Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[LastChanceCav]

With Xotl on vacation where should we put errata for the new TRO 3067? I should have read more closely when the original errata call went out a while back, but I think in the Solitaire fluff, "Most Solitaire pilots break from their lance early ..." should be changed to "Most Solitaire pilots break from their star early ..." since the Clans don't use lances - or is this proof that CDS started selling the design early to the IS  8)

Cheers,
LCC

EDIT: I know there's a thread for the original FanPro version, but I'm wondering if I should post there or wait for a new thread for the Catalyst product.

EDIT2: There's a typo for the Spirit too, change "The heart of the Spirit is a 240-rated XL fusion power plant" to "The heart of the Spirit is a 245-rated XL fusion power plant".

[Moonsword]

I'll kick that one up the chain of command.

EDIT: Implementing order solution now...

EDIT 2: And done.  Thanks for raising that one with us!

[Xotl]

I'm back and this time it's personal.  Vacation was fun, but giant robots call me back to duty.

[Moonsword]

Welcome back!

[wantec]

From the FM:3085 thread:

Possible errata:
p 201
Wolf Clan RAT
Medium entry #6 says "Lobo 2 (TR3067)"
This 'Mech does not appear to exist, at least as far as I can find it.  There is mention of a desire for an OmniMech version of the Lobo in TR3067, but the "Lobo 2" is not flagged as being such and is in the wrong place if it is an OmniMech.
This may simply be a standard "Lobo" unless there is a record sheet somewhere (or will be in a future proper RS:3067 product); if that is the case the (TR3067) sourcing needs to be updated.

The Lobo 2, along with some other new variants of units from TR3067, seem to be added from a yet-to-be-released product. If you look at the RATs in the WOR Supplemental, you'll see other new variants from TR3067 units.

[Xotl]

That's correct: RS 3067 is nearing completion, and was close enough at the time FM 3085 went to press that we thought it would be fun to feature some of the upcoming new variants from it.

[Hussar2]

I just found something on the MUL website that I am not sure if it's an error.
Rhino Battle armor.
An extinct clan BA introduced in 2872.
Does anyone know what's this? Is it a mistake?

[Moonsword]

It's mentioned in TRO3058U, page 50.

[Hussar2]

thank you

[A. Lurker]

Something I noticed just today: The TacOps Advanced Engine Master Table on p. 308 has a "Vehicle/Fighter" column for additional item slots taken up by the engine, complete with a (confusing) footnote trying to explain how to apply those slots to fighters. In addition to the types introduced in TacOps itself, the table also lists the stock Total Warfare engine types (sans internal combustion for some reason), with their extra slots taken up...

In every case, the number of extra slots is apparently the same for vehicles and fighters. So, while the TechManual states that none of the engines permitted for fighters there occupy extra critical spaces, Tactical Operations technically informs us that for example an IS XL engine does in fact take up two slots...and isn't even clear on where. ("[...] Fighter slots (if applicable) are located in the rear, with any extras divided evenly among the side wings." -- so, which of those two slots, if any, would be considered "extra", as obviously a single slot can't be evenly distributed between two locations and splitting both between the wings leaves nothing for the rear?)

[Moonsword]

Put this in the Rules Questions area, please.

[A. Lurker]

Put this in the Rules Questions area, please.

*nod* Done. Wasn't altogether sure whether it belonged more here or there.

[Xotl]

I don't have any guidelines in the errata rules thread, so I'll add some.

Basically, a general guideline is if there's a rules problem and you know what the solution is, it's probably errata.  If there's a rules problem but you don't know the solution, it's probably a rules question first and then, once you have an answer, it's errata.

Thanks for your help.

[Daryk]

That's a great guideline, Xotl.  You may want to sticky that at the top of the forum.

[Xotl]

I've added it to the stickied rules post.

[Xotl]

I've posted threads for a pair of out-of-print but relatively recent and not superceded products - Historicals Brush Wars and War Of 3039.  Please bear in mind that some items, such as references to older rulebooks or RATs that don't reflect newer background information (as found in TR 3039 etc), should be ignored.

[jymset]

Mauser IIC

This should obviously be rated "Clan (F)" and beyond common sense, this is confirmed by Combat Equipment, p. 11.


Recently, a lot of discussion is happening in individual errata threads. Per this sub-forum's rules, please move all discussion of reports, etc, into this thread, linking the original posting.

[Trace Coburn]

  Could we get an errata thread for FM: SLDF, please?  O:-)  I've only spotted a couple of typos so far, but I suspect that'll change as soon as I get a chance to read the whole thing....  :-X

[Xotl]

No problem. :)

[Maelwys]

Not sure if this is errata, but...

Era Report 2750 pg. 54 lists the 7th Royal BattleMech Division (Keid Division) as comprised of mostly "Striker" regiments (light and medium) with quite a few extra LAMs added in.

FM:SLDF pg 41 lists the 7th Royal BattleMech Division (Keid Division) with its 1st Brigade comprised of Heavy-assault regiments, notably 2/3rds of which are made up of Pillagers.

Now, I suppose it could be alright. The 1st Brigade is Heavy Assault, while the second Brigade is all Striker, but it seems sort of odd to see two such extremes in the division, and neither writeup mentions the other extreme. The line from Era report "composed almost entirely of Striker regiments" seems quite odd, since if we agree they're the same division, then only half the units would be Striker, the other half Heavy Assault. Again, its entirely possible I suppose, it just came across as quite odd.

[Sartris]

I'm not sure what this qualifies as, but I'll throw it out here.  In TechManual, there are a few references to rules that will be seen (at the time of writing) in Tactical Operations

Game Rules: The remote sensor dispenser has no impact in Total Warfare; its use will be covered in Tactical Operations.

I think  it would be appropriate to change the text to actually cite a page number in TacOps where those rules can be found, in this case TO 375.

[obe34]

Im not sure where to list this or if it is an error at all so i thought id try here

the MUL lists a CRD 4L as a mech and says it can be found in 3085 project phoenix

so far as I can tell, no such mech exists.

So can anyone help me here,

whats in error my PP record sheet or the MUL?

should i make an error report and for which one?

[Sartris]

My RS: 3085 Project Phoneix doesn't have a CRD-4L either

[A. Lurker]

I think the reason may be that the MUL points to RS: 3085 Unabridged...which isn't actually the same product as plain old RS: 3085.

[Sartris]

This is the one I'm looking at.

http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2652

[nckestrel]

Im not sure where to list this or if it is an error at all so i thought id try here

the MUL lists a CRD 4L as a mech and says it can be found in 3085 project phoenix

so far as I can tell, no such mech exists.

CRD-4L and CRD-4D are the same 'mech with two different names.  So the RS for the CRD-4D is the one you are looking for.
(Victor 9K/9D is another one). 
Eventually we plan on having a field for when a Record Sheet is in another name, but we don't have anywhere to store it right now.

[Sartris]

CRD-4L and CRD-4D are the same 'mech with two different names.  So the RS for the CRD-4D is the one you are looking for.
(Victor 9K/9D is another one). 
Eventually we plan on having a field for when a Record Sheet is in another name, but we don't have anywhere to store it right now.

Ah cool, thanks for the info

[obe34]

Ah thx for the clarification

[Sartris]

Do rules clarifications like the discussion in this thread and this ruling count as errata?  I wasn't sure since it's not technically a correction of an error, but an addendum that would more clearly define existing rules.

[Xotl]

Do rules clarifications like the discussion in this thread and this ruling count as errata?  I wasn't sure since it's not technically a correction of an error, but an addendum that would more clearly define existing rules.

Good question.  In general, yes, yes they do.  When it comes time to compile errata for the core rulebooks I go through the whole rules question forum for that book and take a note of any questions that arose due to genuinine ambiguity in the rules wording.  I then edit the wording of that rule and add it as errata.

Usually a poster who asks a question like that is happy with his answer and doesn't repost it in the errata forum.  However, this post by Jim1701:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5943.msg495061.html#msg495061
is a good way to handle it that ensures that everyone will get the benefit of the ruling.  I encourage anyone who's received an official answer to repost their ruling as errata in the appropriate thread.  However, I also keep an eye on the rules forum, so some answers I will just repost on my own.

Thanks for your question.