Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[nckestrel]

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. 

[Sartris]

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?

[Xotl]

Best post in Ask the Writers on that one, though I'm not sure if you'll get an answer.

[Sartris]

ok will do

[Question]

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?

[Xotl]

Probably best in the MUL thread, since it ultimately deals with unit availability; thanks for asking.

I'll shuffle your post over there shortly.

[Empyrus]

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.

[Liam's Ghost]

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.

[Empyrus]

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.)

[nckestrel]

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).

[Empyrus]

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.

[nckestrel]

Exactly.  OV is how much heat modification affected the final result.

[Xotl]

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.

[GoldBishop]

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**

[Xotl]

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.

[Xotl]

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.

[Xotl]

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.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

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.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

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.  Just bringing it up in case it fell into a crack :)

[ColBosch]

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.

[Maelwys]

Not sure where to put this, but..

The Inner Sphere at War maps mentioned Here 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.

[Adrian Gideon]

Not errata.

[Maelwys]

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?

[nckestrel]

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.

[Adrian Gideon]

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.

[Cache]

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.

[Xotl]

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.

[Maingunnery]

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?

[Adrian Gideon]

Coyote is light blue.

[KCmasterpiece]

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.