Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 305766 times)

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #630 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
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #631 on: 13 August 2015, 16:06:52 »
IO is still in beta.  We can wait on changing Alpha Strike. 
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

wantec

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #632 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)."
BEN ROME YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD, I READ YOUR BOOK!


Pa Weasley

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5523
  • I am not this cute
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #633 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.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #634 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.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

RotS fan

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 358
  • Ad securitas per unitas
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #635 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?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #636 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.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

RotS fan

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 358
  • Ad securitas per unitas
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #637 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.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #638 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.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #639 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.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

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

wantec

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #640 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?
BEN ROME YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD, I READ YOUR BOOK!


Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #641 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?
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

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

Panthros

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 147
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #642 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?

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #643 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.
« Last Edit: 12 April 2016, 14:47:31 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Pezmotion

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #644 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)"

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #645 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.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

GoldBishop

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 667
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #646 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. 
"Watch the man-made-lightning fly!"  -RaiderRed

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #647 on: 01 September 2015, 11:54:59 »
Materiel is correct. It refers to military equipment and materials.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

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

VictorMorson

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #648 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?

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10397
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #649 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.
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

VictorMorson

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #650 on: 14 September 2015, 05:40:03 »
Wow, that is interesting to know and definitely something I'll file away.  Thanks!

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8647
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #651 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."
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

caioaf

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 197
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #652 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?

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #653 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?

Question

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #654 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.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #655 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.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Question

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #656 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?

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40753
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #657 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.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #658 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.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Question

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 249
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #659 on: 28 November 2015, 21:18:32 »
Uh...so does anyone have any clue why it says to use the table on page 84?