Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 305883 times)

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 #180 on: 13 April 2012, 17:17:33 »
Some clarification on the point of whether or not 'Mech mortars are covered by the same note on not getting the immobile bonus when targeting hexes might be useful.

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 #181 on: 14 April 2012, 04:14:29 »
So 7.5 kg per shot for BA Tube? This is the one that matters the most as it's tracked at TW level

Yes, 7.5 kg per shot.
Edit: the notation 15 kg (2) indicates that 2 ammo actually only take up one "shot" as per TM, p. 171.

Just a reminder. Please use this thread for congratulations, discussion, queries, etc. That way the TO thread can be for concrete errata reports only. Thanks! O0
« Last Edit: 14 April 2012, 04:22:31 by jymset »
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 #182 on: 14 April 2012, 04:39:24 »
Has the weight of the BA Arty been released yet ?, or have I totally missed that in the errata pdf ?.
Thanks.

Dave.

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 #183 on: 14 April 2012, 04:40:46 »
p. 51 of the errata document
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 #184 on: 14 April 2012, 04:42:06 »
p. 51 of the errata document

Thanks.

Dave,

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25633
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #185 on: 22 April 2012, 03:41:52 »
Can we get an errata thread for the Wars of Reaving Supplemental?  Or is that considered to be part of Wars of Reaving?
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 #186 on: 22 April 2012, 22:46:32 »
No, it gets its own thread - I was just out of town.  Thanks.
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: 25633
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #187 on: 23 April 2012, 02:19:06 »
Okay, I just wasn't sure if I should post the things I've found under the standard WoR errata thread.
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

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #188 on: 24 April 2012, 15:47:52 »
Yes, 7.5 kg per shot.
Edit: the notation 15 kg (2) indicates that 2 ammo actually only take up one "shot" as per TM, p. 171.
Just want to be sure...

A Tube Arty gun with 16 rounds is 620 kg (500 + 7.5 * 16) and 6 slots (4 + 16 / 8)?

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 #189 on: 24 April 2012, 15:53:15 »
bingo >:(

<kicks jymset in the crotch>

Sorry, as all BA ammo, the weight is multiplied by clip size. Thus each shot actually weighs 15 kg and the clip of 2 comes to 30.

Since the errata's posting, I've been saying that incorrectly, despite having drafted the durned weapon myself. >:(

I apologise for the inconvenience.
« Last Edit: 25 April 2012, 02:47:55 by jymset »
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.

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #190 on: 25 April 2012, 14:01:55 »
bingo >:(

<kicks jymset in the crotch>

Sorry, as all BA ammo, the weight is multiplied by clip size. Thus each shot actually weighs 15 kg and the clip of 2 comes to 30.

Since the errata's posting, I've been saying that incorrectly, despite having drafted the durned weapon myself. >:(

I apologise for the inconvenience.
OK, so a gun plus 16 rounds is 740 kg.

Is it 6, 8 or 12 slots total? ???

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 #191 on: 25 April 2012, 14:07:35 »
The ammo is correct, it's 2 slots, for a weapons+ammo total of 6.
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.

sillybrit

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3939
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #192 on: 25 April 2012, 14:14:53 »
OK, so a gun plus 16 rounds is 740 kg.

Is it 6, 8 or 12 slots total? ???

The ammo is correct, it's 2 slots, for a weapons+ammo total of 6.

To explain for others, treat each 2-round clip as a missile salvo.

16 rounds requires 8 clips, which can be compared to 8 missile salvos, which would require 2 slots.

tomaddamz

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 280
  • EVERYBODY NEEDS AN EVIL PLAN
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #193 on: 25 April 2012, 16:23:05 »
Xotl,

You, myself, Moonsword, Randall & Joel had discussed eliminating the -4 immobile target bonus for area-effect mortar rounds, and it was my understanding it was agreed upon, but it doesn't seem to appear in this errata.  Could you see to it that it is added?  I can forward all the relevent emails to you again if necessary.

Aww,  now I'm bummed.  I have to admit though, before this last erratamech mortars were hideously effective.  Somehow I think it's my fault for figuring this out.
Saying that because the equipment isn't up-to-the-minute, bleeding-edge tech therefore not a threat is like saying an M2 Browning isn't dangerous to modern infantry because it is 100 years old.

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 #194 on: 25 April 2012, 16:29:17 »
Please put any non-errata reports for publications in here.

The -4 modifier simply isn't supposed to apply to AE in general.  This is part and parcel of clarifying that.

Snake Eyes

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1239
  • I am here to keep the peace
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #195 on: 25 April 2012, 17:15:30 »
I just noticed that the ammo weight for the BA heavy flamer is 1kg(10), but the ammo weight for the regular flamer is
5kg(10)

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 #196 on: 25 April 2012, 18:16:21 »
Heh, almost. The weight for the regular Flamer is 0.5 (10) O0
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 #197 on: 25 April 2012, 18:18:32 »
Heh, almost. The weight for the regular Flamer is 0.5 (10) O0
Ok, thanks for pointing that out :)

tomaddamz

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 280
  • EVERYBODY NEEDS AN EVIL PLAN
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #198 on: 25 April 2012, 18:21:37 »
Please put any non-errata reports for publications in here.

The -4 modifier simply isn't supposed to apply to AE in general.  This is part and parcel of clarifying that.
as I read the errata, as well as the previous rules as written, APERS was not, and is still not an area effect weapon( thankfully, as I can still fire them " danger close").   Not that I disagree with the errata, mech mortars were mean with the -4 to hit.  I do like the new bonus against conventional infantry :)

Please correct me if I am mistaken, I am reading this on my phone at work.
Saying that because the equipment isn't up-to-the-minute, bleeding-edge tech therefore not a threat is like saying an M2 Browning isn't dangerous to modern infantry because it is 100 years old.

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #199 on: 25 April 2012, 18:53:12 »
Both airburst and anti-personnel say "are fired at a hex, rather than at a target unit" which is why they were errataed the way they were.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

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

Urban Kufahl

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 840
  • Si vis pacem.. et caetera, ad nauseam
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #200 on: 26 April 2012, 08:41:40 »
@Wantec : source of your Coyote RAT ?
No Hellbringer and the RAT give less chance of omni than the other  :-\

Savage Coyote

  • CamoSpecs
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
  • 저는 미술 선생님 입니다.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #201 on: 26 April 2012, 11:45:00 »
Those were the Coyote RAT's presented in the playtest/fact check that wantech and myself saw before publication...

Urban Kufahl

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 840
  • Si vis pacem.. et caetera, ad nauseam
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #202 on: 26 April 2012, 15:12:57 »
So it does not match with other statement about the Hellibringer still in use into the Coyote forces (Discarded tools of war p 17). And also it does not match with the statement about the Coyote still fielding the greatest % of Omni (Tactic of War, Clan Coyote p 15).

Savage Coyote

  • CamoSpecs
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2898
  • 저는 미술 선생님 입니다.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #203 on: 26 April 2012, 15:21:42 »
Yes, I reported the Hellbringer missing in the playtest/fact check... whether it was fixed or not I do not know!  The Savage Coyote in the medium table managed to sneak through as well so the Hellbringer issue might have too.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #204 on: 28 April 2012, 05:50:35 »
Errata for Errata?

Page 33) Combat Vehicle Fuel Cell:

New text is "Introduced: circa 2470 (Terran Alliance [Primitive]); 2470 (Terran Hegemony [Modern])"

I assume, based on the old text, that the primitive date should be 2046.

I think the 2046 date would apply to non "Rated" engine such as those used by support vehicles. I think 2300 would fit the Primitive date better since that's when Indutrial Mechs were first introduced.

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 #205 on: 28 April 2012, 10:18:56 »
As a reminder, folks, discussions regarding errata belong in the General Discussion thread.  Please do not place them in the errata threads themselves with the exception of the MUL thread.

Hussar2

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 295
After rereading TRO:3067 I have an odd question about the Osiris 4D.
According to the TRO (both the old one and the reprint) the 4D uses 2 medium pulse lasers "The
SRM 6 and the machine gun are removed,
freeing up mass to increase the ’Mech’s jumping
capacity and to add two medium pulse lasers."
However, the old hardcover RS:3067, Heavymetal pro and SSW use another version with 1 pulse laser and max jump.
According to the MUL the BV of the Osiris 4D is 1230 which supports the one laser version.
Which version is correct?

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Just so you know, that point was raised internally to the MUL team.

Hussar2

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 295
Thank you for your reply Moonsword.
The Osiris 4D is IMHO the best Davion light mech by far, and I really hope the 4D will remain with 1 pulse laser and 8 jump
instead of going the usual Davion overgunned/undersinked route.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
*shrugs*  We'll see what the decision is but it might take a little time.