Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 305826 times)

Snake Eyes

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1239
  • I am here to keep the peace
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #90 on: 09 August 2011, 00:07:27 »
Ok, thanks Xotl for pointing that out.......i wasn't sure where to ask before

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #91 on: 10 August 2011, 02:15:21 »
Moonsword, please remove "BA" from the following:




Page 57, Searchlights

Not a problem, per se, but some sort of reference to the searchlight construction rules on page 237 of TechManual may be appropriate so people know that BA, support vehicles, and aerospace units are equipped with hand-held searchlights by default.




BA searchlights are covered on p. 269 and are not available as a free option to the units.

(Yes, you'd completely derailed me there for a few days! Poor Xotl... :D )
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #92 on: 10 August 2011, 08:55:22 »
Right.  It said all units on page 237, I took that at face value.  It didn't even occur to me to check the infantry section.

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #93 on: 10 August 2011, 09:31:39 »
I did exactly the same. And started stressing Xotl. And only upon third (or so) reading of it did it click. :-[

Thanks!
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #94 on: 15 August 2011, 10:51:01 »
Page 228, last paragraph under "Basic Manipulator".

<snip>

This is because the Tech Manual, page 167, the table, specifies that 2 Basic Manipulators are required, and as its a later product, it overrules previous products.

No - TW has always been correct and TM has had errata implemented to the p. 167 table accordingly. Please refer to the table attached to the end of the TM errata post.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #95 on: 15 August 2011, 15:40:50 »
TRO3085, Page 11, Angerona   
   Standard anti mech should be No/No/No/Yes, as 2 armored gloves is not listed for a MEDIUM battle armor requirement for those attacks (TM167)
   Recon anti-mech should note that it cannot make an AP attack.
TRO3085, Page 13, Kopis   
   The Anti-Infantry variant has the weight of the MPL rounded up to the nearest 5 (800.41 to 805), but the Flamer is 160kg and should be 155 (rounded up from 151 kg)

Angerona: The standard variant has 2x Basic Manipulators, so Y/Y/Y/Y is accurate. The Recon variant has Armored Gloves and thus gains the AP ability automatically.

Kopis: The MPL rounds up from 804.92 to 805 kg for the addition of 1 extra clip. The Flamer adds 2 extra clips at 0.5 x 10 = 5 kg each.

Thank you for your input, but please familiarise yourself with the construction rules before posting such errata.

And please also refer to the TM errata when reporting:

TRO 3085 Supplemental, Page 11, Ravager   
   The HRR is actually 375kg for the Inner Sphere, putting this design overweight.  Recommend downgrading the HRR to a MRR or simply dropping the rocket launchers.

No, the HRR is actually 325 kg.

I will address 3058U and 3075 in length - the latter's detailed public errata was lost in the recent errata admin change and will be reconstructed. You nailed the RL errata :) As for the clips - TM may be slightly confusing, but the weight listed is the weight of a single shot. That is then multiplied by the clip size (given in brackets).
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #96 on: 15 August 2011, 17:09:43 »
Thank you for your input, but please familiarise yourself with the construction rules before posting such errata.

I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them.  The PROBLEM is that there are multiple sources for errata, some contradicting each other, and apparently no desire to keep the PDF's I paid for, ON TOP of the cost of the DTF, updated with the most recent data.

Heck, I had to errata your *official* errata links off the home page http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5936.msg214940.html#msg214940, how insulting, I was trying to help as every single time I go through any book, I find tons of errors, and this just makes me not want to bother.

And please also refer to the TM errata when reporting:

And what about http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual?  If its no longer valid take it down, and give a link to the *forum* errata page.  Its a huge PITA to try to parse all this crap, and its *impossible* to consisently build any kind of unit in the universe due to excessive issues (need I even mention that grenade launchers *still* aren't fixed from TM, and I've mentioned that 3 times before!).

I will address 3058U and 3075 in length - the latter's detailed public errata was lost in the recent errata admin change and will be reconstructed. You nailed the RL errata :) As for the clips - TM may be slightly confusing, but the weight listed is the weight of a single shot. That is then multiplied by the clip size (given in brackets).

Oh, you mean like how the battle armor table lists the number of shots per missile at (0), or the number of shots for one-shot rocket launchers at (1)?

It isn't like I'm not trying to get answers:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html
plus all those ones before the board crashed :(
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Chunga

  • Patron Saint of Team Davion
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1643
  • <3
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #97 on: 15 August 2011, 18:26:19 »
Quote
I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them. 

A level of hyperbole NOT needed in these discussions.
"Don't think 'cos I understand, I care." - Sneakerpimps
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
I wasn't there.  If I was there, I was sleeping.  If I wasn't sleeping, I didn't hear or see anything.
Money has never been a problem for Davion. "Why waste money on social services when you can spend it on weapons instead?" - aldous

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #98 on: 15 August 2011, 21:40:34 »
I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them.

Over and above Chunga's very correct point that claiming to be the greatest construction rules guru the game has ever seen is not conducive to polite discussion, you can't expect jymset to remember the claimed construction aptitude of every poster here or have any idea just how much you use the rules in general.  You made mistakes and were corrected, rather politely I might add - please accept such corrections with good grace.

Quote
The PROBLEM is that there are multiple sources for errata, some contradicting each other,

Errata is admittedly not in the greatest shape right now.  However, I assure you that the devs and myself are working hard to get that in order.  I've spent the last month handling nothing but TechManual and TacOps errata, to the exclusion of any other MUL duties.  As we speak, Welshman is pouring over dozens of TacOps questions I've handed him, some of which were yours, and probably praying for my untimely demise.

Basic errata priority is that the most recent version of the collected errata is the basis to start off of.  From there, rulings made by the devs since then are added in - I am in the process of collecting all of these as I find them and adding them to each core book's errata thread.  Newer rulings always take priority.  As this might not have been clear, I am making edits to posts to clarify this.

Quote
and apparently no desire to keep the PDF's I paid for, ON TOP of the cost of the DTF, updated with the most recent data.

There's no malicious intent to withhold pdf updates.  The problem is that Catalyst is a smaller company, and incorporating errata requires the same people that produce new books.  Not surprisingly, new material takes priority.  Catalyst is working hard to get everything up to date, but it can't help but be a slow process.  Our apologies for the delay.

Quote
And what about http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual?  If its no longer valid take it down, and give a link to the *forum* errata page.  Its a huge PITA to try to parse all this crap, and its *impossible* to consisently build any kind of unit in the universe due to excessive issues (need I even mention that grenade launchers *still* aren't fixed from TM, and I've mentioned that 3 times before!).

We're aware of the website errata being out of date in some cases, and are trying to find the time to resolve this.  The particular link to the CBT webpage you posted is the most recent collected TM errata - it is not obsolete.  However, there have been new rulings made since then.  These newer rulings only add to the collected errata; for the most part they do not replace it.

As for your issue with grenade launchers, I have nothing on them at the moment - it is possible your request was lost in the shuffle between forums and/or errata coordinators.  By all means, please post your problem in the TechManual thread and I'll be happy to add it to either the internal errata collection or the list of questions to be forwarded to the devs for resolution.

Quote
Oh, you mean like how the battle armor table lists the number of shots per missile at (0), or the number of shots for one-shot rocket launchers at (1)?

It isn't like I'm not trying to get answers:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html
plus all those ones before the board crashed :(

You'll note you've already had literally dozens of questions answered.  I've gone all the way back to the release of TechManual in my search for unanswered questions to add to the current internal errata: I hope to be able to resolve some of your others.  ANY question that can be treated as outright errata (e.g. contradictions, missing info, but not issues with unclear wordings, which belong in the rules forums) you can post in the current threads and I will ensure they are passed along.  Don't worry about possible repeats - if it's not in the archived errata threads or already posted as dev-level errata, make a concise report with page refs to the current thread.

We're committed to making the books as good as we can, but 300+ pages of construction rules is not easy to get right the first time around.  Your dedication to the game is appreciated, and hopefully you'll use it to ensure that the next TechManual release meets your approval.  Thank you.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #99 on: 21 August 2011, 07:50:54 »
PDF Copyright 2008, page 127

Problem:
Rock Golem
The Rock Golem's DWP-mounted Heavy Recoilless Rifles are listed at 245 kg.
75% of 375 kg, rounded up to the nearest 5 tons, should be 285 kgs. This makes the Rock Golem 80 kgs overweight.

Suggestion:
Under "Rock Golem", change both Heavy Recoilless Rifle (Detachable Weapon Pack) weight to 245 kg.
I think the easiest way to find the missing 80 kgs is to change the armor from Fire Resistant to Standard.

No, HRR weigh 325 kgs, please check the TM errata thread.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #100 on: 21 August 2011, 10:06:35 »
Initial PDF release
Improved ATM, p.201-202

The iATM systems indicate their Type as M,C,S in the stat box on p.202. However, the text on p.201 indicates they are treated as Streak launchers - either all missiles hit or the weapon doesn't fire, no roll on the Cluster table needed.

Since iATMs aren't rolling on the Cluster table, they shouldn't be marked as Cluster weapons.

Suggested Fix: change Type to M,S in the stat box on p.202

The Type is correct.  Streak launchers are Cluster weapons and are marked as such in both Total Warfare and Tactical Operations with a note to see their game rules as they're an exception to the normal rule that Cluster weapons have to use the chart; this convention is followed in Wars of Reaving.

DarkISI

  • Praedonum Dominus
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7177
  • https://amzn.to/3Dm3bvj
    • My Author Website
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #101 on: 22 August 2011, 03:24:16 »
RS 3085 Unabridged: The Cutting Edge

Aeron Strike VTOL

*problem: The numbers simply do not add up. The weight is wrong by 5.5 tons.

*solution: Change fusion engine to XL, change armor to ferro-fibrous, reduce rear armor to 11 and the numbers then do add up. BV becomes 858

The Aeron is correct in its basic stats, only the Engine is wrong:
Aeron Strike VTOL should have XL Engine and armor is Heavy Ferro (as per TRO entry). Nothing to change, except the engine type.
German novelist and part time Battletech writer.


HPG Station - German Battletech News

"if they didn't want to be stomped to death by a psychotic gang of battlemechs, they shouldn't have fallen down" - Liam's Ghost

Diamondfist

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Ask nicely, and say "thank you" afterwards!
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #102 on: 27 August 2011, 00:44:01 »
In regards to the errata from the closed threads, will there be errata posted for the new A Time of War book too? I made a minor submission for it and was hoping errata was in the works for this book too. Thank you!
"Why do people always wait so long before they go to their gorilla?"
Dr. Benjamin Frankin "Hawkeye" Pierce

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #103 on: 27 August 2011, 01:34:42 »
All errata posted to the older threads in this version of the forum has been preserved (well, except the second page of the old RS 3085 thread, which I lost - if you made any post in that thread that hasn't been reposted, make it again please).

If errata is coming soon for a book (soon being relative and no more specific than that), you'll all know of it very shortly after I do: I'll make a stickied post in this forum asking folks to give it an extra-thorough going-over in the lead-up to the errata revision (as I'm doing now with TacOps).
« Last Edit: 05 January 2012, 10:45:43 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #104 on: 27 August 2011, 07:37:37 »
Which reminds me, I need to finish reviewing the index for errors.

DarkISI

  • Praedonum Dominus
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7177
  • https://amzn.to/3Dm3bvj
    • My Author Website
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #105 on: 03 September 2011, 13:54:12 »
PDF Copyright 2008, page 127

Problem:
Rock Golem
The Rock Golem's DWP-mounted Heavy Recoilless Rifles are listed at 245 kg.
75% of 375 kg, rounded up to the nearest 5 tons, should be 285 kgs. This makes the Rock Golem 80 kgs overweight.

Suggestion:
Under "Rock Golem", change both Heavy Recoilless Rifle (Detachable Weapon Pack) weight to 245 kg.
I think the easiest way to find the missing 80 kgs is to change the armor from Fire Resistant to Standard.


No errata:

As per the other threads, the current TM errata clarifies that the HRR does in fact have a weight of 325 kg.
German novelist and part time Battletech writer.


HPG Station - German Battletech News

"if they didn't want to be stomped to death by a psychotic gang of battlemechs, they shouldn't have fallen down" - Liam's Ghost

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #106 on: 03 September 2011, 15:19:16 »
No, HRR weigh 325 kgs, please check the TM errata thread.

No errata:

:D
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

DarkISI

  • Praedonum Dominus
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7177
  • https://amzn.to/3Dm3bvj
    • My Author Website
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #107 on: 03 September 2011, 15:55:27 »
:D

I didn't mean you. I meant Adgar and quoted you for explanation. Granted, I could have made it a bit less confusing :D
German novelist and part time Battletech writer.


HPG Station - German Battletech News

"if they didn't want to be stomped to death by a psychotic gang of battlemechs, they shouldn't have fallen down" - Liam's Ghost

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #108 on: 03 September 2011, 17:26:14 »
I was referring to the fact that I'd addressed the same mis-report a few posts above you :P
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #109 on: 03 September 2011, 19:46:06 »
Problem
Firebee is 4 tons underweight at 4/6 movement profile.

Fix
Change fluff and record sheet to reflect the 5/8 movement profile.

There's nothing in TRO3075 about the speed.  It's correct as written.  This is purely a record sheet problem and needs to be reported here, along with page number (228) and PDF version.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #110 on: 04 September 2011, 00:58:39 »
Am I overlooking a thread for Masters & Minions?

I've compiled an index that lists all errata threads curently open, and provides links to them.  You can find it here:

http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290

No M&M link at the moment, but I'll open one up in the next day or so (out of town at the moment).  Please repost that there at that time.  Thanks.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #111 on: 04 September 2011, 01:13:00 »
Also, I know general policy has been to only allow actual errata posts in threads, no exceptions,  but that was Bosch's policy that I've maintained.  Upon further reflection though, I'd like to handle things a bit differently.

Any MUL team member, writer, or of course developer is now asked to post corrections and commentary to errata posts directly in the appropriate threads, rather than in here.

It's easier for me to keep track of these things this way.  If it's a correction pointing out a wrong report, it will often be deleted in a few days along with the report.  Otherwise I'll leave it there.

Other forum posters should keep their comments in this thread, as normal.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: 04 September 2011, 01:15:57 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

DarkISI

  • Praedonum Dominus
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7177
  • https://amzn.to/3Dm3bvj
    • My Author Website
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #112 on: 04 September 2011, 03:45:26 »
I was referring to the fact that I'd addressed the same mis-report a few posts above you :P

Too much confusion... my poor vacation riddled brain  #P




 ;D
German novelist and part time Battletech writer.


HPG Station - German Battletech News

"if they didn't want to be stomped to death by a psychotic gang of battlemechs, they shouldn't have fallen down" - Liam's Ghost

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8648
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #113 on: 04 September 2011, 09:13:33 »
Also, I know general policy has been to only allow actual errata posts in threads, no exceptions,  but that was Bosch's policy that I've maintained.  Upon further reflection though, I'd like to handle things a bit differently.

Any MUL team member, writer, or of course developer is now asked to post corrections and commentary to errata posts directly in the appropriate threads, rather than in here.

It's easier for me to keep track of these things this way.  If it's a correction pointing out a wrong report, it will often be deleted in a few days along with the report.  Otherwise I'll leave it there.

Other forum posters should keep their comments in this thread, as normal.  Thanks.

I think I actually had that in place right before the forum crash. It's a good idea.
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

Neufeld

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2539
  • Raven, Lyran, Horse, Capellan, Canopian, Bear
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #114 on: 17 September 2011, 09:34:51 »
Requesting a thread for Objectives: Draconis Combine.

"Real men and women do not need Terra"
-- Grendel Roberts
"
We will be used to subdue the Capellan Confederation. We will be used to bring the Free Worlds League to heel. We will be used to
hunt bandits and support corrupt rulers and to reinforce the evils of the Inner Sphere that drove our ancestors from it so long ago."
-- Elias Crichell

Snake Eyes

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1239
  • I am here to keep the peace
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #115 on: 17 September 2011, 21:06:42 »
Not totally sure if this is errata or not.....but the Hauberk Commando in TRO Prototypes (print) still shows the
Magshot (DWP) as 135 kg. with only 10 shots. but the Magshot comes with 20 shots for 175 kg. then add the DWP to reduce the weight, so it should have 20 shots for 135 kg.

jymset

  • Infinita Navitas & RecGuide Developer
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1528
  • the one and only
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #116 on: 18 September 2011, 16:45:16 »
Not totally sure if this is errata or not.....but the Hauberk Commando in TRO Prototypes (print) still shows the
Magshot (DWP) as 135 kg. with only 10 shots. but the Magshot comes with 20 shots for 175 kg. then add the DWP to reduce the weight, so it should have 20 shots for 135 kg.

Per TM, p. 346, a Magshot comes with 10 shot clips, not 20 shot clips.
On CGL writing: Caught between a writer's block and a Herb place. (cray)

Nicest writing compliment ever: I know [redacted] doesn't like continuity porn, but I do, and you sir, write some great continuity porn! (MadCapellan)

3055 rocks! Did so when I was a n00b, does so now.

Snake Eyes

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1239
  • I am here to keep the peace
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #117 on: 18 September 2011, 17:04:32 »
Quote
Per TM, p. 346, a Magshot comes with 10 shot clips, not 20 shot clips.
Ok, thanks jymset

obe34

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #118 on: 19 September 2011, 07:24:55 »
Im a little stuck on this one, i really like the variant and i hope someone sees how to make it work or sees the mistake i made.

From TRO Protypes:
* pg 96
    * "A number of units fielding multiple Dolas have instituted a field refit know as the DOL - 1A2. with the 1A1 already providing sensor jamming, the 1A2 swaps the standard sword and Angel ECM for TAG and a light vibroblade. These Yoh Ti Ts'angs, as they have been nick-named, have proven extremely popular amongst the Warrior Houses." The Angel ECM + Sword is 3.5 tons. The TAG + light vibroblade = 4 tons. This refit seems to be illegal. Also this assumes light vibroblade is a small vibroblade. If there is a new level of vibroblade that is only 2.5 tons that would do it.
    * I am not sure what to suggest here. A clan Light tag is .5 tons so it would work, or the battle armor's light tag, or the tag can be dropped and switched to more armor or an ERsmall or some other thing i dont see

DarkISI

  • Praedonum Dominus
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7177
  • https://amzn.to/3Dm3bvj
    • My Author Website
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #119 on: 19 September 2011, 07:29:19 »
Im a little stuck on this one, i really like the variant and i hope someone sees how to make it work or sees the mistake i made.

From TRO Protypes:
* pg 96
    * "A number of units fielding multiple Dolas have instituted a field refit know as the DOL - 1A2. with the 1A1 already providing sensor jamming, the 1A2 swaps the standard sword and Angel ECM for TAG and a light vibroblade. These Yoh Ti Ts'angs, as they have been nick-named, have proven extremely popular amongst the Warrior Houses." The Angel ECM + Sword is 3.5 tons. The TAG + light vibroblade = 4 tons. This refit seems to be illegal. Also this assumes light vibroblade is a small vibroblade. If there is a new level of vibroblade that is only 2.5 tons that would do it.
    * I am not sure what to suggest here. A clan Light tag is .5 tons so it would work, or the battle armor's light tag, or the tag can be dropped and switched to more armor or an ERsmall or some other thing i dont see

There is no mistake. The variant descriptions don't always describe every single change between the TRO version and the variant. Here, some change was left out, because it was deemed unimportant. You will have to wait for the Record Sheet to see what piece of information is missing.
German novelist and part time Battletech writer.


HPG Station - German Battletech News

"if they didn't want to be stomped to death by a psychotic gang of battlemechs, they shouldn't have fallen down" - Liam's Ghost

 

Register