Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Paul]

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

[HABeas2]

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...

-

[Paul]

*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

[HABeas2]

Us? Oh no, that was 101% you. ;p

Horse-poopery!

-

[GreekFire]

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.

[Paul]

Sure, give the widdle guy 2 more DHS.
Weird, I wonder how I made some of the errors I did.

[jymset]

Weird, I wonder how I made some of the errors I did.

You didn't get me to do the RS :P

[cavingjan]

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.)

[GreekFire]

Cool, thanks. Any ideas if a v.3 of WoRS with the missing record sheet will be possible at some point?

[Paul]

I'd rather see if they want to put some time in to clean my Protomech mistakes (with or without me)

[wantec]

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.

[Paul]

So are you saying you never saw the proto variants I made, or that someone else made the errors?

[wantec]

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.

[Paul]

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

[Scotty]

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 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.

[nckestrel]

HT is limited to 2 points.

[Xotl]

I'll make the text clearer to ensure that people don't assume this allows you to break the normal HT rules.

[Syzyx]

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.

[cavingjan]

Found it in case anybody else needs it.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/experimental-technical-readout-succession-wars-(all-volumes)/

[wantec]

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

[Xotl]

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.

[Scotty]

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).

[Xotl]

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.

[BirdofPrey]

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)?

[Xotl]

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.

[BirdofPrey]

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.

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

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.

[Xotl]

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.

[Sartris]

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?

[Xotl]

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.

[HABeas2]

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