Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads (Read 308359 times)

ColBosch · « **Reply #660 on:** 28 November 2015, 21:24:35 »

For actual rules questions, please use the "Ask the Lead Developers" subforum.

Question · « **Reply #661 on:** 28 November 2015, 23:54:34 »

But this is in regards to an errata?

ColBosch · « **Reply #662 on:** 29 November 2015, 05:51:11 »

Quote from: Question on 28 November 2015, 23:54:34

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.

Question · « **Reply #663 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.

Xotl · « **Reply #664 on:** 29 November 2015, 23:46:14 »

Rules forums are correct for rules questions, as per the errata rules thread; thanks Question.

Xotl · « **Reply #665 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!

Daryk · « **Reply #666 on:** 25 December 2015, 18:35:34 »

Safe travels!

TigerShark · « **Reply #667 on:** 26 December 2015, 17:49:13 »

Any word on the 2765 series and Errata? Been two years on these.

Xotl · « **Reply #668 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.

TigerShark · « **Reply #669 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.

Dravin · « **Reply #670 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 :-\

Sartris · « **Reply #671 on:** 06 January 2016, 07:06:40 »

Quote from: 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 :-\

if you buy the PDF from the Catalyst Battleshop or DrivethruRPG, you'll get a notification to download the errata'd version

Maelwys · « **Reply #672 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?

Xotl · « **Reply #673 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.

Maelwys · « **Reply #674 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.

nckestrel · « **Reply #675 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.

Maelwys · « **Reply #676 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?

GoldBishop · « **Reply #677 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.

RaiderRed · « **Reply #678 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?

Liam's Ghost · « **Reply #679 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?

Wrangler · « **Reply #680 on:** 19 March 2016, 11:14:19 »

Quote from: Liam's Ghost on 19 March 2016, 00:02:20

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.

Moonsword · « **Reply #681 on:** 19 March 2016, 11:15:19 »

Quote from: 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?

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.

Xotl · « **Reply #682 on:** 19 March 2016, 11:19:22 »

Quote from: 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?

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.

wantec · « **Reply #683 on:** 30 March 2016, 07:03:02 »

From the Alpha Strike Companion Errata Thread:

Quote from: nckestrel on 29 March 2016, 14:37:32

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?

Adrian Gideon · « **Reply #684 on:** 30 March 2016, 07:32:06 »

The Pursuit Lance as a whole chooses an entire Lance/Star/etc. as their target.

wantec · « **Reply #685 on:** 30 March 2016, 10:51:41 »

Quote from: Adrian Gideon on 30 March 2016, 07:32:06

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.

Weirdo · « **Reply #686 on:** 30 March 2016, 11:19:03 »

This is in addition to the old text instead of replacing it, so both options are legal.

truetanker · « **Reply #687 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! :) )

Xotl · « **Reply #688 on:** 03 April 2016, 22:15:11 »

Quote from: truetanker on 03 April 2016, 20:14:59

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.

Daryk · « **Reply #689 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...