Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Daryk]

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.

[Xotl]

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.

[Daryk]

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.

[Xotl]

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.

[Paul]

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

[Daryk]

Ah, thank you!  Should I paste that in up in the rules question section as well?

[Xotl]

Heh, I just finished doing it and then I saw this.

[Daryk]

And I'll thank you here as well!  O0

[Maelwys]

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 :)

[Xotl]

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.

[Maelwys]

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?

[Xotl]

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.

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.

[Maelwys]

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...

[Ferret DerpDerp]

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.

[cavingjan]

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.

[Ferret DerpDerp]

This is what im talking about:   http://bg.battletech.com/errata/

[nckestrel]

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).

[Ferret DerpDerp]

My main worry is the BV.

[cavingjan]

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.

[Ferret DerpDerp]

ok, sounds good.

[Xotl]

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.

[Maelwys]

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 :)

[Xotl]

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.

[Maelwys]

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.

[Kit deSummersville]

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....
 ;)

[Sartris]

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



was the math done wrong (40 troops vs the traditional ~30 troops) or are merc infantry platoons indeed 40 man units?

[Empyrus]

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?

[nckestrel]

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?

[Empyrus]

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.

[JadedFalcon]

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 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.