Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads (Read 308138 times)

Jiraiya1969 · « **Reply #420 on:** 04 January 2014, 13:01:14 »

Sorry I will have it fixed in a couple of days.

J69

Moonsword · « **Reply #421 on:** 05 January 2014, 13:46:30 »

You're not supposed to post replies in the errata threads, either.

Xotl · « **Reply #422 on:** 09 January 2014, 16:26:53 »

I've updated the main website errata page with the new TechManual and the most recent Tactical Operations errata. I'll be adding the newer Total Warfare update in the next little while.

Savage Coyote · « **Reply #423 on:** 09 January 2014, 23:18:37 »

I was going through 3145 Republic TRO pdf and was looking at the record sheet for the Ares Hesphestus. It shows clan large pulse lasers in each arm while the write up and weapons inventory shows ERLL's in the LA while the RA should have two LPL's in it. The crit layout treats each LPL as a single crit for each arm. Problem here is the RA is full of crits and can't accommodate two more crits to fill the second LPL. Am I missing something with the construction rules?

nckestrel · « **Reply #424 on:** 09 January 2014, 23:35:56 »

Superheavies only use half the crits for equipment?

Savage Coyote · « **Reply #425 on:** 10 January 2014, 08:16:15 »

Okay, what I get for not going back and rereading the construction rules. I blame being tired and late and stuff :D

BirdofPrey · « **Reply #426 on:** 15 January 2014, 15:33:42 »

Is the latest AToW errata available yet?
I have certainly noticed a number of changes to the latest (PDF) printing but still like to do a quick parse of changes to make sure my mind updates itself.

Xotl · « **Reply #427 on:** 15 January 2014, 15:50:20 »

There's one in the process of being finalized. I hope to have it ready in the next week or two, depending on how much time people up the chain have available. But making books, as always, has priority. Thanks.

Sartris · « **Reply #428 on:** 17 January 2014, 12:43:59 »

The link to the AToW errata document is coming up as a 404 error for me.

https://db.tt/z4cQavot

Xotl · « **Reply #429 on:** 17 January 2014, 14:39:09 »

Sorry - forgot to update the link when I uploaded the corrected version. There's a new link in the thread that should work now.

Sartris · « **Reply #430 on:** 17 January 2014, 15:04:40 »

Thanks!

ijewett · « **Reply #431 on:** 20 February 2014, 20:46:46 »

I have the 4 core rule books in PDF format that were put on sale for the holiday season for $5 each. It was my understanding that these were up to date as far as integrating Errata into them. However a friend has the Tac-Ops 3.1 errata dated 20-9-13. These two documents are not the same. Which is the correct up to date rules?

Xotl · « **Reply #432 on:** 20 February 2014, 21:03:26 »

The core rulebook pdfs always have the latest changes that have been incorporated to date. That does not mean, however, that they have all available errata. Here's how errata releases work:

Errata v#.#

The first number is what release of the book it relates to. So TacOps Errata v3.0 is all the errata that is included in the third release of TacOps (the version you have).

The second number, if higher than 0, is for errata releases not yet reflected in print. So, any release marked v3.1 or higher are releases with new errata not found in any current printing of TacOps. When a fourth release of Tactical Operations comes out (if it does), you'll see TacOps errata v4.0, and then everything in the errata to that point will be reflected in the fourth TacOps PDF release.

You can check the website proper (i.e. not the forums) and see what all the current errata releases are for the main rulebooks.

ijewett · « **Reply #433 on:** 21 February 2014, 16:44:57 »

That clarifies it immensely. We were going to give ghost targeting a try and were not sure which rules to use.

Thank you much.

BirdofPrey · « **Reply #434 on:** 14 March 2014, 18:15:59 »

I am a bit confused by the Arrow IV errata, the first paragraph in the errata says "An Arrow IV Homing Missile targets a mapsheet, not a hex" then the next bullet point says "within 8 hexes of the target hex"
There seems to be a disagreement there as far as targeting goes.

GreekFire · « **Reply #435 on:** 02 April 2014, 12:47:48 »

Is there errata for the new box set? Because the quick-start record sheets have "Rigth Arm" written on all of them.

Dragon41673 · « **Reply #436 on:** 05 April 2014, 20:03:39 »

Need a thread for the XTRO: Fantasy...it's got several errors in it.

Xotl · « **Reply #437 on:** 11 April 2014, 01:54:32 »

Quote from: Dragon41673 on 05 April 2014, 20:03:39

Need a thread for the XTRO: Fantasy...it's got several errors in it.

It's up as requested.

Maingunnery · « **Reply #438 on:** 28 April 2014, 16:04:48 »

I seem to have found a conflict between Aquilla Primitive Jumpship introduction date and the public draft of 'IO_Alternate Eras' (page 74). In the MUL and IO draft the introduction date is stated as being 2148, but the IO tables and how its constructed seems to point to an earlier date.

I think that this can either be solved by removing the 2130 line in the Primitive JumpShip Maximum Weight LIMIT Table. Or by revising the introduction date to around 30 years earlier.

Moonsword · « **Reply #439 on:** 29 April 2014, 10:48:27 »

Could you provide some more details on why you think the construction is a problem?

Maingunnery · « **Reply #440 on:** 29 April 2014, 11:06:30 »

Quote from: Moonsword on 29 April 2014, 10:48:27

Could you provide some more details on why you think the construction is a problem?

From IO_Aternate Eras (p74)

Code: [Select]

Primitive JumpShip Maximum Weight LIMIT Table
	Weight Limit (in tons)
	Period	Terran Alliance	Terran Hegemony	Great Houses	Periphery
	2110	100,000	NA	NA	NA
	2130	150,000	NA	NA	NA
	2150	200,000	NA	NA	NA

Quote

<<<begin example text>>>
David decides he wants the Aquilla to be a truly ancient design, built by the Terran Alliance when the human race was first colonizing. He decides to give it a 2148 introduction date, which means the maximum weight is 100,000 tons.
<<<end example text>>>

According to the table the maximum weight in 2148 is 150,000 tons. If we want to keep the fluff and the weight, then an earlier intro date might be needed.

Scotty · « **Reply #441 on:** 12 May 2014, 15:01:25 »

What happens on a 1?

Moonsword · « **Reply #442 on:** 12 May 2014, 15:52:00 »

You're not supposed to ask questions in the Errata threads.

To answer it, that's an unmodified 2d6 roll. The minimum result is 2.

Scotty · « **Reply #443 on:** 12 May 2014, 16:03:54 »

That'll teach me to read. #P

Moonsword · « **Reply #444 on:** 12 May 2014, 16:10:36 »

Eh, it's fine. We all have the occasional brain misfire.

MarikMilitaMan · « **Reply #445 on:** 16 May 2014, 09:37:58 »

Hi, not sure I should put this here but I saw in this thread http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,38692.0.html that the FWL Fleet would be erratad but can't find it anywhere, would/will this be the place it will turn up?

Moonsword · « **Reply #446 on:** 18 May 2014, 08:33:51 »

Hi, welcome to the boards. To answer your question, that would be where any errata for the product will turn up.

In general, you shouldn't post anything but an actual errata report in the errata threads. I've quoted the relevant piece of the rules for this section below. Don't worry, you're not in trouble. I've moved your post here into the discussion thread to keep things tidy, that's all.

Quote from: Welshman on 28 February 2011, 12:16:24

WHAT IS ERRATA?
In general, if there's a problem AND you know the answer, make an errata report.

- if there's a rules problem but you don't know the answer, ask in the appropriate Rules Questions subforum. If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers. Once you have your answer, then make an errata report.
- if there's a problem that doesn't belong in the above two forums (typos, record sheet errors, etc.) just go ahead and post it as errata.

MarikMilitaMan · « **Reply #447 on:** 18 May 2014, 10:13:58 »

Quote from: Moonsword on 18 May 2014, 08:33:51

Hi, welcome to the boards. To answer your question, that would be where any errata for the product will turn up.

In general, you shouldn't post anything but an actual errata report in the errata threads. I've quoted the relevant piece of the rules for this section below. Don't worry, you're not in trouble. I've moved your post here into the discussion thread to keep things tidy, that's all.

Thanks, wasn't 100% sure.

Xotl · « **Reply #448 on:** 05 June 2014, 02:11:44 »

Just a quick note that Moonsword will be running the errata forum until I return from vacation in late August. Play nice. :)

Xotl · « **Reply #449 on:** 28 June 2014, 03:01:36 »

Please do not post errata in the wrong threads. If there is no thread yet for the product that you wish to make a report on, request a new errata thread here and hold on to your reports until the new thread is made, rather than making reports in the wrong place. Thank you.