Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[JadedFalcon]

Couple questions on the new Combat Manual: Kurita.

First, more dumb questions on the availability lists. Right now it appears that the only way to get a CRD-3K Crusader or a WVR-6K Wolverine is to use a special character. Is this intentional?

Also, Mechwarriors of the DCMS on page 91. Orland Yamashita's SPA is Jumping Jack, yet he pilots a Hussar. I assume the SPA is an error and should to be corrected?

[nckestrel]

CRD-3K and WVR-6K should be on Kurita list (errata).
CRD-3R should be on General list.
(looks like I need to go line by line and check what else I failed to copy over)

Yamashita should be Maneuvering Ace and Forward Observer (no Jumping Jack).

[ColBosch]

CRD-3K and WVR-6K should be on Kurita list (errata).
CRD-3R should be on General list.
(looks like I need to go line by line and check what else I failed to copy over)

Yamashita should be Maneuvering Ace and Forward Observer (no Jumping Jack).

Similarly, the Phoenix Hawk LAM (IS General) and Samurai aerospace fighter (DracCom/FRR) are missing. I can't build Sorenson's Sabres. :'(

[nckestrel]

Similarly, the Phoenix Hawk LAM (IS General) and Samurai aerospace fighter (DracCom/FRR) are missing. I can't build Sorenson's Sabres. :'(

Tr3039 "less than a few dozen Samurias..highest concentration in Outworlds Alliance"
I'm going to suggest CM:Kurita p79 (story availability) for Sorenson's Samurai :).

LAMs, ok, I (unintentionally) dodged the entire LAM question.  I'll have to think about that, see what Ray thinks, and check back.

[ColBosch]

Tr3039 "less than a few dozen Samurias..highest concentration in Outworlds Alliance"
I'm going to suggest CM:Kurita p79 (story availability) for Sorenson's Samurai :).

LAMs, ok, I (unintentionally) dodged the entire LAM question.  I'll have to think about that, see what Ray thinks, and check back.

If anything, the Dracs should have the easiest time getting LAMs, given that they have the last factory...well, until the Cats wrecked it.

And thanks for pointing me to the new rule. Still, doesn't help that much since the list is also missing the Hermes III. ;) Per the MUL it's available to the Dracs, so I'll just use it anyway. Not like anyone can call me a munchkin for insisting on using that thing.

[truetanker]

Not like anyone can call me a munchkin for insisting on using that thing.

Your a Munchkin ColBosch! A Munchkin I say!

But my question is where can I find the listing of the Minor Mercenaries, specifically The Fire Lizards. I skimmed it, but am unable to find anything on small units? While the name is from the old Dragoons book, as a Reg. unit for Draconis Combine from 3025.

TT

[nckestrel]

We can't cover everything.  The Fire Lizards and most minor mercs are not covered.
If you'd like, CM:Mercs has rules for creating your own merc command.

[truetanker]

And I really wish 22 more days was here for GenCon!!!

Then I could just walk down the street to the convention center and grab it while I wave at the Booth Monkeys!

TT
( And deliver that free pizza to ya myself, nckestrel! )

[JadedFalcon]

Thank you for your efforts nckestrel. Another thing in CM:Kurita grabbed my attention:

Page 85, Tactical Specialization (Combined Arms): "... the force has a -1 to-hit modifier to Initiative."

Should that be "the force has a -1 to-hit modifier for weapon attacks" or "the force has a +1 modifier to Initiative" or something else like -1 to hit and -1 to Initiative?

(Overall, a very fun supplement, looking forward to trying this stuff on the tabletop.)

[nckestrel]

I'm going to bed, somebody poke me if I forgot to check on that tommorrow.

[ColBosch]

From the CM: Kurita thread:

Emma Wi is an example of a wider availability.  She is listed under the 1st Shin Legion.  If there were no available to mentioned, then she would only be available to the 1st Shin Legion.  But she does have an available to, and it says Shin Legions, so she can be used with the 1st or the 2nd.

Olivaw is listed under the 2nd An Ting.  By default, that would mean only available to the 2nd An Ting.  With an available to: An Ting Legions, he can be used with the 2nd or the 4th.

But, on Olander, he shouldn't have an available to.  He's listed under Gunzburg Eagles, and so doesn't really need an available to Gunzburg Eagles.

I think these could be clearer. Special characters should have their availability spelled out each and every time. So Olander should keep his Available To, and the others should have "Shin Legion (any)" and "An Ting Legions (any)," respectively.

[nckestrel]

From the CM: Kurita thread:

I think these could be clearer. Special characters should have their availability spelled out each and every time. So Olander should keep his Available To, and the others should have "Shin Legion (any)" and "An Ting Legions (any)," respectively.

I will keep that in mind for the future CMs.

[ColBosch]

I will keep that in mind for the future CMs.

That's all I can ask. Thank you!

[Cryhavok101]

This is more of a request than a "X thing is wrong", and I am not sure I am putting it in the right place, but here goes: Can we get a chart for all the engine types in the Tech Manual that states what units can use that engine type? IE:

Standard: BM, IM, CV, AF, CF
ICE: IM, CV, CF
ETC.

[wantec]

This is more of a request than a "X thing is wrong", and I am not sure I am putting it in the right place, but here goes: Can we get a chart for all the engine types in the Tech Manual that states what units can use that engine type? IE:

Standard: BM, IM, CV, AF, CF
ICE: IM, CV, CF
ETC.

You mean like the one at the bottom of pg 215 in TechManual?

[Cryhavok101]

Yes, exactly like that one. Not sure how I missed it, but thanks.

[Wrangler]

If the webpage has spelling error, where would i post that.

The Latest Releases, lists Campaign Operations as Campaign Operations: Kurita [Book/PDF]. The page itself doesn't have the error.

Feel free to move this post to right place.

Thanks!

[nckestrel]

Website and Forum Support
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=54.0

[Vampire_Seraphin]

Hey guys, is there a way to search the errata by topic instead of source book? I've got a rules question and, frankly, no idea which book it might be associated with.

[Xotl]

I don't believe so, other than by running a search with your topic to see where it was placed before.  Go ahead and post it here and I'll see how I can help you.

[Vampire_Seraphin]

I discovered to my chagrin recently, in MM that you can't punch a mech in a height 1 building. Since mechs are height 2, physically, that should have logically been possible.

I was informed elsewhere after I made my post here, that buildings and combat are part of total warfare. I don't own that book, and my copy of the BMR is woefully outdated. I've searched the TW thread, and found nothing about this specific edge case.

So, my question is, "is there errata anywhere that addresses if/why a building only waist high blocks/allows physical attacks aimed at a mech's upper section such as punches, clubs, and dfas?"

Logically, a building only covering 1/2 of a mech should attack in a manner similar to partial cover.

[nckestrel]

TW p171, Attacking Units Inside Buildings, Physical Attacks.
No need to errata, the rulebook states the rule itself.

[Xotl]

Ah, you're basically asking about how the game works today.  For questions like that, post in Ground Combat, rather than any of the rules forums, as the latter are for working out something that's unclear in the current rules, for the most part.

[Vampire_Seraphin]

Allow me to clarify.

I want to know if any errata has been published making an exception to the normal rules if the building is only height 1.

[nckestrel]

Allow me to clarify.

I want to know if any errata has been published making an exception to the normal rules if the building is only height 1.

No. It has nothing to do with elevation.

[Vampire_Seraphin]

Hmmm, that seems illogical. I'd like to follow up on this. Ask the devs why there is not an exception. Logically, it seems like a building only 1/2 a mech's height should work more like partial cover.

Who should I contact/where should I post to ask that question?

[nckestrel]

I believe the issue is footing, not height.  A 'mech can't actually reach across an entire hex to punch a target.

[Hammer]

Question regarding Flare LRM's.

They are currently listed on Pg 61 of IO, but per this post

(http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=41974.msg968286#msg968286) they have been removed.

Have they been returned to the game or is the IO reference an error?

EDIT. Adding another question rather than creating a new post:

TO references Thunder/FASCAM munitions for (Long Tom/Sniper/Thumper) but the tables on pg 59 in IO don't have them.  Searching the PDF for "FASCAM" I see them for LRMs and Bombs.

Want to confirm that FASCAM is still valid for tube artillery.

[GoldBishop]

Possible Errata for the Alpha Strike Companion, and retroactive Errata to the Master Unit List (specific links to units to follow).

Alpha Strike Companion p.113
. Clan Battle Armor Weapons Conversion Table --> Direct Fire Ballistics --> Battle Armor LB-X Autocannon
"Flak" is missing from the Notes section on the far right hand side.

Per TacOps p.286, the weapon is a coded "DB, C/F" for Direct Ballistic, Cluster/Flak.  The weapon deals up to 4 damage in 1-point clusters.

The damage appears to have already been calculated properly for Flak weapons in AlphaStrike (Cluster Hits table for "4" rack, avg 7 = 3; -1 flak multiplier = x1.05; 3 x 1.05 = 0.315).
As Battle Armor weapons are multiplied by their troop factor, when calculating their AlphaStrike weapon values, I have determined the following:
 . . (0.315 x 3.5 troop factor = 1.1025 damage at Short and Medium for CAR4, CAR5) = qualifies for FLK Special...
 . . (0.315 x 4.5 troop factor = 1.4175 damage at Short and Medium for CAR6) = qualifies for FLK Special...

Assuming this is actual errata, I have managed to find a handful of units that require Retroactive Updates based on their Record Sheets and respective TRO entries (at least until the Search function is restored on the MUL, or I find time to look up more units with the BA LB-X):

Black Wolf [LB-X]: TRO3145 p.11, 66 (RS), RS3145_Unabridged p.422
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird (Upgrade) (LB-X): RS3145_Unabridged p.27
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird II (Standard): XTRO_Republic_2 p.16?
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials

[S.gage]

Got a juxtaposition of dates between TO and IO tables:

IO pdf, pp. 36-37, "Universal Technology Advancement Table":
"MechWarrior Combat Suit", Production (Faction) = 2790
"MechWarrior Cooling Suit", Production (Faction) = 2500

The Ref given in the notes, TO p. 317, "Conventional Infantry Armor Table", says these are reversed. Which is correct?
S.gage