Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 305778 times)

obe34

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #120 on: 19 September 2011, 23:28:16 »
well that is good and bad, I get to use the thing eventually, but i cant yet :P


Thanks

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #121 on: 21 September 2011, 12:34:08 »
I apologize if this has been requested already, but could an Errata thread for Record Sheets: 3060 Unabridged be opened?
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #122 on: 21 September 2011, 14:49:03 »
There's already a thread open for that product.  Ctrl-f the first page of the errata forum for "3060" and you'll see it.

Alternatively, check the errata index, stickied at the top of the forum, for links to all open errata threads.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #123 on: 21 September 2011, 15:14:23 »
Weird, I just searched for it and couldn't find it.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

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 #124 on: 21 September 2011, 16:01:51 »
I bring the blessed link.
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.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #125 on: 25 September 2011, 06:03:47 »
The Supercharger rules in TacOps (p. 345) could stand cleanup as far as vehicles are concerned. If I read this thread right, the instruction to "roll on the unit's appropriate Determining Critical Hits Table" is downright wrong, since the actual intent seems to be that vehicles should use the stock Determining Critical Hits Table for 'Mechs on Total Warfare p. 124 (which they would normally skip altogether in favor of simply applying a single potential hit) in this particular case.

Exactly how any resulting hits should be applied to the Motive System Damage Table could also be made more clear, especially since -- at least as I understand it -- despite there being only one box for each on the record sheet templates there's currently nothing preventing the exact same motive system hit from happening more than once (i.e., a second "Moderate Damage" hit following an earlier one simply applies another -1 MP as per current errata; it does not get promoted to "Heavy Damage" just because the "+2" box on the sheet is already full).

Klat

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1967
  • ここにキティキティ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #126 on: 19 October 2011, 18:21:33 »
Before I post this I wanted to check that I'm not repeating what has already been said. A search yielded nothing but I don't like posting errata without checking here first:

RS: 3075u pg. 234 Koschei KSC-5I it appears that the design has 5 points of armor unallocated. While I do not know what the armor allocation should be allocating the remaining 5 points brings the BV to 1961
Light Assault Group - An Orwellian appelation applied by the Draconis Combine to troops haphazardly equipped with whatever expendable equipment was lying around the maintenance yard, for the purpose of throwing their lives away for the greater glory of the Dragon, see also Human Bombs.

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 #127 on: 19 November 2011, 10:13:27 »
I need one for RS3039 Upgrade.  I spotted a minor issue in the new version.

Peter Smith

  • LBI Shareholder
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2389
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #128 on: 19 November 2011, 10:29:39 »
I need one for RS3039 Upgrade.  I spotted a minor issue in the new version.

If it involves a Planetlifter, Light Strike Fighter Suzume "Sparrow" or the Corsair Regulus...we know.
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.

"Now I've got the image of a Haywire pod that's broadcasting "stop hitting yourself" over and over." MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25627
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #129 on: 19 November 2011, 13:59:53 »
Do you know about the Chippewa?
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

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 #130 on: 19 November 2011, 16:50:01 »
If it involves a Planetlifter, Light Strike Fighter Suzume "Sparrow" or the Corsair Regulus...we know.

I haven't even looked at the fighters yet, actually.  Everything I've found is on vehicles.

CitizenErased

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 336
  • Eldritch Galactic Princess
    • Dykes Dig Giant Robots
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #131 on: 19 November 2011, 20:18:38 »
I also have one or two for the new RS:3039, and not just for vehicles.
Your friendly neighborhood transgender giant robot enthusiast!

Trace Coburn

  • Starfighter Analyst
  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4310
  • За родину и свободу!
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #132 on: 22 November 2011, 05:28:50 »
I also have one or two for the new RS:3039, and not just for vehicles.
  Neufeld just put his finger on something in the RS'55Uu preview that's been bugging me since I downloaded it: the Sabutai X has Art-V, but its LRM-20s are showing up at 12 damage each, not 16.  Might pay to start a thread for that product....  :-X

Dark_Falcon

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 498
  • Over, under, or through.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #133 on: 24 November 2011, 12:08:51 »
  Neufeld just put his finger on something in the RS'55Uu preview that's been bugging me since I downloaded it: the Sabutai X has Art-V, but its LRM-20s are showing up at 12 damage each, not 16.  Might pay to start a thread for that product....  :-X

Agreed.  I checked TacOps and that damage figure should indeed be 16.
To the utmost!

Ladob

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 137
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #134 on: 24 November 2011, 17:07:47 »
I started comparing my old PDF of RS3055 Unabridged and the new updated one. Among the new units (  O0 ) I found a little mistake:

The Salamander 7T is written as 7S on the new file (page. 113).
Change, even for the worse

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 #135 on: 24 November 2011, 17:35:19 »
The mistake was in the old RS volume. This was deliberate errata.
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 #136 on: 24 November 2011, 17:38:20 »
Oh, and the Artemis problem is noted, thanks very much, guys! Due to it being a problem with sheet generation rather than creation, the issue will automatically resolve itself come next time, so there is no further need to note it once a RS55Uu thread is opened.

Thanks again!
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 #137 on: 22 December 2011, 04:42:56 »
Actually they are in there jymset, pg. 280 TM has a "SUPPORT VEHICLE STRUCTURAL COSTS AND AVAILABILITY" table but there is no IS rating

cropped version of what I'd written, emphasis added:

The chassis availability ratings found in Combat Equipment, p. 88, were forgotten, yet they are needed for the Availability calculation (starting TM, p. 286).

The Availability part of CE p. 88, 4th column is needed as an addition in TechManual, p. 280 - Support Vehicle Structural Costs and Availability in order to be able to calculate the proper unit availability.

The report pertains to what is missing on p. 280, not missing availability ratings as a whole. Please use this thread for discussion. Thank you very much!
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.

Davion_Boy_74

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 699
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #138 on: 24 December 2011, 12:07:30 »
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask this question - before it's put into the errata thread -

Jihad Turning Point Tharkad pdf FNR-4A Fafnir Peter has a hand Actuator on the left arm, but no lower arn actuator to go with it, does any one know what the correct thing is ?, either add the missing lower arm actuator (though this would be hard to do no free crit spaces on the design) or dorop the hand from the RS.

Thanks.

Dave.

Nebfer

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #139 on: 28 December 2011, 14:30:38 »
It seems that Hex pack Promotion 1 has some errors in its crewing

for example
According to the PDF a Hardened Command Fort (clan invasion) has the following equipment and crew
Crew: 14 Officers, 8 crew, 12 gunners and 58 bay personnel.

Weapons & Equipment
Hex 1
3x search lights, 12x crew quarters, MASH with 2x theaters 4x light vehicle bays & 20 tons of cargo
Weapons: turret mounted, Arrow IV, non turret mounted: 6x MGs, 3x ERPPCs, 3x Medium pulse lasers & 12 tons of ammo for the Arrow IV

Hex 2
3x search lights, 12x crew quarters, 2x field kitchen, 7 tons coms gear, 6x infantry bays, mobile field base, power generator, 50 tons of cargo.
Weapons: Turret mounted, Gauss Rifle, ER Large laser, non turret mounted: 6x MGs, 3x ER large lasers, 3x medium pulse lasers & 5t ammo for the Gauss rifle

Now from from what I can see on Tac ops pg 132
The non gunnery crews should be 28 (7t coms gear, 2x kitchen, field base and 2x MASH theaters)
The Gunnery crews is one gunner per 5 tons of heavy weapon rounding up (per weapon), so Hex 1 should have 18 gunners, Hex 2 should have 16 gunners
Officers is 1/10th of the total number of gunners and non gunners rounding up

So the total crew should be 28 Non gunners, 34 gunners & 7 officers (69 total).
Bay personnel it seems not to be factored as part of the crew, but 4x light vehicle and 6x infantry bays would add an extra 188 personnel. Though I would suppose that some of the infantry bays could be quarters for the facility's crew (never mind the fact that the "base" might not be housing any infantry or vehicles from time to time)...

Another example is the Fire base (age of war)
It should have 11 gunners for it's weapons
3x for the AC-10 (12t/5 round up = 3), 2x for the large lasers (5t/5 =1), and 6x for the MGs (.5t/5 round up =1), the non gunnery crew should be 6, 3x for the coms gear and 3x for the field kitchen, their should also be 2 officers (17 gunners and crew / 10, round up = 2 officers).
This is compared to the 2 officers, 4 gunners, 4 crew and 6 bay personnel it's listed as having.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #140 on: 05 January 2012, 11:03:12 »
The Supercharger rules in TacOps (p. 345) could stand cleanup as far as vehicles are concerned.

Just to let you know, the current, provisional wording on errata for this issue is:

"1)   Under Game Rules, second bullet point, change the last sentence to read: “For non-’Mechs, these critical hits are applied as sequential motive system or flight stabilizer hits and then (after these are all marked off) transfer inward to the engine itself, destroying the engine immediately on the first hit.”

Does that address all the issues?
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Chuzzwozza

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 105
    • QuickMech Mech Designer
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #141 on: 06 January 2012, 21:50:02 »
What is the current, official way to calculate MASC weight? Round to the nearest ton, or round UP to the nearest ton?

Depending on the answer, the Hellfire 2 may or may not be overweight.
QuickMech.  Fast, simple, modern mech designer:   quickmech.wordpress.com

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 #142 on: 06 January 2012, 23:02:42 »
According to the current errata:

Quote from: Errata
"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure to the nearest full ton/critical slot (.5 rounds up)."
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.

Chuzzwozza

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 105
    • QuickMech Mech Designer
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #143 on: 06 January 2012, 23:14:03 »
What is the current, official way to calculate MASC weight? Round to the nearest ton, or round UP to the nearest ton?

Depending on the answer, the Hellfire 2 may or may not be overweight.

According to the current errata: "*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure to the nearest full ton/critical slot (.5 rounds up)."

Yes but the errata says


"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure to the nearest full ton/critical slot."
Change to:
"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure to the nearest full ton/critical slot (.5
rounds up)."


while my TM says

Percentage of the BattleMech’s total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the
nearest full ton/critical slot.


which doesn't match either the replaced or replacement sentence.....
« Last Edit: 06 January 2012, 23:16:30 by Chuzzwozza »
QuickMech.  Fast, simple, modern mech designer:   quickmech.wordpress.com

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 #144 on: 06 January 2012, 23:23:13 »
Which printing do you have? The errata is based on 2.0
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.

Chuzzwozza

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 105
    • QuickMech Mech Designer
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #145 on: 06 January 2012, 23:55:59 »
Which printing do you have? The errata is based on 2.0
Ah, ok. looking closer, I think I'm living in the past.  Mine is pretty old and beat up (2nd hand from the guy at my gaming store) and has WK not Catalyst on it.

So I guess the Hellfire 2 is just fine...
QuickMech.  Fast, simple, modern mech designer:   quickmech.wordpress.com

Chuzzwozza

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 105
    • QuickMech Mech Designer
QuickMech.  Fast, simple, modern mech designer:   quickmech.wordpress.com

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #147 on: 08 January 2012, 19:28:36 »
Sorry Chuzzwozza - I've been busy.

Both the first and second prints of TM say "*Percentage of the BattleMech’s total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the nearest full ton/critical slot."  So, when I said in the other thread that you'd found errata for the errata, what I meant was that the word "up" had been left out - it appears the errata is itself in error in that regard.

I'm sure it should read:

* BattleMech MASC and TSM Table (p. 52)
Under “BattleMech MASC and TSM Table”, footnote text

"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the nearest full ton/critical slot."
Change to:
"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the nearest full ton/critical slot (.5 rounds up)."

The only correction being the clarification that 0.5 tons rounds up.  That having been said, I haven't checked this against official designs with MASC yet, so let's see what happens when we match the errata against what's in the wild.


EDIT: I'm mistaken - issue resolved below.
« Last Edit: 09 January 2012, 17:01:02 by Xotl »
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Chuzzwozza

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 105
    • QuickMech Mech Designer
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #148 on: 08 January 2012, 19:39:53 »
Thanks Xotl.

I'm pretty sure that's going to make some MUL designs overweight (e.g. the Hellfire 2).

Just a thought: if the errata should have had "up" on both sentences, then there would have been no reason for the errata clarification to be published at all  (no need to clarify which way 0.5 should be rounded, because *everything* rounds up...)
QuickMech.  Fast, simple, modern mech designer:   quickmech.wordpress.com

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #149 on: 08 January 2012, 19:53:02 »
Yeah, I just realized the same thing and came back to correct that.

Based on the wording, it may have been intended to read:

"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure up to the nearest full ton/critical slot."
Change to:
"*Percentage of the BattleMech's total weight (in tons). Round this figure normally to the nearest full ton/critical slot."

Where "normally" is as defined on p. 22 of TM (and would mean that 0.5 rounds up).  I'll check some designs to see how things are done.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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