it does not qualify for this code as it has an AP of 3 (not 2 or less) per its AToW page 268 stats.  The Firedrake Support Needler also has an AP of 3, and properly lacks this code.  It's possible the 3 AP in AToW for the Shredder is the error, so that would be another possible solution.

Another complicating factor is that Needlers suffer a -2 AP against barriers and tactical armor.  While the damage value listed on page 350 and in the table errata is correct against conventional infantry, it would only be 0.11 against units other than that.  I'm not sure how that should be captured in the table.  This has implications for the Firedrake listing as well, but I'll address that separately after I've determined where 1.20 damage came from.

The fix: Either remove the "N" code from the Needler Rifle (Shredder Heavy) in the Tech Manual Infantry Weapons Table on page 350 (and it's own errata document), or reduce the Shredder's AP from 3 to 2 on page 268 of AToW.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 06 September 2021, 06:56:20
On page 4 of the Infantry Weapons Table v4.1, the Needler, Support (Firedrake) is listed with a damage of 1.20.

Per the Firedrake's stats as listed on page 274 of AToW (3AP/7BD with incendiary and splash effects, and Burst 10) and the AToW Companion page 171 conversion rules, this value should be 1.14:

Penetration Factor: (3 AP + 2 for Incendiary) / 4 = 1.25

Damage Factor: 7 BD x (3.5 + (10 Burst)/5 + 1 for Splash effect) = 7 x 6.5 = 45.5

Final damage: (1.25 x 45.5) / 50 = 1.1375, which rounds to 1.14 (Reload Factor is simply 1, and not relevant to the discussion)

As mentioned in my previous post, this is actually only the damage against conventional infantry.  Against other units, the AP is reduced by 2, yielding a Penetration Factor of only 0.75.  This leads to a damage of only 0.68.  I'm still not sure how that should be captured in the table.

The fix: Replace the Needler, Support (Firedrake) damage of 1.20 with 1.14 in the Infantry Weapons table.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 12 September 2021, 11:39:14
I'm not sure, I'm afraid.  I could make a thread here, but I'm not sure devs would see it in a timely fashion.  Perhaps make a post in Ask The Devs.  Note that the "Cirect Fire Lance" and "Rana Kerensky" typos have been noted, however.
Nope, don’t do that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 September 2021, 13:13:22
Nope, don’t do that.

How would you like such things reported?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 September 2021, 17:27:52
Early preview versions of the errata for TechManual, ASCE, and Campaign Operations have been made official and posted to the main website.  Additionally, an update has been made to the BMM errata (also at the main website).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 18 September 2021, 17:36:36
Darn... I was really hoping those would post last month when I was on leave.  I've started my last job at the Pentagon, and I really don't think I'll have time to give them the scrub they deserve... Sorry!  :-\
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 19 September 2021, 11:47:57
Xotl, it looks like you forgot to update the links to errata documents in both Campaign Operations and TechManual threads.

Also, I've found a couple issues with the recently published BMM errata document (v. 4.2). specifically with this bit appearing on pp. 6 and 14 of the document:
Quote
* Collapse: Falling and Displacement [example text] (p. 57)
Fourth paragraph, second sentence

using the Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table.

Change to:
using the Front/Back column of the Punch Location Table.
The first issue is the page number. Collapse: Falling and Displacement section of the example box in question is on p. 74 of BMM, not p. 57.

The second issue is with the content of the correction itself. The fourth paragraph, second sentence of the Collapse: Falling and Displacement section on p. 74 BMM deals with falling damage done to Stinger, which in that example fell from a roof of a collapsing building hex, and landed on a Locust which was below it - inside of that building hex when the collapse begun. According to Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules as they are written now (see pp. 57 and 73 BMM) the Stinger should resolve its falling damage using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table (applying damage to the rear facing of torso armor where appropriate), and it is the Locust that should use the Punch Location Table to resolve damage taken from its collision with the Stinger, so the correction to Collapse: Falling and Displacement section on pp. 6 and 14 of the errata document would be:

* Collapse: Falling and Displacement [example text] (p. 74)
Third paragraph, first sentence

using the Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table.

Change to:
using the Front/Back column of the Punch Location Table.

Having said the above, I'm not sure if the Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules on p. 57 BMM (and p. 152 TW and p. 44 AGoAC rulebook) are correct. I explained it in detail in this thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/total-warfare/accidental-fall-from-above-damage-problems/ , but long story short - I suspect that if a 'Mech accidentally falls on the back of a prone 'Mech, the damage to the prone 'Mech shouldn't be resolved using Punch Location Table as written now, but just like DFA attacks against prone 'Mechs - using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table with torso damage applied to the rear facing.

If I'm correct then we would need the following changes to the errata document:

1. Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules on p. 57 BMM (as well as p. 152 TW and p. 44 AGoAC rulebook) would be changed to account for the case of a 'Mech/unit dropping on an already prone 'Mech. For example in BMM the errata would be:

Falling 'Mech Hits Target (p. 57)
First paragraph, third sentence

to the target ’Mech using the Punch Location Table.

Change to:
to the target ’Mech using the Punch Location Table if it is standing, or to the target's 'Mech rear using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table, if it is prone.

2. the correction to Collapse: Falling and Displacement [example text] (p. 74) section would have to be removed entirely, since the pre-errata BMM text is actually correct, due to the fact that the sequence of resolving building collapse in the example would cause the Locust to be already prone when Stinger landed on top of it.

Edit: I believe I've found yet another issue with the new BMM errata (pp. 2 and 14 of the document):
Quote
* Reversing (Flipping) Arms (p. 24)
Third paragraph, after the second sentence insert the following:

A ’Mech cannot punch or make physical weapon attacks while its arms are reversed.
Shouldn't this new rule make an exception for Talons? They are covered in the Physical Weapons Attacks section of the book (p. 38 BMM), but I don't think that flipping arms should prevent attacking with them, since it doesn't prevent "regular" kick attacks.

Edit 2: I've also noticed an error on p. 6 of the TechManual v5.0 errata document:

Hesiod Wheeled Support Vehicle [example text] (p. 75)
change to:
Hesiod Wheeled Support Vehicle [example text] (p. 128)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 20 September 2021, 19:08:02
Can you share why the new Tech Manual errata seems to have nerfed under barrel grenade launchers?  I just saw Liam's Ghost's rule question...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 September 2021, 21:53:06
Can you share why the new Tech Manual errata seems to have nerfed under barrel grenade launchers?  I just saw Liam's Ghost's rule question...

Infantry weapon mechanics slavishly followed a design rule regardless of the ridiculous outcome.  One day they will be redone completely and the Pope's Swiss Guard will no longer be able to damage mechs with crossbows; until that day, we're just nerfing the most extreme instances on the other end of the scale.

The second issue is with the content of the correction itself. The fourth paragraph, second sentence of the Collapse: Falling and Displacement section on p. 74 BMM deals with falling damage done to Stinger, which in that example fell from a roof of a collapsing building hex, and landed on a Locust which was below it - inside of that building hex when the collapse begun. According to Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules as they are written now (see pp. 57 and 73 BMM) the Stinger should resolve its falling damage using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table (applying damage to the rear facing of torso armor where appropriate), and it is the Locust that should use the Punch Location Table to resolve damage taken from its collision with the Stinger

Correct.  Thanks for the spot on that one.



Quote
Having said the above, I'm not sure if the Falling Damage To A ’Mech rules on p. 57 BMM (and p. 152 TW and p. 44 AGoAC rulebook) are correct. I explained it in detail in this thread: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/total-warfare/accidental-fall-from-above-damage-problems/ , but long story short - I suspect that if a 'Mech accidentally falls on the back of a prone 'Mech, the damage to the prone 'Mech shouldn't be resolved using Punch Location Table as written now, but just like DFA attacks against prone 'Mechs - using Front/Back column of the Hit Location Table with torso damage applied to the rear facing.

I've answered in the other thread, but in essence, it may seem odd but the rules are correct there.



Quote
I believe I've found yet another issue with the new BMM errata (pp. 2 and 14 of the document):Shouldn't this new rule make an exception for Talons? They are covered in the Physical Weapons Attacks section of the book (p. 38 BMM), but I don't think that flipping arms should prevent attacking with them, since it doesn't prevent "regular" kick attacks.

Updated, thanks (was correct in my internal errata notes, but I missed it on the public side).


Quote
I've also noticed an error on p. 6 of the TechManual v5.0 errata document:

Hesiod Wheeled Support Vehicle [example text] (p. 75)
change to:
Hesiod Wheeled Support Vehicle [example text] (p. 128)

Perfect, thanks; always appreciated.  Look for updated documents in the next hour.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 21 September 2021, 22:08:43
Thanks for the answers. Looking forward to see the updated documents.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 September 2021, 22:18:26
BMM and TM corrected copies are up.  TM didn't change the version number as I essentially just fixed a typo.

Also added new AGOAC errata to the website.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 21 September 2021, 22:31:20
There is a minor typo at the top of each page of the AGoAC document - the page numbers are written as "Page X of 5 PRE", instead of just "Page X of 5".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 September 2021, 22:47:14
That's bizarre.  Fixed (thanks).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 22 September 2021, 03:44:53
Thanks for the response Xotl.  The chances of the Swiss Guard doing one point of damage are sufficiently remote I don't think the current rules are broken, honestly (30 Heavy Crossbows could theoretically do 0.60 damage at TW scale, but in addition to a hit, you'd have to roll 11 or 12 on the cluster table, and even that only works until the platoon loses 6 troopers).  On the end of the scale the rule addresses, you're shaving at most 23 points of damage (off a platoon of 30 with Mauser IICs; though anyone using that much cheese will have thrown Bear Hunters in the mix, meaning the savings is less). I suppose going after the five weapons it applies to makes sense, though their extreme damage is due to under barrel grenade launchers rather than anything that would normally grant them the Heavy Burst special.  Curiously, none of the "Compact" grenade launchers used on these weapons are represented canonically as separate weapons (the "Compact" in the grenade launcher list is single shot).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chinless on 24 September 2021, 14:32:10
Hopalong mentioned in General Discussion that the Swift Wind is shown as being 7.5t in the MUL. TR 3039 has it at 8t, with the BV's matching those in MML - also at 8t. Probably need to change the 7.5t to 8t.

Chris
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 24 September 2021, 15:33:23
I recon that’s true
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FenderSaxbey on 03 October 2021, 13:02:17
Whoops. Sorry for my forum faux-pas. Regarding the latest errata post for Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition:

p80, Notation and Tracking of C3 Networks
Add
"A unit may only belong to a single C3 network. While a unit may mount both a C3 Master and a C3 Slave, it may not use both at once. For units so equipped, at the start
of game designate which C3 system is operational."

Doesn't this preclude having company-wide C3? My C3 rules knowledge may be rusty but I thought you need both active in a single unit for one of the extended topologies to work.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 03 October 2021, 13:09:52
You can use multiple masters, just not a slave and a master. See the diagram in ASCE or TW
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FenderSaxbey on 03 October 2021, 13:43:35
You can use multiple masters, just not a slave and a master. See the diagram in ASCE or TW

Ah, thanks! I got back to my book and see that my C3 knowledge was indeed rusty.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 04 October 2021, 14:35:01
I'm not sure if there is time for the following correction to make it before the newly ordered printing of BattleMech Manual, but in case there is still time to send this correction to the printer, I decided to post it here instead of the errata thread.

The problem is with the third sentence of the erratum for Laser-Reflective Armor (p. 114) on pp. 11 and 17 of the 5.0 PRE errata document for BMM:

Additionally, heat-causing effects are halved (to a minimum of 1 heat point).
It should be (assuming rules for Laser-Reflective Armor on p. 93 of TO:AUE are correct):
Additionally, heat-causing effects are halved (rounded down to a minimum of 1 heat point).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 October 2021, 15:45:21
Got it in time; thanks for the quick spot.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 07 October 2021, 12:24:27
Quote
Wait - since when did Inner Sphere-based chassis be able to mount Clan-grade CASE with no tonnage or critical space requirement? TM p210 does not allow for this, thus the Atlas C described in the link here violates construction rules. As well as violating common sense - Clan-based mechs have CASE built-in to their frames but IS mechs do not: as a refit of an IS mech it would not magically gain the benefit of advanced Clan manufacturing techniques. Both BoT Supplemental and the RS:3050UU-IS errata are in error. If CASE is to be added it must follow the Inner Sphere construction rules, and that means one of the three heat sinks in the left torso must be lost to provide tonnage and critical space for it.

However, Battle of Twycross sourcebook page 49 describes the Atlas C changes (from AS7-D) as not having CASE of any kind. Thus, the RS:3055UU-IS errata and BoT Supplemental, if they should have CASE, are effectively introducing a second C model - with the Twycross model retroactively becoming C 2 unless errata is to be issued for that product as well to specify addition of CASE. I'm not sure that's the intent. Empyrus's "assumption" exactly matches to what FASA originally wrote 31 years ago. I don't believe his comments should be ignored/struck-through, but restored as valid errata, and the linked RS:3050UU errata is ignored/struck-through instead as its an illegal design.

Per Battle of Twycross, the only C model from that source that mounts CASE should be the Marauder C (page 48)

The TechManual errata regarding this is currently undergoing rewording. It will be published once finalized--however, for transparency's sake, this change was discussed and internally implemented a few months back.

Regarding the Twycross text and original record sheets, the decision was made to supersede them during production of the RecGuide/BoT:Supp products. The "C" variants were adjusted as to no longer be underweight, with certain other small tweaks simultaneously made.

This decision isn't up for debate or modification at this point in time.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: KhanWick on 07 October 2021, 14:11:40
I'm gathering from that comment that there will be a zero-ton and zero-critical CASE available to IS-based mechs soon, presumably so long as they mount Clan weaponry. Oh-kay... I wouldn't have kicked that hornet's nest. Instead of two designs (Marauder C and Atlas C, which FASA had explained sufficiently enough 31 years ago in Battle of Twycross sourcebook) we're going to subject hundreds of existing mixed-tech mechs to new rules. :thumbsup:

What's the holdup on that errata? I just checked the publicly-known errata (on website and forum threads) prior to my post to be sure there wasn't something new added to account for it so I made my post with the understanding that the current legal construction rules are violated. I'm not clear why, if the decision was made at least by November 16, 2020 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/record-sheets-3050-upgrade-unabridged/msg1670146/#msg1670146) to change construction rules regarding CASE, they still are not shared nearly 11 months later.

Does this ruling affect examples I just identified from TRO:GC that say they mount CASE as well but provide no tonnage or critical space for them? (CTS-6Y-EC) Or "illegally" mount such CASE in the arms? (Devastator DVS-2-EC)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 07 October 2021, 14:28:22
I'm gathering from that comment that there will be a zero-ton and zero-critical CASE available to IS-based mechs soon

It's already happened, and is marked as such on the record sheets and in the TRO entry.

Quote
presumably so long as they mount Clan weaponry.

Negative. It's treated as technology just like any other. A unit could only use Clan CASE as its sole piece of Clan hardware, for example.

Quote
What's the holdup on that errata?

It should be published in the near future.

Quote
Does this ruling affect examples I just identified from TRO:GC that say they mount CASE as well but provide no tonnage or critical space for them? (CTS-6Y-EC) Or "illegally" mount such CASE in the arms? (Devastator DVS-2-EC)

Yes.

In addition, torso headings are only listed when CASE is not in a record sheet crit location--put clearly, it's only listed as a header when it's Clan CASE. We are aware that certain sheets might have both a header and a crit location, but this is a limitation of the software used to generate the sheets and isn't something that needs to be remarked on for errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: KhanWick on 07 October 2021, 20:08:01
Negative. It's treated as technology just like any other. A unit could only use Clan CASE as its sole piece of Clan hardware, for example.
But this is where the explanation falls apart. Clan-grade CASE isn't plug-in technology like a weapon - at least, its never been described as such. Its part of the chassis construction. Its like omnitech. You can't just take a mech, and decide it can now be an omni on the basis that its "cool". Omnimechs are designed from the ground-up to support pod technology. Likewise, Clan-tech mech chassis are specifically designed to support CASE - or at least they incorporate the significant parts of the technology to redirect explosions that erupt in an ammo bin or gauss weapon away from other components and out the side or rear, though not the blow-away panel on the back armor - which is why they get it for free and can mount it in the arms and legs (and head, though I don't know any mech that does this.) I can also buy the idea of factory-level refits that rebuild mechs by stripping them down to chassis and rebuilding them can gain the ability to mount Clan CASE. However, Inner Sphere chassis, and mixed-tech field refits based upon them, are not designed in such a way and have always had to pay for that investment. Maybe by the 3150s Inner Sphere factories finally get around to designing mech chassis with CASE in mind if this rule change is meant to prop up ilClan era technology trickle-down. I could even accept it as early as Civil War or Jihad era as a parallel to IS reverse engineering of omnitech. But you're telling me, that in the year 3050 Clan Jade Falcon salvages a FedCom Atlas built at say, Hesperus II in 3025 or so, and with a chassis not suited to it, can add in CASE at no cost to either tonnage or criticals? This is a dangerous path to walk. Are we about to see any mech be able to adopt Omnipod technology by a similar fashion? Can Clan Endo Steel (or even Inner Sphere) similarly be simply "bolted on" to an existing Inner Sphere standard chassis to give it all the same advantages without having to pay for it in criticals or undergo an expensive rebuild?

In a real-world comparison, its like adding a rollcage to a vehicle not designed with a rollcage frame, and having it weigh nothing or not obstruct the driver in anyway - when it truth it weighs a few hundred pounds, makes getting in and out harder, and may obstruct some of the drivers vision. NASCAR stock cars, some military vehicles, dune buggies - they can get that rollcage functionality for "free" because they were built that way. But if I want to add it to a basic civilian vehicle, I'm going to have to pay for it in weight and space. The rules have always supported the same and Battletech doesn't need to resort to a weightless, formless new technology just to give Inner Sphere mechs the same advantage as a designed-with-CASE-in-mind Clan chassis.

Really, I'm souring on Ray's commitment at Sarna to not make "massive changes" (his words) that turn off long-time players. The only thing I can even think that is even close to this significant of a change to rules is when aerospace fighters were allowed to mount XL engines, but at least that was explained away as ComStar's obfuscation of the facts surrounding Royal division technologies. I can't think of any explanation that gives a massless (read: anti-gravity device) CASE to Inner Sphere-built chassis without completely upsetting the designs of hundreds of mixed-tech mechs going as far back as the early 2800s. And all just to save face on two designs that FASA never said had Clan-grade CASE to start with.


In addition, torso headings are only listed when CASE is not in a record sheet crit location--put clearly, it's only listed as a header when it's Clan CASE. We are aware that certain sheets might have both a header and a crit location, but this is a limitation of the software used to generate the sheets and isn't something that needs to be remarked on for errata.
Does this mean the Excalibur EXC-B2b-EC has both IS and Clan-grade CASE in the Left Torso or is this one of the mechs published in error? Is there no PDF editing software at CGL to fix the mechs that come out wrong by the software before publication? Until dev-level errata says so or these new rules published, there is absolutely no way for players to know which Inner Sphere refits with CASE from either TRO:GC or BoT:Supplemental are valid and which ones aren't.

(Ignoring the obvious fact that Excalibur EC, Cestus EC, and Devastator EC all get this free CASE prior to 2825 when Clan-grade CASE is introduced per ED:GC p6. TRO:GC is just a hot mess of temporal inconsistency and scarcity of EC and C refits beyond the few years following Klondike.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 07 October 2021, 21:54:14
I was under the impression that ALL Clan ammo-based weapons includes CASE as part of their weapon loadout.

And that it was built into said weapon as a countermeasure against accidental explosions. Clan based weapons weigh in at X-amount in tons, but the CASE was pre-built-in...

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 07 October 2021, 22:39:40
That is never how it has worked.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: KhanWick on 09 October 2021, 19:41:47
That is never how it has worked.

Then before CGL goes any further with this new CASE errata, you absolutely and immediately need to provide a workable description of how Clan CASE functions if my explanation isn't it. You are currently publishing units that can only be explained through unscientific principles. If we want magic, we can invest in Shadowrun.

Based strictly on the rules as currently published, any description for CASE needs to do each of the following:
1. Adhere to all explanations for how CASE is strictly described (ferro-fibrous plates that redirect explosions out of a blow-away panel) and functions (ie, even when shutdown)
2. Scientifically explain why Inner Sphere CASE has actual mass and bulk (as all real things do) but why Clan-grade CASE is effectively zero tons and zero critical spaces in construction rules.
3. Explain why Clan mechs (including Battlemechs, not just Omnimechs) can use CASE in any location, but Inner Sphere mechs may only use it in the Torsos.
4. Explain why Clan-grade CASE is either a non-salvageable piece of equipment, or is salvageable but is identical rules-wise to Inner Sphere-grade CASE when installed on Inner Sphere mechs.

A Clan-tech chassis that incorporates CASE principles in its construction satisfies all four conditions. The redirection plates are built into the frame, eliminating the later tonnage and space requirements, while simultaneously providing coverage to all locations. Nor can parts of it be salvaged and reused in other mechs, much in the same fashion that its impossible to strip off segments of endo steel and plug them into your mech to make it lighter. Per rules, the mech must still identify which locations have "functional" CASE (rather than an "inert" CASE) so as to identify which locations have blowout armor panels in order to cover the record sheet requirements and cost factors (the cost for Clan CASE then is basically just for the blowout panel, not the redirection-panels.) Furthermore, the fact that Clan equipment is routinely described as lighter weight and less bulky already provides an explanation for why adding the ferro-fibrous redirection panels to the mech's structure would bring it back into line with Inner Sphere weights (i.e. 10% of total mech for standard, or 5% for Endo Steel.) Inner Sphere-grade CASE remains a plug-in piece of equipment, requiring both mass and volume, with limitations on where it can be installed (Torsos.) CASE II remains plug-in for both groups.

I would certainly welcome any other description of how CASE works that can successfully account for all four points.


"Add-on technology" doesn't. I do not dispute that it is exactly what Inner Sphere CASE is: it has mass (half a ton) and substance (it takes up space). But Clan CASE must be something different for it to be effectively zero tons and zero critical spaces. I'm not saying that the technology is weightless or has no substance: physics says that's impossible. What I'm saying is that the weight and volume has to be accounted for elsewhere. The MechWarrior clearly has mass and takes up space, but they don't count against the mech's weight or critical spaces either because there's a component on the mech (the cockpit) that does account for the added mass and volume of a human body such that neither the rules nor laws of physics are violated. By extension the weight and substance for anything that goes on a mech must be accounted for somewhere. If its external, it can be handled by carrying rules. But if internal, it falls under the domain of construction rules. If Clan CASE were a quarter ton and still took up a critical space, in the same fashion as Clan machine guns to their Inner Sphere counterparts, I'd have no issue with it being add-on technology because it accounts for itself. But if its going to be zero tons and zero criticals, then we need to know where the mass and volume actually go. Its perfectly fine to explain how better construction techniques can cause something to be reduced 50% in weight and/or volume - even more than 50%. But there is no valid explanation for how something can be fully reduced 100% in either. The weight and volume of those ferro-fibrous panels has to go somewhere. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch)

I remember my group having several discussions about salvaging Clan CASE in the early 1990s, which led to us seeking a higher power who provided the description I now supply. (This "higher power" was someone who either ran tournaments or was an experienced tournament player, I forget which; I wasn't the one who personally knew him. Nowadays we can ask CGL directly by email or forum; but back then, getting a direct answer from FASA was improbable.) At the time I even remember being in support of salvaging plug-in Clan CASE, but upon the explanation given above I realized I was wrong: a plug-in Clan CASE certainly doesn't meet the second or fourth points and has trouble with the third.

This isn't the first time since then that I've seen somebody else make a claim about CASE that fails to meet at least one of the four tenets. Every few years, I feel like this discussion comes up and I have to point out these four facts and burst someone's bubble with why their description doesn't work. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone here. I'm reminding you guys of the rules that have been published for 30 years on the subject and why a simple plug-in description for zero-ton, zero-critical Clan CASE does not fit those rules, does not appeal to common sense, or violates scientific principles.


Clan CASE that is entirely add-on, 'plug-and-fight' type, technology only properly satisfies the first condition, which is the easiest. Now this one is pretty straightforward but I've seen an explanation that Clan CASE incorporates Star League-era Steiner Stadium-style force-fields to explain its apparent lack of weight and bulk, yet force-fields would require online power and would not operate when the mech is shutdown, so that's not a valid alternative. If you find fault that my description doesn't look anything like the image labeled as CASE in canon material, I don't dispute that Inner Sphere-grade CASE might look like that. But in no source where CASE has been described that I checked (TRO:2750, TRO:3050, BTC, BMR, Total Warfare, and TechManual) is CASE explicitly defined as anything like a "device" - its always named as "damage-control technology", which means it could take many different forms, including the one I described. My explanation does not violate the first point on the basis that it doesn't match the image of what one representation of this technology may be. (Frankly, the image itself is rather poor because it doesn't show the ferro-fibrous plates nor the blowout panel. Its basically just the picture of what could easily be a standard ammo bin.) In any event, images have never taken precedence over written descriptions.

For the second point, nothing has yet been offered to explain how anything, CASE or otherwise, can weigh nothing and take up no space on a mech short of being accounted for as a part of another component of the mech. I've also seen it explained that Clan CASE could be part of the armor, but this doesn't explain why Inner Sphere-grade CASE is not, nor does a mech actually require armor in the protected location for CASE to function. (The blow-away panel is certainly part of the armor though, even if none is mounted or its all been destroyed. TROs have long listed mechs with armor types following the form of "Such-and-such Armor with CASE". But the targeting systems also often say "Such-and-such system with Artemis IV FCS", and we know the Artemis units are not installed in the cockpit; it only means the two pieces work together to form a solution. For CASE, the ferro-fibrous redirection panels and the blow-away panel of the armor together comprise the whole, both in my explanation above and canon descriptions.) Engines, cockpits, life support and sensors don't cover the whole mech so they're not viable sources to cover CASE tonnage and volume. Myomer bundles and actuators don't make any sense, and aren't present on non-mechs anyway. Internal structure really is the only suitable component in which to gain any weight and space savings to justify Clan-grade CASE effectively weighing nothing and taking up no additional space later in the construction steps. Any significant piece of technology internal to the mech that doesn't account for itself and is not accounted for by another component is very problematic. If it has no weight it is effectively an anti-gravity device. If it takes up no physical space but somehow surrounds something else, it is a ghost. BattleTech shouldn't need anti-gravity or access to the ethereal plane anymore than it needs time travel or future-sight (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/ask-the-writers/why-is-the-unit-naming-convention-broken-by-ilclan-rec-guide-08/) to explain things.

For the third, some of the TRO:GC refits of Star League chassis violate long-standing rules by mounting CASE in the arms. Rather than fix these mechs to fit the rule, your errata is trying to change the rule to fit the mechs. I can't really deny that CGL has the right to do this. But if Inner Sphere and Clan CASE are the same type of equipment but different mass and volumes, why should a chassis that doesn't allow Inner Sphere-grade CASE in the arms even if the tonnage and critical space were paid for, allow Clan-grade at no cost to tonnage or critical space? This is backwards from common sense but exactly what the new errata is apparently saying. If Clan CASE is effectively just a leaner form of IS Case, what magical property does it possess that allows it to be placed in the arms or legs of Inner Sphere chassis? Is it only because its lighter and less bulky? Pretty weak argument when you've got much heavier multi-ton, and much bulkier multi-critical equipment that can be mounted in arms and legs as well.

For the fourth, the definition of add-on technology demands it to be salvageable equipment but which the Atlas C errata indicates is most certainly not identical. The Atlas could easily lose a heat sink to provide IS-grade CASE without violating this rule, but if you go forward with it then you're subjecting ALL mixed-tech mechs to be able to use salvaged Clan CASE. This is a massive retcon covering 31 years of real-time and 151 years of in-universe time and many dozens of published products. If its not salvageable, why not? Self-destruct mechanisms? (Why not on the weapons then?) Or does it magically disintegrate as soon as barbarian Inner Sphere hands touch it?


So, if you're intent on introducing the new CASE rules, beyond the in-universe ramifications, CGL is in real-world trouble, too. Without going into every single scenario, let's look at one pair of mechs: the Nightstars of Shelly Brubaker and George Holt. Each mounts salvaged Clan Gauss rifles in their arms. Neither mounts IS CASE but there isn't the tonnage or room to allow it. However, by your new rules of how CASE works, salvageable Clan Gauss Rifles effectively come wrapped in a "jacket" of undamaged, salvageable Clan CASE. (Which was previously either unsalvageable, or no different to IS CASE when applied to IS mechs.) Ergo, both mechs should naturally mount Clan CASE. To not do so demands believing that both pilots willing turned down potentially life-saving equipment. That's illogical. Additionally, the technicians would have to spend valuable time removing the CASE jacket from the weapons when they could have just left it in place before mounting it on the Nightstars. That's also illogical. Therefore, to maintain believable storytelling, both of these Nightstars *must* mount the Clan-grade CASE system in their arms and therefore CGL must spend time issuing errata for any product they appear in.

Now, CGL has to commit to reviewing each and every other Inner Sphere faction or mercenary owned mixed-tech mech with a record sheet or Alpha Strike card to determine which ones do and which ones don't have Clan CASE. (Best guess is 150-200 of them.) This is not something players can look at a record sheet and figure out on their own. CGL themselves must dedicate resources to answering questions, issuing errata, and recalculating the BV of each and every affected unit. If CGL is so far behind on ilClan stuff, is it all that wise to spend time doing that? Why would CGL commit to wasting their time (and that that of the players) fixing a mess that didn't exist for 30 years? All over the issue of just five or six mechs that violate the existing rules and are all easily correctable?

What is so wrong with the rule today that it needs to be changed? And why the hell would we ignore a perfectly good explanation that's worked (for those of us that have known about it) for 28 or 29 years for one that requires a huge retcon, illogical conditions, and magical properties? When I say this is the most massive rule change ever implemented, I'm not saying that lightly. All the retcon work aside, introducing magic should NEVER be the answer. Please CGL, do not cross that line. Just leave the rule alone, fix the mechs you've published (or errata'd) that violate it, and save everyone's time to focus on more important issues.

Or, you can explain how else an apparently weightless, volumeless add-in Clan CASE meets the four objectives above without resort to unscientific principles. If you can supply a better explanation than I have, I will happily stand down. If you can't, then you should do what your predecessors did and flip those jumpships over so the sails point in the logical direction. With exception to some faster-than-light technologies and perhaps a few more isolated examples, BattleTech has always been grounded in scientific fact. Any proposed rule that changes something from being scientifically explainable (even if you don't like the explanation) to something that can not has no business being implemented.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 October 2021, 19:56:21
Then before CGL goes any further with this new CASE errata, you absolutely and immediately need to provide a workable description of how Clan CASE functions if my explanation isn't it. You are currently publishing units that can only be explained through unscientific principles. If we want magic, we can invest in Shadowrun.

Let us halt right there.  No elaborate explanation of non-existent 31st-century engineering principles is required to make this game ruling work, because it is a game ruling first and foremost.  While sometimes we make an effort to provide in-game justifications for such, this does not always occur; lore-based explanations are a bonus rather than a necessity, and the ruling stands.

Thank you for your time.  The matter is closed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 October 2021, 15:02:11
Official errata has been updated on the main site for:

A Game of Armored Combat
Alpha Strike CE
BattleMech Manual
Total Warfare
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 14 October 2021, 11:23:46
The BattleMech Manual errata document linked in the errata section of the main site is labeled as pre-release, both in the page headers, and right beneath the document title on the first page.

On top of it the links to AS:CE, BMM and TW errata documents in their respective errata threads need to be updated, since they still point to the last pre-release versions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 October 2021, 12:14:08
Will fix, thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Com Guard Precentor on 15 October 2021, 10:35:13
I have a quick question regarding how errata and reprints affect the PDF documents in our CGL Store accounts. Are these PDFs updated when new printings are sent off to the print shops?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 15 October 2021, 10:42:23
Yes. You should receive an email notification. If not, you can go into your file library and check to see if there is a new file
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Com Guard Precentor on 15 October 2021, 10:48:59
Yes. You should receive an email notification. If not, you can go into your file library and check to see if there is a new file

Odd as I haven't received the emails and my files in the CGL store are still the 4th printing for the BMM (current is 5th) and 7th printing for TW (Current is 9th). I'm sorry if this is not the correct thread for this, but is there anyone I can reach out to for assistance with this issue?

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 October 2021, 10:59:07
You're up to date.  The issue here is that errata being finalized is just the first step in a new printing getting underway.  The updated book is then sent off to a printer in Lichtenstein or China or wherever when the bosses are ready, where it's then printed, then shipped over here, then distributed.  Sure, the PDF is ready before that, but Catalyst always delays a new PDF for a while after it goes to print, usually to better match up its release with the physical printing arriving from the printer so there's not months separating the two (as that can create confusion amongst buyers).

The end result is that I know of a printing's corrections long before it actually appears anywhere.  I post errata publicly for an upcoming printing as soon as it is finalized, for errata tracking purposes (I don't want reports for different printings to get mixed up), but that can give a false idea as to a book's actual existence.  TW's 8th printing is just showing up in stores.  The 9th doesn't exist yet except as a set of digital proofs on various hard drives; the BMM 5th printing is the same.

The PDFs for the new printings will eventually be updated, rest assured.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Com Guard Precentor on 15 October 2021, 11:02:59
Ah I see - Thank you for the confirmation and consequent reduction in anxiety.  ;D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 17 October 2021, 16:04:29
Wondering if the Devastator DVS-2-EC from TRO Golden Century has correct battle value?
MUL and MML 0.48 give the BV as 2,699, while SSW 0.7.6 give it as 2844.

Checking BV breakdowns, MML doesn't seem to have explosive penalty for the improved Gauss rifles, and claims ammo total BV is 0 (iGauss ammo is 40 BV per ton). As such, sub-totals for offensive and defensive BVs end up slightly different.

Inclined to believe SSW in this case. Maybe worth double-checking?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 18 October 2021, 08:15:42
Wondering if the Devastator DVS-2-EC from TRO Golden Century has correct battle value?
MUL and MML 0.48 give the BV as 2,699, while SSW 0.7.6 give it as 2844.

Neither is correct, actually. 2859 would be the correct BV here--the SSW value isn't accounting for Clan CASE.
Fixed!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 18 October 2021, 09:06:10
Neither is correct, actually. 2859 would be the correct BV here--the SSW value isn't accounting for Clan CASE.
Fixed!
Ah, that would be my mistake, i probably forgot to enable Clan CASE in SSW or didn't notice it in the DVS-2-EC RS. Not the first time this has happened...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 27 October 2021, 15:46:42
I don't think there's an Interstellar Operations Errata thread, or if there is it's parked on a Bug-Eye and I can't see it.

Missing from the Universal Technology Advancement Table is the Personal Re-Entry Unit (SO p. 24, fiction blurb SO p. 162). There's also no equipment write up in TO:AUE or AToW for it, hopefully a later edition can expand on that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 27 October 2021, 16:10:41
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/interstellar-operations-4-september-2019-v1-1/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 27 October 2021, 22:18:28
Thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kerfuffin(925) on 07 November 2021, 22:16:20
Should the Bushwacker X-4 be a sniper? 3/3/2 OV1 doesn’t seem very snipery
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 07 November 2021, 23:19:32
no?

https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3217/thunder-fox-tft-a9
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1567/hunchback-hbk-7x-4
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7184/rifleman-rfl-2n
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3051/starslayer-sty-3dr
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/448/bushwacker-bsw-s2
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2897/shadow-hawk-shd-12c
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2904/shadow-hawk-shd-3k
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1194/ghost-gst-11
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1193/ghost-gst-10
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/986/enforcer-iii-enf-7c3bs
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/985/enforcer-iii-enf-6t
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/718/crab-crb-30
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/717/crab-crb-27b
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6345/centurion-cn11-oe
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1538/hollander-ii-bzk-f5
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/377/blackjack-bj-2
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2861/sentinel-stn-3lb
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1503/hermes-ii-her-5sr

seems to fit the mold



Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Max Headromm on 09 November 2021, 16:55:07
Alpha Strike needs some more errata for Woods, I think. According to this thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/alpha-strike/woods-and-commander-s-edition-errata-4-1/) the first 2" of occupied woods are not imposing a penalty.

So, p. 45 the example needs correction. Maybe thus:
Remove "As Alice's 'Mech occupies Woods, all her attacks will have a +1 Target Modifier for Woods." (Or replace with some statement about intervening woods between A and G.)
Remove "+ 1 (woods)" in all paragraphs except the last.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 13 November 2021, 13:51:03
RS3145NTNU page 11 indicates Clans have access to Caseless AC ammo. Since the Clans have long since dropped standard ACs, per IO pg38 those went extinct ca. 2850 for the Clans, i would assume this was meant to be Caseless PAC ammo.
But below, Flechette and AP ammo specifically mention PACs, unlike Caseless AC ammo.
So, is Caseless AC ammo being available to Clans an error or is the error not saying PAC?

And this leads to BMM and Caseless AC ammo. It says IS only on page 106, but if the Caseless ammo are meant to be available for PACs, perhaps BMM needs to be amended too?

I didn't find existing errata reports for these things.

EDIT It seems Flak and Caseless AC ammo should be PAC-compatible judging by how TacOps words ProtoMech AC rules. So perhaps i should just report the first point as an errata (clarify it means PACs). But this still leaves BMM Caseless ammo status unclear.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Known Glitch on 01 December 2021, 07:49:27
Sartris sent me. Not real clear where I should post this.

Wolf's Dragoons Assault Star Force Pack
Davis McCall Mechwarrior card
Special Pilot Ability

Antagonizer Special Pilot Ability section from Corijan Holmes' card, word-for-word.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 01 December 2021, 07:57:22
Sartris sent me. Not real clear where I should post this.

Wolf's Dragoons Assault Star Force Pack
Davis McCall Mechwarrior card
Special Pilot Ability

Antagonizer Special Pilot Ability section from Corijan Holmes' card, word-for-word.

You didn't actually list the problem?  If he has the same SPA, it should have the same wording.  Is there something saying he should have a different SPA?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Known Glitch on 01 December 2021, 17:29:58
You didn't actually list the problem?  If he has the same SPA, it should have the same wording.  Is there something saying he should have a different SPA?

EDIT: As I said in my post, the SPA is word-for-word from the Holmes card:  "Holmes' unit makes a Piloting roll...Target must move toward Holmes...may only attack Holmes...etc."

Nothing about McCall is mentioned in the SPA on his card and the GDL TO&E in the AS Commander's Edition does not list any SPAs for McCall.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 01 December 2021, 23:12:46
Thanks. I don’t have either card, and forgot the pilot card’s version of the SPAs reference the pilots name.  I was thinking of how the Antagonizer rule is written in Campaign Operations or Alpha and not getting why copying the SPA rule was a problem.
The rules aren’t the problem, the references to Corijan by name are.  Yep, that’s clearly errata :).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Known Glitch on 01 December 2021, 23:25:01
Thanks. I don’t have either card, and forgot the pilot card’s version of the SPAs reference the pilots name.  I was thinking of how the Antagonizer rule is written in Campaign Operations or Alpha and not getting why copying the SPA rule was a problem.
The rules aren’t the problem, the references to Corijan by name are.  Yep, that’s clearly errata :).

 :thumbsup: 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Known Glitch on 02 December 2021, 17:42:50
Sorry to ask another question!  So does this require a new Errata thread?  Unless I'm totally missing it (which is very possible) I don't see one for the Force Packs.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 02 December 2021, 17:46:37
you are correct, it does require a new thread - assuming errata is being collected
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 December 2021, 00:21:01
Thread opened.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Bison AIs on 22 December 2021, 16:21:59
Record Sheets: Succession Wars

Dev-level errata

Crab CRB-27 record sheet (PDF, p.116)
-Add hand actuator to left arm.

Curious, is this a kind of ret-con to bring the sheet into alignment with the new art? (The Crab had previously been depicted in a couple places with a single humanoid hand.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 22 December 2021, 23:58:37
Curious, is this a kind of ret-con to bring the sheet into alignment with the new art? (The Crab had previously been depicted in a couple places with a single humanoid hand.)

Yes.

The single-handed artistic interpretation of the CRB-27 was already made obsolete with the release of TR:3050U and its two "pincered" hands. That same art was then ported forward for TR:SW. The single humanoid hand acting as the sole hand actuator was also inconsistent when compared with the CRB-20's older art and record sheet. It itself followed the CRB-27's art over the years, but never settled on a single hand actuator---instead moving from zero to two.

That we now have new art altogether, though, ultimately makes this fascinating history of Crab hand actuators somewhat moot. The new art gives us the freedom to change certain actuator decisions that had been dictated by previous, now obsolete art; the CRD-5M and WSP-3M's missing hand actuators being two notable examples.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 27 December 2021, 14:06:54
Skinwalker Prime BV Calculations

To start with, I noticed the Skinwalker BV discrepancy while entering it into third-party BattleMech design software, which normally puts out the exact same BV as you publish. I then repeated the BV calculation in Excel, and came within 11 BV points of the software. I did not include modifiers for effective improvements to both piloting and gunnery skills.

I may have made a mistake, left out the PA(L) or armored component value for the cockpit, or perhaps some of the factors have been adjusted in dev-level errata...?

In any case, here are my calculations for the Skinwalker Prime:

Defensive BV:

Armor Value (161) x 2.5 x Ferro-Lamellor (1.2) = 483
Structure Value (91) x 1.5 x Endo-Steel (1) x Clan XL Engine (0.75) = 102.375
Gyro ('Mech tonnage) x factor (standard gyro factor according to IO, p. 193, "Gyroless 'Mechs" - 0.5) = 27.5
Defensive BV before Movement Mod = 612.875
Movement Mod for run of 9 (+3): 612.875 x 1.3 = 796.7375

Total Defensive BV = 796.7375

Heat Efficiency: 6 + 13 DHS - 2 (movement) = 30
Clan Cumulative Weapon Heat/Cumulative BV tally:

2x LPLs 20 / 530
2x MPLs 28 / 530 + 222 = 752
2x SRM6 Ammo 28 / 752 + 14 = 766 (note, Ammo BV would have been capped if exceeding weapon BV)
1x SRM6 32 / 766 + 29.5 = 795.5 (half BV because it is over Heat Efficiency)
1x SRM6 36 / 795.5 + 29.5 = 825 (half BV because it is over Heat Efficiency)

(Above Heat Efficiency)

Total Weapon BV = 825
No other equipment = 0
Add 'Mech tonnage = 55

Offensive BV before offensive Speed Factor = 880
BV x Offensive Speed Factor (1.5) = 1320

Total Offensive BV = 1320
Total Defensive BV = 796.7375

Total BV before multiplying by interface cockpit BV factor (IO, p. 193, "BattleMech Interface Cockpit") = 2116.7375
BV x Interface Cockpit BV factor (1.3) = 2751.75875 = 2752

(For comparison, published BV is 2809, and SSW 0.7.4 and 0.7.6 generated a BV of 2763)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 27 December 2021, 14:14:14
Correct me if I'm wrong, but would the first SRM-6 not charge its full price as it's the first weapon to go past the heat efficiency limit?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 27 December 2021, 14:28:46
Correct me if I'm wrong, but would the first SRM-6 not charge its full price as it's the first weapon to go past the heat efficiency limit?

Again, this may have been altered in newer printings, but TechManual p. 303 states (bulleted indent):

(Fourth bullet)
"If this new heat is less than or equal to the 'Mech Heat Efficiency, [add the Base Weapon Battle Rating and repeat]. Otherwise, add half the BV for the first weapon that exceeds the unit's Heat Efficiency and  Otherwise, add half the BV for the first weapon that exceeds the unit's Heat Efficiency and half for all the remaining weapons to the Base Weapon Battle Rating, then continue to the next step."

I split the SRM6s into two steps to show that adding the heat of both the first and second would overcome the Heat Efficiency.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 27 December 2021, 16:05:00
RecGuide Vol 24, Elemental III p.14-16 "Record Sheets with Inconsistent BV between Points"

With each variant - AP Gauss, Flamer, and MicroPulse - the Battle Values appear to be "jumbled" and inconsistent with each other on their own respective pages.

...After some experimentation, I was able to determine the values present were likely a result from Random Skill Selection, and have determined the following values using MegaMekLab v0.48.0

[AP Gauss]   = 532  (CAR5)
[Flamer]       = 359  (CAR5)
[MicroPulse]  = 435  (CAR5)

I have not done any manual calculations for BV, but I was able to recreate the errors (via MegaMek) to match the statistics present on the Record Sheet. (skill 2/4, 2/5, and 3/5 for AP Gauss for instance).

Not sure if there's an "official" way to check these values faster, but I was unable to view the "BV Validation" through the program (it shows up blank for me; likely a Java error on my end).  The program shows "valid" to me but I understand this is considered a suggestion until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 27 December 2021, 16:17:01
Again, this may have been altered in newer printings, but TechManual p. 303 states (bulleted indent):

(Fourth bullet)
"If this new heat is less than or equal to the 'Mech Heat Efficiency, [add the Base Weapon Battle Rating and repeat]. Otherwise, add half the BV for the first weapon that exceeds the unit's Heat Efficiency and  Otherwise, add half the BV for the first weapon that exceeds the unit's Heat Efficiency and half for all the remaining weapons to the Base Weapon Battle Rating, then continue to the next step."

I split the SRM6s into two steps to show that adding the heat of both the first and second would overcome the Heat Efficiency.

This was changed, yeah. Current errata for BV calculations can be found here: https://bg.battletech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TechManual-TM_BV4.1-Rev2021.pdf

Long story short, the first weapon to surpass a unit's heat efficiency still charges its full BV.

RecGuide Vol 24, Elemental III p.14-16 "Record Sheets with Inconsistent BV between Points"

With each variant - AP Gauss, Flamer, and MicroPulse - the Battle Values appear to be "jumbled" and inconsistent with each other on their own respective pages.

[AP Gauss]   = 532  (CAR5)
[Flamer]       = 359  (CAR5)
[MicroPulse]  = 435  (CAR5)

This are the correct BV values. They can be posted in the RecGuide errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 27 December 2021, 17:44:07
This was changed, yeah. Current errata for BV calculations can be found here: https://bg.battletech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TechManual-TM_BV4.1-Rev2021.pdf

Long story short, the first weapon to surpass a unit's heat efficiency still charges its full BV.
...


Adjusting the SRM6 BV agrees with your published BV. I am glad it is right, and sorry for taking your time!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 27 December 2021, 18:00:46
Adjusting the SRM6 BV agrees with your published BV. I am glad it is right, and sorry for taking your time!

No worries! It's always good to have an extra set of eyes checking things for us.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 20 January 2022, 09:44:38
Should I submit an errata to the MUL thread about getting it added, then?

No need to post anything for now. The new Hollander variant will be added to the MUL when RS:3150 is released.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 13 February 2022, 06:20:05
Xotl, thanks for the note about the TM errata and version numbers of the next printing.  I think you had said the pdf version would fix the numbering at least, right?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 February 2022, 13:23:16
Right now the sixth printing PDF is labelled "fifth printing", and both are 2021.  The only way to know it's actually the sixth is to hear about it here, unfortunately, or to have both "fifth" printing PDFs and figure it out on your own.  It's easy to tell that they're different books, because they have different covers, but that's all.

I'll see if it's feasible to re-label the PDF with a simple digital alteration before putting it up, but that might also cause as much confusion as it resolves.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 13 February 2022, 13:45:26
I'll look through my old-cover 5th printing and try and pick out what changes originated there sometime this week. Hopefully this mess won't be too much of an issue.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 13 February 2022, 17:09:11
Why don't you code monkeys place a number after the PDF... such as PDF# to represent the newest version?

So when you check, you can readily seek out what needed to be upgraded via that PDF# line?

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 13 February 2022, 23:56:59
Speaking of the Tech Manual, did the MUL team recently update the C-Bill costs of all units to be consistent with what's calculated in MegaMek Lab by any chance? I noticed the costs I downloaded a while back were all off and the new costs are now consistent with what's in MML.

I'm pretty sure that MML gives the incorrect costs based on the TM rules, though.  :( The specific issue is that it counts ammo as part of the unit's cost, but Tech Manual (p. 282) says to explicitly exclude the ammo costs (and I didn't see anything in the errata that changed this). I'm pretty sure the older costs excluded ammo costs, and were therefore consistent with the TM rules.

I also checked SSW. It includes ammo in its total cost, too, but also has the correct cost as the unit's "dry cost" if you dig deep enough to find it.

You can check by comparing old costs to the current C-Bill costs (which currently equal the costs from MML). The difference should be the adjusted ammo cost ...e.g., for BattleMechs, the difference should equal (Cost of all ammo)*(1 + tonnage/100) C-Bills.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 14 February 2022, 00:12:14
you are correct. the MUL values currently account for ammo costs, which isn't right. fixing that will... suck.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 14 February 2022, 00:52:28
you are correct. the MUL values currently account for ammo costs, which isn't right. fixing that will... suck.

 :whip:

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 14 February 2022, 11:45:51
you are correct. the MUL values currently account for ammo costs, which isn't right. fixing that will... suck.

Oof...  :-[

I noticed because I've been keeping a spreadsheet on these things that I've been using to figure out Campaign Ops operating costs for all units. Good news is that means it includes ammo costs (as well as the old MUL C-Bill costs for those that had them).

Bad news is that I only have it updated through 3067 so far, and the ammo costs are hand-input. MML or SSW might have more automated ways to get the costs where you won't have to worry about data entry errors.

I'm happy to PM and share what I have, though, if you think it'll help.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hammer on 14 February 2022, 13:34:12
I've open a ticket for MegaMekLab to produce unit costs with no ammo. We don't have an expected time frame for that to happen.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 14 February 2022, 19:21:17
So... SSW has the "more correct" numbers at the moment?  ???
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 15 February 2022, 08:58:35
So... SSW has the "more correct" numbers at the moment?  ???

Actually, the listed cost in SSW is wrong, too, and is off in a different way than MegaMek...  ???

But SSW has the correct cost if you dig deep into a unit's description. Specifically, select the unit, then choose Tools-->Show Summary (or click Alt+U), and "Total Cost (Dry)" will be the correct cost.

For example, for a SHD-2H Shadow Hawk (55 tons, 1 LRM, 1 SRM, 1 AC5 ammo, 61,500 C-Bill ammo cost):
True cost:            4,444,057 C-Bills
MML Cost:           4,539,382  C-Bills (+95,325, which equals 61500*(1 + 55/100), the unit type/tonnage-adjusted cost of the ammo)
SSW Listed Cost: 4,505,557 C-Bills (+61,500, which is equals the ammo cost without the final unit type/tonnage adjustment)
SSW Dry Cost:     4,444,057 C-Bills (correct)

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 15 February 2022, 17:34:57
Or, when you export it to the clipboard and paste it, it's right there next to the "Listed Cost" in the latest builds.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 20 February 2022, 18:23:55
The recently published TO:AUE v.6.0 PRE document contains the following entry:
Quote
Flail (p. 101)
Under “Game Rules”, first paragraph, first sentence

The Flail attacks like a hatchet (see p. 146, TW), with an additional +1 to-hit modifier to all attacks.
Change to:
The Flail attacks like a hatchet (see p. 146, TW).
The problem with it is that according to BMM and the recent answer in the Physical weapon attack modifiers rules questions thread (here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/tactical-operations/what-are-the-to-hit-modifier-of-to-mech-sized-melee-weapons/) flails are supposed to get a +0 to-hit modifier, while according to TW, BMM, Intro Box manual etc., hatchets get a -1 to-hit mod, so the flails do indeed get a +1 to-hit when compared to hatchets.

Perhaps to avoid confusing players as to whether the phrase "attacks like a hatchet" includes the -1 mod hatchets get, it would be best to say that a flail "attacks as a Physical Weapon Attack [...]", just like the rules for maces (on p. 102 TO:AUE) do? If so, then the same change should probably be done for lances (also p. 102 TO:AUE).

Alternatively the rules could say that "The Flail attacks like a hatchet (see p. 146, TW), but with a +0 to-hit modifier instead of hatchet's -1." and use similar phrasing, but with +1 to-hit mod for lances and maces.


Xotl: Good catch, thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 20 February 2022, 22:36:43
Xotl, the change you've just made in Flail rules works fine there, but you may also want to add something like:
Quote
Lance (p. 102)
Under “Game Rules”, first paragraph, first sentence

the Lance attacks as a hatchet (see p. 146, TW) with an additional +1 to-hit modifier,
Change to:
the Lance has a +1 to-hit modifier,
to the errata to avoid the same kind of ambiguity with Hatchet's -1 to-hit modifier in the Lance rules that Flail rules had.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 20 February 2022, 23:27:52
Sorry for triple posting, but I've thought some more about the errata to Flail and Lance rules, and in my opinion it would be safer to add references to Physical Weapon Attacks (p. 146 TW) after all (assuming there is enough space in the rules boxes of course) just like it is done in the Mace rules on p. 102. For two reasons:
1. All other weapons in the BattleMech Melee Weapons section (pp. 100-104 TO:AUE) have similar references.
2. Not all weapons in that section use Physical Weapon Attacks rules. For example Claws use Punch Attacks (p. 145 TW) rules instead, so leaving Flails and Lances without such references may cause some players to think that perhaps these weapons also use some rules other than the ones in Physical Weapon Attacks section in TW.

If space is a problem then perhaps just adding "(see p. 146 TW)" right after "has a +XX to-hit modifier" in Flail and Lance rules would work?


Xotl: Good points, changes made.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 21 February 2022, 11:13:17
Xotl, the changes discussed in the post directly above this one still did not make it to the file linked in the TO:AUE errata thread. Were they not supposed to end up in the errata document, or did you forget to upload the new file or make sure it is linked correctly?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 February 2022, 11:25:02
Strange.  Ah well, try again: should work now.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 21 February 2022, 11:36:27
It does. One more suggestion while I'm at it - you may want to change "The Mace attacks as a Physical Weapon Attack" to just "The Mace attacks as a Physical Weapon" in the Mace rules section on p. 102, TO:AUE if you haven't already. This way the rules should feel more natural, and more consistent with how the Flail and Lance rules ended up being phrased. Of course this is not a change that would need to end up in the errata document, just the book itself.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 March 2022, 19:18:43
The finalized TacOps errata docs have been uploaded to the main website.  Thanks all who contributed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Gabriels_Sword on 27 March 2022, 18:00:50
So not everyone will know to come to these Errata threads to read them can a link be put on the Errata download page of bg.battletech.com to help people find the current ongoing Errata updates as most documented updates in the threads are not put in the documents available for download (should they not instead be living documents instead of waiting for reprinting?)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ardent Fury on 27 March 2022, 23:41:42
I know its been standing in the old book for a while, but there has to be something wrong with the Artillery Cannons on the Fuel-Air Munitions table on page 160 of Interstellar Operations: Alternate Eras or with the BV changes for the Fuel-Air munitions. As it stands there is a 4BV increase for Sniper cannons to go from dealing 10 damage in 1 hex to dealing 20/10/5 at radius 2. Thumper Cannons have 2 BV increase for a similar increase in damage and LTCs have a 16 BV increase and each one at least doubles the potential damage output of  the weapons.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 March 2022, 17:51:07
So not everyone will know to come to these Errata threads to read them can a link be put on the Errata download page of bg.battletech.com to help people find the current ongoing Errata updates as most documented updates in the threads are not put in the documents available for download

There's already a link to the Errata forum on the errata webpage.  I'll add a more specific note saying to go the Index thread if they're looking for a specific product though.

Quote
(should they not instead be living documents instead of waiting for reprinting?)

Living documents require living people to constantly update them and upload them to the website.  I simply don't have that time.  Off-reprint updates do occur on occasion, but for the most part it's easier to wait for reprints, considering the increased pace of them nowadays.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 13 April 2022, 04:14:29
Just double checking to see if this was in error or not.

While looking up Artillery Homing Rounds, I found the following:

ASCE p.158 second paragraph
"Like artillery, homing rounds are fired at a targeted POI, with
the flight time calculated based on that fixed point. On the turn the
homing missile is calculated to arrive at its destination, one target
unit within 42” of the homing round’s POI must be successfully
“painted” by a unit with target acquisition gear [...]"
[ the 42" value repeats in 3rd paragraph]

went back to check in the core AlphaStrike book, found identical wording in the same position on p.75:
"Like artillery, homing rounds are fired at a targeted POI, with
the flight time calculated based on that fixed point. On the turn the
homing missile is calculated to arrive at its destination, one target
unit within 34” of the homing round’s POI must be successfully
“painted” by a unit with target acquisition gear [...]"
[ the 34" value repeats in 3rd paragraph]

While I know I have an out-of-date copy of TacOps (2018), on p.354 under Arrow IV I have the following entry, 2nd billet:
"On the turn the homing missile arrives, it may attack any unit successfully designated by friendly TAG within 8 hexes of the chosen hex. [...]

Knowing that AlphaStrike converts 1 hex to 2", shouldn't the above range values for Homing Artillery Rounds in both AlphaStrike books actually be 16" (of the PoI) instead?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 09 May 2022, 22:05:57
Will a thread be made for PseudoTech: Arcade Operations errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 May 2022, 23:07:15
I'll make one now.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 09 May 2022, 23:31:05
Many thanks, errata submitted.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 13 May 2022, 18:14:11
Responding to MUL battle armor discussion here (since it's a discussion now...)
This has indeed been considered. But it would require having to manually create 800ish new entries (which includes faction data). It would also clutter the infantry search results fairly severely, especially with units like the Elemental.
Actually, if you took the approach to only include the battle armor sizes that exist in cannon, it would be far fewer new entries... but still quite a bit of work for Team MUL.

For example, units that are exclusive to WoB/Comstar would just need to be upgraded to [BA_name] (6) and changed to only include the 6-trooper stats and AS card. Same for Clan-only BA (for 5-trooper stats). You would only need new entries for BA that have availability to factions that use different sizes (e.g. FWL and WOB). You would also then need to split out the faction availabilities across the (now) two entries.

So, not too many new entries, but a lot of work.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 13 May 2022, 19:33:44
Many options have been considered, including the two above, and all require more man hours than we are willing to put in at the time being. Apologies for any continued inconvenience
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 14 May 2022, 07:00:47
For the time being, I think the best option (since I believe the original concern for this recent discussion was over the force builder) is to let players using the force builder scale the number of BA in a squad/point/etc. Lump that in with all the other badly-needed force builder features (adding duplicates of the same unit, and more) to probably be done eventually.

Either way, the actual unit page gives you the correct BV for sizes 4-6, and I strongly maintain that doing BV by hand is still the best way, if a bit slower.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 14 May 2022, 09:26:13
That is not possible at the current time.

People keep asking the same question and I’m afraid, at present, I have to keep giving the same answer.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 14 May 2022, 10:21:02
Hence why I say eventually.
There's frankly more important things to come first.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Lorian Sunrider on 29 May 2022, 13:28:56
Possible missing rules in the Battlemech Manual.

Page 97 of the Battlemech Manual goes into rules for Arrow IV. It mentions Direct Fire and Indirect Fire, but there does not seem to be any mention of the 6 hex minimum range mentioned on page 153 in Tac Ops: Advanced Rules under direct fire.

Not sure if this was done on purpose or not.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 31 May 2022, 12:59:07
Corrected infantry record sheets reflecting the recent TM change to absurdly-high-damage infantry weapons have been added to the first post to this thread.  They are official replacements.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 31 May 2022, 18:01:01
An error in the Alpha Strike: Commander’s Edition Errata v5.0 PRE document:

pp. 13 and 20 of the document

⑤ High-Altitude Drops (p. 178)
Change to:
⑤ QuadVees (p. 178)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MyndkryM on 01 June 2022, 20:05:00
A possible error in the ASCE v5.0 PRE

Quote
Pursuit Lance (p. 120)
1)
⑤Under “Ideal Role” Skirmisher
Change to: Striker

Is this correct? Campaign Operations has it also listed as Skirmisher.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 01 June 2022, 20:06:14
Yes, it should be changed in CO as well.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 03 June 2022, 14:31:59
Errors in the Alpha Strike Companion Errata v1.5 PRE document:

pp. 13, 24

⑤ Basic Fire Control (p. 120)
Change to:
⑤ Basic Fire Control (BFC) (p. 120)

pp. 15, 24

⑤ Light Active Probe (IF#) (p. 126)
Change to:
⑤ Light Active Probe (LPRB) (p. 126)

p. 16

Stealth (p. 131)
Change to:
Stealth (STL) (p. 131)


Xotl: Fixed, thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 06 June 2022, 19:36:51
Issues with A Time of War Errata v3.0 PRE document:

pp. 5, 9

ER Laser Rifle: Change the AP/BD code from 4B/4 to 4E/4.
Change to:
Second printing only: ER Laser Rifle: Change the AP/BD code from 4B/4 to 4E/4.

The error isn't present in 2010 printing.

p. 10

Under “ComStar/Word of Blake”, “Gloves”, change the Equipment Ratings from E/X-A-A/A to B/A-A-A/A
Change to:
Second printing only: Under “ComStar/Word of Blake”, “Gloves”, change the Equipment Ratings from E/X-A-A/A to B/A-A-A/A

Once again - error not present in 2010 printing. Compare to how it was handled on p. 6 of the document.

pp. 7, 10

Fatigue Accumulation Table (p. 408)
Add the bottom of the table insert the following footnote:
Two changes needed:
Fatigue Accumulation Table (p. 400)
At the bottom of the table insert the following footnote:


Xotl: corrected, thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2022, 20:59:53
Glorious 6 of June errata up to the main site for:

BattleMech Manual
A Time of War
Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition
Alpha Strike Companion (including the heat conversion document, which receives a very small correction)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 07 June 2022, 07:46:20
Errors in the final version of AS: Commander’s Edition Errata v5.0 document:

p. 15

2)   ⑤ Footnote 9, second sentence
Change to:
2)   ⑤ Footnote 9

pp. 16, 20 ⑤ Movement Cost Table ([...]
Change both entries to the following:

Footnote 9

Infantry, ground vehicles, ProtoMechs, and WiGEs may not perform elevation changes greater than 1” per 1” travelled.
’Mechs may not make elevation changes over 2” per 1” travelled.
Change to:
Infantry, ground vehicles, ProtoMechs, and WiGEs may not perform elevation changes greater than 1” per 2” travelled.
’Mechs may not make elevation changes over 2” per 2” travelled.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ArcFurnace on 09 June 2022, 20:45:47
In a fairly recent 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 does not have any such note. 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 should do something about the movement penalty even in total darkness.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 26 June 2022, 13:25:14
Looking back at them now, the Hull Down Vehicles rules on TO:AR p. 19 are pretty urgently in need of some tweaking. Hull-down from half-level hexes on turretless vehicles always causes damage to go to the front... even though it doesn't look like there's anything stopping a vehicle from receiving hull-down benefits from half-level hexes from receiving those benefits to the rear and sides. I'd replace the entire fourth and fifth paragraphs of the section with the following:
Quote
First, if a vehicle (including a landing VTOL/WiGE) is adjacent to a hex that is a half-level higher than the hex the unit occupies, and LOS for an incoming attack is traced through that hex, the vehicle is considered hull-down. The attack gains a +2 modifier, and any damage that strikes the hit location corresponding to the protected side is ignored (identically to rolling a leg hit against a 'Mech in partial cover, see TW p. 102). Attacks from other directions are resolved normally.
This prevents tanks from gaining arbitrary hull-down benefits on half-level hexes even when the hex itself should provide no cover (for instance, a half-level hex surrounded by other hexes of equal elevation). In addition, it removes the punishing attribute of having all damage, regardless of potential hit location, focused on the turret (or front, if there is no turret); I find the current rules produce an effect similar to the old partial cover rules that made headshots way more likely.

In keeping with that last point, here's my proposed replacement for the last sentence of the sixth paragraph:
Quote
When attacking from the Front or Side, any damage to the Front or Side hit locations are ignored (see above).
I'd recommend appending this as its own paragraph to the end of the section for the sake of thoroughness:
Quote
Vehicles cannot, under any circumstances, benefit from hull down against adjacent enemies.
And, a little bit of clean-up to account for the new changes. First, replace the third paragraph with the following:
Quote
A vehicle can go hull-down in two situations (note that in all situations the standard Hit Location Tables are used).
And lastly, replace the first word of the sixth paragraph with:
Quote
Second

Hopefully, this will do a lot to make Hull Down Vehicles a bit more consistent, useful, and less needlessly risky. Going hull down in a prepared position will be pretty powerful, but remember that unless you already have built positions pre-placed on the map, it's going to take at least three turns to set them up, not counting the actual time to transport the infantry to the correct hex. That's plenty of time in most cases for a cheeky bug 'Mech to slip in and cook the vulnerable trench engineers before they can finish.

Anyways, please discuss.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Generalripphook on 28 June 2022, 11:54:18
Where is the best place to post a critique about the quality/standards of a story included in shrapnel?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 28 June 2022, 12:03:19
unless they are actual errors, they're not errata. if you believe something in an article is in error, the correct place is here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/shrapnel-the-official-battletech-magazine/

you should post any critiques here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/novel-and-sourcebook-reviews/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 29 June 2022, 08:00:21
Per JHS:3072 p. 51 (New Brothers), should the Outworlds Alliance not have access to the Issus circa Civil War?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 29 June 2022, 09:07:26
Per JHS:3072 p. 51 (New Brothers), should the Outworlds Alliance not have access to the Issus circa Civil War?

Wrong thread, but good catch. Adjusted for the Jihad era, but the CW era will remain the same.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 12 July 2022, 06:04:19
Re-engineered lasers are pulse type, right? At least according to BMM page 111 and 122 they are.

Because it seems every instance of re-engineered lasers in Recognition Guide record sheets lists them as [DE] type. Doesn't seem to be a major issue but wanting to make sure and wondering if this should be reported as errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 15 July 2022, 14:07:12
Since there doesn't seem to be a thread for the ForcePack Record Sheets... let me just drop this here before I forget.

ForcePack Record Sheets - Wave 2

Location: Hatchetman HCT-3F Record Sheet

Error: Rules Level erroneously listed as Advanced.

Solution: Change "Rules Level: Advanced" to "Rules Level: Introductory".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 16 July 2022, 19:53:42
The Hatchetman may be classed as advanced because of its full head ejection system, but that would also apply to the Wolfhound. And previously that was dealt with as a footnote for advanced play rather than changing the tech level of the unit.

So... *shrug*?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 16 July 2022, 20:45:19
It's also listed as Introductory on the MUL, though rules levels are a little... weird over there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 16 July 2022, 20:47:16
Oh?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 16 July 2022, 21:48:25
Yep. Specifically the HTC-3F (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1410/hatchetman-hct-3f).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 16 July 2022, 22:32:11
What’s weird about it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 16 July 2022, 23:07:50
Mostly stuff like infantry being classified as Introductory, despite not appearing before Total Warfare.
But then, outside of what's explicitly stated on p. 167 of CO, the Introductory-Standard divide is a bit nebulous in general at the moment.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 July 2022, 22:12:36
there were a few dozen units classified as intro that had no business being there - a few support vees, industrial mechs, and the Field Report 2765 warships of all things. those have been changed. overall about three dozen units put in the wrong drawer out of 9000+. i am amused that those warships have been misclassified for the better part of a decade and no one has so much as noticed or cared to report it.

The hatchetman and wolfhound are introtech unless you decide to play with the full head ejection rule. that's been the case since RS:3039u (2009)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 17 July 2022, 22:31:49
I remember the WarShip thing being brought up, but I forget why it was never fixed until recently. Ah well.

And yeah, FHE does complicate things, unfortunately. Well, regardless, thanks for the fixes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 17 July 2022, 22:46:00
I find it weird there isn't a HCT-3K recordsheet.

@Sartris :

Hachetman-3F fluff has the Combine racking up with plenty of salvage from Bush Wars, and it's cannonical that they were first to create the Sword melee feature. They saw that the Barbaric Hachet wasn't Bushido enough for their warriors to gain Meiyo, honor.

YET, we have no official RS to reflect this untill 26 (!) years... Not even a proto-type listing... Officially it's the -5K.

That I think is sad for those that want(ed) to fight before the Clans. Even as far as removing the +1 damage to the attack due to the strengthing they would need to reinforce the final product and adding to that, a disclaimer, for ever hit equals a critical roll against breakage.

( Note : 1 point per 5 tons Hatchet, -1 to-hit vs. 1 point per 10 tons +1, -2 to-hit. )

I'm just preplexed is all...

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 July 2022, 22:52:34
should one appear, we'll be sure to add it
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 05 August 2022, 12:17:57
So, there seems to be some differences in latest TW and BMM in regards of standing up with one leg.
BMM indicates only one PSR is needed even if more would be required normally, TW makes no mention of this. And per TW, for purposes of attacker movement, standing up one-legged is considered running, but this implies it it is not running for other stuff (like heat generation), BMM just says it is running movement.

BMM page 44, TW page 121.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 August 2022, 13:04:09
I'll look into it: thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 05 August 2022, 13:11:42
Welcome back by the way, Xotl.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 August 2022, 13:19:21
Thanks. :)  Still in Poland for another month, but I do peak in from time to time to make sure that something I'm responsible for hasn't been set on fire.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 August 2022, 15:18:11
So, there seems to be some differences in latest TW and BMM in regards of standing up with one leg.
BMM indicates only one PSR is needed even if more would be required normally, TW makes no mention of this.

In TW this isn't mentioned on p. 122, but is covered on p. 49, under Minimum Movement.  The text there is not perfectly clear on that point, but that was the intent; hence the further clarification in the BMM.

Quote
And per TW, for purposes of attacker movement, standing up one-legged is considered running, but this implies it is not running for other stuff (like heat generation), BMM just says it is running movement.

Similarly, the BMM text is the clarification, as TW wasn't clear in this regard.

In both cases these were just parts that I never got around to going back and rewriting the appropriate TW section, as there were so many clarifying rewrites like this that there was no way I could get them all done.  So, some parts were clarified if I had the room in TW, the time, and the space on the page (and I remembered to), but some were not.  I'll flag these for a future reprint of TW and see about getting them in, though I can't promise they'll make it.  To be clear, the BMM text is correct in both cases, and takes precedence over TW.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 05 August 2022, 15:46:26
Thank you!

Love the clarity BMM has brought to many rules!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 05 August 2022, 17:35:08
*snip*
To be clear, the BMM text is correct in both cases, and takes precedence over TW.
This is probably the clearest statement on BMM vs. TW so far, and THANK YOU for it!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 August 2022, 01:44:29
Well, we need to be careful there.  In general that's true, but there have definitely been times where I cocked up the language and needed to go back to make the BMM line up better with TW.  Always best to ask to ensure one way or the other.  That also helps me line the two books up better as new printings appear.  Glad you're enjoying the book though.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 06 August 2022, 07:22:45
Latest TacOps errata changed Reflective Armor to explicitly note that only full circles count as damage toward PSRs. Oddly there doesn't seem to be a similar erratum for Reactive armor even though it functions identically to Reflective armor vs appropriate weapons. An oversight or deliberate?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 08 August 2022, 13:11:38
Another difference between BMM (p35) and TW (p151). BMM allows physical attacks against prone mechs (both on same level) where as TW does not mention that. No mention in errata. Presumably BMM is correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 August 2022, 13:17:08
There is a discrepancy there: TW says DFAs and kicks only, whereas the BMM adds club and physical weapon attacks.  I'm not sure why the BMM would do that: as far as I can tell someone added it during the dev process.  I think it would have to be considered errata for the time being.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 08 August 2022, 13:35:33
Just curious, is there any official SCUBA TAG Infantry or do I have to make them?

If yes, where? If not, errata?

Thanks Xotl.
TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 August 2022, 13:47:37
I do not believe that there are.  If there were they would be in TacOps, in the specialized infantry section.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 08 August 2022, 13:59:08
Just curious, is there any official SCUBA TAG Infantry or do I have to make them?

If yes, where? If not, errata?

Thanks Xotl.
TT

You have to make them. TacOps AUE 152 for SCUBA infantry rules.
TRO3085 and Supplemental do have two types of SCUBA infantry but neither has TAG.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 09 August 2022, 19:14:17
Which makes them fanon...

Crap...  :-\

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 09 August 2022, 20:23:31
Which makes them fanon...

Crap...  :-\

TT
Anything other than bare-bones generic infantry is almost always going to have some DIY. That's just the nature of playing conventional infantry. It's probably the only unit type where customs are assumed for most levels of play.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 10 August 2022, 16:12:03
Yeah, but just once someone could do, oh what " hint hint ", errata on them.  ;)

But alas, no...

Thanks anyway,
TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 11 August 2022, 08:23:23
What you're asking for isn't called errata, it's called TRO entry. You should be posting this is Ask the Devs, they're the only ones who can make it happen.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 13 August 2022, 00:17:25
There is a discrepancy there: TW says DFAs and kicks only, whereas the BMM adds club and physical weapon attacks.  I'm not sure why the BMM would do that: as far as I can tell someone added it during the dev process.  I think it would have to be considered errata for the time being.
My guess would be BMM acknowledging clubs and physical weapons use the full body chart all the time. ???
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 13 August 2022, 08:39:17
My guess would be BMM acknowledging clubs and physical weapons use the full body chart all the time. ???
That's not about full body attacks, but physical weapon attacks against prone 'Mechs. TW and BMM have differences there (not allowed in the former, allowed in the latter). There was more context to this in discord discussion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 13 August 2022, 10:38:33
"All the time" was the point of my post...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 13 August 2022, 11:52:18
"All the time" was the point of my post...
Ah, sorry missed that.
But BMM does allow the option of punch/kic charts for physical weapons?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 13 August 2022, 12:10:04
I think it depends on the weapons... the mention of clubs made me think of the swinging (vice claw/talon) kind.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 16 August 2022, 13:55:25
Minelayer infantry.
They are in TRO3085 page 199, but they don't have rules in TacOps. It does seem the rules are in Handbook House Liao page 160, but i do wonder, should these rules be added in errata to TacOps as well? HBHL seems a bit obscure place for these rules, especially since TRO3085 doesn't seem to indicate HBHL as source for these.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ArcFurnace on 22 August 2022, 15:44:26
This thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/total-warfare/can-combat-vehicle-make-the-physical-attack-with-the-physical-weapon/msg1722422/#msg1722422) indicates that combat vehicles can use the various industrial-equipment physical weapons to make physical attacks. Errata was added to page 144 to this effect.

However, the entries for the various individual items under "Other combat weapons and equipment" (Total Warfare, 9th printing, pages 129-143) still specifically reference "Support Vehicles" for various rules effects. Should these various entries be adjusted to refer to "vehicles" rather than "support vehicles"? I think this would reduce potential confusion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 29 August 2022, 23:31:41
Will CGL be posting an errata thread for the Kickstarter poster of the Clan Homeworlds? I found an issue on the map
S.gage
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 August 2022, 06:33:41
No, that's too specific for a thread; just post your issue here and I'll take note of it.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 01 September 2022, 08:37:53
I have a question on combat VTOLs > 30 tons in the MUL listed as Standard rules tech.

I know they are listed as such in their respective TROs, but is this right?

I could only find advanced rules for support VTOLs > 30 tons in Tac Ops (which makes me believe they are all advanced by construction), so I wanted to check on how these should be listed rules-wise before posting any MUL errata.

The potential culprits are listed in the filtered MUL here:
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=false&MinTons=31&MaxTons=200&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasBFAbility=&MinPV=&MaxPV=&Rules=4&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=&SubTypes=51
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 01 September 2022, 08:47:14
Remember with tech advancements, superheavy vehicles are standard rules level by... well, around 3090 i think. TROPrototypes and 3145 have tech adjustment tables that alter rules levels of various techs. And MUL supports only one rules level, so units get the rules level they are when they get introduced.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 01 September 2022, 09:36:46
Ah yes, thanks!

TR3145 only lists super-heavy 'mechs because super-heavy vehicles makes the jump from Experimental straight to Standard in TR:Proto, which I missed.

As a sidenote, I really hope some version of those tables makes it into TO:AUE someday...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 01 September 2022, 16:50:15
No, that's too specific for a thread; just post your issue here and I'll take note of it.  Thanks.

Ok, this might be errata for the Kickstarter Map or OTP: REVIVAL Trials; however, neither needs to be errata, since they are set 2 years apart (to me, this seems unlikely).

Clan Invasion Kickstarter Map, Clan Homeworlds 3052

Issue: Londerholm enclaves, Ice Hellion 34%, Nova Cat 40%, Smoke Jaguar 26% (and no Clan Coyote)

This does not match previously published information stating Clan Coyote had an enclave on Londerholm. OTP: REVIVAL Trials, Clan Ice Hellion's "Hellions Fury" campaign began in May, 3050. It included assaults on both Coyote and Smoke Jaguar enclaves. However, both temporarily put their disputes on hiatus to repel the Hellions (p. 14, second column)(p. 38, "Mini-Campaign: Helion's Fury").

Although not explicit, it seems FM: WC may support a Coyote enclave on Londerholm. We also know there was long enmity between Clans Smoke Jaguar and Coyote from being neighbors on Albion, with Clan Coyote Omicron Galaxy intervening in the Clan Smoke Jaguar merchant purge on that world (FM:WC, p. 55, "Omicron Galaxy"). It may be plausible they were also neighbors elsewhere during the merchant purge.

Unfortunately there is little known about Clan Nova Cat's secondary enclaves, so I have no information about this.

Optional solutions: 1. The Clan Nova Cat enclave is actually the Clan Coyote enclave, and adjust the map accordingly.
2. Clan Coyote was not on Londerholm in 3052. An errata may need to be written for OTP: REVIVAL Trials.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 01 September 2022, 17:43:58
I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 01 September 2022, 18:30:26
I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.

The errata was based more on OTP: REVIVAL Trials, which is well written and clear. The FASA books aren't always clear, and sometimes they have clear typos/problems. FM:WC does not support nor contra-indicate a Coyote presence much. The line beginning "When the Coyotes' Delta Galaxy dropped onto Londerholm, ..." sounds more like Delta arrived from another system. But maybe in-system elements dropped from elsewhere on world, of something else.

And absolutely, both OTP: REVIVAL Trials and the Kickstarter map could be right. By 3045, the Coyotes had lost almost 75% of their max territory (FM:WC, p. 43, "Stalling Fate"), why not have Clan Coyote lose their Londerholm enclave between 3050 and 3052, only to recover some of their losses after Clan Smoke Jaguar was Annihilated?

It might help to know if Clan Nova Cat had an enclave on Londerholm in 3052 from another source, but there is very little information about CNC in the Clan Homeworlds.

(EDIT was to write more clearly, sorry for any confusion)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 05 September 2022, 10:46:13
This had been fixed in earlier printings, but it seems to have crept back into the most recent ones.

The issue: Aerodyne Small Craft appear to be back in the "auto self-destruction" category when attempting vertical landings or liftoffs:

Strategic Operations: Advanced Aerospace Rules (4th printing), pages 60-61:
Quote
VERTICAL LANDING AND LIFTOFF
Under standard rules, aerodyne DropShips may not conduct
vertical landing maneuvers in any type of atmosphere; such units
can move in a vacuum in this fashion (see Vacuum, p. 52, TO:AR).
Aerodyne units are not designed to shunt away the backwash
of their belly mounted transit drives, and can suffer catastrophic
damage to their hulls and components if they attempt to land
vertically in an atmosphere.
Under these advanced rules, aerodyne DropShips may conduct
a vertical landing (and the liftoff rules are modified accordingly),
as a spheroid, in any atmospheric conditions (see Atmospheric
Pressure, p. 52, TO:AR) using all the standard rules for spheroids
making such a maneuver (see p. 87, TW), with the following additional
rules.
• In addition to all standard modifiers for a spheroid landing,
apply an additional +1 for aerodyne DropShips and +2 for
aerodyne Small Craft to the landing Control Roll
• A second Control Roll after the standard landing Control
Roll is made (for maneuvering the unit through its own
backwash), applying all the appropriate spheroid modifiers
from the Landing Modifiers Table (see p. 86, TW) or Vertical
Liftoff Modifiers Table (see p. 88, TW) as appropriate, and an
additional +2 modifier. For every point of Margin of Failure,
add 1D6 points of capital-scale damage to the final liftoff/
landing damage. If the Control Roll succeeds, subtract 6
capital-scale damage from the final Takeoff Damage for
every point of MoS.
• The unit suffers automatic damage based on its tonnage
(see Size Class Damage Table, above). Modify this damage
by the MoS or MoF of the Control Roll and then apply any
Atmospheric Conditions modifiers to the final damage.
Damage is split evenly between the Nose and Aft armor.
If damage exceeds the damage threshold for that arc, roll
for a critical hit as normal.
• For a liftoff, if the unit’s landing gear is deployed it is destroyed
during liftoff as though it took a critical hit; check
off the Gear box on the record sheet.
• For a landing, the unit’s landing gear is not deployed during
the landing. If the unit survives the landing, it may not
move under its own power (see Taxiing, p. 88, TW).

This is at variance with the most recent printing of Tech Manual (cut-away Atlas cover), page 190:
Quote
Aerospace fighters and aerodyne Small Craft, by virtue of their
design, already incorporate VSTOL capabilities, but may mount
this equipment to eliminate the +2 penalty for attempting a vertical
landing in atmosphere.

As Aerodyne Small Craft can be as small as ASFs, it would seem either ASFs should also self destruct when trying this maneuver in atmosphere, or Small Craft should NOT self destruct.  I advocate for the latter.

The fix:
I believe the easiest fix would be to remove the mention of Small Craft from the first bullet at the bottom of page 60, thusly:
Quote
• In addition to all standard modifiers for a spheroid landing,
apply an additional +1 for aerodyne DropShips and +2 for
aerodyne Small Craft to the landing Control Roll
.

It's possible that last mention was just missed in the overall errata entry, in which case this post probably belongs in the StratOps thread vice the Tech Manual one (the less than 100% certainty on my part is why it's here in this thread instead).  The missing period at the end of that bullet as printed adds credence to this interpretation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 05 September 2022, 22:32:10
Here are a couple nitpicks regarding the recently published Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition v. 5.1 PRE document:

1. New Additions section doesn't mention that the new Movement Cost Table (p. 34) and  Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44) errata entries also apply to p. 199 and p. 200 respectively.

2. I realize that it will likely add an extra page to the document, but to make it easier for the players to use the document, I would add separate entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200), and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201) at the end of Full Errata section of the document, or at the very least a entry following entry:

Movement Cost Table (p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200), and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201)
See Movement Cost Table (p. 34 and p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44 and p. 200) and Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 47 and p. 201) earlier in the document.

By the way note that the v. 5.0 of the document was inconsistent in this regard - it had full entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 199) and  Attack Modifiers Table (p. 200) at the end of the Full Errata section, but no such entry for Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 201).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: EDG on 07 September 2022, 11:51:27
More Alpha Strike Companion errata/clarifications needed here (Version 1.5):

Pg 94: MASC and Superchargers (conversion from Battletech)
I think this should clarify whether Myomer Boosters for Protomechs are considered to be included as MASC/Superchargers? Currently they are not explicitly mentioned but I can't see a reason why they shouldn't count? This could significantly affect PV calculations.

Pg 130: Triple-Strength Myomer (TSM) (Special Abilities)
This could do with a note saying that this doesn't include Protomech Myomer Booster since that isn't activated by Heat?

Unit Role Classification (pg 134):
Generally the speeds listed for the roles cap out at 12", but it's possible to make units faster than that in which case no role would be applicable as stated. Would suggest replacing references to a 12" limit with 'or faster' (i.e. Brawler would be '8" or faster', Scout and Skirmisher would be '9" or faster', Striker would be '9" or faster')

pg 136 (Striker, 2nd Paragraph)
"In Alpha Strike terms, a unit may be considered a Juggernaut if it meets the following criteria:" - "Juggernaut" should be replaced with "Striker" here.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 14 September 2022, 10:04:29
Regarding the recently posted AS:CE v5.1 errata document

I'm not entirely sure of it, since I don't own any version of the book older than the third printing, but shouldn't the entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 34 and p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44 and p. 200),  Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 47 and p. 201), Artillery (Advanced) (p. 151 and p. 209), and Morale Check Table (p. 170 and p. 210) an pp. 1, 5, 7, 12, 13 of the errata document be repeated in their entirety at the end of the Full Errata section (p. 17) of the document? Currently only the new additions (indicated with asterisks) to Movement Cost Table and Attack Modifiers Table appear there, and I can confirm that at least some of the older errata for the tables in question wasn't fixed on pp. 199+ of the third printing of the book.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 September 2022, 11:25:49
I can't check right now, but IIRC the rear tables had errors different than the main tables at times, and so the errata for the two won't line up directly.  But I'd have to go back over the 1st print for that, and I don't have time.  A future update will ensure that they're properly in sync, if they aren't already.  Thanks for the notes as always.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Gribbly on 22 September 2022, 15:06:02
'Interstellar Operations: Alternate Eras' lists the prototype date for the standard AC/10 as 2443 (page 32). The Mackie has an AC/10 in 2439, the Bonaventure and Vigilant Corvettes have standard AC/10's in the early 2300's.

Should the intro dates for the AC/10 be considerably earlier than stated?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 22 September 2022, 15:51:26
The Vigilant and Bonaventure already don't fit with the availability table (they both have armor which didn't exist at the time they were launched) so those stats would most likely correspond to later updates (post 2470) anyway.

(this is actually true for a lot of early age of war WarShips. In some cases it can be resolved without changing the stats too much by just adding more of a lower grade of armor. In other cases it can't.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Gribbly on 22 September 2022, 16:06:31
The prototype date should be brought forward to 2439 at least for the AC/10 on the Mackie.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cmerwin on 25 October 2022, 22:51:22
I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.
The same can also be said of the Nova Cat Abjuration in the same year. I would agree with @GreekFire that it seems likely that the Coyote's were able to fill in the void (66% between combined Jag and the Cat loses), and prevent the Hellions from being the sole possessors of Londerholm. This would also fulfil a possible "in-system" drop description if the Cayote's didn't have a sizeable enclave enough worth mentioning before Annihilation & Abjuration, but took advantage of suddenly a lot of free space otherwise left entirely to the Hellions and committed a Galaxy's worth of warriors to hold part of it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 28 October 2022, 22:04:22
Era Report: 2750, p. 149: "Creating Characters in the Star League"

"To reflect these subtle differences, the following rule modifications apply to creating A Time of War characters in the Star League era, and may be used for any characters created from roughly 2700 through 2770."

This seems like an error, but I'm not confident enough to submit it as errata.  I feel 2700 was supposed to be 2600. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cerberus Kull on 31 October 2022, 17:47:47
Alpha Stike anti mech attacks: I believe the rules should be adjusted to allow a VTOL Infantry or BA to perform an AM attack when in base to base with a unit as long at the VTOL unit is at an elevation relative to the unit that would allow the unit to come into physical contact with the unit.  For example: a VTOL Infantry at elevation 1 or 2 should be able to perform the AM attack against a BM or a CV while at elevation 1. 

To me this makes thematic and tactical sense that the unit would fly at the unit and perform the attack without having to completely land.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 01 November 2022, 07:30:35
VTOL Conventional Infantry should still not work since they're mechanized.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 01 November 2022, 17:42:06
That still leaves VTOL BA in contention.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 01 November 2022, 18:30:37
this is for discussion of errata, not rule changes. unless the above rule is written incorrectly, it's not errata and should be discussed in the appropriate subforum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 01 November 2022, 18:40:46
Perhaps you could provide the current rule interpretation of the proposed scenario? ???
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 01 November 2022, 19:25:44
Also not errata
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 02 November 2022, 05:21:09
In the process of updating a ATOW character generator I've been going through IO:AE and updating the ATOW tech/availability with the Dark Age era, in the process finding a few minor mismatches which I noted in the IO:AE thread.

But then I got to Mines, and it's all screwed up, nearly every stat has two different values for all four types of mines. It was then I remembered TO:AUE also has availability ratings so I was hoping for a tie breaker only to discover nearly all of those stats disagree with the other two sources as well.

Which source is correct? Is there a source that's correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Crackerb0x on 02 November 2022, 06:54:41
p38, Mechanized Battle Armor
after first paragraph add
"A transport carrying Mechanized Battle Armor may not use jump, WiGE, VTOL, submersible or aerospace (thrust) movement."

Could I ask for additional clarity here? As it reads, RAW, it looks like VTOL and Thrust capable units cannot use those movement types while carrying Battle Armor that have MEC or XMEC but are being transported via IT# rather than mounting the unit via their MEC special. I double checked the wording of the Mechanized Battle Armor section in the 5th print and it looks like Mechanized Battle Armor is a term that's used both to describe a Battle Armor that has the MEC special and Battle Armor which are mounted to an Omni capable mech of vehicle.

I guess that also extends into the paragraph on that age in the 5th print that says that "If a transport is destroyed, any units with the MEC or XMEC special ability it is transporting are placed on the map immediately as if they had dismounted." Currently, it reads as though if a IT# transport with MEC capable BA are riding inside using the IT# special of the vehicle instead of MEC special, if it is destroyed, the Battle Armor would survive the destruction of the transport.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 02 November 2022, 07:55:00
Mechanized Battle Armor are the ones using the rules labeled Mechanized Battle Armor.  Ie. not using IT, but using MEC (or XMEC).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 04 November 2022, 20:13:00
In AToW p. 298, it's stated that the camo ratings given also apply to Total Warfare gameplay. However, while the Camo Sneak Suit's given camo rating is 4 (granting a -2/-1/-0 camo modifier), which doesn't line up with the +3/+2/+1 modifier it yields on TO:AR p. 130.

Should one of these be corrected to maintain parity? Should TO:AR drop the mods down to those of a camo rating 4 suit, or should AToW list the Camo Sneak Suit as having a camo rating of 6?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 29 November 2022, 22:48:12
Errata question about Record Sheets: 3067 unabridged and Record Sheets 3145: New Tech, New upgrades

Question for 3067: The record sheet for the No-Dachi NDA-2KO (page 130) shows the ER Medium Lasers as being forward mounted.  The previous record sheet from the printed collection Record Sheets 3067 showed them rear mounted (leading to much humor as the only mech who's longest-range weapons were facing backwards).  Which is correct?

Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 29 November 2022, 23:06:56
Errata question about Record Sheets: 3067 unabridged and Record Sheets 3145: New Tech, New upgrades

Question for 3067: The record sheet for the No-Dachi NDA-2KO (page 130) shows the ER Medium Lasers as being forward mounted.  The previous record sheet from the printed collection Record Sheets 3067 showed them rear mounted (leading to much humor as the only mech who's longest-range weapons were facing backwards).  Which is correct?

Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?

No-Dachi: the older sheets. The errata as posted by Ice_Trey in the RS3067U thread can be considered accurate.

Mad Cat Mk II 4/5: under discussion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 30 November 2022, 14:08:51
Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?

Thanks for your patience here. This was an interesting question.

Ultimately, no errata will be issued for now. The 4/5 were created as TW-scale canonizations of two MWDA-era variants. Both of these had low-slug arms à la Timber Wolf, so the decision was made to give these Lower Arm Actuators once both received official record sheets.

Because of the core guiding idea behind these variants, we have, at this time, decided to leave things as is.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MyndkryM on 03 December 2022, 16:12:25
CGL has been really good with updating and pushing out corrected versions of AS:CE. Is there a plan to do the same with the errata that has been compiled for the ilClan Rec Guides?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 December 2022, 16:32:12
Nothing has been announced with regards to that, but I would think that all errata to date would be processed as part of the re-release of the eventual (IIRC) two-volume compilations.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 11 December 2022, 13:38:16
What's the current rule on units that have Artemis IV-equipped missiles?  I noticed that in Rec Guide 28 the Sturmfeur (WoB) and Sturmfeur (Lyran) both have LRM launchers with Artemis IV and MML pods without them.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 29 December 2022, 14:39:38
In an effort to improve my Sarna editing (and because I'm super bored lately) I'm going through the old Errata threads and noting all those marked as dev-level.  But I'm also seeing errata reported by people who typically issue dev-level rulings that don't identify it as such.

In the absence of a compiled errata file for a title is it safe to assume comments by devs/mods/writers are corrections and not reports? Is there a list of, for lack of a better term, authorized correctors?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 29 December 2022, 14:56:54
What's the current rule on units that have Artemis IV-equipped missiles?  I noticed that in Rec Guide 28 the Sturmfeur (WoB) and Sturmfeur (Lyran) both have LRM launchers with Artemis IV and MML pods without them.

Forgot to reply to this one. It’s two tons under and the Art4 for the MMLs magically resolved that problem. I’ve posted the errata
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 29 December 2022, 15:17:49
Okay.  Since it was two record sheets I wasn't sure if there had been an errata change and wanted to check before reporting it in the Rec Guide Errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 30 December 2022, 15:11:10
For D&D 4th edition's errata, Wizards of the Coast would publish it in a way where one could print them out on label paper, trim them down and then place it over the old section. Would it be possible for us to get something like this for the core books?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 30 December 2022, 15:31:56
I suspect not... many of the errata changes I've seen involved column inches of difference.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 December 2022, 17:25:30
The amount of work that would require of me and/or the layout team makes that unfeasible, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 31 December 2022, 18:11:07
Instead of column strech, why not a page fix, print a page with updates, and allow us to paste them in...

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 31 December 2022, 20:52:24
This is a dead end topic.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ArcFurnace on 05 January 2023, 18:38:43
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 should do something about the movement penalty even in total darkness.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 07 January 2023, 12:03:51
Don't think there's an errata thread for this.  In the Downloads, Inner Sphere at War Hex Map: 3025, hex 3040 Jodipur should be Neukirchen by now per House Davion (The Federated Suns); Handbook: House Davion, p. 70; Handbook: House Davion, p. 72
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ardent Fury on 14 January 2023, 17:16:06
Going to bring this up again because it wasn't addressed last time I posted it.

Artillery Cannons with Fuel-Air Munitions have some issues... As it stands there is a 4BV increase for Sniper cannons to go from dealing 10 damage in 1 hex to dealing 20/10/5 at radius 2. Thumper Cannons have 2 BV increase for a similar increase in damage and LTCs have a 16 BV increase and each one at least doubles the potential damage output of  the weapons.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 23 January 2023, 17:45:39
Hello,

I found something that may require retcons going a way back. Depending upon the record sheets, the Man O' War (Gargoyle)'s free critical pod space is either (arms:legs) 10:1 or 9:2.

Re-reading the ilClan Rec Guides, specifically volume 11, I was surprised to see Ferro-Fibrous armor criticals in the left and right arms. I thought the criticals were in the legs, but indeed TRO: 3050, p. 36 (FASA); TRO: 3050 Revised, p. 34 (FASA); and TRO: 3050 Upgrade, p. 138 (CGL), the Man O' War (Gargoyle) places one critical of Ferro-Fibrous armor in the left and right arm.

However, I dug a little deeper, and found that the answer is not so clear. The Wave One Record Sheets do have 1 Ferro-Fibrous critical in each of the legs, and the Gargoyle E has an ATM-12 and 3 tons of ATM ammo in the right arm (10 criticals), meaning at least TRO: 3050 U configuration needs to be corrected, or it was designed with having FF criticals in the legs. Could someone confirm if the free criticals should be arms:legs 10/1 or 9/2.

Thanks!

S.gage
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 23 January 2023, 18:10:51
I believe i've reported this as errata already around Battle of Tukayyid book out, and the original ferro arrangement was confirmed as the correct one. That is, 2 free slots in the legs.
But perhaps someone can double confirm it, never hurts!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 23 January 2023, 18:18:09
Incidentally this reminds me, if the Gargoyle does indeed have all its leg slots free, does the Gargoyle C have 2xA-pod and ERSL (BV 2437) or 3xA-pod (BV 2417) (like it originally had)? Currently MUL's BV indicates the former.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 24 January 2023, 11:04:46
The Raven RVN-3X is listed as debuting in 3028, the same year as TSM-X, and is listed in its TRO entry in TRO 3039 as suffering from the effects of myomer-catalytic gas. Full TSM does not reach production until 3050. However, predating bespoke rules for TSM-X, TRO 3039's RVN-3X sheet has it mounting standard TSM. If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong), RS:SW uses the same build; this is corroborated by the MUL listing the RVN-3X as having the TSM special ability instead of TSMX.

Since we now have rules for TSM-X (IO:AE p. 98), should the RVN-3Xs' sheet be corrected to list TSM-X instead of standard TSM (and its MUL entry adjusted accordingly)?

EDIT: Same question stands for the Locust LCT-1L and Black Knight BL-6-KNT (Ian)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 27 January 2023, 13:47:02
Need a thread opened for Dominions Divided.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 29 January 2023, 03:00:32
Regarding the Locust's quirks. Asking here because not sure if BattleMech Manual related or Recognition Guide, or if even actual errata.
BMM gives the Locust Compact 'Mech and Cramped Cockpit, while Recognition Guide vol16 has Ubiquitous for it instead (other quirks are shared between the listings).
BMM's Ubiquitous Quirk description also explicitly calls out the Locust as being ubiquitous.

Are these both lists valid, or should this reported as errata for one product?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kerfuffin(925) on 30 January 2023, 19:56:55
Hey in Rec Guide 29 page 13 the Charger C blurb says

Quote
Upgraded to a fully Clan-spec mech…


While the record sheet later shows it using a IS 400XL (3 crits per torso)

Either the description or the record sheet needs to change. (Also if the record sheet changes you’ll have to get the MUL team on a new card, the card reflects the IS engine)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kerfuffin(925) on 07 February 2023, 20:42:38
In Dominions Divided on page 141 in the Fed Suns RAT, assault column, row 12 there is a -2 to the ‘roll on republic RAT’. Is this meant to be there, as the other weight classes do not have the minus 2 Maulus, or is it meant to keep super heavies away from all but tHe best republic roll?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 February 2023, 01:16:51
In Dominions Divided on page 141 in the Fed Suns RAT, assault column, row 12 there is a -2 to the ‘roll on republic RAT’. Is this meant to be there, as the other weight classes do not have the minus 2 Maulus, or is it meant to keep super heavies away from all but tHe best republic roll?

The penalty is deliberate, yes: only the best FedSuns units are meant to have access to superheavies.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 08 February 2023, 01:19:21
The amount of work that would require of me and/or the layout team makes that unfeasible, I'm afraid.


It just occurred to me that you have already done that work when a new edition with corrections is printed. So, owners of the previous editions can get the PDF version and just print out the page/section onto the label paper. Over the last couple of weeks I have been contacting support on getting the PDF versions of books I just bought, and the thought never even crossed my mind until now!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jal Phoenix on 16 February 2023, 15:42:22
Do we do errata for pilot cards? I ask because Hammond, Battle Cobra pilot in the Clan Support Star kind of can't exist. His story is that of a Capellan national turned mercenary who was taken as bondsman for Clan Steel Viper and is now a warrior. During the Invasion years, Clan Steel Viper does not have ANY freebirths in their touman (FM Warden Clans, p140), much less an Inner Sphere mercenary. Freebirths were not allowed in the touman until after the return to the Homeworlds, at which point the idea of the Inner Sphere taint had taken hold. I'm not sure if it's worth errata, but I wanted to bring it to someone's attention just in case.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 16 February 2023, 18:28:24
He's not just a pilot card.  He's a notable mechwarrior for the Battle Cobra in TR3058U (Capellan, captured and made bondsman by Steel Viper).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 20 February 2023, 12:57:57
Was the planet Liberty renamed to Carver V at some point in the Dark Age, or is the fluff for the Harrier (RE-Laser) in error?
[RG 31, p. 6]

(It was Carver V when the FedCom introduced the PPC variant, but I think it should be liberty for the current production variant's location).


Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jal Phoenix on 23 February 2023, 12:49:38
Was the planet Liberty renamed to Carver V at some point in the Dark Age, or is the fluff for the Harrier (RE-Laser) in error?
[RG 31, p. 6]

(It was Carver V when the FedCom introduced the PPC variant, but I think it should be liberty for the current production variant's location).

For the Primary Factory location, it should say Liberty, because that's what the planet is known as in 3150. When the FedSuns seized it, it was known as Carver V, so the reference in the Variants section is correct. It's up to editing staff to decide if that one is worth changing for clarity, or to leave it for factual accuracy.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 23 February 2023, 20:14:48
Carver V had HISTORY... I'm surprised it would be renamed at all.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 23 February 2023, 20:16:39
it happened some time between 3059 and 3062
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 23 February 2023, 21:21:11
It happened during the story of MechCommander 2, I believe. The populace renamed it at the same time they told the Houses to piss off.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 23 February 2023, 22:53:42
From Dark Age Republic Worlds (https://bg.battletech.com/download/DarkAge_Republic_Worlds.pdf):

Quote from: Page 243
Captured by the Federated Commonwealth after the Fourth Succession War, Carver V experienced a major upheaval when the Commonwealth fractured in 3057. Torn by fighting between the Capellan Confederation, Federated Suns, Lyran Alliance, Free Worlds League, and even the Word of Blake, only the spirit of the planet‘s citizens allowed the world to recover when the shooting finally stopped. Carver V was renamed Liberty by a popular movement to unify the world that rose during this terrible crucible, and the name was ratified formally after the Jihad, when the world was accepted into The Republic.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jasonf on 24 February 2023, 10:11:23
It goes back to at least FM: Updates because Lindon's Bn. and the 379th Com Guard Div. are listed as being on "Liberty," and I have a feeling it might go back to the original FM: Mercs, but I'd have to check.

Either way, looks like the Harrier (RE-Laser) is produced on Istanbul Liberty and the Harrier (PPC) was produced on Constantinople Carver V
(and hopefully you now have They Might be Giants stuck in your head...  >:D)

 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 26 February 2023, 01:37:59
Is Spiderholm still on Roche?

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 26 February 2023, 02:09:40
[...] I have a feeling it might go back to the original FM: Mercs, but I'd have to check.

Quote from: Field Manual - Mercenaries (Revised), Page 87
Lindon accepted a contract to support the independent government of Liberty (previously known as Carver V), where Chaos March raiders and pro-Capellan terrorists were making the world especially vulnerable to the Blakists’ “gunboat diplomacy”.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 19 March 2023, 09:36:26
I've noticed a few errors in the Force Pack Record Sheets published in the downloads section of this site, and I can't find an errata thread for them. Should I report the errors here, ni the Force Pack thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/force-packs/) or somewhere else?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 19 March 2023, 09:52:23
I've noticed a few errors in the Force Pack Record Sheets published in the downloads section of this site, and I can't find an errata thread for them. Should I report the errors here, ni the Force Pack thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/force-packs/) or somewhere else?

Please post them here unless they have to do with the Snord or UrbanMech sheets, in which case I'd ask you to wait.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 19 March 2023, 13:26:27
A list of Rules Level mistakes I've found in the recently published record shet pdfs. For completeness sake despite GreekFire's request I've added an error from Snords Irregulars, since it is just one of a few entries. While doing this list I assumed that the sheets should reflect Technology Advancement Tables from TROs Prototypes and 3145 if they are appropriate for given 'Mechs introduction dates from MUL. Otherwise the following list would be much longer.

ForcePack Record Sheets Kell Hounds

Wolfhound WLF-1
"Rules Level: Standard" should be "Rules Level: Introductory".

ForcePack Record Sheets Hansens Roughriders

Enforcer ENF-5R
"Rules Level: Standard" should be "Rules Level: Advanced", due to Large Re-engineered Laser.

ForcePack Record Sheets Northwind Highlanders

Warhammer C 2
"Rules Level: Standard" should probably be "Rules Level: Experimental" - as a mixed tech mech introduced in 3052 (according to MUL).

ForcePack Record Sheets Snords Irregulars

Guillotine GLT-7M
"Rules Level: Standard" may need to be changed to "Rules Level: Advanced", since, according to MUL, it was introduced in 3099, so Technology Advancement Table from TRO Prototypes is probably better for determining it's rules level than the one in TRO 3145, and it mounts CASE II.

By the way, I've noticed that Record Sheets – Wave Two pdf is linked twice in the downloads section - once with an appropriate thumbnail below Wave One sheets, where it belongs, and once without a thumbnail below A Game of Armored Combat Record Sheets (& Counters), where I think it doesn't.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 19 March 2023, 13:37:51
"Rules Level: Standard" may need to be changed to "Rules Level: Advanced", since, according to MUL, it was introduced in 3099, so Technology Advancement Table from TRO Prototypes is probably better for determining it's rules level than the one in TRO 3145, and it mounts CASE II.

In these cases, no, the tables from 3145 supersede Prototypes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 19 March 2023, 17:15:07
A minor typo in ForcePack Record Sheets Snords Irregulars pdf. The first mech in the document should be "Type: Rifleman RFL-3N (Hybrid FrankenMech Sneede)", not "[...]FrankeMech[...]".

And sorry for reporting yet another error in RS Snords despite what you asked three posts above this one GreekFire. Feel free to have mods remove this post and/or PM me about when to report it again.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 22 April 2023, 06:44:21
Where should we report errors (not bugs) on the BattleTech Tactical App? For example the Timber Wolf Prime has incorrect critical Hit tables. The order is off pretty much everywhere, but both arms are missing the ER Large slots and have added a Hand Actuator.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 April 2023, 10:40:58
I'm not sure, I'm afraid.  I would suggest asking this in Ask the Devs, as they're more likely to be able to point you to useful feedback channels.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 28 April 2023, 13:58:49
Does the latest AGoAC errata apply to the recent PDF copy distributed via Kickstarter?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 April 2023, 14:01:06
I have no idea; I wasn't even aware that they did that again for this kickstarter.  The release for the first kickstarter was the 1st printing.  As all printings are now flagged with their version number, you should just be able to open the PDF to page 2 and see right away: the new version says "Corrected Seventh Printing".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 28 April 2023, 14:18:55
Total Warfare C10P errata differs from the updated PDF copy.

Changes to Destroying a Unit on p. 128 were misplaced within the note on Forced Withdrawal rather than the 'Mechs subheading within Total Warfare.

Changes to VTOL Combat Vehicles on p. 196 were misplaced under the main heading instead of the To-Hit Modifiers subheading within the Errata document.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 April 2023, 14:26:47
I'll flag the Destroying a Unit change for a future reprint and up a quick silent fix for the TW errata PDF as that one is just a minor mislabelling on my part.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 30 April 2023, 13:02:16
TechManual states that Remote Sensor Dispensers carry 30 sensors a pop, whereas Alpha Strike seems to treat each dispenser as only carrying a single sensor. That's a pretty big discrepancy, should this be corrected?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ArcFurnace on 09 May 2023, 19:57:49
Total Warfare errata (v10.0) page 5, point 3, involves removing a phrase from TW page 55 indicating that voluntary movement of a WiGE vehicle could potentially cause an unintentional charge. The rules for VTOL movement on TW page 54 (at least in my 9th printing) contain an identical passage to that removed from the WiGE Movement rules. Was this section intentionally left intact, or should it be removed as well?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 21 May 2023, 07:58:35
Not seeing a proper thread, so posting it here:

Kell Hounds Force Pack, Griffin C card:
---Change PV from 37 to 45.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Gribbly on 22 May 2023, 17:02:03
On the expanded movement costs table page 30 TO:AR:

Should footnote 24 (re bogging down) be added to the Tundra entry?

Footnote 6 refers specifically to Sand terrain but is also on the lines for Clear and Tundra. Presumably there should be either a separate footnote for increased MP cost for wheeled support vehicles without 'off-road' instead, or it should be removed from those lines.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 May 2023, 17:40:47
On the expanded movement costs table page 30 TO:AR:

Should footnote 24 (re bogging down) be added to the Tundra entry?

Footnote 6 refers specifically to Sand terrain but is also on the lines for Clear and Tundra. Presumably there should be either a separate footnote for increased MP cost for wheeled support vehicles without 'off-road' instead, or it should be removed from those lines.

I'll add it to my review notes for any future reprint.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: boy_inna_box on 26 May 2023, 12:05:22
For the new AS:CE 6.0 PRE errata, with the change to Sandblaster SPA using a standard attack, instead of just one of the specials, is there any reason to take Cluster Hitter anymore?  Both cost 2 points, both give a plus one damage, but Cluster Hitter requires standstill and doesn't increase to +2 dmg at short range. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Joel47 on 26 May 2023, 13:01:57
In the new AS:CE 6.0 PRE errata, the addition to Multiple Attack Rolls lists
Quote
The turret attacks must always be the secondary target when mixed with a non-turret attack.
twice at different points in the new paragraph, on both p26 and p44 of the errata doc.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 26 May 2023, 13:19:27
In the new AS:CE 6.0 PRE errata, the addition to Multiple Attack Rolls lists ... twice at different points in the new paragraph, on both p26 and p44 of the errata doc.

Corrected in the PRE, though it may appear in the new printing of the book as it may be too late to get corrections in there.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 26 May 2023, 15:36:50
Is that change to Sandblaster intended to propagate to AToW? ???
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 26 May 2023, 15:57:42
No ASCE changes are intended to spread to other versions of the game at this time.  While CO, ASCE and ATOW all use variants of the same rules in places, each makes changes to those for the purposes of their own unique ecosystem.  It might happen if an ATOW dev decides it's a good idea, but again, no plans at this time.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 26 May 2023, 16:00:25
Thanks!  I'll keep Sandblaster as it is for AToW characters I make.  :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 26 May 2023, 19:26:55
In the example for special physical attacks, the PNT-9R is listed as having 10"/16"j movement. Was this meant to be a different 'Mech?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 26 May 2023, 21:33:05
In the example for special physical attacks, the PNT-9R is listed as having 10"/16"j movement. Was this meant to be a different 'Mech?

PNT-13K
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Terminal on 31 May 2023, 10:24:28
Under the new errata for Ballistic-Reinforced Armor, it lists FLK in both the reduces damage and won't reduce damage sections

Quote
Ballistic-reinforced armor reduces the damage from standard weapon attack that have the AC, FLK, IATM, IF, LRM, or SRM special

Quote
Ballistic-reinforced armor will not reduce damage from attacks made using the ART, BOMB, MSL, or FLK specials.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 01 June 2023, 07:34:44
AS:CE

p.35
The Unit Movement Mode Table doesn't include VTOL as an Infantry Movement type.

The vehicle/infantry distinctions are being removed anyway, it's just one list of movement types.

Quote
(bonus query)
p.38
Are VTOL infantry meant to dismount airborne transports as standard ground infantry, like Jump infantry, or as their own thing?
As standard ground infantry, and please do not put questions in the errata threads.  Errata threads are for final text corrections, not for questions or to request errata.  (Rules questions threads or the general forums for those).  "are VTOL infantry.." is not what will go in the book, therefore it's not errata.

I'm confused by "a transport carrying mechanized battle armor may not go airborne or use WiGE, VTOL......movement" being added to page 38

Do that mean that the Karpov (BA) variant can't fly while loaded with BA if it doesn't start the scenario already loaded with BA?

Edit: I think this is specifically about Omni having units correct? It doesn't impact the normal relationship between CAR and IT?
Yeah, mechanized battle armor is significant there.  Mechanized battle armor are those using the MEC special to ride OMNI units.  And only refers to those units while they are actively using the MEC special to ride OMNI units, not just units with MEC, but units using MEC.

(and see above, questions do not go in errata threads.  errata are the instructions to layout about what should actually go in the book.  questions can go in this thread, rules questions forum, or the general forums. thanks.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CReller on 08 June 2023, 14:29:10
Is there any news on when the 6.0 PRE Errata will be pushed to the errata page on bg.battletech?

Last note had it supposed to be posted on the 6th.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 June 2023, 17:31:31
6th was the ideal day because I have traditionally released errata on the 6th of June.  However, there were some very, very last minute attempts at additions to the new printing and I won't know if those made it in (and in turn, what pieces should be in the 6.0 final errata doc) until I hear from the intrepid layout fellow.  I can say that if I don't know by the 9th, then the errata won't be made official until the end of the month, as I'm going on vacation on the 10th until the 26th abouts.

However, anything in it at this point is going to be official: it's just a matter of what else is going to be added.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 08 June 2023, 17:52:24
Enjoy your vacation, good sir!  Most of us (at least) will wait patiently for your return...  :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 08 June 2023, 23:20:12
[...] I'm going on vacation on the 10th until the 26th abouts.

Enjoy your holiday to Canopus!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CReller on 09 June 2023, 09:41:59
6th was the ideal day because I have traditionally released errata on the 6th of June.  However, there were some very, very last minute attempts at additions to the new printing and I won't know if those made it in (and in turn, what pieces should be in the 6.0 final errata doc) until I hear from the intrepid layout fellow.  I can say that if I don't know by the 9th, then the errata won't be made official until the end of the month, as I'm going on vacation on the 10th until the 26th abouts.

However, anything in it at this point is going to be official: it's just a matter of what else is going to be added.

Thanks for the quick update, have a good vacation!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Brym on 14 June 2023, 09:22:20
My physical Battle of Tukkayid book I got a couple months ago is the third printing. But the errata page on the battletech website and the errata thread on this forum only mention a second printing. Do they need to be updated, or am I missing something?

I discovered this because a buddy and I were going to build forces for a campaign. I lent him my physical book and I was working off the pdf. We were surprised to find that we had different FP costs and totals to work with.

Relatedly, does anyone know if the catalyst store updates PDFs to the newest version like drivethrurpg does?  I thought it did, but if I go to my download page it still serves me the second printing pdf. Does a third printing pdf exist?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 14 June 2023, 11:19:33
My physical Battle of Tukkayid book I got a couple months ago is the third printing. But the errata page on the battletech website and the errata thread on this forum only mention a second printing. Do they need to be updated, or am I missing something?

I discovered this because a buddy and I were going to build forces for a campaign. I lent him my physical book and I was working off the pdf. We were surprised to find that we had different FP costs and totals to work with.

Relatedly, does anyone know if the catalyst store updates PDFs to the newest version like drivethrurpg does?  I thought it did, but if I go to my download page it still serves me the second printing pdf. Does a third printing pdf exist?
CGL does normally update their PDFs. Odd that your physical copy is a later printing than your digital one.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 14 June 2023, 12:58:40
i'll put it on a list of things to bug Xotl about when he returns from vacation
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 June 2023, 11:02:36
My physical Battle of Tukkayid book I got a couple months ago is the third printing. But the errata page on the battletech website and the errata thread on this forum only mention a second printing. Do they need to be updated, or am I missing something?

I discovered this because a buddy and I were going to build forces for a campaign. I lent him my physical book and I was working off the pdf. We were surprised to find that we had different FP costs and totals to work with.

Relatedly, does anyone know if the catalyst store updates PDFs to the newest version like drivethrurpg does?  I thought it did, but if I go to my download page it still serves me the second printing pdf. Does a third printing pdf exist?

There was a third printing, yes, though I don't have a PDF copy yet so it might be that one doesn't exist yet.  I'll go pester people to see about having one uploaded.

There were a handful of errata pieces for it.  I'll update the errata doc today I think.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Brym on 27 June 2023, 11:04:38
There was a third printing, yes, though I don't have a PDF copy yet so it might be that one doesn't exist yet.  I'll go pester people to see about having one uploaded.

There were a handful of errata pieces for it.  I'll update the errata doc today I think.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 28 June 2023, 17:42:01
Errors found in recently published AS:CE Errata v6.0 document

p. 3
Third point of Unit Type Movement (p. 36) (first point on the page) is missing a mark indicating a printing in which the error was corrected (should be "⑥").

p. 4
Hull Down (p. 38), first point

Remove "⑥" mark at the beginning of the point, and consider adding "This ruling has changed from previous errata versions" below the first line of the point, as there were some changes to the rule in question in previous errata documents.

pp. 13, 35
⑥ Climbing and Standing on Buildings (p. 72), second point

Under “’Mechs Outside of Buildings”, at the end of the paragraph insert the following:
Change to:
Under “’Mechs Outside of Buildings”

p. 25 Multiple Attack Rolls (p. 175) entry

⑥ Multiple Attack Rolls (p. 175)
1) Replace the first two paragraphs with the following:
Change to:
Multiple Attack Rolls (p. 175)
1) ⑥ Replace the first two paragraphs with the following:

(As indicated in the second point of Multiple Attack Rolls (p. 175) entry, some corrections in that point appear in earlier printings.)

Edit:
pp. 5, 6

These pages contain two conflicting entries about ⑥ Transporting [example text] (p. 39). New Additions section of the errata document (p. 31) mentions only the entry on p. 5, not the one on p. 6.

Edit 2:
pp. 7, 32 ⑤ Rolling To Hit [example text] (p. 45)/⑥ Target Number Diagram [example text] (p. 45) entries

These pages disagree on the section title, the exact changes that need to be made to the example text on p. 45 of the book, and on the printing in which the changes were made. On top of it the last sentence of the presumably newer version of the correction on p. 32 contradicts its own math:
Quote
The Modified Target Number is 7 [3 (Skill Rating) + 2 (medium range) + 1 (target movement) = 6].

Edit 3:
p. 13
This page has two entries about changes to paragraph “’Mechs Outside of Buildings” on p. 72 of the book. One that provides a replacement text for the entire paragraph, and another one that tells to only change a fragment of the paragraph. The latter entry has already been mentioned above in this post due to another error.

Edit 4:
p. 17
This page is missing "⑥ Large (LG) (p. 86)" entry listed on p. 38 of the errata document.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 June 2023, 21:44:36
Thanks: I'll review on Monday or so when I'm back home.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 01 July 2023, 01:04:28
When do we think we will see an updated PDF for ASCE?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 01 July 2023, 08:12:40
When do we think we will see an updated PDF for ASCE?

When the print book arrives, still likely months away.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 01 July 2023, 10:24:37
Yes, typically errata for a new book is the first part of the process of creating it, meaning it always shows up well before the new printing itself.  Once updated with errata, the book then has to be printed, shipped and distributed, which is a lengthy process.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DevianID on 01 August 2023, 23:22:06
OK so apparently im supposed to put stuff here since i got in trouble with moonsword by putting stuff in the wrong place

So in BV, the thumper/sniper/long tom have had their damage increased from their first appearance, but the BV of these weapons has not changed, and the BV is inconsistent.

The current BV for clan launchers/ammo, IS lauchers/ammo
Arrow 168/30, 240/30, range 9 clan 8 IS
Long tom 560/46, 368/46
Sniper 96/11, 85/11
thumper 48/5, 43/5

As can be seen, the BV of these identical weapons are all different but they all use a single profile, except for Arrow which has a separate clan version that is superior, but cheaper?  This, i have been told, is not the place for 'fan suggestions' so I wont post any math or anything here about what the BV should be... I just leave the inconsistent numbers above for the team to discuss, with the further reminder that the original damage was 5/2, 10/5, 20/10 for the thumper/sniper/long tom before the damage was increased and BV was not.
(edit: in the new book, the clan arrow is now 240 but with better range still)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DevianID on 01 August 2023, 23:56:45
Artillery cannons, in the original rules, stated they must use the indirect fire rules to shoot, and their BV included a +1 penalty to shoot into their price.  In the newer printing, the artillery cannons can shoot direct now, with no +1 penalty.  However, with the newer rule not applying a +1 to hit, the battle value of the attack has not been increased.

The battle value (pg 195 and 216 of newer books) currently is
Thumper cannon--41
sniper cannon--77
long tom cannon--329

With no +1 penalty to fire, the weapons should have
Thumper Cannon--53/7
Sniper Cannon--95/12
Long Tom Cannon--419?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 02 August 2023, 23:16:20
Yes, typically errata for a new book is the first part of the process of creating it, meaning it always shows up well before the new printing itself.  Once updated with errata, the book then has to be printed, shipped and distributed, which is a lengthy process.

I understand. I just find it interesting that CGL waits until the books are on their way to stores before publishing the PDFs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 August 2023, 01:13:09
If the "printing" is available many months before the actual physical book, you have cases where the guys with PDFs are ahead of those who have physical materials only, leading to confusion at the tabletop, especially if there winds up being an unusual delay between the release of the PDF and the arrival in stores of the print version.  This occurred (IIRC) with the release of Second Succession War, which wound up causing a lot of fan consternation, as well as some of the Covid-era reprints.  So the bosses just prefer to avoid that and wait until they know printed copies are guaranteed close at hand.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 03 August 2023, 08:28:49
If the "printing" is available many months before the actual physical book, you have cases where the guys with PDFs are ahead of those who have physical materials only, leading to confusion at the tabletop, especially if there winds up being an unusual delay between the release of the PDF and the arrival in stores of the print version.  This occurred (IIRC) with the release of Second Succession War, which wound up causing a lot of fan consternation, as well as some of the Covid-era reprints.  So the bosses just prefer to avoid that and wait until they know printed copies are guaranteed close at hand.

I had not considered that. That does make sense. Thank you for the insight.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 05 August 2023, 11:32:01
Errata for Alpha Strike Counters Pack, since it doesn't seem to have it's own thread: on the Physical Attack Damage Table, ASCP states that Charge damage to the attacker should be divided by zero. Remove that entire division instruction.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 06 August 2023, 04:53:12
Errata for Alpha Strike Counters Pack, since it doesn't seem to have it's own thread: on the Physical Attack Damage Table, ASCP states that Charge damage to the attacker should be divided by zero. Remove that entire division instruction.

The header for the column is "Damage to Attacker (Success / Fail).  It's not a divide by 0, it's 0 damage to the attacker on a failed charge.
For DFA, it's Size / Size +1 for Size +1 damage to attacker on a failed DFA.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pokefan548 on 06 August 2023, 12:36:20
Ah, I see. It makes me wonder what other symbols could be used instead, though, for clarity.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ArcFurnace on 12 August 2023, 18:49:13
Total Warfare errata (v10.0) page 5, point 3, involves removing a phrase from TW page 55 indicating that voluntary movement of a WiGE vehicle could potentially cause an unintentional charge. The rules for VTOL movement on TW page 54 contain an identical passage to that removed from the WiGE Movement rules. Was this section intentionally left intact, or should it be removed as well?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 24 August 2023, 16:40:17
The just release ASCE PDF, does that include 6.01 revisions?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 August 2023, 21:08:40
Any .0X corrections are always included: they're mistakes on my end that involved updating the errata to make sure the document and the book are in sync.  Essentially:

6.0: sixth printing
6.01, 6.02 etc: also sixth printing
6.1, 6.2 etc: not in sixth printing
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 24 August 2023, 21:47:11
Any .0X corrections are always included: they're mistakes on my end that involved updating the errata to make sure the document and the book are in sync.  Essentially:

6.0: sixth printing
6.01, 6.02 etc: also sixth printing
6.1, 6.2 etc: not in sixth printing


Thanks! I can delete those files then.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Frabby on 25 August 2023, 03:08:06
Unsure if this is errata or a rules question; I've tentatively identified it as errata.

The specific issue is the example for resolving damage from a fall on p. 69, Total Warfare.
Right up to the latest issue I have access to, the example is 33 damage which is divided up in six 5-point clusters and a 3-point carryover.

The rules (TW p. 68) clearly say you divide tonnage by 10 and round first, then multiply the implicitly rounded result with (levels fallen +1).
The problem is that in this fashion you can't get to 33 points of falling damage for normal 'Mechs. Unless it's the edge case of a superheavy 'Mech falling down two levels, 33 points of falling damage for a 'Mech can only be reached when the rounding happens after multiplying tonnage with (levels fallen +1), and then only in the case of a 55-ton 'Mech falling down five levels:
55 (tonnage) times 6 (5 levels +1) / 10 = 33 damage

However, by the strict wording of the rules, it would be 55 / 10 = 5.5 rounded to 6, times 6 = 36 damage

So the example seems to imply you round as the final step, contrary to what the rules say.

The easiest solution would be to adjust the damage in the example text to 12 damage, divided into two 5-point clusters and a 2-point carryover.

Or you reword the rules to always only round results at the end of a calculation. Personally, I find it counterintuitive to round damage at any point except for the end result. But I reckon that would be a rule change.

In the case of falling damage, the current ruling as I understand it penalizes smaller 'Mechs because the damage will always be rounded up unless they happen to fall into water.

The potential rule change would be to put always put any roundings to the end of the computation, either for falls only (where it would benefit smaller 'Mechs by not penalizing them through rounding up damage incurred), or for all computations (like melee attacks, where 'Mechs would no longer be able to do the same damage as 'Mechs 5 tons heavier).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 09 September 2023, 11:29:17
Problems found in BMM v. 7.0 PRE errata document. Just New Additions section for now. I may look through Full Errata section to see if there are any disparities between it and the New Additions sections later, however I can make no promises about when or even if I'll do it. Unless specified otherwise page numbers below refer to pages in BMM, not the errata document.

p. 37, Death From Above Attacks change

change "in the Weapon Attack Phase." to "before the Physical Attack Phase"

A pilot performing a DFA may become unconscious during Movement Phase - for example as a result of a point-blank shot by a hidden 'Mech (see p. 82).

p. 45, Critical Hits, Hardened Armor change

The way the new rule is phrased it is unclear if the -2 to the roll is supposed to happen when inner structure is damaged and the 'Mech no longer has armor at the location, when a through armor crit happens (due to a natural 2 in hit location table or use of armor-piercing AC rounds - only p. 114 makes it clear that hardened armor completely negates the effect of AP ammo), or any combination of the above.

p. 51 Effects of Heat

What does this change is supposed to mean in practice? That an Inferno missile explosion due to 'Mech's internal heat and engine hits caused by internal explosions of "regular" ammo don't affect the 'Mech until after the Heat Phase in which it accrued? And does a 'Mech that suffered one or two Engine Crits during a Heat Phase increase its internal heat level by 5 or 10 at the end of the phase and just doesn't for example suffer a higher shutdown chance during the phase, or does it just not increase its internal heat for such crits during the phase? IMHO these (especially the question of engine crits suffered during heat phase) need to be clarified.

p. 61  Clearing Woods or Jungle, Plasma Weapons

Since Plasma Cannon has no Damage Value, change "Plasma Weapons" to "Plasma Rifle" and plural to singular later in the inserted sentence.

Edited in after TW 11.0 PRE was published: This one should probably be handled like Clearing Woods in the latest TW errata document, with the caveat about Plasma Rifles mentioned under Clearing Woods (p. 112) in the post directly below this one.

p. 68 Skidding

Maybe change "(not MP spent, so facing changes are ignored)" to just "(not MP spent)", since you would also ignore any MP spent for difficult terrain, standing up etc. Singling out facing changes only confuses the reader.

p. 70 (p. 20 of the errata document only)

Swap order in which Skidding (p. 70) and Interrupting A Skid (p. 70) entries appear on p. 20 of the errata document.

p. 70, Interrupting A Skid, point 2.

Maybe change "[...] taking normal skidding damage for entering that hex [...]" to something like "[...] taking normal skidding or falling damage (see Accidental Falls, above) for entering that hex [...]" to make it clear that you still don't count the water hex for the purposes of skidding damage if the bottom of the hex is two or more levels below previous hex's level.

p. 70, Skidding or Collisions with Stationary Objects

After
Quote
"Before “Collisions with Stationary Objects”, insert the following subsection:

COLLISIONS—GENERAL[...]"
and before the changes to collisions withe the buildings rules add a note to to delete the first three paragraphs of Collisions with Stationary Buildings sections, as their contents are covered in the new "Collisions - General" section.

Also I assume that some changes to Collisions with Stationary Objects section will end up looking like they were describe in "Resolving collisions during a skid" thread, and some of them (like changing "Buildings:" title to "Empty Buildings:" and changes to the two paragraphs that directly follow) were just cut from the errata document since they were just minor tweaks to clarify things a bit and to get space needed for other things, and not outright rules changes?

p. 71 Collisions With ’Mechs

I guess that, like with Collisions with Stationary Objects above, some changes from the "Resolving collisions during a skid" thread did not end up in Collisions With ’Mechs entry in the errata document just to save space, and will be included in the new BMM printing? If so, then I would suggest to put the change that clarifies that to successfully dodge an unintentional charge, the target 'Mech needs to not only make its PSR, but also successfully leave its hex (see second paragraph of the Collisions with 'Mechs section of the draft in the thread mentioned above) in the errata document.

p. 72 Collisions Within Buildings (p. 21 of the errata document only)

Change the section name to "Combat Within Buildings".

p. 78 Battlefield Support Table

If you end up implementing the change to p. 76 Offensive Aerospace Support (Strikes) suggested near the end of this post, you will also need to make it in Light Strike and Heavy Strike lines of the Battlefield Support Table.

p. 81 Forced Withdrawal

Maybe reword the change to make it clear that you can't make "five steps away from the home edge, one step back", but actually need to end withdrawing 'Mech's move at least closer to the home edge than you began? And of course if such move is impossible, the 'Mech should move in such a way that would make closing to its home edge as soon as possible in subsequent turns (though I don't think that the rules need to say that part explicitly, and leave the exact interpretation to player's judgement - especially because some maps may make exact interpretation of this rule tricky - for example if you need to temporarily move away from your home edge in order to get around some obstacle on your way back - possible in some official canyon maps, for example).

p. 116 Supercharger

"Under “Game Rules”, replace the first bullet point with the following:", change to "Under “Game Rules”, replace the second bullet point with the following:"

p. 146

Remember to copy the change from Battlefield Support Table on p. 78 (see above, and p. 76 Offensive Aerospace Support (Strikes) below) here if if you end up doing it there.



Things with no entry in the document:

Single line edited in after TW 11.0 PRE publication: Most of the problems with both TW and BMM listed in the second paragraph of the post directly below this one.

pp. 36, 37, Location after Charge/DFA sections

You may want to copy the changes to these sections from AGoAC manual errata v. 8.0. (That is - change "If the charge/DFA succeeds[...]" to "If the charge/DFA succeeds and the attacker was not destroyed[...]").

p. 76 Offensive Aerospace Support (Strikes)

The entry for Offensive Aerospace Support (Strafing) on p. 76 says to add [DE] to the section title. I believe a similar change may need to be made to Offensive Aerospace Support (Strikes) section to cover situations when the target has Reflective Armor for example. (Though I may be wrong, since according to pp. 243-245 TW, unlike Strafing Attack, Strikes may be conducted with non-energy weapons).

Finally, it looks like Xotl missed my last post in the "Resolving collisions during a skid" thread - the BMM and TW rules (possibly on pp. 25 BM, 107 TW) need to specify if hexes by which a unit was displaced or skidded count towards its TMM. Only sideslips are covered in TW (per p. 67 TW hexes sideslipped do count towards TMM), and I'm unsure if skids and displacement should follow the sideslip rules in this regard, especially since sideslipping units don't get an extra +2 to be hit that skidding units do. By the way, the rule about not counting sideslipped hexes towards TMM should IMHO be repeated on p. 107 TW, space permitting of course.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 10 September 2023, 08:06:18
Issues with TW v. 11.0 PRE errata document. As with BMM v. 7.0 PRE errata document above, I've only checked New Additions section so far, and all page numbers below refer to TW, not the errata document.

Note that the final note in my post about BMM errata document above also applies to TW, while Clearing Woods (p. 112) and Unit Displacement (p. 151) notes below as well as my final note in this post also apply to BMM.



Clearing Woods (p. 112)

If plasma weapons treat woods as "other units", shouldn't plasma rifle add 2D6 to its base Damage Value of 10, similarly to how plasma cannon uses damage value of 3d6 (see p. 139)? I also assume that a version of this change will end up in Clearing Woods or Jungle section on p. 61 BMM?

Chainsaw (p. 134)

Shouldn't the unit clearing woods from adjacent hex be required to keeps these woods in it's chainsaw attack arc?

Physical Attacks (p. 144)

I assume that "Attacks Against Large Support Vehicles and Grounded Small Craft" will be changed to something like "Attacks Against Large Support Vehicles, and Grounded Small Craft and Dropships" in 11th printing of TW, and the change was omitted in the errata document for brevity?

Charge Attacks (p. 148), point 4.

Wouldn't it be better to say something "DropShips: These are not displaced after a charge, and are treated as Prohibited Terrain by the attacker."?

Unit Displacement (p. 151)

What if a unit destroyed by a charge declared a physical attack against the charging unit. Does it still get to resolve it despite its target ending up in its hex? Is the answer the same for all kinds of physical attacks (for example could Push attacks be cancelled or resolved in some non-standard way in this situation)? I believe this one should also be clarified on pp. 36 and/or 55 BMM.



Things with no entries in the errata document:

Things from skidding rules rewrite that I think should make it into the errata document:
- Accidental Fall paragraph (Accidental Falls From Above in previous printings) with its clarification that you don't take skidding damage for skidding "into the air" and then falling, that you resolve final fall damage together with initial fall and skidding damage (unless a collision scenario interrupted the skid or final fall), and that only one roll in Facing After Fall Table for both falls.
- Maybe also corrections to the skidding example text to show the players how to exactly resolve skidding damage with an unintentional charge.

One thing that I believe we forgot to address with Xotl while rewriting skidding rules in TW and BMM. When resolving Accidental Fall at the end of a skid the rules say to combine initial fall, skidding damage and the final fall together (unless the skid was interrupted by a collision scenario along the way of course). This works for unit damage, however I think that in case of 'Mechs the rules should clarify that you still need to make two PSRs to avoid pilot damage - one for each fall. Also, if a pilot of a skidding unit becomes unconscious before a collision scenario, do any to-hit rolls for unintentional charges miss automatically?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 10 September 2023, 14:26:43
I've spotted some issues with ForcePack Record Sheets Kell Hounds pdf posted on the main site. Not sure if it belongs here, in the MUL thread or in some Recognition Guides/TRO/Record Sheet threads. Admins, feel free to move this posts to another thread as needed.

Griffin GRF-3M record sheet lists both Ubiquitous (Inner Sphere) and Ubiquitous (Clans) quirks, while Griffin C lists only Ubiquitous (Inner Sphere). However MUL's Faction Availability suggests, that if anything, it should be other way around - Griffin C gets both Inner Sphere General and Clans General availability in all eras in which it exists, while Griffin GRF-3M is never listed as available to any Clan.

Similar story with Crusaders - both CRD-5M and CRD-8R have both Ubiquitous (Inner Sphere) and Ubiquitous (Clans) quirks, but according to MUL they are pretty much never available to any Clan faction (with a possible exception of CRD-8R's availability to Clan Protectorate during ilClan era).

Finally, Griffin C (unlike Griffin GRF-3M) only lists a battle fist in its left arm. I believe it may be a mistake, since according to p. 92 BMM all Griffins should get Battlefists without a qualifier that the quirk only applies to one arm.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 September 2023, 00:08:59
As requested by Xotl:
Quote
⑪ Non-Infantry Weapon Damage Against Infantry Table (p. 216)
Replace the dagger footnote with the following:
† This equals the number of conventional infantry troopers hit and eliminated, regardless of armor protection; round all fractions up. Attacks by non-infantry weapons against mechanized infantry double the number of troopers eliminated, after any rounding.

is contradicted by the example on page 129 of TO:AUE:
Quote
...(For example, if a platoon using Lyran Field Infantry Armor Kits – with a Damage Divisor of 2 – is attacked by an LB 20-X AC, the damage to the platoon is computed as if the platoon suffered an 2-point hit [((20 ÷ 10) + 1) ÷ 2 = 1.5, round up to 2]...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 11 September 2023, 00:17:57
Daryk, always thinking about the little guy...

TT
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 September 2023, 13:46:25
I have unfortunately run out of time and won't be able to get that question resolved as of the next round of reprints.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 September 2023, 13:51:33
Rog... I'll continue to use TO:AUE as the most recent version of the rule.  Thanks for at least looking at it! :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 17 September 2023, 23:03:27
Issues with the recently published TW v11.0 document:

P. 8 of the document is missing an empty line to separate the lengthy ⑪ Collisions (pp. 62-63) entry and ⑪ Collisions (p. 63) entry.

P. 19 of the document, Leg Destruction (p. 122) entry, point 3 does not actually implement the change mentioned in New Additions section (p. 61 of the document). You need to add "If a ’Mech with no legs also loses both of its arms, it is immobile." at the end of the paragraph the text on p. 19 of the document says to insert into the book.


Xotl: I've upped a quick 11.01 update to address the above.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 18 September 2023, 19:17:38
Issues with recently released TO:AR v7.0 and TO:AUR v7.0 documents.



TO:AR

Opportunity Fire: Firing on the Move (p. 84)

no higher than the unit’s maximum Jumping MP in levels.
Change to something like:
no higher than the sum of unit’s maximum Jumping MP in levels and the level of the hex the unit jumped from.



TO:AUE

Laser-Reflective (Reflec/Glazed) Armor (p. 93), point 1

Additionally, heat-causing effects from the above weapons are halved (round down to a minimum of 1 heat point).
Change to something like:
Additionally, heat-causing effects from the above weapons and plasma cannons are halved (round down to a minimum of 1 heat point).

Alternatively see Laser-Reflective Armor (p. 114) in the v7.01 BM errata document for another way of handling the issue.

Armored Motive Systems (p. 94)

Quote
(round quarter-ton values up to the closest half-ton)

Not sure what this one is supposed to mean. Should you always round up to the nearest half or full ton, or normally (up or down) to the nearest half or full ton? Remember that according to TM (pp. 95, 117-120 TM) and TO:AUE (p. 190) ground vehicles may have a mass anywhere from 100 kg to 200 tons, and to complicate things further small support vehicles (below 5 tons) use kilogram, not ton, as their primary unit for mass calculations - should we still round mass of Armored Motive Systems of such vehicles using the same rules as for larger vehicles, or to a nearest kilogram?

This is of course without taking optional Fractional Accounting rules on p. 188 TO:AUE into account, which further complicate the situation by allowing other vehicles to determine mass of their components down to a kilogram.



Finally the TO:AUE document seems to be missing the usual "v" letters before version numbers in the page headers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 September 2023, 20:25:11
Regrettably, I had time to either fix and adjust TW and the BMM, or TO, but not both, and I chose the core rules.  As such, I can't make further textual changes to the TO errata until the next printing.  For this PRE document, all I can adjust is errors in the document itself, not rulings.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 18 September 2023, 23:11:52
Does it mean that I should copy the above TO:AR and TO:AUR reports into their errata threads? Should I make a rules questions thread about rounding masses of Armored Motive Systems?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 September 2023, 13:25:36
Not for now, thanks.  I'm working on them.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 September 2023, 18:56:00
Finalized TacOps errata files have been uploaded to the main website.  While several errors were reported after the PREs were released, they could not be fixed in time to make the printed version.  They've been noted for the next release.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Bison AIs on 28 September 2023, 10:12:09
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 September 2023, 10:45:33
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.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 28 September 2023, 11:02:34
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Bison AIs on 28 September 2023, 13:09:37
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.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 30 September 2023, 13:26:37
Hi! You may be interested in an earlier post I wrote about the evolution of the Clan C 'Mechs (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essay:_Evolution_of_the_%22C%22_Refits), which the folks at Sarna ported over to the wiki.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Bison AIs on 01 October 2023, 12:12:37
Hi! You may be interested in an earlier post I wrote about the evolution of the Clan C 'Mechs (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essay:_Evolution_of_the_%22C%22_Refits), 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!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 01 October 2023, 14:56:22
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

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 30 October 2023, 21:52:44
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”
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Miannes on 31 October 2023, 18:48:04
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 31 October 2023, 19:17:25
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nikarus2370 on 05 November 2023, 12:30:59
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)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 05 November 2023, 20:39:29
🙌 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kilter on 23 November 2023, 11:51:27
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.”
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: logion567 on 01 December 2023, 20:43:30
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kharn01 on 07 December 2023, 04:14:10
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cache on 13 December 2023, 09:22:05
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 13 December 2023, 09:26:39
7th
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ArcFurnace on 14 December 2023, 00:07:48
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 ...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Praetorian Hard on 20 December 2023, 22:07:48
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) .”

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 20 December 2023, 22:17:29
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Praetorian Hard on 21 December 2023, 05:49:44
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) .”
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 25 December 2023, 01:46:52
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jal Phoenix on 28 December 2023, 21:36:04
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 December 2023, 13:37:29
Yes: the Force Pack errata thread is here:

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,75914.0.html
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 31 December 2023, 09:51:59
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cache on 01 January 2024, 12:00:01
The link to BattleTech CGL-Era Fiction (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,71384.0.html) thread located in the Errata Index (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg255409.html#msg255409) post is broken.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 01 January 2024, 12:29:33
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

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 03 January 2024, 04:20:19
What does "engine rating" mean for Support Vehicles in the latest TM developer errata (post #69 in that thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,27319.msg1984570.html#msg1984570))?  The table on page 127 lays out weight and movement factor, but not "engine rating".  Is it intended to replace movement factor?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hammer on 04 January 2024, 11:10:34
What does "engine rating" mean for Support Vehicles in the latest TM developer errata (post #69 in that thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,27319.msg1984570.html#msg1984570))?  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. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 04 January 2024, 17:57:48
Ah, thanks!  It might be worth noting that in TM, since the Engine Explosion rules are in TacOps...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: theothersarah on 05 January 2024, 17:21:50
Yeah, when it gets rolled into the PDF/print copies maybe it should include a note like "For situations where an engine rating for this vehicle is needed, ..."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ShroudedSciuridae on 10 January 2024, 12:42:57
Wrong thread, ignore or delete.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 10 January 2024, 13:17:35
This is not sourcebook errata. Any availability concerns should be filed in the MUL thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 January 2024, 14:46:09
The link to BattleTech CGL-Era Fiction (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,71384.0.html) thread located in the Errata Index (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg255409.html#msg255409) post is broken.

Yeah, the change to URLs meant that lot of the links were broken.  I've been fixing them bit by bit when I have the time, but time is something I'm pretty short on lately.  Thanks for the note.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DevianID on 15 January 2024, 03:35:02
Not sure if it was mentioned in the past, but the BV for rocket launchers is wrong.
Currently RL10=18, rl15=23, rl20=24

The prices should be RL10=15, RL15=18, RL20=19

The discrepancy is *likely* due to using a 1.5 weapon multiplier on the range damage, instead of a 1.2 multiplier like all other OS weapons, as that produces the 18/23/24 values.  Not accounting for the +1 to hit could also be the issue, but that results in 18/22/24.  Either way, the correct values should be 15/18/19.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DevianID on 15 January 2024, 03:45:17
Artillery Cannons underwent an errata, that removed the +1 penalty to hit (caused by being required to fire indirect, like LRMs).  They now can fire direct, and suffer no penalty to hit when doing so.

The BV for Artillery Cannons on their release includes a +1 to hit penalty.  When this penalty was removed via errata, the BV for artillery cannons needed to go up, for example from 41 on the thumper to 53.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 23 January 2024, 09:53:30
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 January 2024, 10:28:22
That's been corrected for the upcoming printing, along with a bunch of other items.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CJC070 on 04 February 2024, 10:12:31
In the Downloads section under the Eridani Force Pack the Cyclops C has a movement speed of:
Walking 4
Running 5
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 04 February 2024, 10:33:08
hardened armor
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SANSd20 on 06 February 2024, 18:40:13
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 06 February 2024, 19:09:50
It should be 4/5
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CJC070 on 06 February 2024, 22:01:50
hardened armor

Looked up the rules that’s on me thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: IronmanV2 on 25 February 2024, 12:00:06
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Grognard on 03 March 2024, 00:00:13
I've been looking, and I cannot find an entry for the HRN-7T Hornet of the BD era?
y'know... THIS guy?

(http://brianscache.com/battledroids/hornet.jpg)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 03 March 2024, 00:11:03
That doesn't appear to be a Battletech mini.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 03 March 2024, 01:07:49
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Grognard on 04 March 2024, 22:45:51
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 05 March 2024, 03:24:01
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.