BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

Catalyst Game Labs => BattleTech Game Errata => Topic started by: Xotl on 15 May 2011, 22:59:10

Title: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 May 2011, 22:59:10
Hi there.  For ease of errata collection there is to be no discussion in the individual errata threads themselves.  However, if you want to request a new errata thread be opened, feel a piece of errata or someone else's report is in error, or have something else errata-related you want to discuss, we'd be happy to hear what you have to say in this thread.  As always, sources with exact page numbers are needed when relevant if we're to properly examine anything.  Thanks.

Quickie errata guideline:
Basically, 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.

But best to read the stickied errata rules thread for all the nitty gritty details.

Looking for a list of all errata threads?
http://tinyurl.com/p7a6gty

Looking for the official BattleTech errata webpage?
http://bg.battletech.com/errata/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BeeRockxs on 17 May 2011, 08:06:42
Will the stuff that has been reported in the now-closed threads be added to the compiled errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 May 2011, 08:56:18
Will the stuff that has been reported in the now-closed threads be added to the compiled errata?

Absolutely.  When I'm told to assemble errata for a given product all the material in the closed threads will be gone over as well: there's no need to report it all again.

EDIT: except RS 3085 - if you had something in there and it's not currently posted in this forum, please repost it, because we might have missed it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: sfsct on 19 May 2011, 08:16:34
Jihad: 3072 has some issues with the Manei Domini calculations and a couple other hiccups I think.  I would recommend a new errata stream for Jihad:3072
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 19 May 2011, 10:57:59
*Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade (print)
*Appears to be first edition.
*P. 30 (DASHER PRIME - actual pages unnumbered)
*Error: In the critical hit table next to "Right Arm" it says "(CASE)."  TRO does not indicate that this configuration has CASE (and no space is allocated to CASE).
*Delete "(CASE)."

That's not an error. Clan units have CASE integrated. It takes up no critical space and no weight.
The moment a Clan unit has ammo or other explosive equipment loaded, CASE will show up on the Record Sheet
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 22 May 2011, 22:03:18
Will the Strat Ops thread be reopened any time soon?  Or did I miss my window to cross-post the answer to my personnel carried as cargo question from the rules forum?  Welshman had asked me to post an errata when the permissions were fixed, but I seem to have missed that happening, and now the thread is locked.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 May 2011, 00:13:37
We're readying a new version of the errata for the next StraOps reprint - as soon as it's ready I'll start a new thread and you can post it there.  I have no ETA at the moment, but I'd appreciate you keeping an eye out and posting what you have then.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 23 May 2011, 06:10:09
Ah, roger.  Sorry I missed the window to get it into the reprint.  It's a fairly glaring contradiction between pages 44 and 155 regarding the amount of consumables required to support personnel transported as cargo.  Welshman said page 44 is right.  I'll try to keep better track going forward.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 May 2011, 11:53:53
You'll be pleased to learn that your errata did in fact make it into the new errata revision - I combed the rules forum as well as the old errata threads for stuff to add.  So, no need to report it after all.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 23 May 2011, 19:06:41
Excellent!  Thank you, kind sir.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 27 May 2011, 18:47:02
I need a thread for XTRO: Marik, please.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 May 2011, 19:35:10
And one for XTRO: Liao if you don't mind.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trace Coburn on 30 May 2011, 08:57:47
  It might pay to create a thread for Era Report: 3062.  I've only skimmed a few portions in the half-hour I've had it, and I've already found three four typos....  :-\
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: roosterboy on 31 May 2011, 14:16:19
Please open threads for Operational Turning Points: Falcon Incursion and Field Report: DCMS.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 04 June 2011, 00:22:29
Please open a thread for Unit Digest: 1065th Millerton Armored. Many thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 04 June 2011, 10:51:10
The new MUL site erroneously uses the graphic for the Combat Vehicle for the Naval Vehicle as well (on the Getting Started page).

Hope this helps,
Rev
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 04 June 2011, 13:55:45
Hey Xotl, could you open a thread for Era Digest: Age of War? Found a p. XX reference.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 05 June 2011, 08:34:42
Suggestion: Add the old MUL back to the Download page as an alternative source. [EDIT: I'm referencing the XL spreadsheet database, not the beta MUL released a few months back.]

Since the old MUL is the only comprehensive source for dates of manufacture, it's appropriate that the old MUL still be available for download. While some will definitely find this new database compelling, it creates a lot more work for people like myself who run period-specific campaigns, forcing you to read through the TRO to fish out this data. That defeats the entire purpose of an MUL, IMO.

I disagree. Many of the dates from that document are strongly suspect - i.e., I personally made some serious mistakes - and the MUL Beta can not be relied upon as a source. It also has problems with Battle Value. Keep in mind that it was meant purely for outside review and has served its purpose.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 05 June 2011, 09:07:33
I have in my hands official errata for Strategic Operations, labeled version 1.2. I've looked on the Errata Information page (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=Errata (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=Errata)) to see if its been updated, but can't find the link.

I thought, too, we had a stickied thread that listed links to each errata specific thread, in alpha-order. Am I mis-remembering that?

- Rev


Edit: okay, I found the thread and ColBosch's attachment; same version I have. If its official, though, shouldn't it be listed on the CBT Errata Information page?

Edit2: Can we please get the Strategic Operations thread unlocked or maybe a new one opened? In the mean time, I'll store my suggestions here.

Edit3: Removed 3 suggestions that were included in Errata v1.3.
 
Edit4: Moved to new errata thread.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 June 2011, 13:23:27
The CBT webpage errata list is lagging behind the production of official errata: it will be updated as soon as the time can be found.

As you've noticed, version 1.2 is still the official version.  However, a 1.3 is in the final stages of review and will hopefully be posted soon; that is why the current StratOps thread is closed.  The moment 1.3 is ready a new thread will be opened: please save your reports for it.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 05 June 2011, 13:33:41
Copy all, Xotl. Thanks.

I'll just save my reports in my last post (for the time being). Otherwise, I'll never remember them whenever the new official errata thread opens.

- Rev
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 07 June 2011, 04:47:32
Could we get a new thread for Print RS 3085? Unless I'm blind and there already is one...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 07 June 2011, 23:02:07
I need one for Klondike's record sheets and preferred methods of submitting BV calculations.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ronalmb on 13 June 2011, 13:50:52
Strategic Operations : Equipment Rating and Quality Rating, pg. 167, 168 tables.

I believe that the A - F designations that is reversed from earlier incarnations of these systems (Field Manual Ratings, Dragoons Rating, etc) is counter intuitive to what most folks would be familiar with.

What I mean is that under the current Strategic Operations Tables, A is the worst (Salvage) while F is the best (Excellent). Typically, things graded as A are considered excellent, while things graded F are considered awful.  I believe that the change in scale creates unnecessary confusion without adding anything to the game other than reversing the ratings. While this is a minor issue, I hope that others might agree and that this might be reversed back in the next printing/future editions.

Thank you for an excellent product.

Edited for Clarity, correction of an error
Edited II: Moonsword's correction. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 13 June 2011, 17:34:50
I would note that Tech Rating operates the same way the Equipment and Quality Ratings do.  The simpler end of things is toward A.  Clan gear is generally F.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ronalmb on 14 June 2011, 06:59:52
Moonsword,

Quite right. I stand corrected and have fixed "Tech Rating" to "Field Manual Equipment Rating" which is what I meant.  I still believe that an A (good) F (Bad) rating is more intuitive, user friendly, and consistant with previous rating scales that it is something to consider.

While a minor topic, I believe that the change is easier to remember - which can be handy for newer players, and consistant with earlier products - which can be handy for veterans.

An obvious Con is of course that it reverses a table that some folk may have become accustomed to, which certainly risks muddying the waters. Still, I believe that its a change worth considering.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 16 June 2011, 22:06:49
The Phoenix Hawk IIC 7's tonnage is correct. (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5929.msg156592.html#msg156592)  Both SSW and sitting there and adding the numbers on page 281 of TRO3085 up with a calculator call this one wrong.  All the numbers are correct, too.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 June 2011, 00:28:33
The Phoenix Hawk IIC 7's tonnage is correct. (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5929.msg156592.html#msg156592)  Both SSW and sitting there and adding the numbers on page 281 of TRO3085 up with a calculator call this one wrong.  All the numbers are correct, too.

I got the same results.  80 tons, 5 free crits
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chunga on 27 June 2011, 11:55:23
The Reunification War thread seems to be filled with grammar suggestions. Is that really errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BeeRockxs on 27 June 2011, 13:40:42
Outright grammatical errors should be errataed, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 27 June 2011, 14:28:50
When I was doing this, I used two simple rules of thumb: 1) is this an actual error of tense, number agreement, etc.; 2) if not an outright mistake, does the text as-is get the point across? In other words, unless what was printed was simply wrong by basic rules of grammar, I wouldn't pass on a change unless it was also hard to understand.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trace Coburn on 27 June 2011, 21:14:40
Outright grammatical errors should be errataed, in my opinion.
  No disrespect, ColBosch, but I agree with BeeRocksx, which is why I did a comprehensive read-through on ER: 3062 for such errors and intend to do so for H:RW in the next couple of days, hopefully in time for the corrections to go into the print version.  Maybe it's just the kind of mind I have, but to me hitting glaring punctuation/grammar errors like that is more annoying than hearing a record skipping on a given spot for an hour straight.  #P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 27 June 2011, 21:28:27
+1 more to that sentiment.  I edit a lot of writing at work, and even small mistakes interrupt the flow of reading.  I've begun noticing it my favorite science fiction novels, too.  I suspect a growing reliance on automated spelling and grammar checkers is driving it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 28 June 2011, 00:11:44
Er, did you guys read my post? I said outright errors should be fixed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 28 June 2011, 00:20:24
hopefully in time for the corrections to go into the print version.
No...errors spotted at "this point" affecting the print version is the exception, not the rule.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 28 June 2011, 06:02:35
Er, did you guys read my post? I said outright errors should be fixed.
The qualifier "outright" left a bit of room.  My point was that automated spelling and grammar checkers will pass things that are wrong, outright or otherwise.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 June 2011, 08:52:21
I have no specific guidelines concenring errata and grammar, so unless told otherwise I'll be accepting them all.  Bosch's guideline's are generally what I'm working off of as well.

Some will be trivial or incorrect, but that's true of rules-based posts as well - they'll get weeded out when the time comes to assemble the errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 28 June 2011, 09:25:45
Also note that I was talking about how I handled reports when assembling the final errata, and not in any way, shape, or form telling people what to post or not. I gave up THAT privilege when I resigned. ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kojak on 30 June 2011, 02:26:33
The Reunification War thread seems to be filled with grammar suggestions. Is that really errata?

Speaking as the one who's submitted most of those, I'd say yes. Incorrect grammar is no different from incorrect spelling or incorrect word usage: a mistake in need of correction. That's what errata is for (along with correcting factual inconsistencies and the like).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 02 July 2011, 15:37:54
Xotl,
Just to be clear: when you post with "Designer Errata", that means that is official errata and not to be confused with fan posts that offer errata suggestions?

Also, when you do post "Designer Errata", is that replacing the one-stop errata pages accessible from the main page? Or will your posts be incorporated into those?

I ask because my policy is to print out the errata pages and make changes as time allows, and refer to the print-outs when I haven't completed my pen-'n-ink changes. If the most up-to-date errata will now reside here, I'll modify my procedures.

Thanks,
Rev
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 July 2011, 17:14:20
Just to be clear: when you post with "Designer Errata", that means that is official errata and not to be confused with fan posts that offer errata suggestions?

That's correct.  I'm in the middle of organizing it right now, but the opening post of each thread (the introductory one made by me) will also have a section called Developer-Level Errata (if necessary).  These are rulings made by developers, and are fully official.  You can consider them previews of future errata revision documents.

Quote
Also, when you do post "Designer Errata", is that replacing the one-stop errata pages accessible from the main page? Or will your posts be incorporated into those?

Developer-Level Errata is supplemental to the CBT webpage errata section.  The rulings only replace CBT webpage errata if specifically noted (for example, the TechManual thread has a new BV table that overrides a ruling currently sitting on the CBT TechManual errata webpage).

Quote
I ask because my policy is to print out the errata pages and make changes as time allows, and refer to the print-outs when I haven't completed my pen-'n-ink changes. If the most up-to-date errata will now reside here, I'll modify my procedures.

It will always be easier for me to keep a forum and a word document up to date than it will be to find the time to update the website.  In addition, the website will only have full errata revisions, made as a result of the rulings in this forum, rather than individual rulings, so this forum will always be ahead.  That having been said, we do plan to update the CBT webpage errata section whenever the time and manpower can be spared.

So, to sum up, Developer-Level errata is fully official, will appear in future full errata revisions, and from there will eventually make it onto the CBT Errata webpage section.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 02 July 2011, 17:35:41
That's correct.  I'm in the middle of organizing it right now [Rev's italics], but the opening post of each thread (the introductory one made by me) will also have a section called Developer-Level Errata (if necessary).  These are rulings made by developers, and are fully official.  You can consider them previews of future errata revision documents.

I presume the threads where you have "Designer Errata" in different posts will be consolidated in the first, then?

Quote
So, to sum up, Developer-Level errata is fully official, will appear in future full errata revisions, and from there will eventually make it onto the CBT Errata webpage section.

This method sounds like its the go-to-idea for up-to-date errata. Thanks for the quick and informative reply (and for fixing my previous code-cursed post).

- Rev

Edit1: Can you please open a new thread for Strategic Operations (since the new PDF was just released). Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 July 2011, 17:48:50
I presume the threads where you have "Designer Errata" in different posts will be consolidated in the first, then?

Yes: that's the "middle of" part - I've spent my weekend so far cleaning up the forum.  I think only TacOps is left - check the Total Warfare or TechManual threads for how it is supposed to look.

Quote
This method sounds like its the go-to-idea for up-to-date errata. Thanks for the quick and informative reply (and for fixing my previous code-cursed post).

No problem - happy to help.

Quote
Edit1: Can you please open a new thread for Strategic Operations (since the new PDF was just released). Thanks.

Hmmm, so it has.  I'll get working on that right away (may take a while, as I have verify that everything was successfully integrated before I post the new errata revision.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 July 2011, 19:04:54
Annnnd it's up.  Thanks everyone for your reports - the latest printing of Strategic Operations is a great one.

P.S. Thanks Revanche for listing your typos earlier in the thread - I was able to sneak all but one of them in before the book went out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 02 July 2011, 19:46:49
P.S. Thanks Revanche for listing your typos earlier in the thread - I was able to sneak all but one of them in before the book went out.

That's awesome. Thanks for the shout-out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 03:02:57
Just to let everyone know that TechManual, Total Warfare, and Tactical Operations have all had their first posts extensively updated to incorporate all developer-level errata to date and in a nice, orderly fashion.  I've found a couple of contradictions, and will be attempting to get them resolved.

More importantly, the Tactical Operations thread has had a couple of new pieces added to it - a construction section for Chain Whips, and a new attachment featuring Mechanized SCUBA infantry and Infantry TAG systems.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 July 2011, 03:11:53
* Clan Weapons and Equipment BV Table [Addendum] (p. 385)
Change the BV for the Arrow IV from 168 to 268; Ammo BV remains unchanged.

This appears to have accidentally migrated from the TO list to the TM list and contradicts something already on the TO list.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 03:24:15
I just finished correcting some other contradictions - I'll check on this one too.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 July 2011, 03:31:05
The term Arrow IV just happened to leap out at me when I was idly poking through the TM errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 04:04:18
I've left the one that is listed on the website and that matches the current versions of SSW and MML.  The other I've sent off for verification, along with a trio of TechManual oddballs.  Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 July 2011, 14:53:04
Regarding this report (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,7572.msg173593.html#msg173593), they're talking about the experimental model in that context, not the 6S.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 15:15:45
Agreed, but even then it's still an error - the prototype was only twenty kilos faster than the original, not thirty.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 July 2011, 15:16:57
p. 30, Cavalry Infiltrator / Capabilities
Every Cavalry capable of transporting infantry had a 4 tons bay already. There is no variant with 3 trons.

Suggested ciorrection: drop expansion and state only an increasing demand for the Cavalry.

No, the Infantry Cavalry had errata posted (currently offline) that clarified it carried 3 tons of infantry.

At the same time a (BA) variant was introduced with 4 tons, but the main Infantry Cavalry indeed carries 3.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Demos on 03 July 2011, 15:46:46
No, the Infantry Cavalry had errata posted (currently offline) that clarified it carried 3 tons of infantry.

At the same time a (BA) variant was introduced with 4 tons, but the main Infantry Cavalry indeed carries 3.
Look, the MUL shows only one Infantry variant, the RS shows only one Infantry variant (and this has 4 tons).
I know that the Cavalry had previously only 3 or 3.5 tons, but after the armor was errata'd is had the 4 ton bay.

To base the description on a "unseen" variant is a bit - weird?  ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2011, 15:52:57
There is a current XTR Davion errata thread open, but it has no posts.  That errata doesn't show in either of the old XTR Davion threads, meaning it must have been lost in the post-crash chaos.  jymset - would you mind making a fresh errata report for the current XTR Davion thread covering the Calvary Cadence Rain?

EDIT: oops, nevermind, you were talking about the TR3058U Cavalry.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 July 2011, 15:56:14
Look, the MUL shows only one Infantry variant, the RS shows only one Infantry variant (and this has 4 tons).
I know that the Cavalry had previously only 3 or 3.5 tons, but after the armor was errata'd is had the 4 ton bay.

To base the description on a "unseen" variant is a bit - weird?  ;)

Yes, I messed up that RS, plus a small handful of others in RS 3058U. Yes, that messed up sheet had an effect on the MUL.

I apologise to you - and Xotl - for not making it fully clear that I was talking about RS 3058U (though I did talk about the "Infantry" Cavalry).

Xotl, I'll make updating RS 3058U thread my first priority.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 July 2011, 16:23:01
Done deed (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5933.msg173715.html#msg173715), I hope that helps. Sorry about the inconvenience.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 04 July 2011, 02:47:50
[quote author=Snake Eyes link=topic=7572.msg174185#msg174185 date=1309761795 <A href='www.pickitisbn:1309761795'><img style='border: 0px none' src='https://www.citavi.com/softlink?linkid=findit' title='Titel anhand dieser ISBN in Citavi-Projekt übernehmen'/></A>]
PDF, pg. 71 "Garuda Heavy VTOL":
The stat bloc for the number of locations for the IS and Armor need to be fixed as this VTOL is considered a Superheavy Vee, per Tac Ops pg. 378, which means it is suppossed to have six hit-locations, not four as shown in the TRO
[/quote]

As per the newest block of TO errata (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5926.0.html), VTOLs are exempt from this:

Quote
* Super-Heavy Vehicles (p. 378)First column, last paragraph.  Change
"All Super-Heavy Combat Vehicles use the Super-Heavy Vehicle Hit Locations Table, and must apply armor and structure to 6 facings (plus any rotors or mounted turrets) rather than 4." to
"All Super-Heavy Combat Vehicles apart from VTOLs use the Super-Heavy Vehicle Hit Locations Table, and must apply armor and structure to 6 facings (plus any mounted turrets) rather than 4."

Please note that this would have always been the intentions of the rules, as witnessed by both the template in the book, as well as the way heavy support VTOLs are handled.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 05 July 2011, 00:34:29
As per the newest block of TO errata (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5926.0.html), VTOLs are exempt from this:

Please note that this would have always been the intentions of the rules, as witnessed by both the template in the book, as well as the way heavy support VTOLs are handled.
Thank you Jymset jymset for pointing that out
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 06 July 2011, 03:08:16
Since we're not supposed to be yakking at each other in the errata threads, I figured I'd express my thanks for the errata credit in here.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 06 July 2011, 14:39:59
In case my comment get deleted in the errata thread.......Thank You Herb for the errata acknowledgement
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Peter Smith on 06 July 2011, 20:16:35
I don't think http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,7572.msg176567.html#msg176567 is a legitimate errata. The sentence preceeding the line in question is talking about both weapon systems. The only way for the errata suggestion to be true is if the line spoke about each weapon system individually.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: roosterboy on 06 July 2011, 20:23:00
I think it does need a correction, but 00Dawg has the wrong correction listed.

IMO, it should be "These modern descendants of the original weapons deliver firepower with greater accuracy and ammo-efficiency."

That better indicates that it's talking about both weapon systems upgrades.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 08 July 2011, 06:25:30
This might have been a bit overzealous (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,7597.msg178030.html#msg178030), but I figured since RS: Phoenix Upgrades is no longer for sale or in the errata rotation, it would need to be done anyway.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 July 2011, 21:18:22
Ah.  It gets better.  If it has been changed, it's probably errata for the Hwacha.  I checked the errata after seeing the Hwacha behaved the way I'm describing in that report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 20 July 2011, 22:15:26
I'll go report the Hwacha, then, and scrub the Marsden I report.

EDIT: Or add it to the existing Hwacha report, anyway.  I'd forgotten I'd reported anything on there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 28 July 2011, 14:44:21
Source TRO for the Cossack C-1FC is listed as TRO 3060. While the base model the C-SK1 Cossack is described in TRO 3060 no variants are mentioned. The C-1FC is described in a milispecs article from BattleCorps.

Solution: Change Source TRO to BattleCorps.

The MilSpecs descriptions were provided for BattleCorps subscribers to make some fluff - fluff that isn't guaranteed to be accurate and is not subject to errata - for the new variants in RS3060 Unabridged.  Since every single variant in there is sourced to TRO3060, either they're all wrong or this is a deliberate decision to refer things to TRO3060.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 28 July 2011, 14:50:54
Possible errata: pp. 291 version 1.2 .pdf

The Large Laser is given an extinction date; If the medium laser doesn't have one, then it stands to reason nether does the large.

The medium and large laser extinction dates in my version are for the Clans, not the IS.  They're supposed to be there in the former case.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 July 2011, 15:13:37
The MilSpecs descriptions were provided for BattleCorps subscribers to make some fluff - fluff that isn't guaranteed to be accurate and is not subject to errata - for the new variants in RS3060 Unabridged.  Since every single variant in there is sourced to TRO3060, either they're all wrong or this is a deliberate decision to refer things to TRO3060.

I believe I just forgot to change those after the Milspecs articles were announced.  Ie. They're (RS 3060u new variants/written up in Milspecs) all wrong.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 28 July 2011, 17:33:04
Could we get an errata thread for Field Report: Periphery, please?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 July 2011, 17:53:28
I need one for TRO3050U.

EDIT: Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 August 2011, 00:26:41
And I could use one for XTRO: Clans if you would.  There's a problem on the new Elemental.

Never mind.  Misread something in TacOps - that part of the rules is easy to misread if you're not looking at it carefully.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 01 August 2011, 10:53:39
Xotl, can we please have threads opened for Handbook: Major Periphery States and Handbook: House Davion? Thanks.
 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Revanche on 01 August 2011, 11:01:35
That was extremely quick. Thanks, Xotl.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 01 August 2011, 11:02:21
No problem - I'm camping the forums right now working on TacOps errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 August 2011, 16:32:17
I may need one for Wars of Reaving.  I found a mistake in one of the previews on Ben's blog.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 01 August 2011, 17:56:43
I'm not sure that would be the way to handle it.  I think it best if you were to directly leave a comment on the blog itself.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 August 2011, 18:00:48
I'm not sure that would be the way to handle it.  I think it best if you were to directly leave a comment on the blog itself.

Actually, I'm planning to verify it's there in the PDF and report it then.  It's a very minor error.

EDIT: That's on reflection, not my initial intent.  Call it being a bit loopy.

EDIT 2: Could I have one for Handbook: House Marik?

EDIT 3: Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 03 August 2011, 14:48:01
Can we get an Errata for XTRO-Clans, i think i found a mistake with the Rogue Bear BA
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 03 August 2011, 15:15:27
Already there: http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,8660.0.html
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 03 August 2011, 16:04:19
Already there: http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,8660.0.html
oops, thanks DarkISI
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 August 2011, 00:00:15
Oy vey... (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5929.msg203806.html#msg203806)

mikewoo is correct that TechManual's listing is 8 tons.  However, per every TRO I checked and the BMRr, TechManual is wrong - both the most recent version and the old pre-DTF FanPro version of the PDF have the error.  I'm reporting it.

EDIT: Done.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 05 August 2011, 01:10:16
Oy vey... (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5929.msg203806.html#msg203806)

mikewoo is correct that TechManual's listing is 8 tons.  However, per every TRO I checked and the BMRr, TechManual is wrong - both the most recent version and the old pre-DTF FanPro version of the PDF have the error.  I'm reporting it.

EDIT: Done.

Damn straight, you better not be questioning my unit-building skillz!

Actually, blame this one on me. I noticed the error almost a year ago and never reported it. :(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 August 2011, 02:01:28
Don't feel too bad, at least you saw it.  I've looked at that chart myself and never spotted it before mikewoo's report made me sit there and run the numbers in increasing disquiet until it occurred to me to look at the Dire Wolf Prime and then the BMRr.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 August 2011, 08:41:33
I think it's because it's one of those foundational weapons, twenty years old.  No one actually looks at the chart to see how to use one anymore.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 08 August 2011, 22:23:08
I didn't want to post this in the regular TechManual errata thread incase its not errata......But the TechMnual shows that the Clan Large Pulse Laser and Heavy Large Laser has (NA) under Protos, but the ER Large Pulse and Improved Heavy Large Laser is available to Protos.....
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 08 August 2011, 22:29:57
The relevant page numbers are 343 for TechManual and 407 for Tactical Operations.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 08 August 2011, 23:36:54
The relevant page numbers are 343 for TechManual and 407 for Tactical Operations.
Ah, oops......thanks Moonsword
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 08 August 2011, 23:44:49
You're welcome.  I just figured I'd save people some time looking things up.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 August 2011, 00:16:49
I didn't want to post this in the regular TechManual errata thread incase its not errata......But the TechMnual shows that the Clan Large Pulse Laser and Heavy Large Laser has (NA) under Protos, but the ER Large Pulse and Improved Heavy Large Laser is available to Protos.....

A question like this ("is this how the rules are supposed to work?") belongs in the rules question forums.  I only deal in confirmed (or presumed confirmed) errors.  Since the TechManual weapons are at issue, I'd ask this question in that forum.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 09 August 2011, 01:07:27
Ok, thanks Xotl for pointing that out.......i wasn't sure where to ask before
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 10 August 2011, 03:15:21
Moonsword, please remove "BA" from the following:




Page 57, Searchlights

Not a problem, per se, but some sort of reference to the searchlight construction rules on page 237 of TechManual may be appropriate so people know that BA, support vehicles, and aerospace units are equipped with hand-held searchlights by default.




BA searchlights are covered on p. 269 and are not available as a free option to the units.

(Yes, you'd completely derailed me there for a few days! Poor Xotl... :D )
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 10 August 2011, 09:55:22
Right.  It said all units on page 237, I took that at face value.  It didn't even occur to me to check the infantry section.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 10 August 2011, 10:31:39
I did exactly the same. And started stressing Xotl. And only upon third (or so) reading of it did it click. :-[

Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 15 August 2011, 11:51:01
Page 228, last paragraph under "Basic Manipulator".

<snip>

This is because the Tech Manual, page 167, the table, specifies that 2 Basic Manipulators are required, and as its a later product, it overrules previous products.

No - TW has always been correct and TM has had errata implemented to the p. 167 table accordingly. Please refer to the table attached to the end of the TM errata post (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5932.0.html).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 15 August 2011, 16:40:50
TRO3085, Page 11, Angerona   
   Standard anti mech should be No/No/No/Yes, as 2 armored gloves is not listed for a MEDIUM battle armor requirement for those attacks (TM167)
   Recon anti-mech should note that it cannot make an AP attack.
TRO3085, Page 13, Kopis   
   The Anti-Infantry variant has the weight of the MPL rounded up to the nearest 5 (800.41 to 805), but the Flamer is 160kg and should be 155 (rounded up from 151 kg)

Angerona: The standard variant has 2x Basic Manipulators, so Y/Y/Y/Y is accurate. The Recon variant has Armored Gloves and thus gains the AP ability automatically.

Kopis: The MPL rounds up from 804.92 to 805 kg for the addition of 1 extra clip. The Flamer adds 2 extra clips at 0.5 x 10 = 5 kg each.

Thank you for your input, but please familiarise yourself with the construction rules before posting such errata.

And please also refer to the TM errata  (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5932.0.html) when reporting:

TRO 3085 Supplemental, Page 11, Ravager   
   The HRR is actually 375kg for the Inner Sphere, putting this design overweight.  Recommend downgrading the HRR to a MRR or simply dropping the rocket launchers.

No, the HRR is actually 325 kg.

I will address 3058U and 3075 in length - the latter's detailed public errata was lost in the recent errata admin change and will be reconstructed. You nailed the RL errata :) As for the clips - TM may be slightly confusing, but the weight listed is the weight of a single shot. That is then multiplied by the clip size (given in brackets).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Bad_Syntax on 15 August 2011, 18:09:43
Thank you for your input, but please familiarise yourself with the construction rules before posting such errata.

I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them.  The PROBLEM is that there are multiple sources for errata, some contradicting each other, and apparently no desire to keep the PDF's I paid for, ON TOP of the cost of the DTF, updated with the most recent data.

Heck, I had to errata your *official* errata links off the home page http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5936.msg214940.html#msg214940 (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5936.msg214940.html#msg214940), how insulting, I was trying to help as every single time I go through any book, I find tons of errors, and this just makes me not want to bother.

And please also refer to the TM errata  (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5932.0.html) when reporting:

And what about http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual)?  If its no longer valid take it down, and give a link to the *forum* errata page.  Its a huge PITA to try to parse all this crap, and its *impossible* to consisently build any kind of unit in the universe due to excessive issues (need I even mention that grenade launchers *still* aren't fixed from TM, and I've mentioned that 3 times before!).

I will address 3058U and 3075 in length - the latter's detailed public errata was lost in the recent errata admin change and will be reconstructed. You nailed the RL errata :) As for the clips - TM may be slightly confusing, but the weight listed is the weight of a single shot. That is then multiplied by the clip size (given in brackets).

Oh, you mean like how the battle armor table lists the number of shots per missile at (0), or the number of shots for one-shot rocket launchers at (1)?

It isn't like I'm not trying to get answers:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html)
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html)
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html)
plus all those ones before the board crashed :(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chunga on 15 August 2011, 19:26:19
Quote
I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them. 

A level of hyperbole NOT needed in these discussions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 August 2011, 22:40:34
I seriously can't believe you just said that to me.  I have spent more time working with the construction rules than anybody, TPTB included, and couldn't be any more familiar with them.

Over and above Chunga's very correct point that claiming to be the greatest construction rules guru the game has ever seen is not conducive to polite discussion, you can't expect jymset to remember the claimed construction aptitude of every poster here or have any idea just how much you use the rules in general.  You made mistakes and were corrected, rather politely I might add - please accept such corrections with good grace.

Quote
The PROBLEM is that there are multiple sources for errata, some contradicting each other,

Errata is admittedly not in the greatest shape right now.  However, I assure you that the devs and myself are working hard to get that in order.  I've spent the last month handling nothing but TechManual and TacOps errata, to the exclusion of any other MUL duties.  As we speak, Welshman is pouring over dozens of TacOps questions I've handed him, some of which were yours, and probably praying for my untimely demise.

Basic errata priority is that the most recent version of the collected errata is the basis to start off of.  From there, rulings made by the devs since then are added in - I am in the process of collecting all of these as I find them and adding them to each core book's errata thread.  Newer rulings always take priority.  As this might not have been clear, I am making edits to posts to clarify this.

Quote
and apparently no desire to keep the PDF's I paid for, ON TOP of the cost of the DTF, updated with the most recent data.

There's no malicious intent to withhold pdf updates.  The problem is that Catalyst is a smaller company, and incorporating errata requires the same people that produce new books.  Not surprisingly, new material takes priority.  Catalyst is working hard to get everything up to date, but it can't help but be a slow process.  Our apologies for the delay.

Quote
And what about http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual (http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=text&page=TechManual)?  If its no longer valid take it down, and give a link to the *forum* errata page.  Its a huge PITA to try to parse all this crap, and its *impossible* to consisently build any kind of unit in the universe due to excessive issues (need I even mention that grenade launchers *still* aren't fixed from TM, and I've mentioned that 3 times before!).

We're aware of the website errata being out of date in some cases, and are trying to find the time to resolve this.  The particular link to the CBT webpage you posted is the most recent collected TM errata - it is not obsolete.  However, there have been new rulings made since then.  These newer rulings only add to the collected errata; for the most part they do not replace it.

As for your issue with grenade launchers, I have nothing on them at the moment - it is possible your request was lost in the shuffle between forums and/or errata coordinators.  By all means, please post your problem in the TechManual thread and I'll be happy to add it to either the internal errata collection or the list of questions to be forwarded to the devs for resolution.

Quote
Oh, you mean like how the battle armor table lists the number of shots per missile at (0), or the number of shots for one-shot rocket launchers at (1)?

It isn't like I'm not trying to get answers:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,6100.0.html)
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,286.0.html)
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,696.0.html)
plus all those ones before the board crashed :(

You'll note you've already had literally dozens of questions answered.  I've gone all the way back to the release of TechManual in my search for unanswered questions to add to the current internal errata: I hope to be able to resolve some of your others.  ANY question that can be treated as outright errata (e.g. contradictions, missing info, but not issues with unclear wordings, which belong in the rules forums) you can post in the current threads and I will ensure they are passed along.  Don't worry about possible repeats - if it's not in the archived errata threads or already posted as dev-level errata, make a concise report with page refs to the current thread.

We're committed to making the books as good as we can, but 300+ pages of construction rules is not easy to get right the first time around.  Your dedication to the game is appreciated, and hopefully you'll use it to ensure that the next TechManual release meets your approval.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 21 August 2011, 08:50:54
PDF Copyright 2008, page 127

Problem:
Rock Golem
The Rock Golem's DWP-mounted Heavy Recoilless Rifles are listed at 245 kg.
75% of 375 kg, rounded up to the nearest 5 tons, should be 285 kgs. This makes the Rock Golem 80 kgs overweight.

Suggestion:
Under "Rock Golem", change both Heavy Recoilless Rifle (Detachable Weapon Pack) weight to 245 kg.
I think the easiest way to find the missing 80 kgs is to change the armor from Fire Resistant to Standard.

No, HRR weigh 325 kgs, please check the TM errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 21 August 2011, 11:06:35
Initial PDF release
Improved ATM, p.201-202

The iATM systems indicate their Type as M,C,S in the stat box on p.202. However, the text on p.201 indicates they are treated as Streak launchers - either all missiles hit or the weapon doesn't fire, no roll on the Cluster table needed.

Since iATMs aren't rolling on the Cluster table, they shouldn't be marked as Cluster weapons.

Suggested Fix: change Type to M,S in the stat box on p.202

The Type is correct.  Streak launchers are Cluster weapons and are marked as such in both Total Warfare and Tactical Operations with a note to see their game rules as they're an exception to the normal rule that Cluster weapons have to use the chart; this convention is followed in Wars of Reaving.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 22 August 2011, 04:24:16
RS 3085 Unabridged: The Cutting Edge

Aeron Strike VTOL

*problem: The numbers simply do not add up. The weight is wrong by 5.5 tons.

*solution: Change fusion engine to XL, change armor to ferro-fibrous, reduce rear armor to 11 and the numbers then do add up. BV becomes 858

The Aeron is correct in its basic stats, only the Engine is wrong:
Aeron Strike VTOL should have XL Engine and armor is Heavy Ferro (as per TRO entry). Nothing to change, except the engine type.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Diamondfist on 27 August 2011, 01:44:01
In regards to the errata from the closed threads, will there be errata posted for the new A Time of War book too? I made a minor submission for it and was hoping errata was in the works for this book too. Thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 August 2011, 02:34:42
All errata posted to the older threads in this version of the forum has been preserved (well, except the second page of the old RS 3085 thread, which I lost - if you made any post in that thread that hasn't been reposted, make it again please).

If errata is coming soon for a book (soon being relative and no more specific than that), you'll all know of it very shortly after I do: I'll make a stickied post in this forum asking folks to give it an extra-thorough going-over in the lead-up to the errata revision (as I'm doing now with TacOps).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 27 August 2011, 08:37:37
Which reminds me, I need to finish reviewing the index for errors.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 03 September 2011, 14:54:12
PDF Copyright 2008, page 127

Problem:
Rock Golem
The Rock Golem's DWP-mounted Heavy Recoilless Rifles are listed at 245 kg.
75% of 375 kg, rounded up to the nearest 5 tons, should be 285 kgs. This makes the Rock Golem 80 kgs overweight.

Suggestion:
Under "Rock Golem", change both Heavy Recoilless Rifle (Detachable Weapon Pack) weight to 245 kg.
I think the easiest way to find the missing 80 kgs is to change the armor from Fire Resistant to Standard.


No errata:

As per the other threads, the current TM errata clarifies that the HRR does in fact have a weight of 325 kg.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 September 2011, 16:19:16
No, HRR weigh 325 kgs, please check the TM errata thread.

No errata:

:D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 03 September 2011, 16:55:27
:D

I didn't mean you. I meant Adgar and quoted you for explanation. Granted, I could have made it a bit less confusing :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 03 September 2011, 18:26:14
I was referring to the fact that I'd addressed the same mis-report a few posts above you :P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 September 2011, 20:46:06
Problem
Firebee is 4 tons underweight at 4/6 movement profile.

Fix
Change fluff and record sheet to reflect the 5/8 movement profile.

There's nothing in TRO3075 about the speed.  It's correct as written.  This is purely a record sheet problem and needs to be reported here (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5938.0.html), along with page number (228) and PDF version.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 September 2011, 01:58:39
Am I overlooking a thread for Masters & Minions?

I've compiled an index that lists all errata threads curently open, and provides links to them.  You can find it here:

http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290

No M&M link at the moment, but I'll open one up in the next day or so (out of town at the moment).  Please repost that there at that time.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 September 2011, 02:13:00
Also, I know general policy has been to only allow actual errata posts in threads, no exceptions,  but that was Bosch's policy that I've maintained.  Upon further reflection though, I'd like to handle things a bit differently.

Any MUL team member, writer, or of course developer is now asked to post corrections and commentary to errata posts directly in the appropriate threads, rather than in here.

It's easier for me to keep track of these things this way.  If it's a correction pointing out a wrong report, it will often be deleted in a few days along with the report.  Otherwise I'll leave it there.

Other forum posters should keep their comments in this thread, as normal.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 04 September 2011, 04:45:26
I was referring to the fact that I'd addressed the same mis-report a few posts above you :P

Too much confusion... my poor vacation riddled brain  #P




 ;D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 04 September 2011, 10:13:33
Also, I know general policy has been to only allow actual errata posts in threads, no exceptions,  but that was Bosch's policy that I've maintained.  Upon further reflection though, I'd like to handle things a bit differently.

Any MUL team member, writer, or of course developer is now asked to post corrections and commentary to errata posts directly in the appropriate threads, rather than in here.

It's easier for me to keep track of these things this way.  If it's a correction pointing out a wrong report, it will often be deleted in a few days along with the report.  Otherwise I'll leave it there.

Other forum posters should keep their comments in this thread, as normal.  Thanks.

I think I actually had that in place right before the forum crash. It's a good idea.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 17 September 2011, 10:34:51
Requesting a thread for Objectives: Draconis Combine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 17 September 2011, 22:06:42
Not totally sure if this is errata or not.....but the Hauberk Commando in TRO Prototypes (print) still shows the
Magshot (DWP) as 135 kg. with only 10 shots. but the Magshot comes with 20 shots for 175 kg. then add the DWP to reduce the weight, so it should have 20 shots for 135 kg.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 18 September 2011, 17:45:16
Not totally sure if this is errata or not.....but the Hauberk Commando in TRO Prototypes (print) still shows the
Magshot (DWP) as 135 kg. with only 10 shots. but the Magshot comes with 20 shots for 175 kg. then add the DWP to reduce the weight, so it should have 20 shots for 135 kg.

Per TM, p. 346, a Magshot comes with 10 shot clips, not 20 shot clips.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 18 September 2011, 18:04:32
Quote
Per TM, p. 346, a Magshot comes with 10 shot clips, not 20 shot clips.
Ok, thanks jymset
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: obe34 on 19 September 2011, 08:24:55
Im a little stuck on this one, i really like the variant and i hope someone sees how to make it work or sees the mistake i made.

From TRO Protypes:
* pg 96
    * "A number of units fielding multiple Dolas have instituted a field refit know as the DOL - 1A2. with the 1A1 already providing sensor jamming, the 1A2 swaps the standard sword and Angel ECM for TAG and a light vibroblade. These Yoh Ti Ts'angs, as they have been nick-named, have proven extremely popular amongst the Warrior Houses." The Angel ECM + Sword is 3.5 tons. The TAG + light vibroblade = 4 tons. This refit seems to be illegal. Also this assumes light vibroblade is a small vibroblade. If there is a new level of vibroblade that is only 2.5 tons that would do it.
    * I am not sure what to suggest here. A clan Light tag is .5 tons so it would work, or the battle armor's light tag, or the tag can be dropped and switched to more armor or an ERsmall or some other thing i dont see
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 19 September 2011, 08:29:19
Im a little stuck on this one, i really like the variant and i hope someone sees how to make it work or sees the mistake i made.

From TRO Protypes:
* pg 96
    * "A number of units fielding multiple Dolas have instituted a field refit know as the DOL - 1A2. with the 1A1 already providing sensor jamming, the 1A2 swaps the standard sword and Angel ECM for TAG and a light vibroblade. These Yoh Ti Ts'angs, as they have been nick-named, have proven extremely popular amongst the Warrior Houses." The Angel ECM + Sword is 3.5 tons. The TAG + light vibroblade = 4 tons. This refit seems to be illegal. Also this assumes light vibroblade is a small vibroblade. If there is a new level of vibroblade that is only 2.5 tons that would do it.
    * I am not sure what to suggest here. A clan Light tag is .5 tons so it would work, or the battle armor's light tag, or the tag can be dropped and switched to more armor or an ERsmall or some other thing i dont see

There is no mistake. The variant descriptions don't always describe every single change between the TRO version and the variant. Here, some change was left out, because it was deemed unimportant. You will have to wait for the Record Sheet to see what piece of information is missing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: obe34 on 20 September 2011, 00:28:16
well that is good and bad, I get to use the thing eventually, but i cant yet :P


Thanks
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 21 September 2011, 13:34:08
I apologize if this has been requested already, but could an Errata thread for Record Sheets: 3060 Unabridged be opened?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 September 2011, 15:49:03
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 21 September 2011, 16:14:23
Weird, I just searched for it and couldn't find it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 21 September 2011, 17:01:51
I bring the blessed link (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,4021.0.html).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 25 September 2011, 07:03:47
The Supercharger rules in TacOps (p. 345) could stand cleanup as far as vehicles are concerned. If I read this thread (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2088.msg45270.html#msg45270) 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).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Klat on 19 October 2011, 19:21:33
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 November 2011, 11:13:27
I need one for RS3039 Upgrade.  I spotted a minor issue in the new version.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Peter Smith on 19 November 2011, 11:29:39
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 19 November 2011, 14:59:53
Do you know about the Chippewa?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 November 2011, 17:50:01
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CitizenErased on 19 November 2011, 21:18:38
I also have one or two for the new RS:3039, and not just for vehicles.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trace Coburn on 22 November 2011, 06:28:50
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dark_Falcon on 24 November 2011, 13:08:51
  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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ladob on 24 November 2011, 18:07:47
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).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 24 November 2011, 18:35:19
The mistake was in the old RS volume. This was deliberate errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 24 November 2011, 18:38:20
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!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 22 December 2011, 05:42:56
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!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Davion_Boy_74 on 24 December 2011, 13:07:30
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Nebfer on 28 December 2011, 15:30:38
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 January 2012, 12:03:12
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 06 January 2012, 22:50:02
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 07 January 2012, 00:02:42
According to the current errata (http://bg.battletech.com/errata_files/CAT35002_TechManual_Errata_2.1.pdf):

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)."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 07 January 2012, 00:14:03
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 (http://bg.battletech.com/errata_files/CAT35002_TechManual_Errata_2.1.pdf): "*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.....
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 07 January 2012, 00:23:13
Which printing do you have? The errata is based on 2.0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 07 January 2012, 00:55:59
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...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 08 January 2012, 19:33:57
Or perhaps not: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,14775.0.html

What's correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 January 2012, 20:28:36
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 08 January 2012, 20:39:53
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...)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 January 2012, 20:53:02
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 08 January 2012, 21:33:35
Yes, that would make sense...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Chuzzwozza on 09 January 2012, 00:00:36
Have got a corrected answer here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,14775.msg342336.html#msg342336 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,14775.msg342336.html#msg342336)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 January 2012, 01:30:47
Perfect - confirms my suspicions.  Internal TM errata updated accordingly.

Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 09 January 2012, 12:49:46
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?

Hmmm...I'm afraid I don't think so. First of all, if you just change that last sentence, the first sentence still instructs you to roll "on the unit's appropriate Determining Critical Hits Table" -- vehicles, which normally only take at most one critical hit per opportunity, would still need to be explicitly pointed back to the "standard" table on TW p. 124 if a supercharger malfunction is to generate the chance for up to three "critical" hits.

And second, it's not wholly clear how these "sequential" hits are supposed to interact with previous motive system damage. As I understand it -- and correct me if I'm wrong, though the current wording of rules plus errata would seem to support my view --, any given motive system hit can normally readily happen multiple times; despite the presence of boxes on the record sheet suggesting otherwise they are not actually "marked off" as they occur. Thus, for example, a second 'minor' hit doesn't scroll up to 'moderate' just because a first one happened earlier...

...which of course means that the worst a supercharger failure can technically inflict on a ground or naval vehicle is one minor, one moderate, and one heavy motive system hit. This may reduce its MP to 0, but won't suffice to technically immobilize it, let alone kill its engine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 January 2012, 01:09:10
I'll do some research and talk to some people and hopefully their people will call my people.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 13 January 2012, 11:56:28
Hey Xotl, may we please have a thread for RS: 3075 - Print edition? Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 13 January 2012, 18:28:30
In the FM: 3085 thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,14979.msg346365.html#msg346365):

Quote from: Maingunnary
P. 208, Mercenary Mech RAT

There are a highly large amount of 3039 Mech variants in this RAT, they go so far as roll 27 of 44.  This RAT is periphery grade and many of these variants are less available then more modern variants. Please update the Mechs with 3039 variant from roll 14 and up.

'I don't like it' isn't errata, those 'Mechs were chosen for those locations, they are not in error.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 January 2012, 18:35:40
Thanks Kit, although per the rules you as a writer can reply directly in the thread without setting a bad example. :)

I've invited him to continue the discussion here if he wishes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MarauderD on 14 January 2012, 01:11:25
Re: FM: 3085

Pg. 197, Federated Suns RAT

This isn't an "I don't like it" post but more of an "I wonder why the author did that" post.  :)

On the Heavy column, there was no inclusion of the WHM-8D Warhammer. Objectives: FS states that in 3079 it has been in steady construction at Crofton, and I think we can assume still is. It seems that the other 4 successor states have numerous Project Phoenix mechs in their RATs, and was curious if the author purposefully left it out or it was just overlooked perhaps?

I know the RATs are just suggestions, and I'm free to include all the PP mechs in my FedSuns forces as I see fit, but was just curious about the WHM.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 14 January 2012, 01:55:58
RATs aren't reflective of what are units are being built by a faction.  They're just for random force generation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 January 2012, 03:00:56
RATs can never include everything.  In general, the goal was to capture a wide range of weights, battle values, and book sources.  I don't recall any deliberate decision to exclude the -8D but, looking at the FedSuns list, I don't really see anything I'd cut to fit it in.  The -8D is as you say a perfect valid entry, but then again so are the others (and the Davion heavy column does have three unseen units in it already).

If I missed the fact that one of the units on there is actually pretty rare by 3085, then the -8D would be the likely candidate to replace it, assuming the weight/BV ranges were reasonably close (the -8D is not an A-level unit, for instance, so I'd never fit it there).  But RATs are ultimately just guidelines, and you can certainly feel free to replace a heavy mech with the -8D with solid canonical backing.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MarauderD on 14 January 2012, 11:59:25
Thanks Xotl!  Very kind response.

Now you've raised my curiousity as to what are considered "A"level mechs on the RATS.  Since front line units add 8 to their rolls, I assume it would be anything 10+ on the tables for the House RATs?

Cheers,

Mad
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 January 2012, 12:23:57
Thanks Xotl!  Very kind response.

Now you've raised my curiousity as to what are considered "A"level mechs on the RATS.  Since front line units add 8 to their rolls, I assume it would be anything 10+ on the tables for the House RATs?

That's correct.  I didn't make all the RATs, so the other authors had their own methods of handling things.  For myself, I tried to pick heavier mechs with higher BVs for the A-level stuff, with the caveat that I haven't gamed with every last one of them.  That meant that occasionally a dog slipped in their and fellow fact checkers politely pointed out that anyone rolling up that unit for an A-level would want to lynch me.

That having been said, fluff came first, so if there was a statement saying that X mech was assigned to elite units, then they were stuffed in the A levels, no matter how good it was.  Also, "12" slots are not necessarily the best mechs, but rare and unusual ones, such as the #12 Drac assault, which is an Atlas with double C3 masters.

If there are any further questions I'd ask that you please take it to PM, as I'd rather leave this thread for the errata-type discussion it was intended for.  I shouldn't set a bad example. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 14 January 2012, 22:53:02
Re: VTOLs (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,15022.msg347228.html#msg347228)...

VTOLs are an exception to that.  See the TacOps Errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 15 January 2012, 05:07:23
Where do we report FM3085:RAT vs MUL conflicts? In the FM3085 or the MUL thread?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 15 January 2012, 09:45:42
Where do we report FM3085:RAT vs MUL conflicts? In the FM3085 or the MUL thread?

MUL, because it's not errata.  But the MUL takes suggestions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 February 2012, 01:38:59
But you didn't actually check?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 08 February 2012, 01:01:11
Despite it obviously being perfect, we should have a thread for Objectives: Lyran Alliance so I can correct folks on their misconceptions.  ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 February 2012, 12:17:27
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,15022.msg366221.html#msg366221
As noted in the MUL thread, the Jihad era is being extended through 3085.  So RS: Prototypes that intro before 3086 are correct in being labeled Jihad era. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trebuchet3025 on 10 February 2012, 17:08:06
Can anyone direct me to errata for the Wolf and Blake starterbook? All Google gives me are broken links. -- Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 February 2012, 17:20:12
I'm afraid there is no Wolf & Blake errata currently - it was all lost when the forum archive was removed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trebuchet3025 on 10 February 2012, 18:54:00
That is as I suspected, but at least I know not to keep looking. I will start my own list and report back.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 06 March 2012, 19:12:44
Not sure if this is an error or not, but is the Neptune not in RS3039u?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Peter Smith on 07 March 2012, 11:18:04
No template for it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 March 2012, 00:57:08
New HB: House Steiner thread opened (along with a few other missing threads).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 30 March 2012, 04:12:29
Page 19
Annihilator 2AX armor does not match description on page 6

Possible Solution
Correct whichever armour value is incorrect.

Record sheet armor on page 19 makes the design two ton underweight, page 6 armor makes the design exactly 100t.


Xotl: noted, thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 01 April 2012, 08:11:42
Can we get a thread for Turning Point St. Ives?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 13 April 2012, 14:48:50
Xotl, I had to restrain myself to post here rather than clutter up the new thread: congratulations to you on the Herculean task involved with the errata. Well done, well done indeed, kind sir!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 13 April 2012, 15:35:11
Yeah.  I can't imagine how much of a pain it must have been wading through all those reports.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 April 2012, 15:45:54
From start to finish it took about a year :D (albeit with pauses as other projects took priority).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 13 April 2012, 18:17:33
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 14 April 2012, 05:14:29
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Davion_Boy_74 on 14 April 2012, 05:39:24
Has the weight of the BA Arty been released yet ?, or have I totally missed that in the errata pdf ?.
Thanks.

Dave.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 14 April 2012, 05:40:46
p. 51 of the errata document
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Davion_Boy_74 on 14 April 2012, 05:42:06
p. 51 of the errata document

Thanks.

Dave,
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 22 April 2012, 04:41:52
Can we get an errata thread for the Wars of Reaving Supplemental?  Or is that considered to be part of Wars of Reaving?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 April 2012, 23:46:32
No, it gets its own thread - I was just out of town.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 April 2012, 03:19:06
Okay, I just wasn't sure if I should post the things I've found under the standard WoR errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sabelkatten on 24 April 2012, 16:47:52
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)?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 24 April 2012, 16:53:15
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sabelkatten on 25 April 2012, 15:01:55
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? ???
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 25 April 2012, 15:07:35
The ammo is correct, it's 2 slots, for a weapons+ammo total of 6.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: sillybrit on 25 April 2012, 15:14:53
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: tomaddamz on 25 April 2012, 17:23:05
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 25 April 2012, 17:29:17
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 25 April 2012, 18:15:30
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)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 25 April 2012, 19:16:21
Heh, almost. The weight for the regular Flamer is 0.5 (10) O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 25 April 2012, 19:18:32
Heh, almost. The weight for the regular Flamer is 0.5 (10) O0
Ok, thanks for pointing that out :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: tomaddamz on 25 April 2012, 19:21:37
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 25 April 2012, 19:53:12
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Urban Kufahl on 26 April 2012, 09:41:40
@Wantec : source of your Coyote RAT ?
No Hellbringer and the RAT give less chance of omni than the other  :-\
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Savage Coyote on 26 April 2012, 12:45:00
Those were the Coyote RAT's presented in the playtest/fact check that wantech and myself saw before publication...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Urban Kufahl on 26 April 2012, 16:12:57
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).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Savage Coyote on 26 April 2012, 16:21:42
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FedComGirl on 28 April 2012, 06:50:35
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 28 April 2012, 11:18:56
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 02 May 2012, 17:41:39
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 May 2012, 06:32:01
Just so you know, that point was raised internally to the MUL team.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 05 May 2012, 06:44:57
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 May 2012, 06:52:46
*shrugs*  We'll see what the decision is but it might take a little time.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: LastChanceCav on 06 May 2012, 19:54:51
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".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 07 May 2012, 17:33:29
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!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 May 2012, 13:25:19
I'm back and this time it's personal.  Vacation was fun, but giant robots call me back to duty.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 28 May 2012, 14:43:54
Welcome back!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 14 June 2012, 08:50:56
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 June 2012, 18:37:41
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 17 June 2012, 20:10:54
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 17 June 2012, 20:31:30
It's mentioned in TRO3058U, page 50.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 17 June 2012, 20:34:32
thank you
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 22 June 2012, 04:11:06
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?)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 22 June 2012, 16:54:41
Put this in the Rules Questions area, please.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 23 June 2012, 01:05:54
Put this in the Rules Questions area, please.

*nod* Done. Wasn't altogether sure whether it belonged more here or there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 June 2012, 02:56:26
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 23 June 2012, 08:45:39
That's a great guideline, Xotl.  You may want to sticky that at the top of the forum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 June 2012, 10:26:23
I've added it to the stickied rules post.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 June 2012, 10:46:49
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 08 July 2012, 16:01:09
Mauser IIC (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,12145.msg466101.html#msg466101)

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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Trace Coburn on 13 July 2012, 08:33:27
  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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 July 2012, 00:28:12
No problem. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 16 July 2012, 05:31:36
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 25 July 2012, 06:02:22
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

Quote from: TechManual pg 236
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: obe34 on 25 July 2012, 11:36:35
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 25 July 2012, 11:46:17
My RS: 3085 Project Phoneix doesn't have a CRD-4L either
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 25 July 2012, 12:07:35
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 25 July 2012, 12:10:49
This is the one I'm looking at.

http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2652
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 25 July 2012, 12:28:43
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.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 25 July 2012, 12:34:52
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: obe34 on 06 August 2012, 15:02:31
Ah thx for the clarification
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 August 2012, 10:10:55
Do rules clarifications like the discussion in this (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,22089.0.html) thread and this ruling (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,21089) 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 August 2012, 17:39:03
Do rules clarifications like the discussion in this (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,22089.0.html) thread and this ruling (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,21089) 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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 August 2012, 08:55:15
I've started a new thread for obsolete books; feel free to chat about it here.  Anyone who has items not included there should by all means post about it here (although more is to come).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 18 August 2012, 14:10:31
I used to have a bunch of notes on mistakes in, and changes to, older books. I'll see if they still exist.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 August 2012, 21:00:57
That would great.  Thanks for checking.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 August 2012, 22:08:58
New updates to Historical Errata.  More probably tomorrow.

EDIT: new Record Sheet stuff posted, plus a new copy of the Tactical Handbook errata is available, due to the low quality of the previous scan.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 23 August 2012, 03:20:55
Historical Errata Thread:
Um, you have listed TRO:3055U [Catalyst] version as non-supported. It should probably be TRO:3055U [FanPro] instead.
The TRO:3067 in the thread should probably also be TRO:3067 [FanPro], since Catalyst has released a version of TRO:3067 this year.


Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 August 2012, 03:37:41
Historical Errata Thread:
Um, you have listed TRO:3055U [Catalyst] version as non-supported. It should probably be TRO:3055U [FanPro] instead.
The TRO:3067 in the thread should probably also be TRO:3067 [FanPro], since Catalyst has released a version of TRO:3067 this year.

Good points - corrections made.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 August 2012, 16:17:51
BattleSpace corrections and a set of 1986 corrections for various 1st edition products added to the Historical Errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 September 2012, 10:08:53
Historical Errata request.  There was an errata sheet issued for Mercenary's Handbook 3055.  If anyone has it and could scan it I would be extremely grateful.  As far as I know it's never been posted online.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Col.Hengist on 14 September 2012, 09:01:28
  IN the RATS of FM:2750 on page 148 it shouws the Thorn THN-F as the varient to use.It states it is from RS 3039U. The MUL supports that there is a "F" varient. When i asked about this in the errata for the RS 39U i was told that the "S" and the "F" are the same mech and redirected here because i didn't follow some protocol.

 Why did it show the "F" when there is no "F" in the 39U, only the "S" which is the same varient and why are both in the MUL if there is only the record sheet for one? It is very confusing. Which is the right one,the "F" or the "S"? A;so, since they are presumably the same mech, why have one mech with 2 different numbers? It's just very confusing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 September 2012, 10:13:07
Why did it show the "F" when there is no "F" in the 39U, only the "S" which is the same varient and why are both in the MUL if there is only the record sheet for one?

There are two different Thorns that, thanks to in-universe reasons, wind up with the same configuration, though spaced centuries apart.  The original Thorn (the -F) has the 2490 date, and is the one that first came off the assembly line.  It was later removed from service as upgraded models with Star League tech came along to replace it (the -N).  The later Thorn (the -S) is the one ComStar provided to the Combine in the run-up to the War of 3039.  By stripping the Star League models of all their advanced tech, ComStar created a "new" model functionally identical to the original -F models that came off the line all those years ago.  The MUL preserves the two different entries because, depending on when you're playing and the filters you apply, you're going to be looking for different names.

Quote
It is very confusing. Which is the right one,the "F" or the "S"? A;so, since they are presumably the same mech, why have one mech with 2 different numbers? It's just very confusing.

They're both "right", but RS3039 would have it listed as the -S because that's how the mech was known then, and because there were no original -Fs still in existence anywhere.  This is a legacy of the fluff, decided many years ago, not a choice on our part - if we were to skip one name, someone else woould wonder what was going on there.  There is a Victor with two designations for the same design as well, because the same machine was produced in both the Combine and FedSuns, and was named differently by each - again, years-old fluff forces our hand (and quite frankly, these little hiccups make things a little more "real" to me, so I tend to enjoy the odd one now and again).

The MUL should probably attempt to do something about the -F being listed as appearing in 3039u, since as you mention that exact designation does not appear in that book.  I'll see what we can do.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Col.Hengist on 14 September 2012, 10:37:06
Thank you, thats what i thought was going on but i wanted to be sure. Is there any way to redirect some one on the MUL if they are looking for one or the other or give an explanation of what's going on?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 September 2012, 00:16:51
Hengist - questions about the MUL are best asked in the MUL thread in this subforum, and as the MUL being actively remodeled at the moment, now is the time to do so.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Col.Hengist on 24 September 2012, 09:28:58
I only mentioned the MUL because you had also mentioned it also. I wasn't trying to have an off topic discussion .
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 24 September 2012, 09:30:42
The notes field in the MUL now explains for the VTR-9D, THN-F, and CRD-4L where to find the correct record sheet.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 September 2012, 09:35:24
I only mentioned the MUL because you had also mentioned it also. I wasn't trying to have an off topic discussion.

Don't worry - I wasn't giving you hell.  I just wanted to make sure you had the chance to get your feedback in while it was the best time to do so.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 19 October 2012, 06:01:54
For future integration into errata, p. 238:

1) Damage is averaged over a number of clusters number of shots fired. In the case of RAC, would that be 6?  Or do RACs still use the previous ruling where they do damage in clusters equal to the single shot damage (in 4 clusters)?

RACs do damage in the amount of their base damage.  So a RAC/5 does four 5 point hits against a ground target.


2) What happens when damage does not divide evenly?  Does the last shot just get the remainder or is damage spread as evenly as possible between shots i.e. and RAC/2 does 8 damage in clusters of 2,2,1,1,1,1?  Would a UAC/10 do 15 damage as a cluster of 8 and 7?

RACs are always even.  Ultras you would do the greater damage in the first shot.

 ???
This errata is confusing me. Changing the way RACs works in a series of questions does not work.
So does a RAC/2 do damage in 5, 3 clusters (the old way clear way from before the errata), as 2,2,1,1,1,1, as 2,2,2,2 or as 4,4?

Can we assume that the following in the TW is no longer true?:
Quote from: TW, page 238
The Attack Value of all cluster weapons except Plasma weapons
and Ultra Autocannons (or all cluster weapon bays except Ultra
Autocannon bays) is divided into 5-point Attack Value groupings,
with any remaining damage assigned to its own grouping.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 October 2012, 09:41:57
The wording on the answer is bad: you have thr right way for RACs - nothing has changed there that I know.   I'll just edit that part out for now (the real errata is how to round for UACs).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Neufeld on 20 October 2012, 06:35:52
The wording on the answer is bad: you have thr right way for RACs - nothing has changed there that I know.   I'll just edit that part out for now (the real errata is how to round for UACs).

The first part still refer to RACs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wellspring on 31 October 2012, 13:57:53
Quick question: it was suggested that I post it here.

Some of the errata hasn't made its way into reprints. Is this a typesetting issue or is some errata being held for later updates?

Thanks

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 31 October 2012, 14:53:45
It comes down to time and money.

Layout is perhaps the most precious resource, in that Catalyst has far more writers and artists available than it does layout guys.  To work in errata takes time from them that is needed to ready new books for print.  And errata only makes it to books when it is time for them to be reprinted - not all books are, because some times it's simply not economically feasible to reprint them.

In some cases errata is overlooked as well, though I'm striving to reduce the occasions of that.

If you have any other questions, feel free to post them here.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Schottenjaeger on 08 November 2012, 04:45:13
I have uncovered an errata question for TRO: Vehicle annex, but there is no thread. What should I do?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 08 November 2012, 04:49:58
Basically, TRO VA is being revamped from the ground up. As such, most errata will no longer be applicable.

That said, please feel free to post it right here :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 20 November 2012, 11:20:45
XTRO: Succession Wars Volume 1. First PDF release, page 18, Flea record sheet.


FWIW, my record sheet for the Flea is missing internal structure dots, just like Ryumo's (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,24736.msg555294.html#msg555294)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 27 November 2012, 14:11:42
Ladies and gentlemen, please use the errata template when reporting issues, and as a reminder, please do not discuss anything in the normal errata threads.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Gallard on 29 November 2012, 20:55:27
Hi, I've been trying to find it but have come up short. Could someone tell me which print/dead-tree books have reprintings including errata ? I'm specifically interested in Core Book reprintings, but pointing me to other products would be handy as well.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 November 2012, 00:12:10
Hi, this is something on my to-do list, but I haven't had the chance to track down a master list yet.  In general, it's only the core rulebooks and technical readouts that receive reprints.  All reprints and pdf-only releases of the core rulebooks are detailed in each of their threads.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jellico on 12 December 2012, 22:47:24
A-pods were introduced in 2850, which is Succession War era.
The problem is the fluff says that the A-Pods were installed when the twin Arrow IV Bowman was modified. Therefore the twin Arrow IV Bowman can't have A-Pods and be the "original" Bowman.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 12 December 2012, 23:37:06
The problem is the fluff says that the A-Pods were installed when the twin Arrow IV Bowman was modified. Therefore the twin Arrow IV Bowman can't have A-Pods and be the "original" Bowman.

1) You probably should be a little clearer about that in your errata post.
2) You are probably jumping the gun, assuming that it is supposed to be the "original" Bowman at this point.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 13 December 2012, 13:31:31
2) You are probably jumping the gun, assuming that it is supposed to be the "original" Bowman at this point.

No, he isn't, he posted that for me. So I guess he forgot the "Dev-level" tag.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 13 December 2012, 15:01:48
No, he isn't, he posted that for me. So I guess he forgot the "Dev-level" tag.
So it's all your fault. ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GRUD on 23 December 2012, 06:39:05
I realize that a LOT of time and effort was put into A Time of War Companion, but I recently got my print copy and was simply AMAZED at the huge number of typos I've seen so far.  I read the story, and found probably 2-3 typos in each chapter.  Several of the Quotes above various subjects have typos, and I spotted several typos in some of the text in various areas.  I haven't read through the entire book, but if I were to do so, then submit an "Errata Report", it would probably cover 2-3 pages once I posted it.  I realize "Spell Check" doesn't get EVERYTHING, but were ANY human proofreaders even used?  :-\  I wasn't even looking through it TRYING to find any typos either, and was simply reading the story, plus scanning some of the sections.  I know it's not a big deal to some people, but it's a bit jarring to me to be reading a "Professional" product like this, and see so many typos.  The first two BattleCorps Anthologies were riddled with typos as well, but Volume Three was practically free of them.


One example from AtoWC:


Page 70

Environmental Specialist (Miscellaneous)
"What are you complaining about? When you've been on one snowstorm, you've been in them all."

Should be:
"What are you complaining about? When you've been in one snowstorm, you've been in them all."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 December 2012, 15:43:40
We welcome even typo reports, so if you have errata reports to make then please make them, but there's no need to be insulting while doing so.  I assure you that real humans in fact read every Catalyst product.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FedComGirl on 02 January 2013, 22:20:21
I hate it when the Errata document is wrong
Errata document, page 11, possibly others
"SHD-X2 Shadow Hawk LAM (p. 291)"
The SHD-X2's stat block is on page 290, not 291

Judging by copyright dates, first printing
Lacking a copy of RS:3085 and without access to the LAM construction rules I can' be 100% sure, but under previous editions LAMs required the two remaining CT crit slots for transformation gear so
Page 297, WSP-100 WASP LAM MKI stat block move SRM 2(OS) from CT(R) to somewhere else and
Page 301 PHX-HK1 PHOENIX HAWK LAM MK I stat block move the JJ from CT to somewhere else
Also for some reason the leg mounted JJ's aren't group together on 301, suggest grouping (or double checking placement)

I don't remember there ever being there being any transformation gear crits.  ??? But no errata for the LAMs concerning it are necessary since there aren't any transformation gear crits. According to the Record Sheets, LAMs have Landing Gear and Avionics Crits. Each take up 3 critical slots each, 1 in 3 different locations. Only 1 space in the Center Torso is devoted to Landing gear leaving 1 critical slot empty for other items. The other occupied slots are in the head and side torsos.

I hope that helps clear up any confusion. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 January 2013, 00:45:18
Please note that the official errata page on the website has been updated to contain the latest core rulebook errata, including the new TacOps errata release.  I'll be working to get other errata releases currently found only on the forums up there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 26 January 2013, 07:03:32
Ladies and gentlemen, please follow the errata rules.

Quote
1) NO DISCUSSION IN ERRATA THREADS
If you're not making a report, don't post in an errata thread unless the thread has been noted as discussion-friendly (only writers, developers, and MUL Team members may ignore this rule).  This will speed up errata compiling and help ensure your report is not lost in general chatter.

If you want to discuss something about a particular piece of errata, or any other part of the errata process, please use the stickied Errata Discussion Thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 29 January 2013, 01:51:03
TechManual: AC/20, Ultra AC-20, LB 20-X (both Clan & IS versions for all three autocannons), Heavy Gauss Rifle, HAG/30 and HAG/40.
Tactical Operations: Sniper Artillery Cannon, Long Tom Artillery Cannon, Clan Rotary AC/5, NLRM 20, ELRM 20.

Plus the Arrow IV, Sniper, and Thumper full artillery pieces that prompted this whole discussion and were previously allowed in the Battletech Master Rules.

Not applicable:
Equipment, physical weapons.  That is not to say that examples of such will never be splittable, but rather that each is considered non-splittable unless, as with all things, rulings in a specific instance override the general.

Quote from: SCC
Under the current rules the MRM-40 with the MRM "Apollo" Fire Control System and the NLRM-20 and ELRM-20 also meet the splittable requirements, should this be the case?

It's odd that the Clan RAC/5 is large enough to enable splitting but not the IS version


SCC: your post has been moved here because no discussion is allowed in errata threads.

The Apollo+MRM launcher is only treated as single item for non-mech units, so it wouldn't apply in this case.  As for the NLRM- and ELRM-20s, the post you quote already has them listed.  Lastly, as for the RAC/5 oddity, well, that's just the way the crits work out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 29 January 2013, 03:22:34
Relating to this http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,26515.0.html
I notice, while Battlemech armor is listed on the Barrier armor table (AToW pg 187), I can't actually find any passages that say the BAR at AToW scale are the same as the BAR at TW scale.

Should a sentence or two be added that you use the BAR a support vehicle would use the TW scale BAR listed on the record sheet as well as a note that mechs, combat vehicles and ASFs posses a BAR of 10 unless otherwise listed (only exception I can think of is Commercial armor with a BAR of 5)?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 January 2013, 13:33:38
Would you repost that in the Time of War Rules Question board, please?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 19 February 2013, 01:52:38
For future reference:


For ATOW, the cargo carrying capacity of Battle Armor units is based on the STR of the user, plus any bonuses provided by the suit, plus a bonus based on the type of suit:
PA(L) = +1 STR
Light = +2 STR
Medium = +4 STR
Heavy = +6 STR
Assault = +8 STR

That will be errata'd into p. 169 of ATOW, under encumbrance.
So, an STR 10 guy in an assault suit would math to STR18 for encumbrance purposes, so at 270kg, the encumbered penalty starts kicking in.

A Myomer Booster adds +4 STR.
In combat, it's a +0M/12 advantage.
emphasis mine
First off, I am confused how +4 strength equates to +12BD; an assault BA suit has a bonus of 8 strength and only gets an AP/BP bonus of +3M/+3 (medium suits with 4 strength get a bonus of +2M/+2), and melee attacks only get a damage bonus of STR/4.
Second, should that line be added to the table on pg. 216
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 February 2013, 02:02:48
emphasis mine
First off, I am confused how +4 strength equates to +12BD; an assault BA suit has a bonus of 8 strength and only gets an AP/BP bonus of +3M/+3 (medium suits with 4 strength get a bonus of +2M/+2), and melee attacks only get a damage bonus of STR/4.
Second, should that line be added to the table on pg. 216


Yes, the +0M/12 would be the line item we'd have to add to p.216 for a myomer booster.
In battle armor combat, the operator's STR does not affect the damage the suit will do.
The disconnect between +4 STR for carrying purposes and +12BD is because there is a difference between faster motion and lifting capability. Nearly all the strength from the myomers in a suit is utilized to cancel out the significant mass of the suit itself, leaving very little in the way of actual lift capability. A major component of the damage enhancement from suit types is due to their bulk.
Myomer boosters are not designed to help the suit carry more, so it doesn't.

Also remember that encumbrance indicates when penalties kick in, so a suit with myomer boosters will still be faster than a suit without myomer boosters when it's encumbered because of the speed bonus the booster provides.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 21 February 2013, 02:56:40
In battle armor combat, the operator's STR does not affect the damage the suit will do.
The example on page 218 (PDF printing) disagrees with this statement and given the nature of what a battle armor suit is, I wouldn't have thought to question that fact; being worn it would stand to reason the operator's traits and abilities directly affect the aggregate performance of the suit.

Quote
The disconnect between +4 STR for carrying purposes and +12BD is because there is a difference between faster motion and lifting capability. Nearly all the strength from the myomers in a suit is utilized to cancel out the significant mass of the suit itself, leaving very little in the way of actual lift capability. A major component of the damage enhancement from suit types is due to their bulk.
Myomer boosters are not designed to help the suit carry more, so it doesn't.
I understand that, and get that there are going to be some differences between the strength ratings used to determine melee damage, and carrying capacity (and movement), but the way melee damage works, that damage bonus is equivalent to boosting the strength by 48 points, which is why it seems so extreme.  I thought it might be a mistake, and I appear to not be the only one (see similar post in TW questions).  I am actually interested to hear how you came up with that number.



On a side note to fill out ALL of the effects (except the handling of BA MP, of course) of Myomer Boosters you need to add a footnote on the table on AToW page 218 that BA Myomer boosters reduce the E/I/C rating to x/0/x due to the heat generated.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 February 2013, 03:10:37
Best take any further discussion on this to your current AToW thread.  Paul will be able to help you better than I can on this one.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 21 February 2013, 03:30:42
Gimme a few moments, but don;t forget about the effect of myomer boosters on stealth (namely that the heat signature makes it pointless)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 23 February 2013, 14:59:28
Third release PDF, p. 282, Armorred Components, first paragraph, last sentence:

"The only exception is the cockpit location, which adds 1 ton of armor to the cockpit weight."
Change to:
"The only exception is cockpit systems (including Cockpit Command Consoles), which adds 1 ton of armor to the cockpit weight."

Hi Xotl, quick clarification: per crit, right?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 23 February 2013, 15:57:42
Are there any cockpit systems that take up more than one crit?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 February 2013, 16:09:36
Yeah, I'm not clear why that matters - the console only occupies 1 crit.  What's up?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 23 February 2013, 18:10:01
My bad, I misread that. To my silly head the Console was a 2-crit, 6-ton item. Mea maxima culpa.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 28 February 2013, 05:39:02
<looks at bloated FM3085 thread>
[AAAH]

EvilOverlordX, if you read through a book and make a point of diligently reporting all errors, it may be worth doing so once you are finished with it? You know, in a single, big post?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 28 February 2013, 16:22:29
You can create a word processor document and record each error as you come to it, then copy-paste the whole thing into a post if remembering the different errors is a problem.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 February 2013, 16:41:14
Just to be clear, I don't mind people editing their posts in order to collect multiple reports in one, especially if most of the errors are small (typos and the like).  I will generally post when I'm preparing an errata release for a particular book, so people will know not to edit at that stage.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: EvilOverlordX on 28 February 2013, 16:54:50
Sorry, will do going forward.  I wasn't expecting to find many typos, and didn't think about it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 February 2013, 17:02:35
No problem - what you're doing is greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Pa Weasley on 22 March 2013, 18:42:16
Regarding this posted added to the Total Warfare errata today by Paul:
Quote
PDF, third printing, p. 305

REPLACE:
"Man-Portable Plasma Rifle DE 2"

WITH"
"Man-Portable Plasma Rifle DE 2§§"

Since this weapon now has the option to cause damage or heat, should the type be changed to "DE, H"?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 23 March 2013, 00:16:57
Regarding this posted added to the Total Warfare errata today by Paul:
Since this weapon now has the option to cause damage or heat, should the type be changed to "DE, H"?

Yep. Fixing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 29 March 2013, 12:41:43
Posting here instead of the TRO 3075 thread since this is a question instead of an errata.

Looking at the Prometheus CSBL on page 220: The vehicle has a fusion engine, but also devotes three tons of heat sinks for its medium laser. Said laser is the only heat-generating equipment on the tank. AM I missing something where support vees don't get to use in-engine heat sinks for energy guns, or should those heat sinks be errataed out?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 29 March 2013, 13:23:15
AM I missing something where support vees don't get to use in-engine heat sinks for energy guns

Basically yup. P. 133, TM, bottom of first column. It's more that SV don't get any weight-free heat sinks at all, no matter which engine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 29 March 2013, 15:40:16
I figured that's what it was, but I had to ask.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GRUD on 01 April 2013, 10:05:39
You're right.  I checked the TRO and it says the prototypes were built from converted Kintaro Battlemechs. I just thought the lack of the word "SalvageMech" (after Hyena HYN-KTO) was a typo also. I guess I should've checked the TRO FIRST, huh?   [metalhealth]


Nevermind. :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 April 2013, 13:15:48
Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads.  The exceptions to this are outlined in the special rules for this forum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 April 2013, 11:03:54
Note that the 1993 errata sheet for Mercenary's Handbook 3055 has been added to the Historical Errata thread.  Big thanks to Kit deSummersville for scanning this one for me.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ntin on 03 April 2013, 20:39:10
Not sure if this is a big deal but on the Total Warfare thread post #60 (http://"http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5943.msg639960.html#msg639960") has the errata

WITH:
"F: Flak. When used by any unit against airborne aerospace units or VTOLs and WiGEs, apply a –2 to-hit modifier in addition to any other modifiers such weapons might convey."

The wrong conjunction is being used in the first half of the sentence in “or VTOLs and WiGEs”. For the rule to follow the second unit identified would need to be both a VTOL and WiGE. It is also somewhat ambiguous as aerospace is classified as a type of unit where VTOLs and WiGEs are not. 

"F: Flak. When used by any unit against airborne aerospace, VTOL, or WiGE, units apply a –2 to-hit modifier in addition to any other modifiers such weapons might convey."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 03 April 2013, 21:22:37
I see what you mean. I think the issue is that VTOLs are WIGE are both technically Ground Units, who have some special rules associated with them, and the phrasing tries to grasp at that. I'll clean up the phrasing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 April 2013, 14:42:48
I just down loaded the updated infantry tables, i've gotta ask, the listing for the Federated-Barrett M61A Laser Rifle shows 3.83 damage, is this per rifle or for the whole infantry platoon. Same question regarding the Mauser IIC (9.82 damage)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 April 2013, 14:49:48
As far as I know that is per weapon, just like it always has been.  That does mean a Mauser IIC is as good as a Heavy Support Laser though, which surprises me.  However, I know earlier reports of inflated damage were confirmed as accurate, so... 

You might want to post a question in Ask the Writers with any values you feel are out of whack.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 April 2013, 15:44:48
As far as I know that is per weapon, just like it always has been.  That does mean a Mauser IIC is as good as a Heavy Support Laser though, which surprises me.  However, I know earlier reports of inflated damage were confirmed as accurate, so... 

You might want to post a question in Ask the Writers with any values you feel are out of whack.
Ok, will do
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 04 April 2013, 16:16:14
Hi,

I just down loaded the updated infantry tables, i've gotta ask, the listing for the Federated-Barrett M61A Laser Rifle shows 3.83 damage, is this per rifle or for the whole infantry platoon. Same question regarding the Mauser IIC (9.82 damage)

I show the Federated-Barrett M61A as 0.75 damage, and the Mauser IIC as 1.37 w/ non-infantro ammo (0.90 w/ Inferno ammo) in my latest errata (dated 29 March 2013)

The values you quoted are actually the Battle Values per rifle.

Thanks,

- Herb
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 April 2013, 16:44:50
Yeah, I missed that damage was mentioned, but BV was being used.  I take it that everything is all clear then, Snake Eyes?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 April 2013, 17:42:12
Yeah, I missed that damage was mentioned, but BV was being used.  I take it that everything is all clear then, Snake Eyes?
Thanks Herb & Xotl, that does clear things up O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 09 April 2013, 16:53:01
Not sure if this deserves errata, but it seems that every variant of the Mad Cat Mk IV has 2 tons left over, and enough room to add either extra heat sinks or ammo
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 09 April 2013, 16:55:57
Did you notice the armored gyro?

And yes, errors like that would require errata in the respective TRO. While underweight designs are permissible by the rules, we don't make em that way.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 09 April 2013, 17:01:25
Did you notice the armored gyro?

And yes, errors like that would require errata in the respective TRO. While underweight designs are permissible by the rules, we don't make em that way.
Ok, now i know i have bad eyes #P

Thanks Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 09 April 2013, 17:07:43
Ok, now i know i have bad eyes #P

Thanks Paul

No worries, it's easy to miss.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Mr Balk on 11 April 2013, 23:22:55
The Wars of Reaving Supplemental

Just noticed the Osteon loadout MOD and noticed that a number of these actually have hand actuators noted on the Record Sheets:
B Page76
C Page 77
D Page 78
Jaguar page 83 

What is troubling is that the D (RA & LA hands) and Jaguar (LA with the retractable blade arm) being relases by IWM as Online Exclusive models do not have the hands present.

Is the error in The Wars of Reaving Supplemental or a quality check issue on approving the mini for IWM to produce?

Mr Balk
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 15 April 2013, 20:14:56
I looked in the TRO-3075 errata & the RS-3075 errata, but it seems that the JES 1 is 4 tons underweight....has there been a correction to this?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 16 April 2013, 01:11:01
I get 50 tons when I count it all up?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 23 April 2013, 21:14:25
The Wars of Reaving Supplemental

Just noticed the Osteon loadout MOD and noticed that a number of these actually have hand actuators noted on the Record Sheets:
B Page76
C Page 77
D Page 78
Jaguar page 83 

What is troubling is that the D (RA & LA hands) and Jaguar (LA with the retractable blade arm) being relases by IWM as Online Exclusive models do not have the hands present.

Is the error in The Wars of Reaving Supplemental or a quality check issue on approving the mini for IWM to produce?

Mr Balk

There are a lot of people waiting to hear back on this question...could someone please look in to it & post in here...thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 24 April 2013, 08:19:22
Huh, if only there was a place one could ask questions of the lead developers....
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 03 May 2013, 13:46:12
Hello,

That's not an error. The data presented is as intended.

Thanks,

- Herb

So it would be safe to assume that

(a) the Clan Small Aerospace Cockpit is functionally identical to and follows the same rules as the Inner Sphere model (as is the case for their BattleMech equivalents, except that there it's explicitly pointed out in a footnote) and

(b) "~3081" covers both the level transition and the Clan introduction date?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 03 May 2013, 14:47:13
Hi,

Yup.

Thanks,

- Herb
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 04 May 2013, 15:23:02
Ladies and gentlemen, again, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads.  The exceptions to this are outlined in the special rules for this forum.  I've moved the offending post and the response by the line developer into this thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: WeaponX on 21 May 2013, 20:20:21
As there's no errata thread for TRO 3057 Revised and this somewhat relates a rule on page 296 of Strategic Operations regarding how to calculate the maximum number of Dropships a Jumpship could carry (Jumpship Tonnage divided by 50000, rounded down), I'd like to point out that the Starlord (274,000 tons, 6 Dropships) and Monolith (430,000 tons, 9 Dropships) in TRO 3057 Revised don't adhere to the rules as the Starlord should only be able to carry 5 Dropships (274,000/50000 = 5.48, rounded down to 5) and the Monolith 8 Dropships (430000/50000 =  8.6, rounded down to 8 ). 

The way I see it there are two options, either change the stats on TRO 3057 Revised, or simply tweak the rule in Strategic Operations into something like:  To determine the maximum Dropship carrying capacity of a Jumpship or Warship, divide its Tonnage by 50000, and for ships under 250000 tons, round down the calculated figure to get a whole number, but for ships 250000 tons and over, round up the calculated figure instead.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 22 May 2013, 06:28:55
Found what may be an error in the current TacOps errata document (version 3.03). It states on p. 111 that the C-bill cost for the Extended LRM-15 should be 218,750. This doesn't seem to fit well into the general ELRM cost progression (see below), but would appear to be a better match for the Enhanced LRM-15, whose C-bill cost is indeed a bit the odd one out:

ELRM-5: 60,000 C-bills
ELRM-10: 200,000 C-bills
ELRM-15: 350,000 C-bills pre-, 218,750 (?) post-errata
ELRM-20: 500,000 C-bills

NLRM-5: 37,500 C-bills
NLRM-10: 125,000 C-bills
NLRM-15: 157,000 C-bills
NLRM-20: 312,500 C-bills

So...typo? Should that erratum refer to the Enhanced LRM-15 instead of the Extended one?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 22 May 2013, 12:17:05
Post that in Ask the Writers, please.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 22 May 2013, 12:25:16
As there's no errata thread for TRO 3057 Revised and this somewhat relates a rule on page 296 of Strategic Operations regarding how to calculate the maximum number of Dropships a Jumpship could carry (Jumpship Tonnage divided by 50000, rounded down), I'd like to point out that the Starlord (274,000 tons, 6 Dropships) and Monolith (430,000 tons, 9 Dropships) in TRO 3057 Revised don't adhere to the rules as the Starlord should only be able to carry 5 Dropships (274,000/50000 = 5.48, rounded down to 5) and the Monolith 8 Dropships (430000/50000 =  8.6, rounded down to 8 ). 

The way I see it there are two options, either change the stats on TRO 3057 Revised, or simply tweak the rule in Strategic Operations into something like:  To determine the maximum Dropship carrying capacity of a Jumpship or Warship, divide its Tonnage by 50000, and for ships under 250000 tons, round down the calculated figure to get a whole number, but for ships 250000 tons and over, round up the calculated figure instead.

Technical Readout: 3057 Revised has a number of issues in its stats.  To my understanding, we're not currently collecting errata for those statistics (hence the lack of an errata thread).  I have forwarded the matter on for greater review, however.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 June 2013, 03:33:41
The ECM is part of the Interdictor configuration and is mounted in the turret.
If thats the case, then the two need to be separated into to two entries the way other TROs have them.....
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 04 June 2013, 06:04:04
Ladies and gentlemen, again, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads even if you're responding to someone like a member of the MUL Team who is authorized to reply in those threads.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 04 June 2013, 10:08:07
If thats the case, then the two need to be separated into to two entries the way other TROs have them.....

There's 6 configurations indicated, to separate them all would've taken up too much space.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 June 2013, 13:14:38
Ladies and gentlemen, again, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads even if you're responding to someone like a member of the MUL Team who is authorized to reply in those threads.
Sorry about that, lack of sleep and too much caffeine...

@Paul: Yeah, looking at the Shen Long again, i just realized that all modular BA are listed the same...
fault on my end
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 04 June 2013, 13:20:58
@Paul: Yeah, looking at the Shen Long again, i just realized that all modular BA are listed the same...
fault on my end

No worries.
But does that mean you once thought it had ALL those weapons at once? Because that's an awesome visual. Even the guns have guns! =)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 04 June 2013, 20:15:57
No worries.
But does that mean you once thought it had ALL those weapons at once? Because that's an awesome visual. Even the guns have guns! =)
;D Yeah, thats exactly what i was thinking ;D
That would be cool to have all those weapons mounted at once....

The problem is i knew those were different variants, but my brain was telling me otherwise......that will be the last time i try reading the TRO while adding units to HMBA
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 June 2013, 06:36:44
This is the second time I've had to post this in two days:

Ladies and gentlemen, again, please do not post responses or comments in the errata threads even if you're responding to someone like a member of the MUL Team who is authorized to reply in those threads.

Please read the errata rules, ladies and gentlemen.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: LastChanceCav on 08 June 2013, 21:04:47
Could we get an errata thread for TRO FS 3145?

Thanks,
LCC
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 10 June 2013, 06:14:45
I'll take care of it this afternoon.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: LastChanceCav on 14 June 2013, 09:03:17
p. 41
CN11-D Centurion Configuration D

That configuration pod mounts a shield, however TacOps p. 288 says:

"BattleMech Melee Weapons: All of the advanced BattleMech melee weapons described in these rules may be mounted in accordance with all standard ’Mech
construction rules, with special construction rules as noted below. Except for the shield (which may only be installed as fixed equipment)"

I could not find anything in the errata v3.03 for TacOps that says differently.

Fix:
Remove shield and replace with other equipment.

I will also post this as a question in the TacOps rules section.

Cheers,
LCC
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 14 June 2013, 16:01:55
I've removed this in here.  The rule question has been forwarded.

When you think there's a reasonable chance there's a rules error instead of a construction error (i.e., we would need to errata TacOps in this case), please put it in the appropriate Rules Question board to avoid cluttering the errata threads up.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 18 June 2013, 23:17:59
Crap guess I missed the cutoff, but while you are amending the E/I/C table, you should probably add a footnote that BA using a myomer booster has an I rating of 0.
(TO 287 "Battlesuits equipped with Myomer Boosters generate excessive heat, making them incapable of operating as hidden units and rendering any Stealth
or Mimetic Armor ineff ective. ECM systems will still affect other electronic systems that pass through the ECM “bubble,” but the suits themselves remain
visible on sensors due to their heat signature.
")
emphasis mine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: AJC46 on 18 June 2013, 23:42:36
p. 41
CN11-D Centurion Configuration D

That configuration pod mounts a shield, however TacOps p. 288 says:

"BattleMech Melee Weapons: All of the advanced BattleMech melee weapons described in these rules may be mounted in accordance with all standard ’Mech
construction rules, with special construction rules as noted below. Except for the shield (which may only be installed as fixed equipment)"

I could not find anything in the errata v3.03 for TacOps that says differently.

Fix:
Remove shield and replace with other equipment.


according to this months battlechat with Herb on this he gives a explanation that the Centurion-O's D config could actually not a omnimech config and actually a related standard Battlemech or a totally different omnimech that comes with a shield in the base config and that there is a misinformation thing going on to confuse the Fedsuns enemies over what Centurion version is what.

although that's probably what a in-universe fluff explanation for what seems to be a Out of-universe rules crunch violation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 18 June 2013, 23:44:18
Crap guess I missed the cutoff, but while you are amending the E/I/C table, you should probably add a footnote that BA using a myomer booster has an I rating of 0.

Hah! Nice, good catch.


according to this months battlechat with Herb on this he gives a explanation that the Centurion-O's D config could actually not a omnimech config and actually a related standard Battlemech or a totally different omnimech that comes with a shield in the base config and that there is a misinformation thing going on to confuse the Fedsuns enemies over what Centurion version is what.

although that's probably what a in-universe fluff explanation for what seems to be a Out of-universe rules crunch violation.

We've already got a thread on that, working to solution.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,30397.0.html

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Highball on 10 July 2013, 16:57:42
Where is the Errata for TRO 3057 & TRO 3057r?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 10 July 2013, 17:10:10
Where is the Errata for TRO 3057 & TRO 3057r?

TR3057 is an obsolete source for a long out-of-print system, and has been replaced with a new edition, has no errata thread. TR3057 Revised is rife with so many issues that there was no call for public errata; it needs a ground-up redesign of nearly every unit.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 July 2013, 05:50:33
Still on vacation, but I got access to a real computer briefly and thought I'd stop by.  I doubt the two threads I just made will feature very many posts, but I wanted to be complete.  Thanks to Moonsword for holding down the fort whlie I'm away.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 11 July 2013, 10:19:03
Still on vacation, but I got access to a real computer briefly and thought I'd stop by.

Who are you, and where'd you get that red beemer?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 11 July 2013, 17:30:33
I don't know!  I just logged in one day and BAM!  Suddenly I've got phenomenal cosmic power and everyone thinks I'm a ham-fisted fascist.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 11 July 2013, 17:35:39
I don't know!  I just logged in one day and BAM!  Suddenly I've got phenomenal cosmic power and everyone thinks I'm a ham-fisted fascist.

Get out! Get out while you still can!

...and seriously, congratulations. If you've got any questions about the gig...well, my information is probably out of date, but I'll help where I can.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 11 July 2013, 18:24:13
Xotl gave me a pretty good rundown before he left.  I've mostly been trying to keep things on an even keel in between bouts of panic when I realize I'm the one in charge of a major errata effort.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 11 July 2013, 19:00:43
Major errata effort?  haven't all the core books been covered now?  What's next?

On a side note, when can we expect the compiled AToW errata to go up?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 July 2013, 19:03:41
Who are you, and where'd you get that red beemer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyxLGSMtqtM&t=0m45s
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 11 July 2013, 19:25:03
Major errata effort?  haven't all the core books been covered now?  What's next?

The job of keeping everything up to date with corrections, clarifications, and (sometimes) outright changes is a massive undertaking. There is no "finished" at any point. BattleTech's rules systems and universe are intricate and complicated to the point of chaos, and often one change can have a ripple effect through several published products and rules. When I first volunteered to the position of errata guy a few years back, there was no centralized process to solicit and track such things. Now BattleTech leads the industry in getting fixes available where needed, as fast as possible. It's a lot of ongoing work, though; every day sees new reports. The errata guy has to separate the wheat from the chaff, recognize where something may have already been covered and point the reporter to the current fix, and integrate new rulings in the proper style and format...plus give detailed and inclusive reports on demand.

So, there doesn't need to be a certain publication that's "under focus" for there to be a "major effort," and nothing is ever truly finished.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 11 July 2013, 21:26:36
I do understand it's a big job; I've certainly had enough back and forth with the devs on the rules board to see where interconnectivity issues arise.

I just took "major effort" to indicate something more than the day to day checks and submissions going on, so I figured that meant another book was going to have it's errata actually compiled.  I know the work won't be done, since it's pretty hard to eliminate all bugs, and 100% clarity is an impossible goal since you can't anticipate every edge case, but the core rule books have all gotten errata checks in the past few months.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 July 2013, 12:28:53
It did refer to a major compile effort: Moonsword was responsible for putting together the upcoming AToW errata, which was just completed.  He also handled wrapping up the TW release, when I had to go just before it was finished.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 12 July 2013, 12:33:51
It did refer to a major compile effort: Moonsword was responsible for putting together the upcoming AToW errata, which was just completed.  He also handled wrapping up the TW release, when I had to go just before it was finished.

Oh. Well then. *whistles nonchalantly*
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 July 2013, 20:36:36
Well, you're right too, especially now that the rules team is so tightly integrated with errata production and collation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 26 July 2013, 09:53:54
Since it's not likely to get a whole errata thread, I thought I should post this here:

Alpha Strike Preview 1, First Printing, page 14, Movement Example:

The dotted line indicating the top/bottom borders of the example is located in the wrong place. The bottom border is along the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Suggested fix:
Move to bottom of example text.
Remove bottom border completely, as in examples on pages 15 and 17.

Fixed in production release.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 29 July 2013, 14:36:56
In the absence of a thread for it yet:

TRO3145 Lyran Commonwealth, pg. 27
The Weapons and Ammo section lists the base model as having two sets of three Flamers in the Left Arm.  The record sheets (and common sense) disagree with this.

Suggested fix:
Display one set of three Flamers in both the Right and Left Arms on the base model.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 July 2013, 16:30:18
There's one now, please repost that in there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BloodReaper on 30 July 2013, 12:32:45
there are a lot of errata threads, but only a few have consolidated update lists.  is all posted errata in all the errata threads good enough for me to mark the changes in my books or is it subject to change? thank you

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 30 July 2013, 12:37:27
It's all subject to review.  Anything that isn't specifically developer errata is not necessarily final.  In general, errata derived from rules questions is usually valid as well.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 30 July 2013, 12:45:51
To expand on that a bit:
Developer level errata is usually either put in by a member of the MUL team, a writer, Paul or someone with a white/grey Battlemaster. Nobody else will put out developer level errata.
Rules level errata falls under the same rule, but is usually put in by even less members, the MUL team is cut out with the exception of Xotl, who runs the errata.

As long as it is not put into a thread by any of those people, it is not final.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 30 July 2013, 12:48:13
On rare occasions writers will toss in some developer errata on their stuff. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: DarkISI on 30 July 2013, 12:54:46
Writers... that nerdy little bunch ;)
Fixed my list :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BloodReaper on 31 July 2013, 09:56:01
thanks.  will the errata on the home page have all the other products at some point then?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 31 July 2013, 10:07:57
Those docs are updated when a reprint occurs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Garner on 31 July 2013, 15:13:52
A family member recently tried to order Total Warfare from the Battleshop for my birthday and was told it was out of production. Is it safe to assume that the new errata compilation means a new reprint, and if so could you give me any hint when that might be likely to be available for ordering?

(I expect this is probably a "it's done when it's done" question, or possibly it belongs in another forum, so apologies if this is the wrong place to ask)

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 31 July 2013, 15:17:56
Probably not the best place to ask, no...
But to answer the question: it's work in progress right now, but is waiting in line behind other recent projects that kind of all happened at the same time, IE, Alpha Strike. Generally speaking, CGL doesn't announce when they expect something to release, only when they have a street date. They get those based on when new material arrives at the main warehouse.

While not ideal, would it be an adequate intermediate solution to get the Total Warfare PDF?

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 31 July 2013, 15:41:41
Those docs are updated when a reprint occurs.
That actually makes a lot of the errata threads seem like a waste of time since the TROs and sourcebooks never seem to see a reprint.  That means official errata never seems to get made for most of them so why bother collecting it in the first place (yeah sure, I usually skim stuff to make a note of it, and most of it IS just typos, but it doesn't change the fact there is nothing verified.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 31 July 2013, 15:44:17
It's possible we'll start adding Errata PDFs/docs to the site at a future point; it's a workload bandwidth issue as far as getting that done. Note that it's not enough for wee monkeys like myself to collect errata, Herb still has to review and approve them as well for them to become 100% official and published. Normally, that's done as a step of the reprint workload, hence why those are closer to where we'd like it all to be.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 31 July 2013, 15:49:53
I definitely understand.  I was originally going to ask if it would help if Xotl got a minion or two to help to balance the workload, but if Herb is the bottleneck, that changes things.
Can we clone him a few times?  Seems like a few things get caught up on that Line dev bottleneck.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 31 July 2013, 15:55:39
I definitely understand.  I was originally going to ask if it would help if Xotl got a minion or two to help to balance the workload, but if Herb is the bottleneck, that changes things.
Can we clone him a few times?  Seems like a few things get caught up on that Line dev bottleneck.

More Xotl minions won't hurt neither, but that's someone else' call.

Herb bottleneck: there's sometimes no getting around that. It's his universe, his gameline. Who cares what I think, stuff has to conform to his sense of aesthetics far more than it has to conform to mine.

That said, we have plots to improve things even further, so that might work out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 August 2013, 15:12:27
I'm back.  Huge thanks to Moonsword for keeping things in tip-top shape!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 05 September 2013, 05:41:01
The Fast Learner and Slow Learner effects are each 20%, not 10%.

p.118:
"resulting in a 10 percent increase to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill."

CHANGE TO:
"resulting in a 10 percent increase to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill. This is cumulative with Fast and Slow Learner, which can result in a 0 percent or 20 percent increase respectively."

p.125:
"resulting in a 10 percent decrease to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill."

CHANGE TO:
"resulting in a 10 percent decrease to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill. This is cumulative with Fast and Slow Learner, which can result in a 20 percent or 0 percent decrease respectively."


Now I'm confused.

I assume you want it to directly stack to

p.118:
"resulting in a 10 percent increase to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill."

CHANGE TO:
"resulting in a 10 percent increase to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill. This is cumulative with Fast and Slow Learner, which can result in a 10 percent or 30 percent increase respectively."

p.125:
"resulting in a 10 percent decrease to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill."

CHANGE TO:
"resulting in a 10 percent decrease to the XP costs for raising or purchasing any Technician Skill. This is cumulative with Fast and Slow Learner, which can result in a 30 percent or 10 percent decrease respectively."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 05 September 2013, 05:42:11
Welcome back, Xotl.

It's been awhile for me too.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 September 2013, 12:20:05
Ladies and gentlemen, please read and follow the Errata rules (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.0.html).

Specifically, I'm talking about this one:
1) NO DISCUSSION IN ERRATA THREADS
If you're not making a report, don't post in an errata thread (only writers, developers, and MUL Team members may ignore this rule).  This will speed up errata compiling and help ensure your report is not lost in general chatter.

If you want to discuss a piece of errata, or any other part of the errata process, please use the stickied Errata Discussion Thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5884.0.html).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 06 September 2013, 03:59:26
Ladies and gentlemen, please read and follow the Errata rules (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.0.html).

Specifically, I'm talking about this one:

GAHG! My fault. Thank you for that, and the move.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 06 September 2013, 18:02:53
It's not a problem as long as you don't make a habit of it.  That's why I didn't call you out specifically, just posted a general reminder.

I'm just keeping things tidy to help Xotl out.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 10 September 2013, 08:19:22
Field Manual: 3145, first PDF printing, page 74, First Avalon Hussars description, last sentence:

Quote
...to try and re-one their...

Replace "re-one" with "re-hone".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hptm. Streiger on 10 September 2013, 08:36:10
While I wanted to wait till the official post is shown:

PDF:
Page 130:
Commonwealth Jaegers description:

Quote
In 3133, amid concerns of questionable loyalty
and suspected ties to separatist movements, the Skye Jaegers were disbanded as well.

Based on the novel: "Bonfire of Worlds" during the assassination attempt at Melissa Steiner at February 22. 3141 - a Skye Jaeger Fafnir guarding the throne room.
Could be a typo in both ways - but I would think a disbanding - in 43 would make more sense.

Page 245
TSEMP description

Quote
TSEMP weapons are only effective against targets weighing more than 200 tons and cannot be effectively used
against conventional infantry at all.

I can't believe that any unit will mount the TSEMP as primary weapons (like the Yinghuochong, Raven II or the Catapult II) when it is only usable vs Drop Ships
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 10 September 2013, 17:16:04
Guys, when you do things like this, you just make it so someone has to repost the reports later once an official thread opens up.  Ask for one and let us get to it, then post your reports.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 10 September 2013, 19:27:54
What exactly do we do with discovered discrepancies then? I thought we put them here for discussion/review.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 10 September 2013, 19:45:04
If you believe it to be wrong, list it in the appropriate errata thread. If you aren't sure, ask the developers/writers or ask a rules question. If you think someone is incorrect in their errata, discuss it here.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 10 September 2013, 20:00:11
What exactly do we do with discovered discrepancies then? I thought we put them here for discussion/review.

If the thread isn't open yet, just wait.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 September 2013, 20:07:20
In the future, waiting would indeed be appreciated.  But thank you for your enthusiasm.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 10 September 2013, 20:16:46
Speaking of errata that has no thread, Xotl, your signature still has "Away until September" in it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 September 2013, 20:41:55
How could I be errata guy if my sig didn't have errata?

Seriously, thanks - I never use sigs, so I forgot about that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 10 September 2013, 21:48:50
It's AToW, the errata thread is open. Should I rewrite my post in proper format and put it back in there? I'm still confused.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 September 2013, 21:58:30
We're referring to the recent flurry of misplaced FM 3145 posts, not your post on AToW from a few days ago.

If you think there's a problem, but you're not sure, feel free to post it in the appropriate rules forum.  Then, when you know for sure that it's in error, post it in the errata thread.  So in your case I'd invite you to make a new thread in the AToW rules forum asking for a sanity check on Paul's errata (that's what I'm assuming you're talking about).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 10 September 2013, 22:30:32
Yes and thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Snake Eyes on 12 September 2013, 16:47:38
Not sure if this deserves an errata, but, all the super heavy mech record sheets have a jump MP slot, but according to the rules, super heavy mechs are too heavy to mount JJs
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: AJC46 on 12 September 2013, 19:29:19
i noticed that too probably someone not watching what they are C&Ping and that sneaked by.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: solmanian on 14 September 2013, 18:36:18
*probably not the place for this.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: solmanian on 15 September 2013, 03:12:11
p 213.  PDF

In the chart for Equipment levels on mechs Stone's brigade receives a +24 to rolls. The Hastati Sentinels receive a +16 to rolls.

On the actual RAT the Republic only goes up to 28 results. So anything above a roll of two would push Stone's Brigade off the chart.

Suggested Correction:

Stone's Brigade +16
Hastati Sentinels +12

I assumed that you just get to keep the top mech i.e. mad cat IV for heavies...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 15 September 2013, 07:33:41
Ladies and gentlemen, the Errata Coordinator has already posted a notice in the Field Manual 3145 thread once about not following the errata rules.  That means no responses to other people's posts and no extraneous commentary. (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg52587.html#msg52587)  We appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to help improve BattleTech products but we need you to follow the rules so things stay organized and the errata coordinator's job is easier when it comes time to compile the reports.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SCC on 17 September 2013, 00:06:35
I'm unaware if this is a deliberate change or simply an error but on page 219 of Tech Manual (PDF, First Printing) the Gauss Rifle images seem to have been mixed up, the Heavy Gauss Rifle has what is traditionally the normal Gauss Rifle art while the Light and normal Gauss Rifles have the same art

Additionally the Anti-Missile System art on page 202 seems to have been edited to remove the classic MO artist's signature
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 September 2013, 03:37:51
Hello.  Below is a link to a document that will update the BattleForce and Quick Strike rulesets, as found in the second printing of Strategic Operations, to the new Alpha Strike ruleset:

https://db.tt/Vx32YJyw

If you have any questions about this, please ask in this thread.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 September 2013, 11:43:00
I'm unaware if this is a deliberate change or simply an error but on page 219 of Tech Manual (PDF, First Printing) the Gauss Rifle images seem to have been mixed up, the Heavy Gauss Rifle has what is traditionally the normal Gauss Rifle art while the Light and normal Gauss Rifles have the same art

Additionally the Anti-Missile System art on page 202 seems to have been edited to remove the classic MO artist's signature

Take all of that to Ask the Writers so the internal inquiry can sort it out, please, as the Errata Rules direct you to do (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg52587.html#msg52587).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 September 2013, 22:01:28
New update to Total Warfare has been released.  This is errata intended for the upcoming fourth printing of that book, scheduled for some time this year.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 September 2013, 22:38:47
No, the Medium Shield it carries drops its walking speed by one.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 24 September 2013, 12:39:45
I am excited! Where can I get the e-version of the errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 24 September 2013, 12:44:29
I am excited! Where can I get the e-version of the errata?

The current errata version is 4.0, and can be found here:
https://db.tt/LbQ498HO
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 24 September 2013, 17:08:59
Got a problem with your C3 eratta regarding LOS

First of all, unit B is at elevation 10, so a level 2 hill wouldn't actually block LOS.  Second, the wording says that C and D would not be able to target unit A if B's line of sight is blocked, which is not the case. Units C and D could still target A but would not be able to use B's range to target; in this case they would use C's range as it is the closest unit to A with line of sight.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 September 2013, 21:26:34
Thanks.  I'll see if I can correct the text before the reprint.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 25 September 2013, 11:20:01
First of all, unit B is at elevation 10, so a level 2 hill wouldn't actually block LOS.

It does, because that hill is adjacent to unit A, and equal to or higher than it.
p.100:
"The terrain or feature is adjacent to the target and equal to or higher than the target’s level."


Quote
Second, the wording says that C and D would not be able to target unit A if B's line of sight is blocked, which is not the case. Units C and D could still target A but would not be able to use B's range to target; in this case they would use C's range as it is the closest unit to A with line of sight.

Agreed, the sentence should be rephrased to:

the units in Hexes C and D would not be able to benefit from the unit in Hex B, and instead would resolve weapons fire as if the ’Mech in Hex A was at range 4 (using the 'Mech in Hex C to determine range)
It seems the water clause is an artifact of the change to requiring LOS.

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 25 September 2013, 12:37:34
I've made corrections and sent them in.  They may or may not make the reprint.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: casperionx on 29 September 2013, 01:18:15
Clairification - is that ALL C3 types or just the C3/C3 master (ie not C3 improved)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 30 September 2013, 12:04:16
Ladies and gentlemen, please follow the Errata Template and other errata rules when reporting issues.

Welcome to the errata forum.

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 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  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.



In addition to the normal forum rules (http://bg.battletech.com/index.php?page_id=1005), there are a couple of additional rules that all errata reports should follow.  Posts that fail to follow these rules will be edited or deleted.

1) NO DISCUSSION IN ERRATA THREADS
If you're not making a report, don't post in an errata thread (only writers, developers, and MUL Team members may ignore this rule).  This will speed up errata compiling and help ensure your report is not lost in general chatter.

If you want to discuss a piece of errata, or any other part of the errata process, please use the stickied Errata Discussion Thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5884.0.html).

2) FOLLOW THE ERRATA TEMPLATE
All errata reports should be laid out in the same manner, following the template described in the next post (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290).  If posts follow a consistent template I can work much faster, and am far less likely to miss your report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Yu Kigono on 05 October 2013, 02:49:28
I think there is a problem with the Centurion CN-11OD

The engine would be a 200 XL, so 8 of the HS would be internal to the engine leaving 2 double HS to place.

but the Record sheet doesn't show the 2 that would be placed.

The reduced MP is from the Medium Shield, which imposes a -1 to Walk MP, not a smaller engine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 06 October 2013, 09:39:35
Ladies and gentlemen, please follow the Errata Template and other errata rules when reporting issues.

Welcome to the errata forum.

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 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  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.



In addition to the normal forum rules (http://bg.battletech.com/index.php?page_id=1005), there are a couple of additional rules that all errata reports should follow.  Posts that fail to follow these rules will be edited or deleted.

1) NO DISCUSSION IN ERRATA THREADS
If you're not making a report, don't post in an errata thread (only writers, developers, and MUL Team members may ignore this rule).  This will speed up errata compiling and help ensure your report is not lost in general chatter.

If you want to discuss a piece of errata, or any other part of the errata process, please use the stickied Errata Discussion Thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5884.0.html).

2) FOLLOW THE ERRATA TEMPLATE
All errata reports should be laid out in the same manner, following the template described in the next post (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg171290.html#msg171290).  If posts follow a consistent template I can work much faster, and am far less likely to miss your report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 15 October 2013, 08:54:54
IS base [see: "Mixed Tech (I.S.)"], so no CASE.

Ah...yeah, sorry about that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 15 October 2013, 11:45:54
Ladies and gentlemen, if you're not cleared to post replies in errata threads, don't post replies in the errata threads.  If you need to comment on someone else's report or reply to one of the CGL volunteers or staff replying to you, do it in here.  Only the MUL Team, developers, or writers should be posting replies.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 16 October 2013, 05:07:39
https://db.tt/KMoGxIsY

404ing
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 16 October 2013, 08:43:09
404ing

They did a small update to the document so the url changed from the original... the correct link is in the TW errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 21 October 2013, 10:48:23
Trebaruna TR-XH - is coming out four tons underweight.
Not replying in the thread per rules.

Not sure what the problem is, I get it perfect weight. I had it 4.5 tons overweight until I realized it had a composite structure.

But I'm not sure how he's getting it underweight by 4 tons. The only way I could get it that much underweight is to not add the ERPPC to the turret, use a standard Heavy Gauss instead of an Improved one, and forget the ton of gauss ammo in the head.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Taneru on 21 October 2013, 11:35:30
Maybe missing the fourth iJJ? For a 95 ton mech, that would be exactly 4 tons, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jal Phoenix on 02 November 2013, 00:03:21
Not sure if errata, but the logo used throughout the book is the redone Xin Sheng logo, not the original logo that would have been in use in 2765.  This is kind of like using the Lyran Alliance logo for the Steiner report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 02 November 2013, 10:57:43
As with Jal Phoenix, i have something that maybe and maybe not be a errant.

I've found that the actual name for the product is spelled/arranged differently throughout the the PDF.  Including this errant as well.

Field Report 2765: Capellan Confederation - Where - Throughout the PDF on the banner top of pages with text.
Field Report: Capellan Confederation 2765 - Where - page "a" aka Cover only
2765 Field Report: Capellan Confederation -  Where - page "b" aka write up text bottom of the page.

Please note that BattleCorp and New Products for sale on the forums does list the PDF as BattleTech Field Report 2765 CCAF.

Its rather confusing what the original name is with everything mixed up everywhere including the product.

 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 November 2013, 11:00:11
Gentlemen, can I please direct your attention to the Errata rules (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg52587.html#msg52587)?

Specifically, this part, and this is not the first instance of it I've observed in the last week or so:

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 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  Once you have your answer, then make an errata report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mordel on 14 November 2013, 12:45:09
Under Claws it says it takes up 1 crit and 1 ton per 15 tons rounded up to the nearest 1/2 ton. Naturally you can't have 1/2 a crit. Looking at SSW it rounds both up to the nearest full ton. Is this listed as an errata anywhere yet (if it even is)?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 14 November 2013, 12:53:01
Please read the Errata rules (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,2412.msg52587.html#msg52587).  The errata threads are not the correct place to ask questions.  If you're curious if something's been reported or we're aware of the specific issue and you don't think it's better handled as a rules question, put it in this thread.

Trust me, we're watching this one too.

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 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  Once you have your answer, then make an errata report.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 03 December 2013, 20:06:32
Requesting a thread for Field Report 2765 DCMS. (Pretty please!)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 03 December 2013, 20:12:21
Sure thing, gimme just a minute.

EDIT: Done!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 03 December 2013, 20:18:41
Sure thing, gimme just a minute.

EDIT: Done!
Thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Jiraiya1969 on 04 January 2014, 14:01:14
Sorry I will have it fixed in a couple of days.

J69
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 05 January 2014, 14:46:30
You're not supposed to post replies in the errata threads, either.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 January 2014, 17:26:53
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Savage Coyote on 10 January 2014, 00:18:37
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 10 January 2014, 00:35:56
Superheavies only use half the crits for equipment?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Savage Coyote on 10 January 2014, 09:16:15
Okay, what I get for not going back and rereading the construction rules.  I blame being tired and late and stuff  :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 15 January 2014, 16:33:42
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 January 2014, 16:50:20
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 January 2014, 13:43:59
The link to the AToW errata document is coming up as a 404 error for me.

https://db.tt/z4cQavot
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 January 2014, 15:39:09
Sorry - forgot to update the link when I uploaded the corrected version.  There's a new link in the thread that should work now.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 January 2014, 16:04:40
Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ijewett on 20 February 2014, 21:46:46
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 20 February 2014, 22:03:26
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ijewett on 21 February 2014, 17:44:57
That clarifies it immensely. We were going to give ghost targeting a try and were not sure which rules to use.

Thank you much.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 14 March 2014, 19:15:59
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 02 April 2014, 13:47:48
Is there errata for the new box set? Because the quick-start record sheets have "Rigth Arm" written on all of them.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 05 April 2014, 21:03:39
Need a thread for the XTRO: Fantasy...it's got several errors in it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 April 2014, 02:54:32
Need a thread for the XTRO: Fantasy...it's got several errors in it.

It's up as requested.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 28 April 2014, 17:04:48

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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 29 April 2014, 11:48:27
Could you provide some more details on why you think the construction is a problem?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 29 April 2014, 12:06:30
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.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 12 May 2014, 16:01:25
What happens on a 1?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 12 May 2014, 16:52:00
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 12 May 2014, 17:03:54
That'll teach me to read. #P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 12 May 2014, 17:10:36
Eh, it's fine.  We all have the occasional brain misfire.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MarikMilitaMan on 16 May 2014, 10:37:58
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 18 May 2014, 09:33:51
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.

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 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,83.0.html) subforum.  If a non-rules question, it likely belongs in Ask The Writers (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/board,41.0.html).  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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MarikMilitaMan on 18 May 2014, 11:13:58
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 June 2014, 03:11:44
Just a quick note that Moonsword will be running the errata forum until I return from vacation in late August.  Play nice. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 June 2014, 04:01:36
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 28 June 2014, 12:47:59
Can we have a Thread for the ALPHA STRIKE COMPANION please and thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: SpudBot on 27 July 2014, 10:55:40
I'm also new here, catching up on my BT history!  I noticed a missing/duplicate page in my .pdf of The Fourth Succession War Military Atlas, vol. I and just wanted to make Catalyst aware (pg. 60 appears where pg. 64 should be).  Didn't see that product listed anywhere.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 22 September 2014, 13:39:19
Is:

"Sprite 2
Tech level is "Experimental", no experimental tech is mounted. Change to "Advanced"
500kg overweight. Suggest to remove Light TAG"

...official developer level errata? Another quick and simple fix would be to ditch the jump jets and the single point of added armor (compared to the other Sprites), which is why I'm asking.

From this thread:http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,18465.msg572389.html#msg572389
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 October 2014, 11:05:25
Howdy.  I've gotten rid of the requirement to note a product's format (PDF or Print) when making an errata report.  It's tedious badgering people all the time to do it when I'm not sure it has ever mattered.

If for some reason it becomes relevant, I'll note it in a specific thread that requires it.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hussar2 on 05 October 2014, 08:31:42
Could we get a thread for RS:VA Industrialmechs & Exoskeletons?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vandervecken on 07 October 2014, 10:16:44
Question:  When full versions of errata are released (like Total Warfare v4.1) are PDFs purchased in the Battleshop updated to reflect the changes?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 07 October 2014, 10:28:41
Question:  When full versions of errata are released (like Total Warfare v4.1) are PDFs purchased in the Battleshop updated to reflect the changes?

For full version numbers.  So the Total Warfare PDF is v4.0, same as the most recent printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 October 2014, 10:36:31
Errata updates coincide with pdf updates/book reprints on X.0 releases.  The number X on the errata release coincides with the printing.  So Total Warfare 4.0 means its all the errata that found its way into the fourth printing of TW.

"Point" releases (X.X: like 3.3, or 4.1) are just updates to the errata - they are never in print anywhere.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 07 October 2014, 12:19:02
I was certain a couple of PDFs have been updated at point releases.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vandervecken on 07 October 2014, 13:31:36
How would you recommend integrating extensive errata into physical books in a good way?  I could print it all out and stuff it in the back but that typically means you don't know there's errata.  How do other folks do it?

This is especially an issue in the core rulebooks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 07 October 2014, 15:37:06
I was certain a couple of PDFs have been updated at point releases.

Impossible; the integer (X.0) is incremented when the main book is updated, not the other way around. Here's how it works:

A book is published; it is designated Version 1.0.
Errata is found and compiled. If only minor issues are discovered, there might not be any compilations. If big bugs are found, "between-printings" errata compilations will be issued as 1.1, 1.2, etc.
The book comes up for reprinting. At that time, the current errata compilation (if any) and any outstanding issues the devs are aware of are folded into an updated document; the printing and a compiled errata document are designated Version 2.0.
Any further issues are collected as errata compilations 2.1, 2.2, etc.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 07 October 2014, 19:22:28
Yes but I could have swore there were a couple of books that got updated between reprints (which would mean a PDF update but no print versions with new errata)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 October 2014, 20:34:34
Yes but I could have swore there were a couple of books that got updated between reprints (which would mean a PDF update but no print versions with new errata)

There were two - the second TacOps release and the recent TechManual re-release were both pdf-only.  In both cases it was a re-release nonetheless, and so I believe had a X.0 errata release to accompany it (I think so anyways: the TacOps release was before my time and version numbering was a bit chaotic if you go back far enough.  My archives for Total Warfare have errata that goes from v2 to v4 back to v2, for example.  But I know the TechManual one is numbered right).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 08 October 2014, 06:11:52
Yes but I could have swore there were a couple of books that got updated between reprints (which would mean a PDF update but no print versions with new errata)

Maybe.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 15 October 2014, 23:16:24
From this thread here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/field-manual-3145/msg778504/#msg778504

Nobody commented on this:

3) Periphery (General) Battle Armour rolls for A should be +6, with presumably +4 for B, and +2 for C.

However, current RATs for the Periphery only allow A or B-rated units to field BA. Is what Bergie posted correct, with a continuation to +0 for D? Or should it *just* be +6 for A and +0 for B, N/A for the rest?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scorpion on 06 November 2014, 18:20:22
Hey, I'm new here. I just purchased the Alpha Strike PDF from battlecorps and noticed that the changes from the Alpha Strike Errata v2.0 PDF aren't included. Is there something I'm missing?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 06 November 2014, 18:45:25
No. Errata is rolled into the document when the book goes for a new printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scorpion on 06 November 2014, 20:03:08
No. Errata is rolled into the document when the book goes for a new printing.

Ok so, just to clarify, does that mean there is going to be a new Alpha Strike Pdf with the changes included?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 06 November 2014, 21:31:35
If and when a second printing is done, a new pdf will be prepared.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 November 2014, 21:42:32
Ok so, just to clarify, does that mean there is going to be a new Alpha Strike Pdf with the changes included?

Yes, that's it exactly.  I don't do a X.0 release until I know there's going to be a new printing/pdf release.  So a second print of Alpha Strike is currently planned, and all the errata will appear in it, though I have no idea when it will hit stores.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Amlop on 07 November 2014, 11:06:44
Apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place or something, but none of the errata pdf links are working here: http://bg.battletech.com/errata/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 07 November 2014, 11:22:12
Apologies if I'm looking in the wrong place or something, but none of the errata pdf links are working here: http://bg.battletech.com/errata/

I tried the top three (Total Warfare, Tech Manual, Tactical Operations) and all three opened the errata PDFs for me.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Amlop on 07 November 2014, 20:54:21
I tried the top three (Total Warfare, Tech Manual, Tactical Operations) and all three opened the errata PDFs for me.

? Weird....

They still won't work for me, they just give me 404s.

It doesn't give much information, but here's the message (for one of the links - the others are similar) it gives:
Not Found
The requested URL /wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Total-Warfare-v4.1-2014-05-19.pdf was not found on this server.
Apache Server at bg.battletech.com Port 443


I get the same result for both Firefox and Chrome.  I'm in Sydney, Australia, if that's of any interest.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 November 2014, 23:38:14
? Weird....

They still won't work for me, they just give me 404s.

It doesn't give much information, but here's the message (for one of the links - the others are similar) it gives:
Not Found
The requested URL /wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Total-Warfare-v4.1-2014-05-19.pdf was not found on this server.
Apache Server at bg.battletech.com Port 443


I get the same result for both Firefox and Chrome.  I'm in Sydney, Australia, if that's of any interest.

I've had this happen once before, though I don't know why.  Go to each book's thread: in the first post of each will be the errata file for that book.  I host those personally on Dropbox, so it should work fine.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Amlop on 08 November 2014, 00:09:54
I've had this happen once before, though I don't know why.  Go to each book's thread: in the first post of each will be the errata file for that book.  I host those personally on Dropbox, so it should work fine.

These work, thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 11 November 2014, 01:04:31
-More than one image from this period has the Toro being fielded, which is notably absent from the Taurian tables.

As per TRO 3075, the Toro was extinct during this period.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 11 November 2014, 03:52:58
As per TRO 3075, the Toro was extinct during this period.

Indeed. That's what the TRO says, but it keeps popping up in the art from LoT. :-\ Artistic license, perhaps?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 11 November 2014, 05:57:15
Gentlemen, you're not supposed to have discussions in the Errata threads.  Bring it in here next time, please.

Indeed. That's what the TRO says, but it keeps popping up in the art from LoT. :-\ Artistic license, perhaps?

Art does not trump TRO text.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 12 November 2014, 01:29:16
BTW: What is this House-specific Wolverine mentioned in the Taurian Concordat's section?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 12 November 2014, 06:18:16
I have no idea.  It may not have even been statted out.  Put it in Ask the Writers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GnomesofZurich on 02 December 2014, 20:33:53
Is the version from BattleCorps more recently updated than the one from DriveThruRPG? The version I have from there is shown to have been last updated 2010-02-16. If there's a more recent version with fixes, I'd appreciate it being sent over to DriveThruRPG.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 December 2014, 22:52:55
Is the version from BattleCorps more recently updated than the one from DriveThruRPG? The version I have from there is shown to have been last updated 2010-02-16. If there's a more recent version with fixes, I'd appreciate it being sent over to DriveThruRPG.

There is no newer version that I'm aware of.

In the future, please keep questions out of the errata threads, as per the rules sticky at the top of this forum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 11 December 2014, 05:28:11
Did AToW get new errata?
I don't see anything new, but I got an email saying the PDF was updated.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 December 2014, 07:41:01
I'm checking into it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 11 December 2014, 14:23:46
The copyright information in the front was changed to 2015 though it still says Corrected Second Printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 December 2014, 17:00:18
Essentially what happened with the AToW update is that the errata originally came out last Christmas, in preparation for a new printing that was intended to come out around then.  However, that printing has been delayed until this upcoming new year, so it was decided to re-release the pdf with current dating information (there were also some technical issues with the pdf that needed fixing while they were at it, but that's not really a rules content thing).

So this new pdf is still the second printing, and the current errata is still the current errata.

I will be updating the errata pdf to a 2.01 to reflect the proper dating and printing information (as there was as silent update back then, this also ensures that everyone is for certain on the same page).  If there are any other changes that were included that I find, I'll be sure to note them in the AToW errata thread.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Feenix74 on 20 January 2015, 02:05:05
Is there an errata thread for CAT35700 "BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction"? Are we taking errata for it?

I had a quick skim through the Errata sub-forum and could not find a thread for it. I have just purchased a copy and think I might have found a typo when I flicked through it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hammer on 23 January 2015, 13:44:01
Out of curiosity is there any word/timeline of the SO errata updates?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 January 2015, 14:00:10
Out of curiosity is there any word/timeline of the SO errata updates?

I am afraid not.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mikewoo on 07 February 2015, 12:55:38
RS 3050Uu-IS, p.204, the "Orion ON1-K Kerensky" indicates it carries a Snub-Nose PPC in the Left Torso.

According to the MUL, this unit was introduced in 2753, which would appear to be in line with Kerensky's personal mech.

Tech Manual errata document shows the Snub-Nose PPC wasn't introduced until 2784.

Rules for primitive equipment allow items to be used 10 years before their official introduction, but 31 years is a bit too much. I am unsure how to resolve this apparent discrepancy.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 08 February 2015, 00:17:36
As per Welshman's request:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/ask-the-lead-developers/shogun-shg-2h-intro-date/ (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/ask-the-lead-developers/shogun-shg-2h-intro-date/)


All TROs with info on this unit say it was an "SLDF design" and intended for Kerensky's war against the Amaris Empire. But in 2771, the production date, the SLDF was nowhere near Graham IV or Mitchell Vehicles' satellite installations. They didn't arrive to liberate this world until 2776. So...

(1) Was this a design commissioned by the SLDF during the Reunification War, but put into service with by Amaris Empire?

..or..

(2) Is the 2771 intro date in error?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mikewoo on 12 February 2015, 00:28:01
RS3050Uu-IS, p.241, the Shogun SHG-2E

This  record sheet shows 2 CASE systems in the LT and RT. The MUL identifies this unit as introduced in 3005.

However, as shown in Tech Manual, p.210, in the Inner Sphere CASE went extinct in 2840 and was not reintroduced until 3036. The MUL date of 3005 is squarely inside the centuries-long extinction period.

So, either the SHG-2E's intro date from MUL is wrong, or Tech Manual's CASE dates are wrong, or this unit cannot carry CASE. Can anyone identify the proper solution?

Simply removing the CASE systems would reduce the Rules Level to Introductory, but also leaves the design a ton underweight. For this reason, I suspect one of the dates must be in error.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 12 February 2015, 01:21:48
The SHG-2E was brought to the Inner Sphere by Wolf's Dragoons, and thus does not follow the usual guidelines on equipment dates. Also, do keep in mind that extinction dates are subject to some leeway, especially during the Succession Wars. It is fully conceivable that variants may be published that mount equipment that was technically extinct, yet hoarded for limited deployment. The PHX-2, with its ECM Suite, is a prime example.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mikewoo on 12 February 2015, 03:24:35
Hmm. I completely missed the possibility of an import via the Dragoons. And I hadn't even considered equipment hoarding as an answer. This will surely prove to be an ongoing issue with some factions, especially ComStar.

Thank you, ColBosch, for pointing out both of these issues. Makes the enforcement of dates more difficult, but certainly more interesting.

Well, this means my prior post just above regarding the SHG-2E isn't actually an error, just a lack of forethought on my part. Much apologizings.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 12 February 2015, 12:25:06
The SHG-2E was brought to the Inner Sphere by Wolf's Dragoons, and thus does not follow the usual guidelines on equipment dates. Also, do keep in mind that extinction dates are subject to some leeway, especially during the Succession Wars. It is fully conceivable that variants may be published that mount equipment that was technically extinct, yet hoarded for limited deployment. The PHX-2, with its ECM Suite, is a prime example.

The case could also be made that "production" specifically refers to machining and automated manufacturing. If there is an assembly line, it's in production. If the line is blown up, it's extinct.
 
But someone adapting a supercharger to a 300-rated Fusion Engine by hand in a machine shop doesn't mean the supercharger is "in production." It exists, just as the ECM Suite on a PXH-2 exists, but has no specific factory churning out parts. I see that as a similar scenario for the Succession Wars, where parts could be repaired or fabricated, but are not being produced in great numbers.
 
The caveat being that some materials (ES, FF) require entire facilities to make them and would not exist at all. Though if someone came upon a cache of Endo Steel, they could easily fabricate some CASE by hand.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 12 February 2015, 13:51:40
Hmm. I completely missed the possibility of an import via the Dragoons. And I hadn't even considered equipment hoarding as an answer. This will surely prove to be an ongoing issue with some factions, especially ComStar.

The Dragoons are basically the special case, and we've already seen all their unique material from the period. ComStar were much more content to hoard their Star League-vintage 'Mechs than to modify them, so we're unlikely to see "new" variants in the future. You really did just stumble on one of the very few exceptions to the guidelines.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 17 February 2015, 11:17:58
Oops, thanks.  It should read:

  •   When firing an Arrow IV Homing Missile either directly or indirectly, the player must first choose a mapsheet within range of the launcher. Next they choose a hex on the selected mapsheet. On the turn the homing missile arrives, it may attack any unit successfully designated by friendly TAG within 8 hexes of the chosen hex. If there are no such targets when the homing missile arrives, it explodes harmlessly over the battlefield. (Undirected or misdirected Arrow IV Homing Missiles do not scatter.)

I'm going to up a 3.3 soon that will have this corrected, along with a few new entries.

Does this mean that the artillery unit may select ANY hex on the selected map sheet?

Also, v3.3 of the errata does not include the updated rules on tandem charge missles (the bit about instant killing BA on a roll of a 10+). My copy of tac ops does not include any mention of TC missles intant killing BA. Is it possible to add it to the errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 February 2015, 13:40:08
Also, v3.3 of the errata does not include the updated rules on tandem charge missles (the bit about instant killing BA on a roll of a 10+). My copy of tac ops does not include any mention of TC missles intant killing BA. Is it possible to add it to the errata?

As always, do not post questions and comments in errata threads - that belongs here.  Please read the forum rules.

What updated rules are you referring to?  Can you provide a link please?

Quote
Does this mean that the artillery unit may select ANY hex on the selected map sheet?

The next part reads, "On the turn the homing missile arrives, it may attack any unit successfully designated by friendly TAG within 8 hexes of the chosen hex."  So yes, it appears any hex may be chosen.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 19 February 2015, 00:30:46
Xotl : If people aren't allowed to post in the errata threads, why is http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/tactical-operations-4-june-2014-%28v3-3%29/60/ full of people posting? Even on the 3rd page, i'm not the only who has made posts.

Also my bad about the TC miissles, that was a mistake.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 February 2015, 01:27:27
Hmm, fair enough - allow me to clarify.  It's not that you're not supposed to post, it's that your not supposed to do anything but make errata reports (including errata for the errata).  I suppose asking about how errata text is worded is close enough, so my apologies.  But in general we're trying to keep the threads clean for ease of report gathering.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 19 February 2015, 01:33:03
errata should be the actual change that needs to be made. It should be in the errata format (this exact text should be changed to this exact text).  If there's a question about the change or what change needs to be made, that conversation should take elsewhere so that the errata thread is filled with only the answers (errata).
It's just to keep the errata threads clean and useful.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 19 February 2015, 01:52:47
The rules of thumb I hoped people would use are: if you're sure it's an error, post an errata report with the fix. If you're not sure, ask in the Rules Questions subforums. If you see an errata report and want to comment on it, don't. If you're authorized to post responses to errata, then you already know who you are, and if you're not sure, you're not authorized. For example, I've not posted any responses to errata reports on Era Digest: Age of War, despite being the author, because I am no longer affiliated with Catalyst Game Labs and thus am not authorized to comment directly. (That, and they're all correct, dammit.)

"Someone else posted first" is not a valid excuse. Just let it go, the Errata guys and the developers know what they're doing and will strike and ignore reports made in error.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 20 February 2015, 05:54:58
Noted, i wont ask questions in the errata threads anymore.

Can someone please clarify this bit in the TW errata, page 21, ASF additional facing changes : “However, they may not do so if they have already changed facing in that hex or if this is the first hex of their movement on the low-altitude map. On the ground map, each such change must be preceded by at least eight hexes of movement.”

Can the 8 hexes be split between this turn and last turn, like with facing changes?

“Before it can make a facing change on the low-altitude map, a unit must move in a straight line at least the number of hexes shown on the Straight Movement Table below. When moving on the ground map, multiply the minimum number of hexes required by eight. In both cases, this movement may be split across two turns.”

Edit : Okay i've looked at the strat ops errata and the advanced aerospace combat section, but nowhere does it clearly say how to calculate angle of attack vs a warship. The beginning of the section says that unless otherwise stated, the units use the rules in the aerospace units section of TW. However the aerospace units section of TW makes no mention whatsoever of how to calculate angle of attack vs anything other than fighters and dropships, the diagram on page 238 of TW only says "Fighters & Dropships".

There is a firing arc diagram for warships on page 95 of stratops, but it's not mentioned at all whether we should use this to determine the angle of attack vs the warship. Looking at the firing arc diagram, if i am in hex 1114, do i use use the aft or side angle when firing on the warship?

Can we at least get an errata making it clear where we can find the rules for determining angle of attack vs warships, jumpships, space stations, etc?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 20 February 2015, 14:42:37
Question: could you post this in the TW rules question forum please?  That's the place where these sort of things get tackled.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 20 February 2015, 23:06:30
Question...

In Historical Turning Points: Tortuga, the Brigand Variant LDT-XPR4 is listed as having Improved Jump Jets...is this supposed to be correct? If so...what was the reasoning behind this decision rather than using standard Jump Jets?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 20 February 2015, 23:25:16
Authorial whim, I presume.  This isn't really errata, so if you want an answer from the actual author, your best bet is to post it in Ask The Writers, which was designed just for your sort of questions.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dragon41673 on 20 February 2015, 23:30:07
Ok...thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 04 March 2015, 11:58:02
Question involving the RATs in FM:3145..

The Orochi is in the 15 slot for the FedSuns tables, making it the most common Assault 'Mech in A-Rated FedSun units. Yeah, RATs aren't the be-all end-all guide to what factions field, I know. But crosschecking with the MUL only gives the DC access to it, which is why I'm wondering.

Errata, or no?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 10 March 2015, 10:46:02
I think i might have spotted a missing errata. In the later versions of tac ops, page 131 for the building construction rules, step 3, "heavy and capital weapons". Apparently the later versions say that gun emplacements may mount weapon tonnage equal to CF/3 and castle brians do not divide their CF for the amount of weapons they may mount, but my version of tacops stops at "The rules and limits for mounting Heavy and Capital weapons on buildings are the same as those used for mounting such weapons on Mobile Structures (see pp. 266-267)."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 March 2015, 11:39:49
Huh, you're right: this was changed in the latest printing, the changes to which I supervised, but I have no record of the change.  Weird.

I'll add it to the errata. Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 01 April 2015, 13:31:17
I suck. We need an errata thread for California.

1 kg = 2.2 lbs.
You'll note I'm off by a factor of 10
on page 27...

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 01 April 2015, 15:24:31
I suck. We need an errata thread for California.

1 kg = 2.2 lbs.
You'll note I'm off by a factor of 10
on page 27...

Paul

*sigh* I seem to recall us screwing up AToW character sheets with a similar effect on heights...

-
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 01 April 2015, 15:27:25
*sigh* I seem to recall us screwing up AToW character sheets with a similar effect on heights...

Us? Oh no, that was 101% you. ;p
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 01 April 2015, 15:30:25
Us? Oh no, that was 101% you. ;p

Horse-poopery!

-
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 08 April 2015, 17:37:50
Bumping to say that the Wars of Reaving Supplemental (version 2) never got updated with the Septicemia Prime record sheet. It was first dropped after v.1 got its RATs fixed, so it has to be out there somewhere.

Also asking if this post by Dark ISI: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/the-wars-of-reaving-supplemental/msg572340/#msg572340 concerning the Osteon D can be considered a dev. level fix.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 08 April 2015, 19:20:47
Sure, give the widdle guy 2 more DHS.
Weird, I wonder how I made some of the errors I did.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 08 April 2015, 19:25:31
Weird, I wonder how I made some of the errors I did.

You didn't get me to do the RS :P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 08 April 2015, 19:49:48
So no hands which means the original mini was correct. (Which means I was right to not put them on since it looked cooler that way.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GreekFire on 08 April 2015, 19:53:48
Cool, thanks. Any ideas if a v.3 of WoRS with the missing record sheet will be possible at some point?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 08 April 2015, 20:38:57
I'd rather see if they want to put some time in to clean my Protomech mistakes (with or without me)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 22 April 2015, 12:52:10
I'd rather see if they want to put some time in to clean my Protomech mistakes (with or without me)
Ooo, ooo, ooo! Pick me! Pick me!

Sure, give the widdle guy 2 more DHS.
Weird, I wonder how I made some of the errors I did.
B/c all the stuff with errors wasn't in the draft copies I saw.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 22 April 2015, 13:22:38
So are you saying you never saw the proto variants I made, or that someone else made the errors?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 23 April 2015, 13:19:48
So are you saying you never saw the proto variants I made, or that someone else made the errors?
Never saw the proto stats, only the rules and the society omnis. And the Osteon D wasn't in the variants file I have.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 23 April 2015, 13:26:31
Never saw the proto stats, only the rules and the society omnis. And the Osteon D wasn't in the variants file I have.

Good. For a minute there, I was afraid this *wasn't* my fault somehow. Still is, everyone get back to work. ;)

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 28 April 2015, 14:51:17
p. 37, replace the IATM entry with the following:

Improved ATM (IATM#/#/#)
Improved Inferno: Using this alternate munition attack, the unit’s normal attack is reduced by 1 point at both Short and Medium range. But if this attack hits a target in those range brackets, the target also suffers the effects of a HT#/#/# special attack equal to the numerical value of the unit’s IATM#/#/# special at those ranges (i.e., IATM2/1/- will translate to a HT2/1/- effect).

I have some misgivings about this one.  Reducing the short and medium range damage by one to generate HT for all IATM damage in that bracket does some wacky things like the Septicemia A-Z (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5812/pariah-septicemia-a-z) gaining nearly double damage in the medium range bracket against non-heat tracking units (and an obscene 17 points of short range).

Suggest making the tradeoff greater, possibly by making the tradeoff a fraction (round up) of the IATM damage value instead of just one point regardless.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 28 April 2015, 15:00:21
HT is limited to 2 points.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 April 2015, 15:03:18
I'll make the text clearer to ensure that people don't assume this allows you to break the normal HT rules.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Syzyx on 11 May 2015, 20:57:32
If this is in the wrong place, please correct me, but I've noticed in my copy of XTRO: Succession Wars the Flea has no internal structure dots on the record sheet. I didn't see this in any other errata threads (and, in fact, I could not find an XTRO: SW errata thread). I thought you might want to be informed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 11 May 2015, 21:09:05
Found it in case anybody else needs it.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/experimental-technical-readout-succession-wars-(all-volumes)/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 12 May 2015, 07:08:02
Found it in case anybody else needs it.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/experimental-technical-readout-succession-wars-(all-volumes)/
...And yes, the Flea has been mentioned already, but thank you Syzyx for double-checking that we have it. http://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/experimental-technical-readout-succession-wars-%28all-volumes%29/msg555294/#msg555294
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 May 2015, 08:48:45
All current products should have threads, even the April Fools ones.  There's an index stickied at the top of this forum with alphabetical links to all errata threads.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 15 May 2015, 20:11:04
Doing research for a ASMOTW article, I stumbled across the fact that LECM has a phenomenal range of 2 whole inches.  Is it really that gimpy?  That feels really low (or maybe it's just because the Raven -1X is upset that it loses 2/3rds of the range for the only reason to ever use the 'Mech ever anyway).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2015, 13:41:14
The new 6th of June Alpha Strike, TacOps, and TW errata has been uploaded to the main webpage.  If you've downloaded from the forums before now, please download them again (either from the forums or the webpage), as slight tweaks were made in response to feedback.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 07 June 2015, 13:59:49
Wait, infantry can dismount without burning MP from the carrying unit now?

On a side note, is there a reason battle armor can hang onto a jumping mech but not a flying unit (or jumping vehicle)?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2015, 14:05:00
For the infantry, that's been true since the last errata.  I just missed a couple of leftover references to the old wya that still had to be excised.
Stacking limits still apply.

As for the wheres and whys of battle armour mechanization, there were a variety of fluff and rules issues (mostly the first).  Broadly, mechs are more versatile, and strictly flying/swimming units rely on good dynamics to move around, which clumps of BA disrupt, and one or two other thigns.  We decided on a blanket ruling to avoid making it an annoying list of per-unit and per-environmental exceptions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 07 June 2015, 14:07:47
For the infantry, that's been true since the last errata.  I just missed a couple of leftover references to the old wya that still had to be excised.
Stacking limits still apply.
Oh, guess I missed the ones where it WAS excised.  Whoops, been playing wrong for a while then.

Quote
As for the wheres and whys of battle armour mechanization, there were a variety of fluff and rules issues (mostly the first).  Broadly, mechs are more versatile, and strictly flying/swimming units rely on good dynamics to move around, which clumps of BA disrupt, and one or two other thigns.  We decided on a blanket ruling to avoid making it an annoying list of per-unit and per-environmental exceptions.
Fair enough.



Also
Quote
Change to:
Airborne aerospace units make strafing and striking attacks against airborne non-aerospace units (WiGE and VTOL
vehicles, or other units expending VTOL MP, such as battle armor) just like any other ground target. Such units cannot be
subject to dive-bombing or level bombing attacks, however, with the exception of bombs that strike a building or water
hex
I'm confused how a bomb hitting a building or water affects airborne units.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2015, 14:14:27
Also I'm confused how a bomb hitting a building or water affects airborne units.

Go to the original quote on p. 243: the text that I left out to keep the errata size down explains it.  Essentially, area effect weapons can do so.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 16 June 2015, 16:14:08
quick (and potentially stupid) question about the arrow-iv errata - when targeting a hex with homing rounds, is it treated as a normal artillery attack in terms of calculating the TN?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 June 2015, 00:44:13
quick (and potentially stupid) question about the arrow-iv errata - when targeting a hex with homing rounds, is it treated as a normal artillery attack in terms of calculating the TN?

Yes.  It may be made either directly or indirectly.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 17 June 2015, 01:27:29
This may or may not be errata; it was proposed to me outside of forum channels, but it does have me thinking:

Field Guns. At present, they cover ballistic, direct-fire weapons only. But, considering the only requirement is the tonnage for the gun and ammo, and the requisite number of people to fire said monstrosity (equal to the gun's weight), why can it not cover energy weapons and missile weapons as well? The essential rules would work like those for handheld weapons: Energy guns need to add the tonnage of their requisite single-type sinks, plus perhaps energy capacitors to reflect their battlefield batteries, to the total weight, while missiles just use the same weapon tonnage + ammo tonnage rules mechanic as their ballistic versions? Would also include the likes of rocket launchers and Mech mortars, of course.

Anyway, tossing it in as a thought grenade.

- Herb
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 17 June 2015, 02:16:31
28 RL-10s in a platoon. 14 SRM-2s. 7 SRM-6s (better!) 9 LRM-5s, 3 LRM-15s, or 2 LRM-20s. Yup, they're good ;)

5 IS MLs. One IS ERLL, LPL or PPC. Hmmm, the heavier energy option isn't actually bad.

Would Clan Field Gun platoons get benefit of DHS for cERMLs, cLPLs, etc?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 17 June 2015, 05:32:11
Nope. Way I figure it, they'd all have to follow the "vehicle rules" for weaponry. So, if you want a Towed ER Medium Laser, each gun is 6.1 tons; 1 for the gun, 5 for the sinks, plus .1 tons for the power capacitor. That's one towed laser per 7-man squad, or 4 lasers per platoon.

For the LRM-20, the real sickness is apparent between Clan and IS. 10 tons for launcher, plus 1 ton of ammo for an IS launcher -> 2 LRM-20s per 28-man platoon. 5 tons for Clan LRM-20, plus 1 ton of ammo, gets us 3 launchers per 25-man Clan platoon.

An ER PPC? 7 tons + 15 tons for sinks + 0.7 tons for capacitors = 22.7 tons per gun. An IS platoon can drag only one along. Clan version is only 1.1 tons lighter for the same number of weapons per platoon.

- Herb
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 17 June 2015, 06:33:04
W/o looking up the rules, isn't there a minimum crew number for the smaller weapons (besides one)? Love the idea and wish i would have brought it up in the forums much much earlier (thank you whoever asked Herb about it!).

Hope you guys decide to add this. Or at least the missile varieties. Energy would be nice too but might be more of a bother.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 17 June 2015, 07:41:35
Energy weapons seems like a stretch to me(you'd need a generator as well as feed those capacitors), but missiles would be nice. Given that such weapons are only available to motor or mech troops, they'd essentially be Katyusha batteries.

I'd request that 'Mech Mortars be added to that list as well. >:D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 June 2015, 09:31:21
Give me star of clan platoons with three streak LRM-15s per point.

An IS platoon with seven SSRM-4s using hidden units would also be suitable to my needs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 17 June 2015, 10:18:10
why can it not cover energy weapons and missile weapons as well?

Missile weapons: fine, though get ready for some truly heinous firepower. You thought LRM carriers were bad? Clan platoons can wield 4 LRM-20s. Or 1 SRM4 for every 2 troopers. That's literally 48 SRMs every turn. From 1 platoon. "Forever".
IS, you could take 30 man platoons and hand each one a RL-15. 450 damage potential, once. Talk about an anti-Mech claymore.


Energy weapons: no ****** way. It's bad enough we let people use them with just an ICE engine as the generator. Energy weapons ought to be fusion-engine only. Failing that, they should still be out of reach for infantry.

Heck, I think it's too generous for infantry to get the same accuracy out of field guns, without them having to pay for the targeting and tracking gear vehicles and Mechs have.

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 17 June 2015, 11:30:13
As much as I would love to see where this goes let us not forget what THREAD we are in. Don't you think we should move these past few posts over to general discussion or the developer forum?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 June 2015, 11:58:38
Fair point, pheonixstorm, but in this case, since there's not really a proper place for new rules (since Catalyst doesn't accept external suggestions), and because any change along the lines proposed would have to be implemented as errata, I'm okay with it being here.

But thanks for trying to keep things tidy.  It's appreciated.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 12:20:02
I think energy weapons are fine.  Heat sinks make them significantly less efficient than ballistic guns, arguably to the point that they're actually balanced with each other.

Missiles, I think, need some help getting back down to normal power.  Either a minimum crew requirement, or require heat sinks as well.  Clan LRMs are scary, but when you need 12 tons to field one and at most two hits of any size disable the second launcher on a point, it's a bit more reasonable.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 17 June 2015, 12:44:30
This may or may not be errata; it was proposed to me outside of forum channels, but it does have me thinking:

Field Guns. At present, they cover ballistic, direct-fire weapons only. But, considering the only requirement is the tonnage for the gun and ammo, and the requisite number of people to fire said monstrosity (equal to the gun's weight), why can it not cover energy weapons and missile weapons as well? The essential rules would work like those for handheld weapons: Energy guns need to add the tonnage of their requisite single-type sinks, plus perhaps energy capacitors to reflect their battlefield batteries, to the total weight, while missiles just use the same weapon tonnage + ammo tonnage rules mechanic as their ballistic versions? Would also include the likes of rocket launchers and Mech mortars, of course.

Anyway, tossing it in as a thought grenade.

- Herb
Funny you should mention that.
I asked about that when Wars of Reaving was announced (there's a line that one of the iATM ammo types disable DE field guns), and was told by YOU it was for just in case purposes.

I could go for non-ballistic field guns.  Energy seems fine, the smaller lasers tend to have better damage:mass ratio after the heatsinks and power amplifiers, but the more damaging ones, owing to heat generation, come out worse than ballistics, so it seems reasonable, though part of me wonders what's generating the power (even with power amplifiers, it seems odd for a jeep to be able to drive a PPC)

Missiles kinda scare me.

I'd assume you can't round the 0.x tons from power amplifiers for crew purposes (eg. have 4 of those 6.1 ton lasers run by a 25 man platoon)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 17 June 2015, 13:01:37
Energy weapons seems like a stretch to me(you'd need a generator as well as feed those capacitors), but missiles would be nice. Given that such weapons are only available to motor or mech troops, they'd essentially be Katyusha batteries.

I'd request that 'Mech Mortars be added to that list as well. >:D
Maybe give the energy weapons larger capacitors (to represent battery packs) and give them a limited number of shots (like BA energy weapons or infantry laser weapons).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 17 June 2015, 13:07:22
Clarification on a recent Errata in the TacOps thread:
Ejection and Abandoning Units (p. 197)
Under "'Mechs", second paragraph (first on the page), second sentence

If the auto-eject function is operational, the pilot will automatically eject at the end of any Phase in which an ammo explosion takes place (the pilot still receives the automatic 2 Damage Points for the ammo explosion; see Ammunition, p. 125, TW).
Change to:
If the auto-eject function is operational and an ammo explosion occurs, the pilot will automatically eject before damage to the 'Mech is resolved (though the pilot still takes 2 points of damage due to ammo explosion feedback; see Ammunition, p. 125, TW).
Just to clarify, if there's multiple explodie things (Gauss, improved Heavy Lasers, ammo, etc) in a single location and one of them is hit, the resulting feedback sets off the autoeject, but the pilot still takes 2 pilot hits. Since this happens before the damage is resolved, if the damage from the first explosion sets off a second explosion, the pilot won't suffer any feedback from the second explosion b/c he's already ejected. Correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 June 2015, 13:29:51
That is correct.  Based on this revised timing, ejection will rescue the pilot from the feedback effect from secondary explosions.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 17 June 2015, 14:08:36
Ok, so heres my take on all things Field Gun/Artillery

First, the rules for a proper Transport Bay might need to be clarified.

Second, for all those who think Missile field guns are OP think again. First you have to deal with minimum ranges for IS gear and the fact that an LRM 20 (IS) only gets 6 shots per ton of ammo. Can you really say that is more powerful than an LRM Carrier? The limit is the ammo for any field gun. 1 ton does not go very far at all. So an IS LRM 20 infantry platoon can only field 2 LRM 20s with 2 tons of ammo. 6 rounds of combat compared to 3LRM 20s and 4 tons of ammo (8 combat rounds). Add to that fact on how easy infantry are to kill. SRMs on the other hand have a longer fighting life due to larger ammo loads, but even then... Infantry die quickly.

While rocket launchers may have no minimum range they do have penalties for their cluster roll IIRC. Not sure if they have a penalty for their to-hit (too lazy to look it up). Considering the balance issues I would not allow any one shot wonders. The other issues we all know of for Field Guns though are plain. Move or shoot? This alone limits their use to defensive roles or as hidden units. Once you shoot though... it won't be long before they are dead from artillery or long range fire. So with the exception or Rocket infantry (OP but would be sooo cool to play with) they might not get the chance to use up much of their ammo before getting killed off.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: A. Lurker on 17 June 2015, 14:52:52
Well, there is a minimum crew requirement for field gunners already, albeit a low one; you need at least two troopers per "gun". That ought to at least prevent the Clan LRM 5 Point from becoming quite the nightmare it would otherwise be...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 17 June 2015, 17:04:03
My thoughts on Field Guns.

First, based on Construction rules (page 310 and Page 311, Tactical Operations), ammo says minimum two tons. Sure for LRM's and what not, that means way more shots, but also means a lot more tonnage to carry around per launcher.

Second, Field guns require the designation of facing as per the rules for Field Guns page 311, so I am assuming all field guns must face the same direction.

And, that is all.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 17 June 2015, 17:06:55
Energy weapons: no ****** way. It's bad enough we let people use them with just an ICE engine as the generator. Energy weapons ought to be fusion-engine only. Failing that, they should still be out of reach for infantry.

I would point out than any size of fusion engine can provide power to as many energy weapons as can be fit on a chassis, and the smallest standard fusion engine weighs less than almost all energy weapons. With that in mind I could see requiring a one ton power source to be included in addition to heat sinks for an energy field gun.

This of course ignores battle armor scale energy weapons, which do run off of battery power and get as big as medium vsp lasers. At the very least I could see those re-purposed as conventional infantry field guns.

Also BA tube artillery. I would squee at a high enough pitch to break all of the glass in this house if we got BA tube artillery re-purposed as light infantry artillery.  Something for a small squad to cart around.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 17 June 2015, 17:53:52
First, based on Construction rules (page 310 and Page 311, Tactical Operations), ammo says minimum two tons.

Incorrect per 3.4 errata
Quote
The platoon receives 1 ton of ammunition per field gun it possesses; each ton may be of a varying type. Ammunition expenditure must be tracked, but only at the platoon level; ammunition is not assigned to any specific gun or squad, and isn’t reduced by personnel loss.
Granted that is for autocannons but should (mostly) hold true for other types.

As for an energy source, I would suggest half ton or full ton fusion generator per weapon. There are/were portable fusion generators listed as equipment in one of the old books. Not sure if it still available though. That way it is tied into each weapon instead of 1 for all weapons (much like heat sinks or ammo are per weapon).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 17 June 2015, 18:00:26
Ahh...color me wrong then...

Still, i will stand by all weapons need to follow same facing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 18:59:37
Also BA tube artillery. I would squee at a high enough pitch to break all of the glass in this house if we got BA tube artillery re-purposed as light infantry artillery.  Something for a small squad to cart around.

Somewhere, Weirdo just began salivating and does not know why.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Draco on 17 June 2015, 19:40:43
Never had a problem with the idea of missile field guns, with the exception that crew requirements get to be really low for SRMs and non-ATM clan launchers. I figured doubling the crew requirements would help reduce the missile spam, and it can be justified in game by saying the extra crew are needed to load all those tubes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 17 June 2015, 19:48:23
Thing is, a ballistic fieldgun isn't using hand-loading - it's almost certainly firing from a fixed ammo bin or clip. Otherwise one would be able to posit an ammo carrier alongside a fieldgun giving it greater endurance.

(firstly, they're called autocannons, which really tilts strongly at automatic loading. Secondly, they're the same weapons as 'Mech mounted, and I'm pretty sure 'Mech-mounted autocannons don't get loaded manually. Lastly, although there's no canon on autocannon calibre, there's the whole "large bore firing slowly, or small bore firing hordes", both of which speak against hand-loading.)

One would presume that missile launchers would have similar autoloading functions. And let's not forget Rocket Launchers! 28 RL-10s would be a real rude awakening ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 20:38:09
Minimum crew requirements.  Seriously.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 17 June 2015, 20:40:25
Which then have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons.

It's too late to go back & totally change the approach taken & have field weapon units as something separate from an infantry formation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 20:44:30
I disagree.  It doesn't have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons in either A) the autocannons meet the minimum trooper requirement as a matter of course or B) the minimum troop requirement only applies to towed missile weapons.  Energy weapons are already made roughly balanced by the heat sink requirement.

I fail to see any reason why B can't happen, especially since this is expressly a balance decision.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 17 June 2015, 21:58:33
I disagree.  It doesn't have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons in either A) the autocannons meet the minimum trooper requirement as a matter of course or B) the minimum troop requirement only applies to towed missile weapons.  Energy weapons are already made roughly balanced by the heat sink requirement.

I fail to see any reason why B can't happen, especially since this is expressly a balance decision.

I agree. There's too much potential for abuse without stricter limitations, such as noted with RL-10s. Find the balance point first, then handwave it however needed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alexander Knight on 17 June 2015, 22:09:43
Which then have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons.

It's too late to go back & totally change the approach taken & have field weapon units as something separate from an infantry formation.

All extant canon field gun platoons more than surpass the minimum crew per gun.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 17 June 2015, 22:53:25
I could have swore there was a canon platoon with magshot Gauss cannons
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 17 June 2015, 22:54:00
I could have swore there was a canon platoon with magshot Gauss cannons

ninja'd while I was typing. was going to say...

I forget... can gauss weapons be used as field guns? MagShot is almost as abusable as rocket launchers. Also machine guns.

The lightest autocannon is the LAC/2 at 4 tons.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 17 June 2015, 22:54:43
All extant canon field gun platoons more than surpass the minimum crew per gun.

Taurian field gun platoon. 6 light ac 5s manned by 30 men.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 17 June 2015, 23:06:28
...Doesn't sound legal, unless LAC/5s dropped down to 4 tons while I wasn't looking to make room for that ammo.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 17 June 2015, 23:07:09
Ammo doesn't count for crew requirements.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alexander Knight on 18 June 2015, 00:32:05
Taurian field gun platoon. 6 light ac 5s manned by 30 men.

Hyep.  And 5 men per gun is above the minimum.  :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 18 June 2015, 01:25:01
Hyep.  And 5 men per gun is above the minimum.  :)

Five men per gun is the minimum for LAC 5s. :P
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alexander Knight on 18 June 2015, 01:26:32
Five men per gun is the minimum for LAC 5s. :P

But 2 men per gun is the minimum under discussion.  Hence, the LAC/5 platoon is above the minimum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 18 June 2015, 01:41:09
Just think 28 SRM-2s.  Okay, saw AK's comment, still 14 SRM-2s. Or 14 SRM-4s, worse.

Would it be ridiculous to propose a 5 or 7 man minimum? Yes, 7 would nerf the canon Taurian 5-LAC platoon, but is it such a huge change?

I'm still uncomfortable with a 30-man platoon carrying 3 LRM-20s (IS), or 6 (Clan). Even with only 6 shots, that's pretty unholy. Two Gauss Rifles or UAC-20s in a platoon is also pretty unholy, admittedly.

(New Capellan unit - Miners. 30-man platoon, with 3 LRM-20s loaded with Thunder-Aug. You spend the first 3 turns spreading the joy liberally, then ditch the launchers to act as a slightly oversized standard infantry unit.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 18 June 2015, 01:43:49
I say again: require missile weapons to use heat sinks as additional tonnage when determining personnel requirements.

Suddenly an LRM-20 that masses 16 tons isn't as attractive.  An SRM-2 that masses 3 loses a lot of the frightening bite that a single ton version does.  A five ton SRM-4 likewise.  It also neatly keeps RLs from getting absolutely out of control.  Even on the Clan side, it's suddenly 11 tons per LRM-20, which means a maximum of two of them per standard Clan point.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: worktroll on 18 June 2015, 01:52:00
Requiring heat sinks for missile weapons would balance things, but it adds a unique complication not found in autocannons in field guns, and distinct from the operation of autocannons and missile weapons in vehicles. Not saying it doesn't help.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 18 June 2015, 02:30:27
Balance first, fluff second.  That's the reason we've got weapon ranges that can be measured in tens of meters, and it has served BT well enough.

Since we're already talking about infantry, arguably the single unit type in the game that shares the least in terms of operation and rules with any other kind of unit, I'm inclined to say that a single exception to the effect of "towed missile weapons must account for weapon heat" isn't going to make them too terribly more complicated.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 18 June 2015, 03:02:53
You really don't have to nerf Missiles so much as it is
Per latest (and earlier errata)
Quote
Each Field Gun requires a number of troopers equal to its weight in tonnage to operate, rounding up (to a minimum of 2 troopers per Field Gun). A platoon equipped with multiple Field Guns can only operate as many Field Guns as it can keep fully manned (any excess Field Guns are considered destroyed as the unit takes damage).

Just change that minimum 2 per Gun to a 3 or 4. Just look at the RAC/5 or an Ultra 20. They look powerful but aren't. And Ultra AC/20 gets one ton of ammo. 5 SHOTS.  To be an Uber weapon you would have to stay hidden and do a point blank shot.

Even having a 30 man platoon doesn't give your field gunners much of a chance in most games. Besides, only a Motorized platoon gets 30 men. Tracked 28, and wheeled 24.

Besides and alteration of minimum crew size your could also make sure that Missile field guns are restricted to Mechanized infantry only. Fluff it up to a matter of trailer size compared to the smaller autocannons (since most fluff has ACs using mostly smaller caliber shells).

Another suggestion beyond a restricted motive and larger minimum crew. Cluster penalties. It was brought up a few posts back, but since Field Guns don't have any (known) fire control the to-hit could remain unchanged just make sure to apply a cluster penalty.

There are ways to make missile field guns as scary as AC field guns w/o creating odd rules. Or breaking most current canon field guns. A HS requirement is not a good direction to go.

So, a project for all those involved. Break out two random map boards, create a LRM Field Gun company (3 platoons) based on the current field gun rules (including the changes in the 3.4 errata), setup a lance of mechs. Run a few scenarios with normal field guns and then LRM field guns and give a report on how it played out. Make sure at least one of those scenarios were on the open terrain maps, or a blank map to see how they fare with no cover. This will give everyone the best idea of how they will need to be tweaked for balance reasons. Sound good?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 18 June 2015, 03:20:28
One suggestion: no (expletive deleted) Streak launchers for infantry.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 18 June 2015, 04:35:36
That could very easily be fluffed as to why they can't be field guns. No fire control, no targeting/tracking gear normally used in mechs/vees to get said lock.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 18 June 2015, 08:16:27
I disagree.  It doesn't have to be grandfathered against autocannon field gun platoons in either A) the autocannons meet the minimum trooper requirement as a matter of course or B) the minimum troop requirement only applies to towed missile weapons.  Energy weapons are already made roughly balanced by the heat sink requirement.

I fail to see any reason why B can't happen, especially since this is expressly a balance decision.

Energy weapons could be further balanced by having them incur a heat bloom effect like the one used by Battle Armor Myomer Booster,  so energy field guns can't deploy as hidden units. My thought is that the heat sinks used by the energy weapons aren't tied into a fusion reactor's control system and therefore don't run as efficiently.

Just think 28 SRM-2s.  Okay, saw AK's comment, still 14 SRM-2s. Or 14 SRM-4s, worse.

Would it be ridiculous to propose a 5 or 7 man minimum? Yes, 7 would nerf the canon Taurian 5-LAC platoon, but is it such a huge change?

I'm still uncomfortable with a 30-man platoon carrying 3 LRM-20s (IS), or 6 (Clan). Even with only 6 shots, that's pretty unholy. Two Gauss Rifles or UAC-20s in a platoon is also pretty unholy, admittedly.

(New Capellan unit - Miners. 30-man platoon, with 3 LRM-20s loaded with Thunder-Aug. You spend the first 3 turns spreading the joy liberally, then ditch the launchers to act as a slightly oversized standard infantry unit.)
How about reducing the ammunition from one ton to a half ton? Or making them One Shot versions? Still doesn't help with Rocket Launchers, but just wanted to suggest it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 18 June 2015, 11:47:15
The other thing that comes to my mind is that we already have infantry SRM and LRM launchers. Perhaps field gun versions of heavy weapon missile launchers would be redundant.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 19 June 2015, 14:17:33
Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 19 June 2015, 14:27:25
Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?

No.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pheonixstorm on 19 June 2015, 17:41:07
Perhaps field gun versions of heavy weapon missile launchers would be redundant.

Not really as those infantry scale weapons don't do much compared to a true towed field unit. Remember there is also an infantry autocannon support weapon. Is that redundant?

If you limit all types of field guns to a minimum crew of three then you can keep the smaller launchers (RL, SRM 2/4/6, LRM 5/10) to a more manageable number. It might not be perfect, but the rules don't allow for perfect. There is also a tradeoff somewhere.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 19 June 2015, 18:36:53
even with a minimum crew of three, you're allowed some horrific beatsticks like x10 IS SSRM-4s. That's 80 potential damage, which outperforms pretty much any autocannon-equipped platoon by a bunch.

I like the idea of lasers feeling cumbersome as field guns with all that added weight for heat sinks and power amplifiers. I feel like four as the minimum allows for less egregious exploitation while still lining up with the lightest Autocannon (LAC/2). If I had my druthers, I'd probably set the minimum to five as to hard cap the number of field guns in any platoon at 6.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 19 June 2015, 19:50:16
How about reducing the ammunition from one ton to a half ton? Or making them One Shot versions? Still doesn't help with Rocket Launchers, but just wanted to suggest it.
A combination of higher minimum crew per towed weapon combined with One-Shot versions would nerf the Field Launchers.

As for Field Gun energy weapons, ideas:
- Having them run on batteries/capacitors (like BA weapons). The number of shots can be made as a function of the weapon weight (weapon+SHS), thus more weight  = less shots.
- Or forcing them near a stationary combat vehicle (2 hexes?) that provides power, forcing the player to either take out the power source or the guns.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 19 June 2015, 21:49:08
It's probably better to have it be a function of damage rather than mass.
Near as I can tell,  ballistics have around 100 damage in a ton of ammo, though gauss runs a but higher.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HABeas2 on 20 June 2015, 01:00:00
Observation: AES is not mentioned in either the Alpha Strike main book, or the Companion.  Is this omission deliberate?

I believe it basically has no real effect at the Alpha Strike level.

-
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 20 June 2015, 02:08:26
Evidently.  That seems silly.  It's certainly neither a stretch nor difficult to apply the typical *1.1 multiplier to weapons mounted in a limb with AES, just like a targeting computer.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 20 June 2015, 02:35:38
We're examining the AES issue.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 20 June 2015, 03:51:44
Evidently.  That seems silly.  It's certainly neither a stretch nor difficult to apply the typical *1.1 multiplier to weapons mounted in a limb with AES, just like a targeting computer.
Makes sense, but there's also the matter of AES giving a bonus to piloting rolls (arm AES gives a -1 to melee attacks, and leg mounted AES gives a -2 to PSRs)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 20 June 2015, 03:54:29
It's a fact of life that Alpha Strike is an abstraction of an abstraction. There may be no way to fit everything in.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 20 June 2015, 14:43:17
Poor M-Pods... :'(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 20 June 2015, 15:09:41
Makes sense, but there's also the matter of AES giving a bonus to piloting rolls (arm AES gives a -1 to melee attacks, and leg mounted AES gives a -2 to PSRs)

I'd be much happier if AES included weapon damage modifiers under the AS ruleset and nothing else than the current absolute zero effect.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 20 June 2015, 16:14:51
It's probably better to have it be a function of damage rather than mass.
Near as I can tell,  ballistics have around 100 damage in a ton of ammo, though gauss runs a but higher.
So?:
The number of shots that a Field Weapon has is equal to 100 divided by the weapon damage (rounded down) or that of a single ton of ammunition, choose whichever option has the least number of shots. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 22 June 2015, 16:23:43
Will the notable pilots' 'Mechs from the Alpha Strike Lance Packs be added to the MUL at any point?  Several are non-standard, and at present a sufficiently dedicated stickler could claim that by not appearing on the MUL they're not canon.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 22 June 2015, 16:48:59
Will the notable pilots' 'Mechs from the Alpha Strike Lance Packs be added to the MUL at any point?  Several are non-standard, and at present a sufficiently dedicated stickler could claim that by not appearing on the MUL they're not canon.

Ok, I can make a listing for them.  Wouldn't want a stickler to miss out.
But I presume you really want to know is whether or not the Alpha Strike cards would also be included on the MUL.  To that, I don't know yet.  I need to go ask.
This should really be in the MUL thread though, this isn't errata.

EDIT: And...Nope, we won't be adding those cards to the MUL at this time.

EDIT2: Note that except for the Vulcan (Carras) and Catapult "Butterbee 2", all of the rest are already on the MUL.  Many just have different pilots.   The Battlemaster from the Ad Hoc deck is a K3.  The Nightstar is a 9J.  The Zeus is a Zeus (Leonidas).  The Hellstar...is a Hellstar.  From the Lance Packs, the Wolfhound (Finn) is a WFL-1 (Allard).  The Grasshopper "Gravedigger" is on the MUL already.  Awesome (Mink) is an Awesome (Smith).   The Grand Dragon (Kisomata) is the Grand Dragon 5K (Mark).  The Banshee (Bauer) is a copy of the Banshee (Vandergriff).   Only the Vulcan and Catapult were new designs.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 22 June 2015, 18:20:10
I put it in this thread because it specifically says "Questions HERE" :D

The Vulcan is up on my next Alpha Strike 'Mech of the Week article, so that's a little unfortunate.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 22 June 2015, 18:27:17
The MUL thread is kind of a weirdo.  If you have any questions concerning it, they definitely fit best there.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 05 July 2015, 03:01:23
So, apparently, I never updated my copy of AToW when the second printing was released (and the download link is expired, which means I have to bug the support guys to see if they can reactivate it).

Did this
EDIT by Paul:

Battle Armor and encumbrance:

p. 169:
"Encumbering Items: A character already encumbered by
weight limit issues who in turn carries encumbering equipment
raises his encumbrance factor by one level. For example, if a
character with a STR of 5 is carrying more than 30 kg of gear, he
is considered encumbered; if he also is wearing a suit of ballistic
plate armor (noted as an encumbering item in its statistics), the
character is treated as if very encumbered."

AFTER THIS ADD:
"Battle Armor: To determine encumbrance when wearing Battle Armor, use the operators STR and apply a bonus based on the suit type: PA(L) = +1 STR, Light = +2 STR, Medium = +4 STR, Heavy = +6 STR and Assault = +8 STR. An additional +4 STR bonus applies if the suit has a Myomer Booster."

p. 216:
"Other Features"

BELOW THIS ADD:

"Has Myomer Booster   +0M/12   +2   +2"


ever make it into the updated version, because I'm not seeing it in the errata document.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 July 2015, 03:49:09
This was added to the second printing, but it seems it was missed in the errata.  I'll update the errata immediately.  Thanks for the catch.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 05 July 2015, 03:54:27
Good to know while I am waiting to actually get my copy updated.

There isn't a note that myomer boosters negate stealth bonuses, though, is there?  I remember asking about it a while ago, but it's not something I remember making it into any errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 July 2015, 04:06:07
Not that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 05 July 2015, 04:12:26
I thought as much.

An unfortunate omission
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 July 2015, 04:16:57
If you could find the thread in question I'd appreciate it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BirdofPrey on 05 July 2015, 04:56:53
Ah, that's in my (second) BA questions thread of doom, though I am certain I mentioned it elsewhere too.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/a-time-of-war/(research)-ba-questions-continued/

Also a small note.  I noticed with the recent AToW errata the vehicular stealth table on pg. 218 got an update, but I should note BA Myomer boosters are supposed to prevent BA from hiding due to the heat output so for the next eratta round (whenever that is) you should probably add a note that BA with a myomer booster always have 0 for their I rating.

The relevant rule for TW scale play is in TO Pg. 287
Quote
Battlesuits equipped with Myomer Boosters generate excessive heat, making them incapable of operating as hidden units and rendering any Stealth
or Mimetic Armor ineffective. ECM systems will still affect other electronic systems that pass through the ECM “bubble,” but the suits themselves remain
visible on sensors due to their heat signature.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 06 July 2015, 18:49:15
p77, Cluster artillery munitions (section begins on previous page)
after
"For targets outside the original template but within the expanded AoE template, the cluster artillery delivers half its modified damage (rounded down)."
add
"An initial value of 1 would be halved to 0* (see Minimal Damage p XX)."

Does that also affect Thumper cluster shots?  The damage technically starts at 1, reduced by 1 for the cluster to 0, and I don't actually know whether that would be 0* all around or not.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 06 July 2015, 18:56:25
check the updated errata post and see if that covers it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 06 July 2015, 18:58:17
Certainly does.  Thanks for the quick responses.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dohon on 09 July 2015, 08:56:23
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6625/scourge-scg-wf1

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:Scourge.jpg

The unit image for the Scourge SCG-WF1 on the MUL does not match the image in TRO:3145 Lyran Commanwealth (Sarna link to original image provided above for reference). Is the current image on the MUL for the other variant (SCG-WD1) of the Scourge? Or is it for a new version of the Scourge, one that hasn't been published yet?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 July 2015, 09:22:18
Scourge image fixed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dohon on 09 July 2015, 10:24:25
Scourge image fixed.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 11 July 2015, 22:21:26
So I'm looking at Remote Sensor Dispensers in Alpha Strike, and struggling to divine any magical secret about why I should bother or care about them.  Probes uncover hidden units much, much better and more effectively, they're fragile, and a +3 in addition to normal indirect fire mods when spotting is crippling beyond anything could possibly useful in Alpha Strike.  A cumulative +4 in order to hit indirectly?  Utterly, completely not worth it.

So, I guess my question is: was that +3 decided on for Alpha Strike, or did it carry over from standard?  It seems... prohibitively high for Alpha Strike, where I've not ever seen anything get that high (especially in addition to more inherent mods!).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 11 July 2015, 22:33:59
Intentional as they are. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 11 July 2015, 23:38:00
Given how insanely easy it would be to flood a battlefield with remote sensors, the limitations seem vital to avoid retroactively invalidating large amounts of existing electronic warfare equipment.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 11 July 2015, 23:59:40
I found a use for them.  Carry on.

I may edit the use I found for them into the artillery article at some point.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 July 2015, 14:02:19
A quick perusal of the Companion on a whim discovers that NOVA equipment does not actually pay a points premium for the C3 capabilities it brings to the table.  It is notably absent from the Offensive Blanket Multipliers Table (Ground Units) on pg. 139.  Since NOVA deliberately doesn't get to swap between units in the end phase, I was curious if this omission was deliberate?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 13 July 2015, 14:49:39
I was going through the MUL.

Question: Phoenix Hawk LAM Mk 1,  it's role is NONE.  What heck that suppose to to mean?  Multi-mission Unit not good enough or scout which LAMs excel at be not a good role for it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 13 July 2015, 14:51:27
NOVA counts as c3 equipment.

None for role is the default, we haven't assigned one.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 July 2015, 14:53:57
NOVA counts as c3 equipment.

None for role is the default, we haven't assigned one.

It does, explicitly so in the Special description.  However, it does not actually give any sort of C3 that goes in the Special box, and NOVA is not mentioned in the Blanket Offensive Force Modifiers (Ground) Table (Which explicitly mentions C3 Specials, not equipment that acts like C3). 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 13 July 2015, 14:57:32
It does, explicitly so in the Special description.  However, it does not actually give any sort of C3 that goes in the Special box, and NOVA is not mentioned in the Blanket Offensive Force Modifiers (Ground) Table (Which explicitly mentions C3 Specials, not equipment that acts like C3).

So this isn't a question, we both know NOVA is C3 and should have the C3 cost, you just want (or NOVA) added as errata?

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 July 2015, 15:10:41
Yes.  I figured it'd be better to clarify that I wasn't making an erroneous assumption in this thread than in the actual Errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: EvilOverlordX on 13 August 2015, 16:02:56
Not to belabor the point, but swath and swathe have different definitions:

swath: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swath?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swath?s=t)

swathe: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swathe?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swathe?s=t)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 August 2015, 16:07:14
Not to belabor the point, but swath and swathe have different definitions:

swath: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swath?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swath?s=t)

swathe: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swathe?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/swathe?s=t)

In American English, yes.  In British English the there is no noun/verb spelling separation (see Cambridge, Oxford dictionaries).

Please keep discussion to this thread.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 August 2015, 16:40:02
Now that we have LAMs in IO, should the way they're handled (particularly AirMech to-hit modifiers) be changed for Alpha Strike?  As is, they're currently still getting the +5 or +6 TMM they used to get for WIGE movement of that distance.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 13 August 2015, 16:42:48
Now that we have LAMs in IO, should the way they're handled (particularly AirMech to-hit modifiers) be changed for Alpha Strike?  As is, they're currently still getting the +5 or +6 TMM they used to get for WIGE movement of that distance.

I say they should get a flat +4 "TMM" to represent off-angle evasive movement. It seems like a nice simplification for AS.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 13 August 2015, 16:46:56
They're also not suffering to-hit mods for their exceptional speed, unlike in standard, and evasive only ups the penalties.  There'd need to be some sort of offensive penalty for +4 to be warranted or balanced.

EDIT: basically, "why not always use AirMech mode?" needs to be addressed in Alpha Strike, too.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 13 August 2015, 16:48:57
They're also not suffering to-hit mods for their exceptional speed, unlike in standard, and evasive only ups the penalties.  There'd need to be some sort of offensive penalty for +4 to be warranted or balanced.

Excellent point. Let me think on this, and study up on my Alpha Strike. Might take me a day to figure out how I'd resolve it; unlike yesterday when I could devote a few hours to studying all the different takes on LAMs, work is busy and I'm going out tonight. :D
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 13 August 2015, 17:06:52
IO is still in beta.  We can wait on changing Alpha Strike. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 18 August 2015, 07:33:33
Question on the recent errata to the Alpha Strike Companion for converting XXL engine heat.

p. 115, Special Case Heat Rules:

XXL Engine: If the unit’s Technical Readout shows that it mounts an XXL engine type, double its movement heat.
Change to:
XXL Engine: A BattleMech or IndustrialMech unit with an XXL engine ignores the regular movement heat calculations. Instead, it has a movement heat of 6 if it does not mount jump jets, or 2 per 2 inches of jumping Move if it does (to a minimum of +6 heat for such jumping units).
In TW play IJJ get half heat of normal jump jets (even when using a XXL engine) to the point that IJJ and an XXL engine generate 1 heat per hex of jump instead of normal jump jet's 2 heat per hex. Maybe I just haven't read the conversion rules close enough, but shouldn't there also be a separate conversion for improved jump jets?

Something like, "If the unit mounts improved jump jets it has a movement heat of 1 per 2 inches of jumping move (to a minimum of +6 heat for such jumping units)."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Pa Weasley on 18 August 2015, 08:31:23
ASC p. 115 just below the XXL Engine has conversion rules for Improved Jump Jets. I don't have it in front of me so I can't give you the exact wording, but it halves the heat generated for jump movement to a minimum of of +3. You could arguably add a note to that section along the lines of "or a minimum of +6 if the unit mounts an XXL engine."

Just to point out a tiny ... something. There's nothing in the IJJ conversion rules noting whether the resulting value should be rounded.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 August 2015, 13:13:46
I've updated the errata post to add in a section on IJJs covering rounding and the combination with XXL engines.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: RotS fan on 19 August 2015, 11:56:12
Question about quadvees and Alpha Strike.
By Interstellar Operations, pg. 133, wheeled quadvees receive a +1 movement bonus. The quadvee section in Alpha Strike Companion, pg 43-44, says nothing about this bonus. Is this errata or AS quadvees really don't get the bonus?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 19 August 2015, 13:06:33
The move bonus would already be reflected in the movement ratings of the unit?  You wouldn't then add it again when converting to AS.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: RotS fan on 19 August 2015, 14:04:40
The move bonus would already be reflected in the movement ratings of the unit?  You wouldn't then add it again when converting to AS.

Let me see if I understand correctly.
Tracked quadvee A has 4/6 movement profile in mech mode and 4/6 movement profile in vehicle mode.
Wheeled quadvee B has 4/6 movement profile in mech mode and 5/8 movement profile in vehicle mode.

ASC says "the movement rate in vehicle mode is identical to the unit’s non-jumping ’Mech mode" (page 44, second bullet). So Quadvee A will have MV 8" qt and Quadvee B will have MV 8" qw, right? I'm asking if the fact wheeled quadvees don't have different MV in vehicle mode (in this example, B would have 10") is errata or not.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 19 August 2015, 14:15:54
Ah, I didn't realize they only got the bonus in wheeled mode.  So yeah, presumably once IO is no longer in beta, ASC may need errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 21 August 2015, 17:42:26
That seems like it'd be easy enough to handle, with a movement profile of 8"/10"qw.  PV would be a bit weird, since there's a difference of TMM in there.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 21 August 2015, 22:35:19
That seems like it'd be easy enough to handle, with a movement profile of 8"/10"qw.  PV would be a bit weird, since there's a difference of TMM in there.
Couldn't it be handled kinda like mismatched jump jets? Just calculate both sets of numbers and take the higher one?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 22 August 2015, 03:11:47
That seems reasonable.  Would that introduce any difficulty with QuadVees that mount mismatched jumpjets?  We have no canon examples yet, but it's possible in an edge case to have a QuadVee with movement modes 8"/6"j/10"qw or something similar.  Would that be handled the same way?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Panthros on 23 August 2015, 20:12:10
I noticed some great feedback in the Alpha Strike Companion thread, two pages of feedback.  Perhaps it is time for an errata?  What is the criteria for when an errata comes out?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 August 2015, 22:21:24
I noticed some great feedback in the Alpha Strike Companion thread, two pages of feedback.  Perhaps it is time for an errata?  What is the criteria for when an errata comes out?

Either 1) when an admin calls for it (almost always due to an upcoming reprint) or 2) when I have the time and am allowed to supervise it on my own.

Fortunately you're in luck, as I just realized the same thing you did a couple of days ago, and will try to find time to get an errata out next month.  If you check the thread I've already done some consolidating of errata from the same rules sections into single posts in preparation for this.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Pezmotion on 24 August 2015, 15:23:33
Total Warfare v4.2 Errata question:

On page 21 of the errata:
Quote
Attack Modifiers Table (p. 117)
Under “Target (modifiers cumulative)”, delete the row: Airborne VTOL unit +1

Airborne VTOL units still receive the "+1 additional" from the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)" modifier in the Attacks Modifier Table, correct? Does this mean that the following scenarios are correct?
1) An airborne VTOL decided to remain stationary this turn. Their Target modifier is 1: 0 for hexes moved, 1 for the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)".
2) An airborne VTOL used Cruising Movement Mode to move 2 hexes this turn. Their Target modifier is 1: 0 for hexes moved, 1 for the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)"
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 August 2015, 15:41:52
Total Warfare v4.2 Errata question:

On page 21 of the errata:
Airborne VTOL units still receive the "+1 additional" from the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)" modifier in the Attacks Modifier Table, correct? Does this mean that the following scenarios are correct?
1) An airborne VTOL decided to remain stationary this turn. Their Target modifier is 1: 0 for hexes moved, 1 for the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)".
2) An airborne VTOL used Cruising Movement Mode to move 2 hexes this turn. Their Target modifier is 1: 0 for hexes moved, 1 for the "Jumped/Airborne (non-aerospace units)"

They still receive the +1, yes.  Your examples are correct.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 26 August 2015, 18:39:08
Alpha Strike Companion p.155 - Aerospace Formations

I have three errors to report of the PDF.

Under Transport Squadron.  Last sentence of the first paragraph:
Quote
...while the typically larger aerospace craft are used to materiel to, from, or through the battle zone.

Material is misspelled, and I believe the missing word should be "move" so that it reads:
"...larger aerospace craft are used to move material to, from, and through the battle zone."


Third error.

Still under Transport Squadron.  Last sentence of the second paragraph:
Quote
But sometimes, 

Not sure what should go there or if it should be omitted. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 01 September 2015, 12:54:59
Materiel is correct. It refers to military equipment and materials.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: VictorMorson on 10 September 2015, 02:47:21
Question about the Magistracy of Canopus:  In Handbook: Major Periphery States, they are given a price for Slavery (35 Bi-Weekly); it is given a footnote, however, talking about the Marian Hegemony.  Given that the Magistracy of Canopus seems the polar opposite of slavery in every way (being to the extreme about personal freedom), I'm guessing this was a typo?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 11 September 2015, 19:28:04
Question about the Magistracy of Canopus:  In Handbook: Major Periphery States, they are given a price for Slavery (35 Bi-Weekly); it is given a footnote, however, talking about the Marian Hegemony.  Given that the Magistracy of Canopus seems the polar opposite of slavery in every way (being to the extreme about personal freedom), I'm guessing this was a typo?

No, Herb discussed this at one point, it is a pay scale for those who sell themselves into slavery. It certainly is an extreme of personal freedom, but it's not like the MoC lacks for taking things to the extreme.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: VictorMorson on 14 September 2015, 06:40:03
Wow, that is interesting to know and definitely something I'll file away.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 03 October 2015, 15:56:16
General Errata Report: Fire Lance Pack

Problem: On the "Zeta" side of the Wolf's Dragoons card, the following line appears: "...a Zeta MechWarrior killed the sun of that group's leader, Wayne Waco..." Zeta Battalion is pretty bad-ass, but killing entire stars is beyond even them.

Correction: Replace the word "sun" with "son."
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: caioaf on 07 November 2015, 21:17:45
I have some questions and observations:

1- In War of the Tripods! none of the tripods have their BV written. The absence of BV is errata-worthy or it was left blank intentionally?
2- These tripods will ever appear in the MUL and be converted to Alpha Strike?
3- MUL has Alpha Strike stats for Clan Interface Armor squads. However, deploying squads of 4, 5 or 6 CIAs do not make too much sense considering their purpose. Does it make sense to create a "Squad: 1" AS card exclusively for Interface armors?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FedComGirl on 09 November 2015, 06:23:55
No, Herb discussed this at one point, it is a pay scale for those who sell themselves into slavery. It certainly is an extreme of personal freedom, but it's not like the MoC lacks for taking things to the extreme.

Sort of like indentured servitude?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 17 November 2015, 17:52:36
I'm confused by TW Errata 4.2.

On page 13, regarding the facing changes (TW page 84):

“Before it can make a facing change on the low-altitude map, a unit must move in a straight line at least the number of hexes shown on the Straight Movement Table below. When moving on the ground map, multiply the minimum number of hexes required by eight. In both cases, this movement may be split across two turns.”

So up till velocity 6, ASFs can make 1 facing change for every 8 hexes on the ground map. In which case, what is the STRAIGHT MOVEMENT ON
GROUND MAPS TABLE (AERODYNE CRAFT ONLY) table on page 92 of TW for? The minimum straight movement costs there contradict the TW errata. Does the TW errata render this table defunct?

Page 92 of TW :

"Aerodyne units also use the facing changes rules for low-altitude movement, except that the straight movement required before making a facing change has a greater eff ect at this scale. See the column appropriate for the unit’s class on the Straight Movement on Ground Maps Table, below, for the minimum number of ground map hexes a unit must move in a straight line between one-hexside facing changes."

What's even more confusing is that page 84 of TW starts by talking about free facing changes :

"While operating in a atmosphere hex, fighters, aerodyne DropShips and aerodyne small craft need not spend Thrust Points to change facing. Instead, they use control surfaces built into their wings to change facing and altitude. These surfaces allow the unit to make a number of free facing changes, depending on unit type and velocity. The faster a unit moves, the fewer free facing changes it receives."

How does the free facing thing work now? I thought the straight movement table on page 84 was the number of hexes the unit must move before it gets a free facing change, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

The TW errata (page 2) also says :

"However, they may not do so if they have already changed facing in that hex or if this is the first hex of their movement on the low-altitude map. On the ground map, each such change must be preceded by at least eight hexes of movement, which may be split across two turns."

This is for additional facing changes, but ASFs on the ground map need to move at least 8 hexes before making ANY facing changes anyway....

Assuming page 92 is talking strictly about the minimum number of hexes ASFs can move before making facing changes on the ground map, then at velocity 2, a ASF would need to move 12 hexes before making ANY facing change. But this wouldn't really make sense because page 84 would allow the ASF to make free facing changes after every 8 hexes at velocity 2.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 23 November 2015, 14:20:28
I'm confused by TW Errata 4.2.

The section on p. 84 is referring to the standard high/low altitude rules.  The rules and table on p. 92 are for an entirely separate set of optional rules for movement directly on the ground mapsheet.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 23 November 2015, 18:45:36
The section on p. 84 is referring to the standard high/low altitude rules.  The rules and table on p. 92 are for an entirely separate set of optional rules for movement directly on the ground mapsheet.

Thanks, but if that's the case, why does the errata say "When moving on the ground map, multiply the minimum number of hexes required by eight. In both cases, this movement may be split across two turns.” when referencing the table on page 84?

If the rules and table on page 92 are for the optional rules, then what are the non-optional rules for movement directly on the ground mapsheet?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 23 November 2015, 18:53:35
If the rules and table on page 92 are for the optional rules, then what are the non-optional rules for movement directly on the ground mapsheet?

There aren't any. If you're using aeros directly on ground mapsheets, you are by definition using optional rules.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 23 November 2015, 19:01:40
There aren't any. If you're using aeros directly on ground mapsheets, you are by definition using optional rules.

But he's saying errata for p84 (the non optional part) _is_ referencing moving on a ground map.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 28 November 2015, 22:18:32
Uh...so does anyone have any clue why it says to use the table on page 84?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 28 November 2015, 22:24:35
For actual rules questions, please use the "Ask the Lead Developers" subforum.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 29 November 2015, 00:54:34
But this is in regards to an errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 29 November 2015, 06:51:11
But this is in regards to an errata?

Page 84 covers movement on the Low Altitude map. This is most emphatically NOT the same as the Ground map. They are at different scales. Did you not notice the diagram on page 91 showing that each Low Altitude map hex is (roughly) the same size as an entire Ground scale mapsheet? The Straight Movement on Ground Maps Table (Aerodyne Only) (pg. 92) completely replaces the Straight Movement Table (pg. 84) when you're using aerospace units directly on the Ground map. See page 74 for definitions of the pertinent terms. Page 76 states that a Low Altitude map hex is 500 meters across; a Ground map hex is only 30 meters per page 31.

Also, you're quoting the wrong parts of the errata document. See the attached picture. The red boxes denote the old, incorrect text, which should be clear from the underlined (and circled in orange) Change to: lines. The corrections are in the green boxes.

And yes, if you believe an errata is in error, the proper procedure is get a ruling on the matter through the Ask the Lead Developers subforum. It's not an insult or challenge to the Errata guys, it's just a way of making sure that the situation gets addressed in a formal manner.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 29 November 2015, 22:36:05
I dont understand why you say i quoted the wrong parts, because it looks like i quoted the same parts you did.

The new errata on page 84 references the ground map and the table on page 84. If its only talking about the low altitude map, why would it say that for ground movement, use the low altitude table on page 84 and then multiple the number of hexes by 8?

Anyway i will post a question in the ask a developers forum i guess.

Edit : Actually it looks like that forum is only for story/universe questions? I posted it in the rules question forum anyway.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 November 2015, 00:46:14
Rules forums are correct for rules questions, as per the errata rules thread; thanks Question.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 25 December 2015, 19:01:36
Hi all.  I'm out of the country for a month.  While I'm away, Moonsword will be holding down the fort.  Have a good new year!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 25 December 2015, 19:35:34
Safe travels!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 26 December 2015, 18:49:13
Any word on the 2765 series and Errata? Been two years on these.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 26 December 2015, 18:51:00
I'm afraid not.  If I have any news on errata that I can release, I'll tell it the moment I have it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 28 December 2015, 18:41:45
Darn... wouldbe happy if we at least got the RAT fixed in 2765:P. :-\

But thanks for the update.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Dravin on 03 January 2016, 22:53:27
OK, I'm new to the game and the forum, do if this is in the wrong place, a thousand apologies.

 I was going to purchase the tech manual PDF, but was informed that there are rumors of a new edition coming out. My question is, should I wait to buy it, or will the PDF update like it does for the TRO sheets? I just don't want to buy it if I have to basically but it again soon :-\
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 06 January 2016, 08:06:40
OK, I'm new to the game and the forum, do if this is in the wrong place, a thousand apologies.

 I was going to purchase the tech manual PDF, but was informed that there are rumors of a new edition coming out. My question is, should I wait to buy it, or will the PDF update like it does for the TRO sheets? I just don't want to buy it if I have to basically but it again soon :-\

if you buy the PDF from the Catalyst Battleshop or DrivethruRPG, you'll get a notification to download the errata'd version
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 January 2016, 15:12:03
Is it alright to post in the official threads about which RS is correct on a design? Or does that count as a discussion?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 February 2016, 01:46:23
I'm not clear exactly what you'd be reporting.  Feel free to report it here, and I'll move it where needed if needed.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 16 February 2016, 15:37:00
The design in question is the TR-A-1 Toro (the Primitive one). In the BC210 RS3075 Unabridged RS book, the design is a 3/5 with 11 single heat sinks and slightly more armor. In XTROPrimitive IV its a 4/6 design with 10 single heat sinks and slightly less armor.

Normally I'd say the second takes precedence, but since its a major change and both are legal, I figured I'd find someplace to ask which was correct.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 16 February 2016, 16:00:17
The XTR Primitives version of 3075 primitive were intentionally fixing those RS.  The Toro TR-A-1 was removed from RS 3075 Age of War because XTR Primitives is it's "correct" home.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 16 February 2016, 16:44:27
Okay, just making sure. Normally I would assume the newer would take precedence, but since there was nothing wrong with the old one, I figured I'd make sure it wasn't a case of someone not realizing a previous RS existed or something.

And a bigger, more wide ranging question.

Is it "Endo Steel" or "Endo-Steel" because looking at TechManual, on page 224, its always "Endo-Steel" yet on the charts in the BattleMech construction rules, its listed as "Endo Steel" (page 47 for example) and then later again in the examples for determining cost, its listed as "Endo Steel."

IO continues the ambiguity, with the writeup for Prototype Endo Steel on page 71 calling it "Endo Steel" which is repeated on page 103. Even the Ferro Fibrous armor states "As with Star League-era endo steel..."

And yet on the Universal Technology Advancement Table (p. 48), its listed as "Endo-Steel" for both BattleMech structure and Superheavy BattleMech structure. The superheavy 'Mech cost section also calls it "endo-steel."

Some sort of standard should be be in place by now, right?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 22 February 2016, 13:40:54
**bump**

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5884.msg1118240#msg1118240

Alpha Strike Companion p.155 - Aerospace Formations

I have three two errors to report of the PDF.

Under Transport Squadron.  Last sentence of the first paragraph:
Quote
...while the typically larger aerospace craft are used to materiel to, from, or through the battle zone.

I believe the missing word should be "move" so that it reads:
"...larger aerospace craft are used to move materiel to, from, and through the battle zone."


Third Second error.

Still under Transport Squadron.  Last sentence of the second paragraph:
Quote
But sometimes, 

Not sure what should go there or if it should be omitted. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: RaiderRed on 15 March 2016, 22:14:30
I was looking through the Random Assignment tables and noticed a Royal variant  of the Catapult missing from the list the base mech is there just not the royal? Is there a reason to not include it in that list?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 19 March 2016, 01:02:20
So the background fluff and introductory date for the DroST II dropship presented in Historical: Reunification War and XTRO Primitives IV both indicate that the ship was intended to be carried internally aboard a jumpship when first built (they actually predate the kf-boom)

However, the craft is 5300 tons, and the rules for internal dropshuttle bays limit each carried dropship to 5000 tons. So they're too big, as written, to be used as intended.

Where should the errata be aimed?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 19 March 2016, 12:14:19
Where should the errata be aimed?

I put one while ago, got no traction for it.  You may want do a Ask the Writers, see if that get TPTB to respond.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 19 March 2016, 12:15:19
I was looking through the Random Assignment tables and noticed a Royal variant  of the Catapult missing from the list the base mech is there just not the royal? Is there a reason to not include it in that list?

It wasn't published until after Klondike was in RS3039 Unabridged, so it's possible the 'Mech wasn't actually created at the time the RATs were written.  You'd do better to post in Ask the Writers for something like that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 March 2016, 12:19:22
So the background fluff and introductory date for the DroST II dropship presented in Historical: Reunification War and XTRO Primitives IV both indicate that the ship was intended to be carried internally aboard a jumpship when first built (they actually predate the kf-boom)

However, the craft is 5300 tons, and the rules for internal dropshuttle bays limit each carried dropship to 5000 tons. So they're too big, as written, to be used as intended.

Where should the errata be aimed?

This is in the errata rules thread.  Basically, for cases like these we ask that you take it to Ask The Writers.  If you get an answer, post it in the right thread (or in this case, threads) with a link to the answer.

Thanks a lot.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 30 March 2016, 08:03:02
From the Alpha Strike Companion Errata Thread:
p152, Pursuit Lance Bonus Ability
Add after the current line.
"The Pursuit Lance may choose an enemy Formation rather than a single unit as the target for the Blood Stalker SPA. All members of the Pursuit Lance must choose the same enemy Formation for the Blood Stalker SPA.  If all units in the chosen enemy Formation are destroyed, the Pursuit Lance must choose another enemy Formation for the Blood Stalker SPA."
Just to clarify, when starting the game, the player has the player has the option of using Blood Stalker individually for the Formation OR using it to target a whole enemy Formation?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 30 March 2016, 08:32:06
The Pursuit Lance as a whole chooses an entire Lance/Star/etc. as their target.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 30 March 2016, 11:51:41
The Pursuit Lance as a whole chooses an entire Lance/Star/etc. as their target.
I got that part, but I wasn't sure if this was the new (and only) bonus or if instead the members of the lance/star/etc. could still individually target enemies.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Weirdo on 30 March 2016, 12:19:03
This is in addition to the old text instead of replacing it, so both options are legal.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 03 April 2016, 21:14:59
Question:

While I have the stats for the Federated-Barrett M42B Rifle System, I do not have the Inferno stats for it's underslung Compact Grenade Launcher. Both in damage and BV2. Is there one or should I assume none is forth coming?

Stat Block as of 3.0 Errata, main page CBT Forum with BV2:

Grenade Launcher (Compact) IS / Clan (C) Small / Support (B) 1 0.16 3.0 kg / 0.2 kg (1) 1
Grenade Launcher (Compact) 0.49

Anyway to get Inferno Rounds with this?

Truetanker

(PS: Xotl summon button activated!  :) )
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 April 2016, 23:15:11
Question:
(PS: Xotl summon button activated!  :) )

You rang?
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=31220.msg773086#msg773086

The grenades are already factored into the weapon's considerable base damage.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 04 April 2016, 04:33:41
Right, but those appear to be the non-Inferno grenades.  The other rifles with integral grenade launchers have two entries...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2016, 13:19:23
This may not be errata, but here goes:

On pages 40 and 201, the conversion from A Time of War to Total Warfare skills omits Linked Attribute Modifiers (i.e. only skill level contributes).  Was this deliberate, or an oversight?  Page 40 does retain the TW limit of a "0" skill, so it seems deliberately leaving out attribute modifiers is an unnecessary additional limitation.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 April 2016, 14:47:39
This may not be errata, but here goes:

On pages 40 and 201, the conversion from A Time of War to Total Warfare skills omits Linked Attribute Modifiers (i.e. only skill level contributes).  Was this deliberate, or an oversight?  Page 40 does retain the TW limit of a "0" skill, so it seems deliberately leaving out attribute modifiers is an unnecessary additional limitation.

As per the errata rules sticked at the top of the forum, if you're not sure yourself as to whether it's an error we ask that you post a rules question in the proper forum rather than an error report here.  I can't do anything about AToW stuff in particular until a dev weighs in on it, because I have no idea.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2016, 14:49:53
Will do, thanks.  I've seen questions like this bounced among errata to rules to lead developers to writers before so I figured I might as well start here.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 April 2016, 15:03:36
Will do, thanks.  I've seen questions like this bounced among errata to rules to lead developers to writers before so I figured I might as well start here.

Heh, yeah, that happens once in a while when you get edge-case questions.  Thanks for already re-asking your question.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 16 April 2016, 22:30:08
This may not be errata, but here goes:

On pages 40 and 201, the conversion from A Time of War to Total Warfare skills omits Linked Attribute Modifiers (i.e. only skill level contributes).  Was this deliberate, or an oversight?  Page 40 does retain the TW limit of a "0" skill, so it seems deliberately leaving out attribute modifiers is an unnecessary additional limitation.

Deliberate decision at the time.

Paul
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2016, 22:35:01
Ah, thank you!  Should I paste that in up in the rules question section as well?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 16 April 2016, 22:36:45
Heh, I just finished doing it and then I saw this.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 16 April 2016, 22:40:40
And I'll thank you here as well!  O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 April 2016, 06:18:34
Is the BV Errata PDF From August 2014 the last word in BV Errata for TechManual?

http://d15yciz5bluc83.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TechManual-v3.0-Battle-Value.pdf?e42d90

for reference :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 April 2016, 11:10:04
Other than the following piece due in the upcoming errata, yes:

Inner Sphere Weapons and Equipment Table (p. 317)
1)   For the following items, after the Item BV add a ** footnote marker: Hatchet, Retractable Blade, Sword.

2)   In the footnotes section, add the following new footnote:

**These items may have their damage modified by other pieces of equipment the unit mounts. In all cases, the item’s BV is based on the final damage the item is capable of dealing after all modifications are applied.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 April 2016, 16:50:11
Hmm. Strange. That seems a really awkward way of putting that. Does TSM apply? Its a selective bonus and not a permanent one (which is why record sheets show you the base damage and not the TSM enhanced bonus). Compare that to Industrial TSM, which is always on and always provides a bonus.

So is TSM and Industrial TSM treated differently? Why not since one is a permanent bonus, and the other one isn't?

And why does only the Hatchet, Retractable Blade and sword get this footnote market? Why not the Backhoe as well, whose damage is modified by TSM, atleast according to the chart on page 146 of Total Warfare?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 April 2016, 16:57:56
Hmm. Strange. That seems a really awkward way of putting that. Does TSM apply? Its a selective bonus and not a permanent one (which is why record sheets show you the base damage and not the TSM enhanced bonus). Compare that to Industrial TSM, which is always on and always provides a bonus.

So is TSM and Industrial TSM treated differently? Why not since one is a permanent bonus, and the other one isn't?

It was based on an earlier errata ruling; I just tried to implement it the best I could.  If you have a clearer wording, I'd welcome it, based on the intent of the original ruling.

Quote
And why does only the Hatchet, Retractable Blade and sword get this footnote market? Why not the Backhoe as well, whose damage is modified by TSM, at least according to the chart on page 146 of Total Warfare?

Just forgot about it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 April 2016, 17:43:59
Well, for a clearer wording, I'd need to know what the rule is? Is it just "If mounted on a 'Mech with TSM, use the TSM-enhanced damage value to calculate BV"? Does it matter that TSM is a non-constant bonus (whereas something like Industrial TSM is a constant bonus?). Is it just TSM, or is there something else that modifies it, thus the need for a non-specific ruling?

I guess the second question would be, should this be on the Weapons and Equipment BV table where the Item BV is determined, or should this be part of the BV calculation itself? It seems to me that this would fit much better under the "Calculate Each Weapon's Modified BV" section of the actual BV Calculation, rather then sliding it in the chart in the back.

Does TacOps get this errata to for some of its weapons? I don't recall seeing it in the errata or the book...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ferret DerpDerp on 24 April 2016, 10:39:14
Just a quickie question: Is ALL the errata up to date and official?? Im really looking at the BV one. But since im here, Ill ask about all of them.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 24 April 2016, 10:48:10
Which errata are you referring to? The ones found in these threads or the pdf downloads? The pdfs are only generated once per year if I recall correctly. The threads are updated as things come up.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ferret DerpDerp on 24 April 2016, 11:09:01
This is what im talking about:   http://bg.battletech.com/errata/
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 24 April 2016, 11:11:05
This is what im talking about:   http://bg.battletech.com/errata/

Those are the ones updated once a year around June.  The errata threads in this forum have other submitted errata (and errata for books not given an errata PDF).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ferret DerpDerp on 24 April 2016, 11:19:39
My main worry is the BV.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 24 April 2016, 11:52:35
The first post of each errata thread states when the version was compiled. Any posts in that thread after that date are not in the download. You just have to look up the matching thread to your download.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Ferret DerpDerp on 24 April 2016, 12:09:35
ok, sounds good.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 April 2016, 15:11:41
The BV document is entirely up to date, except for one small ruling on modified damage for hatchets and other physical weapons, which was discussed directly above.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 25 April 2016, 15:51:31
Which I'm still wondering if it applies to TacOps weapons and especially how it applies to things Vibroblades who only get the occasional bonus :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 25 April 2016, 16:28:13
Which I'm still wondering if it applies to TacOps weapons and especially how it applies to things Vibroblades who only get the occasional bonus :)

I didn't miss your posts.  It's being worked on.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 26 April 2016, 07:38:39
Oh, I know. I figured. :) I also realized that I had forgotten to mention the Vibroblades specifically, since they're in such an odd situation, and wanted to clarify that.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 26 April 2016, 17:01:57
Oh, I know. I figured. :) I also realized that I had forgotten to mention the Vibroblades specifically, since they're in such an odd situation, and wanted to clarify that.

I'll bet you'd like us to clarify the sound they make when two of them meet....
 ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 30 April 2016, 15:03:10
unsure if this was intended or a math error so i thought i'd ask here first.

Combat Manual Pg. 82

the infantry table suggests that the standard merc platoon is 40 men

(http://puu.sh/oBtfP/fe6895f8e1.png)

was the math done wrong (40 troops vs the traditional ~30 troops) or are merc infantry platoons indeed 40 man units?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 06 May 2016, 08:03:41
I noticed a thing of possible errata in First Succession War: The Rules Annex section's Special Case rules suggests using the SLDF Advanced Neurohelmet for games set during 1st SW... and the IO says the helmet went extinct in 2770.

At a glance, the obvious solution is to delete the line. But considering the greed of the Successor states and other things, this may be one of the rare eras when the helmet gets use, hence I regard this as merely possible because IO entry for the helmet notes at least ComStar and Clans had stockpiles of those helmets, and extending this to SLDF forces who defected to Successor States and the States could have captured stockpiles of the helmets. If so, the extinction date would refer to the tech to build them being lost only, rather than the item disappearing from the Inner Sphere, so the helmet would be usable during the early Succession Wars.

Or is the IO's extinction date for the SLDF Neurohelmet incorrect in light of this newer product?

Or am i adhering to extinction dates too much?

Or is the helmet listed there because ComStar has access to them throughout the Succession Wars, with IO implying they used them too in the rare cases they used their forces?

And finally, is this the right place for this or should I throw the question to Ask the Writers board?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 06 May 2016, 08:54:11
Extinction dates are when the equipment was no longer in production.  With a 2770 extinction date, it would be quite a while before the ones already produced would have all failed/be destroyed?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 06 May 2016, 09:54:52
I guess. So maybe not really errata, just a bit unclear as it isn't explained that the Successor States obtained those helmets as well.
Based on IO entry for the item, i got an impression it didn't spread beyond limited amount of elite SLDF forces.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: JadedFalcon on 12 May 2016, 20:12:56
Regarding Combat Manual: Mercenaries and the Availability Lists. The VND-1R and ASN-101 were recently errata'd off the General list (presumably because they have faction-specific availability on the MUL). My question is that since the DRG-1N Dragon (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/909/dragon-drg-1n) doesn't appear on the IS General list on the MUL, should it be moved to the Mercenary Availability List in the Combat Manual? The MUL listed it as being available to mercenaries.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 12 May 2016, 20:43:17
The MUL and the CMs have different systems for availability.  CM Mercs was changed because TR 3039 said only mercs working for Liao got Vindicators, and that the ASN-101 was only a handful with FS and nobody else. 
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 12 May 2016, 22:58:27
unsure if this is errata so i'm posting here

in the random scenario creation table for random maps on p.263 of TW, Deep Canyon #1 & Deep Canyon #2 (MS5, MSC2) are the only two canon non-Solaris VII maps (or the Imperial City/Kado-guchi Valley from Luthien) that do not appear. Oversight or intentional omission?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 May 2016, 23:37:12
Best post in Ask the Writers on that one, though I'm not sure if you'll get an answer.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 12 May 2016, 23:47:25
ok will do
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Question on 26 May 2016, 16:53:43
Im not sure where to post this...the Gnome BA is listed as being produced in 3056 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1216/), yet it's advanced SRM-2 launcher isn't available till 3058, making the unit illegal...does this need an errata to the dates?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 26 May 2016, 17:23:34
Probably best in the MUL thread, since it ultimately deals with unit availability; thanks for asking.

I'll shuffle your post over there shortly.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 27 May 2016, 14:20:11
I just noticed the A-pod availability rating is listed as XXDC in the Interstellar Operations. Tech Manual has it as XXD as well. The problem here seems to be that it is introduced by the Clans during the Succession Wars era, so X cannot be really true, unless the tables are from the IS perspective.
If so, shouldn't there be an alternative listing offered for Clans or some way of determining that otherwise? Or have i somehow managed to skip over that explanation where-ever it may be? (Usually i don't find this information relevant, so i may well have missed it.)

EDIT
Asking to be sure but this really looks like errata: The Light Active Probe (Clan) has availability rating of XXED, despite being introduced during the Succession wars as well. Presumably this is in error and should be either E or F for the SW-era.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 27 May 2016, 20:02:47
Tech Manual uses the same availability code for the light active probe. Presumably the Smoke Jaguars never saw the need to actually produce any until the clan invasion.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 03 June 2016, 20:18:47
I think there may be a problem with the section about overheat value calculations in AS Companion.
It says the difference between unadjusted and adjusted M (or S) damage value becomes the Overheat Value. But it does not specify what happens if this value is not a whole number. I assume the number is rounded normally? Also, i'm assuming the non-final (not rounded) damage values used for calculating Overheat Value, am i correct?

This problem does seem obvious but i figure i'll ask first before submitting it as an errata.

(In the conversion i'm doing, unadjusted M damage value is 3.27, adjusted value is 2.725 and final value is 3. If my interpretation is right, i get 3.27-2.725=0.545, rounded normally to 1, giving my unit OV value of 1 at S and M ranges.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 03 June 2016, 20:26:15
There is errata being posted soon specifically on this, but it amounts to you compare final values.  What the final value would be without heat, and the final value with heat.  That difference is OV. (And final values are always whole numbers).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 03 June 2016, 20:38:12
Oh, i see. So in my case, the result would end up being 3-3=0 as values with and without heat would round to 3, so no Overheat Value at all.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 03 June 2016, 21:10:13
Exactly.  OV is how much heat modification affected the final result.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2016, 11:30:13
Hello all.  It's the 6th of June, and with it comes the year's errata.  Continuing the trend, there's less of it this year than the year before.  Specifics will be going into each thread shortly, but some general notes:

 - The Alpha Strike Companion errata is still in the works, and will be delayed a couple of weeks at least as we hash out a couple of larger pieces.  There's an interim document dealing with heat conversion that has been posted in the meantime.
 - The Strategic Operations release is basically just to tide people over until we can get something better out (i.e., something that tackles the maintenance issues properly)
 - New Additions is now found at the end of all the documents.  It's always meant to just be a reference, rather than being printed off, and putting it at the beginning was just throwing off the page count when people printed off the Full Errata.
 - For Alpha Strike, Tactical Operations, and Total Warfare, I've added cut-down version of the documents that only deal with the latest printing.  So, if you own the newest release, you don't have to wade through oceans of old errata to find what you need.

The documents can be found in the first post of their respective errata threads.  Let me know if you find any issues (unclear/troublesome entries, typos, extra line breaks/other broken formatting; post comments here, rather than in the other threads, please).  If it all passes muster here, I'll send it all up to the main BT webpage in about a week.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 07 June 2016, 12:20:46
The new errata for AlphaStrike (2.2) changing how Transports and Infantry mount have me confused...
v2.2 1st Printing p.8
v2.2 2nd Printing p.3

As it reads now (2.2), the Transports spends 2" of it's own Movement to Mount an Infantry Unit... but then... there's no detail on how much it costs to Deploy/Dismount that Infantry Unit.

Is the Dismounting value now "free"?  Is the value double for same-turn dismounts? (i.e. Mount = 2", Dismount = 2") ...Does the Infantry spend their own movement to deploy? (contrary to the first indented paragraph in AlphaStrike p.33  starting with "Regardless...")

One of the previously errata (I think 2.0?) the Infantry Unit spent its own Movement to Mount/Board a Transport (2"), then the Transport would (at the end of it's movement) Deploy/Dismount the Infantry Unit at a rate of 2" per unit (I am inferring the rate based on those Transports with a higher carrying capacity and sufficient Movement).

While I think [the previous Errata] was pretty clear and fair, I'm not so sure I understand what the v2.2 was trying to fix

**[Note: I cannot find the original Errata to verify this, but my PDF has the word "Transport" in "Infantry Transport" strike-through (omitted)]**
**Edit-- reference for AlphaStrike errata**
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 08 June 2016, 13:36:11
Units do not expend MP to allow infantry to dismount any longer.  I'll add a specific note addressing this.


EDIT: both documents have been updated with the clarifying note.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 June 2016, 14:32:24
Hello all.  The Total Warfare, TechManual, Tactical Operations, and Strategic Operations errata is now live on the official website.  If you downloaded the TechManual errata prior to today, please download it again.  The others received no updates from when they were first previewed here.

The Alpha Strike and Alpha Strike Companion errata still have one or two issues awaiting settlement, and so I'm holding those for another day or two.

Thanks as always for all your help in making the BT rules as solid as they can be.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 June 2016, 15:08:25
The Alpha Strike errata is heading up to the website shortly.  I've just made one other change (regarding Stealth), so download it from there to be sure you have the most recent (and final) version.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Tai Dai Cultist on 24 June 2016, 12:53:18
Blood Stalker/Pursuit Lance errata feedback:

Before the ASC errata doc gets finalized, I think it should be clarified as to whether the pursuit lance formation ability is compatible in any way with the added functionality of Blood Stalker erratum on page 4 of the doc. 

i.e. may a pursuit lance decline to pick a formation or must it pick a formation?  Are members of a pursuit lance that are blood stalking a formation, with no members of that formation in LOS eligible to pick new prey?  If so, what happens if the original formation is destroyed while that unit is still stalking its new prey?

I presume that the intent is the pursuit lance offers the option to use a 2nd version of the SPA, and it's not intended that the two different kinds of "prey selection" mechanics are ever meant to stack.  But it's not necessarily clear in the text as is.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Tai Dai Cultist on 24 June 2016, 13:02:57
Additional feedback:

I didn't see any errata addressing infantry vs infantry in the same building being so much harder to than boarding actions in a moving building (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52973.msg1222487#msg1222487).  Just bringing it up in case it fell into a crack :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 24 June 2016, 19:50:03
I've seen people report this several times, and it is not an error:

Materiel is a real word, distinct from material. It is used to denote military equipment and supplies in general, as opposed to "material's" connotations of raw goods. Its usage should not be reported as potential errata unless the context is incorrect. For example, "construction materiel" would be wrong, but "tanks and other materiel" would be right.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 29 June 2016, 00:06:12
Not sure where to put this, but..

The Inner Sphere at War maps mentioned Here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.msg1218489#msg1218489) have a small issue. In the 2786 map, the Periphery nations (MoC, OA and TC) are missing their political subdivisions.

You can see errata notes about the subdivisions (and about them being missing) from HB:MPS Here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8672.msg483185#msg483185).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 29 June 2016, 10:14:38
Not errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 29 June 2016, 14:50:00
Not errata because its not a product, and thus doesn't belong in the errata section and should be mentioned someplace else, or not errata because the maps have changed, which means HB:MPS needs more errata?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 29 June 2016, 15:06:56
I would guess not errata because there's no requirement that the maps show political subdivisions.  I know relatively nothing about ISW, but I don't recall anything requiring political subdivisions on the map.  Errata isn't for things that would be nice to have, but changes that are necessary.  If the maps don't need the subdivisions, then there's no errata needed.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 29 June 2016, 16:28:01
It wasn't errata on HMPS and it's not errata on these.

I would guess not errata because there's no requirement that the maps show political subdivisions.
Correct, and more so on the Periphery states. They only every had them when they were territories under the Star League.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cache on 30 June 2016, 18:33:58
The Locust 1E entry on p. 155 in First Succession War has "No Torso Twist" listed as a design quirk. That was an obvious quirk for the Unseen artwork, however, the nuSeen Locust artwork has a noticeable waist. Does this quirk still apply?

edit: answers from ask the writers...
Yup. At least for now.

-

Quirks, of course, being an optional rule.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 30 June 2016, 19:01:25
The Locust 1E entry on p. 155 in First Succession War has "No Torso Twist" listed as a design quirk. That was an obvious quirk for the Unseen artwork, however, the nuSeen Locust artwork has a noticeable waist. Does this quirk still apply?

Try Ask The Writers: they might be able to help.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maingunnery on 03 July 2016, 07:39:50

Question about Campaign Ops:

page 146, both Clan Coyote and Clan Cloud Cobra use the same color in the map legend. So which one uses the light blue?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 03 July 2016, 17:02:10
Coyote is light blue.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: KCmasterpiece on 09 July 2016, 22:13:03
Campaign Ops pg. 103

Step 3: Filling Orbital Slots

The text says to use the "outer system" column beyond the life zone but the example uses a +2 roll modifier on the "inner system" column.  Which is correct?

Also, if the "outer system" column should be used it is missing a result for a value of 8.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: JadedFalcon on 10 July 2016, 21:21:30
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 10 July 2016, 22:18:57
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).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 11 July 2016, 01:00:15
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. :'(
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 11 July 2016, 12:55:49
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 11 July 2016, 13:07:41
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 11 July 2016, 20:40:02
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 11 July 2016, 20:50:11
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 11 July 2016, 21:08:14
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! )
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: JadedFalcon on 11 July 2016, 23:11:04
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.)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 11 July 2016, 23:20:54
I'm going to bed, somebody poke me if I forgot to check on that tommorrow.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 12 July 2016, 07:59:29
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 12 July 2016, 08:19:04
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 12 July 2016, 08:27:42
I will keep that in mind for the future CMs.

That's all I can ask. Thank you!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 19 July 2016, 17:13:35
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 20 July 2016, 07:40:36
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 20 July 2016, 08:33:47
Yes, exactly like that one. Not sure how I missed it, but thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 26 July 2016, 14:51:53
If the webpage has spelling error, where would i post that.

The Latest Releases (http://bg.battletech.com/books/available-now/), 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!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 26 July 2016, 15:38:01
Website and Forum Support
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=54.0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 10:50:56
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 July 2016, 11:15:14
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 12:01:55
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 27 July 2016, 12:28:34
TW p171, Attacking Units Inside Buildings, Physical Attacks.
No need to errata, the rulebook states the rule itself.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 27 July 2016, 12:31:01
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 12:49:04
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 27 July 2016, 13:12:09
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 13:25:27
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?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 27 July 2016, 15:43:57
I believe the issue is footing, not height.  A 'mech can't actually reach across an entire hex to punch a target.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Hammer on 29 July 2016, 21:48:20
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.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 24 August 2016, 01:18:04
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] (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6243/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) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6737/thunderbird-battle-armor-upgrade-lb-x): RS3145_Unabridged p.27
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird II (Standard) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7357/thunderbird-ii-battle-armor-standard): XTRO_Republic_2 p.16?
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: S.gage on 01 September 2016, 08:37:36
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
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 30 September 2016, 19:00:13
Figured I'd ask this here instead of cluttering up the thread.

In XTRO Primitives, the PX-1R Phoenix is different from the PX-1R Phoenix in the old BC210 RS3075 Unabridged. Is this an errata worthy oversight or deliberate change?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 30 September 2016, 20:09:08
The Primitives series specifically overrides previous material.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 13 November 2016, 19:16:44
Going through the Tech Manual v3.0 Infantry Tables, I noticed a small problem with the Light Machine Gun.  Due to the vagaries of the conversion formula, it ends up doing less damage than the lighter (and non-support weapon) Auto Rifle.  As fixing this would imply changes to both AToW and Tech Manual, I'm not sure where it should go.  My proposed fix is below, with rationale.

On page 273 of AToW, recommend changing the Light Machine Gun stats as follows:
AP/BD: From 5B/3B to 4B/4B (matching the Auto Rifle's base damage and implying the same ammunition, similar to the M16 and M249 SAW)
Shots: From 45 to 60 (maintaining 3 bursts, to insure against future changes to how "shots" might be counted for Reload Factor)
Notes: From "Burst 15, Recoil -2" to "Burst 20, Recoil -2" (to increase its damage above the Auto Rifle and justify the extra weight)

This change would neatly place the Light Machine Gun's damage (0.60 with the changes above) between the Auto Rifle (0.52) and the Portable Machine Gun (0.65) where it logically should be.  It also leads to the below progression among the machine guns, analogous to the 5.56mm/7.62mm/.50 caliber progression of real life:

Code: [Select]
Weapon            AP/BD  Burst  TW Damage
Auto Rifle:       4B/4B    15     0.52 (unchanged)
Light MG:         4B/4B    20     0.60
Portable MG:      5B/4B    15     0.65 (unchanged)
Semi-Portable MG: 5B/4B    20     0.75 (unchanged)
Support MG:       5B/5B    20     0.94 (unchanged)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 19 November 2016, 20:14:35
I'm still going through the Tech Manual v3.0 Infantry Tables, and seem to have found another disconnect between it and AToW.

The M61A Combat System is listed as being 6kg in the table (with reload weight in line with being just a laser rifle), but 9kg in AToW (page 267, which also only lists reload weight for the laser rifle component, ignoring the compact grenade launcher (which was changed in AToW errata v2.2)).  I believe AToW at 9kg is the correct weight, but if I'm wrong, AToW needs the errata, not Tech Manual.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 02 December 2016, 17:06:09
I have a small error to report in the Alpha Strike Quick Start Rules PDF. I can't find an appropriate thread about this product, so for now I'll report it here.

The problem is with the second sentence of the first paragraph of the components section on page 11 "These items were described
in  brief  in  the  previous  chapter  (see  pp.  6-9)". There no previous rules chapter in this document, and the pages 6-9 contain only the last part of a Jason Schmetzer's story. The entire sentence looks like copied straight from the Alpha Strike book and can be simply removed from the quick start rules document.

How should I report such problems with products that have no errata threads? Should I start a new thread or post them here?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 December 2016, 17:07:24
Here is fine.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 December 2016, 08:22:05
Question: are the old errata files from prior to the reprints archived anywhere?  My hard copies are sufficiently old that they're missing things no longer listed in the current errata as changes.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 11 December 2016, 09:02:51
Did you get the correct errata document? You would need the one for first printing. I suspect you have the one for second printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 December 2016, 09:18:39
I was looking at the one for the second printing, which is the only one available on the errata website.  I found a version of first printing errata buried in my archive, but shouldn't it be posted somewhere public too?  And do you know the latest first printing errata version number?  I'd like to know if the old copy I have has all the changes from first to second printing.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 11 December 2016, 09:54:19
It is in the first post of the TacOps errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 December 2016, 10:06:45
Got it, thanks!  Perhaps if the first link at battletech.com was listed with "(First Printing)" like the second link, it would be a little clearer.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 December 2016, 15:54:55
It doesn't say first printing because it's also intended for people with the second and third printings.  But I'll see about clearing it up some more.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 11 December 2016, 15:56:55
Thanks, Xotl.  It's possible I'm the only one who got tripped up by that, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 11 December 2016, 15:57:47
No problem.  I've added some extra wording below to clarify.  Thanks for the spot.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 16 January 2017, 21:48:23
Clan Capital Scale Weapons and Equipment BV Table [Addendum]
TO pg 384

Section titles (I think that is what they are called) 'Naval Guass', 'Naval Laser', 'Naval PPC', and 'Sub-Capital Missiles' each have a battle value assigned to them, despite not being actual weapons, and sometimes an ammo BV as well.

Those lines should be blank, similar to the 'Naval Autocannon' line on the same chart.



On a side note, all of the numbers on that chart that are supposed to be there are the same as the ones on the inner sphere chart. Room on the layout could probably be saved by removing that whole chart and renaming the inner sphere one to get rid of the faction alignment. The weapons and equipment stat tables already designate which ones each faction can use.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 January 2017, 00:39:44
This is, I believe, already addressed in the current TacOps errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 27 January 2017, 13:10:44
I had asked back in August, and unsure where else I should ask.  Please forgive me for a double-post; edited for clarity.

Two possible erratas: first in the Alpha Strike Companion, and then retroactive Errata to the Master Unit List (specific links below).

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.412 - "Battle Armor Combat Data table" the weapon is a coded "DB, C/F" for Direct Ballistic, Cluster/Flak.
p. 286 "Battle Armor LB-X Autocannon" reference: this weapon deals up to 4 damage in 1-point clusters, [resolve hits as if by Missile Attack (Cluster Hits Table = 4 x {#/active suits})

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 for the ASC, I have managed to find a handful of units that require Retroactive Updates based on their Record Sheets and respective TRO entries:

Black Wolf [LB-X] (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6243/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) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6737/thunderbird-battle-armor-upgrade-lb-x): RS3145_Unabridged p.27
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Thunderbird II (Standard) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7357/thunderbird-ii-battle-armor-standard): XTRO_Republic_2 p.16
 . add "FLK1/1/-" to the listed unit's Specials
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: FrozenIceman on 12 February 2017, 22:11:53
I am currently working with a group of individuals on conventional infantry rules.  We just looked at the Tech Manual Errata 3.0.  I have a concern with the Mauser IIC

Regular Grenade Damage: 0.92->1.37
Regular Grenade BV: 2.2->9.82
Inferno Grenade Damage: 0.62 ->0.90
Inferno Grenade BV:  2.2->6.45

This is kind of a massive jump from what was previously published and will drastically effect all of the Clan units in TRO 3085 unabridged.

For example, the Clan Heavy Jump Infantry on page 305 will have the following stat changes.
http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/609/clan-heavy-jump-infantry-heavy-infantry-point-91st-mechanized-assault-epsilon-galaxy <These Guys

Damage 20 Troopers: 24 -> 31 Damage
BV: 136 ->325 BV (199 without Anti Mech)

Just looking at that, I don't think I would ever dream of using these guys in Anti Mech operations with that kind of damage and point value.

Similarly if we go with a reinforced Jump squad (24 troopers, 6 per squad) and give them two Support Laser ER Heavy Clan the squad now has 32 damage out to 21 hexes (instead of 9) for a BV of 259.  You don't want to even know what happens when I try a Foot Platoon of 6 troopers each...

Was this intentional, both buffing the BV and the damage of the units instead of one or the other?  Just looking at this it completely destroys the rolls that were previously built for these units and creates an even larger divide between IS and Clan.  For example if we switched this over to a standard IS faction (with armor divisor 2 and used their Support ER Heavy IS version, 8 troopers per squad).  The most damage they could do is 16 out to 18 hexes (maybe around 20 damage if you use the updated Federated Barret M61A errata).

Was this intentional when the Tech Manual V3.0 infantry tables were updated?  If not, when can we see a revised 3085 unabridged (as well as the MUL)?  Without those updates the BV and damage potential are not even close.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BrokenMnemonic on 19 February 2017, 09:10:57
I'm not sure if this is an errata issue or a simple canon supercession, so I thought I'd ask. The original Technical Readout: 3025 had the 2nd Lyran Guards being destroyed on Port Moseby on 2786 (Firestarter entry, page 24). Technical Readout: 3025 Revised also had the 2nd Lyran Guards being destroyed on Port Moseby, but in 2789, rather than 2786. Technical Readout 3039 makes no mention of the event in the entry on the Firestarter.

First Succession War mentions the 2nd Lyran Guards several times during the timeline for the Bolan Thumb campaign - fighting on Radostov on 2790 and 2791, and Herzberg in 2801, before being destroyed on Finsterwalde in 2803.

The original House Steiner sourcebook has an entry on the 30th Lyran Guards on page 57, and mentions that the 30th included elements of the 2nd, which it states defeated Kuritan forces on Port Moseby (but doesn't give a date for that event).

Does the detail on the 2nd Lyran Guards in First Succession War mean that the Port Moseby detail from the two TRO 3025s is now no longer canon, meaning that the House Steiner book is referring to a battle at Port Moseby at some later point, with the 2nd Lyran Guards presumably having been rebuilt? Or should it be another unit fighting in the Bolan campaign?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 20 February 2017, 10:24:25
A question regarding jymset's dev-level errata post in the IO thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=50926.msg1286711#msg1286711):

Quote
Cut the following sentence - "In terms of game rules, Common items may be considered Tournament Legal."

I understand why this change was made, as items like artillery tubes have common dates. But how does one differentiate between TL items and non-TL items now? Is there some other marker that I'm missing?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 21 February 2017, 02:04:29
Not sure this is something that you guys would errata, but I think it should be, so I wanted to bring it up:

Interstellar Players 3 Interstellar Expeditions pg 114
PDF

The Bug Eye Surveillance Vessel has 12 passengers listed. In rebuilding it on my own, I found that those 12 passengers are the crew required to operate the Large NCSS, rather than 12 extra people that the word 'passengers' implies.

In SO pg 149 it states (underlined for emphasis):
Quote
The unit’s crew must be equal to (or, at the designer’s option, greater than) the sum of its minimum crew requirements (including any supplemental crew such as officers and those needed to man special equipment such as weapons, communications, kitchens and MASH theaters).

I would assume the 12 people needed to operate the Large NCSS would fall into that category, and be counted in as part of the crew number. While not important for tabletop play, it seems like it could throw off the fiction a bit, or possibly affect the RPG. It's probably the exact opposite of a huge deal, but I thought I would bring it up.

Also, discovered at the same time, but it seems to be .5 tons overweight, and I would have thought the cargo would have been 101.5 rather than rounded up to 102.  ;D

Possible solutions:
Delete the 12 passengers and increase the crew to 49 and officers to 10.
Change Cargo to 101.5.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 21 February 2017, 13:04:15
A question regarding jymset's dev-level errata post in the IO thread (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=50926.msg1286711#msg1286711):

I understand why this change was made, as items like artillery tubes have common dates. But how does one differentiate between TL items and non-TL items now? Is there some other marker that I'm missing?

Right now, the only official product which covers this are the Jihad and Dark Age Tech Advancement tables in TROs Prototypes and 3145 respectively.

While hardly ideal to have this hidden in non-rule books, the BattleMech Manual does implicitly differentiate, collecting all TL level equipment appropriate to Mechs and applicable to the 3145+ era.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 21 February 2017, 13:33:32
Right now, the only official product which covers this are the Jihad and Dark Age Tech Advancement tables in TROs Prototypes and 3145 respectively.

While hardly ideal to have this hidden in non-rule books, the BattleMech Manual does implicitly differentiate, collecting all TL level equipment appropriate to Mechs and applicable to the 3145+ era.

Ok, that was my next question. I was unclear whether those tables were rendered obsolete by IO.

Semi-related: Does the addition of a common date on the Apollo FCS in the IO errata thread make it TL or is it still considered advanced despite having a common date?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: jymset on 21 February 2017, 16:43:33
Heh, I spammed the boards too much... :-[

Dev-level errata:

p. 215, Dark Age Technology Advancement Table

Between "Angel ECM" and "Armor", add:
Apollo MRM Fire Control System - Adv - ~3065 - TL - 3071 - IS

Hope that helps!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 21 February 2017, 17:28:07
Hope that helps!

It certainly does  ;D

gracias
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: wantec on 17 March 2017, 10:45:34
I don't see a thread for the Spotlight On: Stone's Trackers, but I think I found an error:

pdf pg. 11, Under Abstract Combat System Combat Teams

The 3112 version has a unit type of "MX", which should be "CI". Per pg. 326 of IO, at least 2/3rds of the sub-units are the same type, "CI" therefore the whole unit should be "CI" not "MX".
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 28 March 2017, 01:55:57
I've found a couple more broken links to compiled errata files in the first posts of their respective errata threads. Since those are just broken links, and not errors within the books themselves, I decided to report those here, and not in errata threads.

The threads in question are:
Technical Readout: 3075 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5936)
Technical Readout: 3085 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5929)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 28 March 2017, 10:52:36
Thanks, Alfaryn.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Vampire_Seraphin on 04 April 2017, 21:14:44
Hey guys, I'm reading through the 3.5 version of the Tactical Operations errata and I noticed a change to how mud is handled.

Battlemechs are now effected and make checks like tanks.

This is a very poor choice for game balance reasons. You're taking the flagship unit of the franchise, and cutting away one of the major advantages it enjoys over tanks. Superior battlemech performance in bad conditions is one of the major reasons to bother using them instead of fielding armies of tanks.

Its also not fun. When you bring tanks, you implicitly accept the need to make checks in more situations. Forcing a mech to make a check every hex is a major drag.


Xotl: this is not an errata report, so it was removed from the errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 13 April 2017, 18:36:51
Not sure if this should be here or rules questions, but:
DropShuttle Bays in interstellar Operations page 119 say they have a max capacity of 10,000 tons.

I was wondering if that means the Defender class battle cruiser (pg 26 Field Report 2765: AFFS) and/or League class Destroyer Block I (pg 24  Field Report 2765: FWLM) need their DropShuttle Bays errata'd, since they claim to have 20,000 ton capacity each.

At first I thought they could just be 2 DropShuttle bays put together, but in the Defender's case that would exceed the maximum number of DropShuttle bays that can be put on a ship.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 19 April 2017, 09:17:19
Procedure question: I found some errata in TRO:3145 Federated Suns that hasn't been reported, but was apparently fixed in TRO:3150.

Should I still report the TRO:3145 FS error?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 April 2017, 11:31:58
Good question.  I'd say go ahead, just so those who only have the FedSuns TRO know it.  If you wouldn't mind, note that it's been fixed in 3150.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BritMech on 04 June 2017, 16:34:59
Trying to grab the lastest errata files, and they all time out. Server problem?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 04 June 2017, 16:41:10
Trying to grab the lastest errata files, and they all time out. Server problem?

Hi, long time no see.

Could you be more specific as to which file you're trying to get?  All the core book files I'm able to grab from the main BT website.  Dropbox changed how they link to files, so I had to change all the links I made to them in turn, so perhaps I missed some non-core ones.

Also, I'm releasing new errata tomorrow, so if it's core errata you want, you'll probably want to wait until then anyways.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 05 June 2017, 05:13:29
I'll be 100% unavailable for the next ten days or so, so if you have any questions on the errata releases, feel free to make them, but I won't be around for a bit to get to them.  However, Moonsword will be watching the store as usual.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 05 June 2017, 21:10:15
In my opinion there is one very minor editing problem with the new Total Warfare v4.4 errata documents (p. 20 of the errata document for the fourth printing, and p. 39 of the errata document for the first printing).

Both of those documents have two entries for Mechanized Battle Armor (p. 227). One of them details one change to Magnetic Clamps. The other one lists three items that need to be added to the Mechanized Battle Armor section. They should be probably merged into one list of four items, as it is the way such situations are handled pretty much everywhere else in the document.

---------------------

Also, shouldn't the first post in the Tactical Operations errata thread link to the Tactical Operations Landing Modifiers document in addition to the "main" errata documents?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Cryhavok101 on 08 June 2017, 09:32:28
Interstellar Operations PDF pg 219
Additional Alternate Era Equipment Chart
Late Succession Wars Equipment

Prototype Ultra AC 5 is listed as 7 tons and 2 crits making the prototype inner sphere equipment not only better than the full production one (9 tons, 5 crits) but better than the clan ultra AC5 as well (7 tons 3 crits).

That's got to be a typo right?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Baldur Mekorig on 08 June 2017, 11:49:50
Are the new "Inner Sphere at War" maps in the download section a product that can be errated?

Maps in question: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.0 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.0)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 10 June 2017, 17:51:28
I'm posting it here, since I don't believe there is a separate thread for BattleForce Quick Start Rules.

BattleForce Quick Start Rules pdf, p. 8 (found in the downloads section on the official BattleTech boardgame site).

Points 2 and 5 of the "Applying Damage" list instruct to go to point 6 under certain conditions, but there is no point 6 on this list to go to.

Judging from p. 230 SO (which contains a full version of the list in question), and contents of the Quick Start rules pdf (no vehicles and no BAR special ability), you should probably either add point 6 saying "The attack is finished.", or simply change both instances of "Go to Step 6." on p. 8 of the pdf to "The attack is finished."

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ajcbm on 16 June 2017, 05:50:39
THE ERRATA TEMPLATE

    * VERSION: Field Manual: Capellan Confederation
If the product has multiple printings, note which one you're referring to.
    * LOCATION: p.75 and p.76
    * THE ERROR: Page 75 says the Capellan Defense Force was created just after the 4th SW. Page 76 says it was created in 3060.
    * THE CORRECTION: I believe the CDF was created in 3060. There is no CDF in the 20 Year Update book.

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 17 June 2017, 14:19:17
Hi guys.  Just a quick reminder that, as per the errata forum rules, if you don't know if something actually is an error then generally you should post in the rules forums or Ask The Writers/Developers instead of here.  I try to keep the Errata Forum proper for confirmed answers, whereas in the question forums they're actually equipped to help get you an official answer.  I'll be moving a couple of posts to the appropriate rules question forums.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 June 2017, 07:50:27
The final 2017 versions of the Total Warfare and Tactical Operations errata are now available for download at the usual errata thread links.  I will be uploading them to the main website shortly.  Thanks all for the look-overs that caught a few formatting errors.  Substantive changes to the final are as follows:

TW: added new ruling on Hidden Units in buildings.
TacOps: finalized BV values for all Streak LRM launchers.

Each version has the proper 6 June date, rather than 5 June.

I'm still working on finalizing the Alpha Strike errata: just one or two more issues to double-check there.  I'll let you know as soon as it is ready,
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 19 June 2017, 10:33:12
The Origins Pre-release Second Succession Wars, page 94, 3rd paragraph. (See Converting ISW Combat Commands to other systems, p. XX).

That XX should probably be changed to page 122, per the Table of Contents.

(No thread for this product yet.)

Edit: Also p. 118, BattleMaster TRO entry. Infobox at top left column of page has Mass: 55 Tons and Mass: 85 tons listed. Suggested fix, remove Mass: 55 Tons line.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 June 2017, 17:29:17
Are the new "Inner Sphere at War" maps in the download section a product that can be errated?

Maps in question: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.0 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52805.0)

Yes, absolutely.  Go ahead and report any such errata in the Interstellar Ops errata thread, but make clear that you're talking about the separate maps (and link to them like you have here).  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: kamkaran on 13 July 2017, 03:39:06
Great!!
Thank you sir.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 13 July 2017, 05:12:49
As people may have noticed, we lost the last two weeks worth of posts in the restoration.  If you made an errata report in that time, please repost it.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CDAT on 13 July 2017, 17:03:57
A question came up and was posted here (lost with last hiccup), the question is about the LCT-1M according to the MUL is is listed as extinct (as of 2901) but several of us can find no sources other than the MUL that says it is/or should be extinct, on the other hand we can find sources that imply it is still active as late as 3039 at least.

According to TRO 3025 "The Model 1M Locust reduces its armor and carries two LRM 5-packs, 24 rounds of ammunition, and the popular Martell medium laser . This version is used mainly by House Davion's Ceti Hussars." It also goes on to say "Model 1E is the Locust variant least produced and least resembling the others . Reducing its armor in favor of more weaponry, the 1E carries two arm-mounted medium lasers as well as two small lasers." and then in TRO 3039 "The 1M variant, popular in Davion space, further reduces the Locust’s armor in order to mount two LRM-5 launchers." So if it is produced more than the 1E but the 1E is not extinct, and in 3039 it is popular in Davion space, also both TRO's talk about it in the present tense not past. So I guess the question is there a super special secret source that only the MUL folks have that says it is extinct as several of us have looked and can not find anything, or are we just missing the snake in front of our faces?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 18 July 2017, 13:54:49
As no errors were noted, the final version of the Alpha Strike Companion errata is now up on the main website.  Literally the only change is the alteration of the document date from 5 June to 6 June, to match the rest.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Punishermark on 24 July 2017, 11:54:50
Re: the BattleMech Manual errata reported to date: can CGL make these changes to the PDF for re-download?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 24 July 2017, 13:36:33
Re: the BattleMech Manual errata reported to date: can CGL make these changes to the PDF for re-download?

Hi Punishermark.  Your post was removed from the BMM thread because there is to be no discussion in errata threads, as per the stickied rules thread at the top of this forum.

Typically, errata is only rolled in when there's an actual reprint of the book.  So yes, but not immediately.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: truetanker on 29 July 2017, 14:33:28
Would there be any possibility of getting the A Time of War Companion's Infantry Construction weapons listed on the errata page? As it is, the weapons listed there would make a more diverse selections. Also is there any from the House Books that may need to find it essential to the listing?

Thanks,
Truetanker

( I ask because there is a need for errata. )
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Starbuck on 12 August 2017, 07:51:17
i am posting this here, because i am not a hundred percent sure what the correct numbers are, and there is no rules question sub-forum for the BattleMech Manual (yet?).

BattleMech Manual, PDF
p. 76, Battlefield Support

OFFENSIVE AEROSPACE SUPPORT
(STRIKES)
Light Strike Target Number: 4
Heavy Strike Target Number: 6


and

OFFENSIVE AEROSPACE SUPPORT
(BOMBING) [AE]
Light Bombing Target Number: 5
Heavy Bombing Target Number: 7


numbers differ from numbers given in the tables at p. 78 & p. 142.

table p. 78:

Offensive Aerospace Support
Light Strike       5
Light Bombing†     6
Heavy Strike       6
Heavy Bombing†    7
Strafing  7


so which target numbers are correct?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 12 August 2017, 09:03:24
Hi.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll get back to you with an answer on Monday.  Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 14 August 2017, 19:32:30
Both Light Strike and Light Bombing should have Target Numbers of 5.  I'll make an entry in the BMM errata thread.
Title: Re: Interstellar Operations
Post by: Hominid Mk II on 24 August 2017, 15:19:15
Posting this from an internet cafe, so can't check page numbers etc. at this time:

The Costs tables list the costs for Primitive Prototype Autocannons and their ammo as being the same as those of the standard production versions. The XTRO: Primitives series describes them as costing five times more.

Which is correct?

Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 24 August 2017, 21:58:57
This belongs in Ask the Writers or the Rules Questions board.  It is not an errata report and has been removed from that thread.  Get an answer, then post it.
Title: Re: Record Sheets: 3058 Unabridged
Post by: Xeno426 on 04 September 2017, 14:15:04
Bandit (C) Hovercraft G
uses 17 slots, 2 over maximum
Was anything decided for the Bandit (C) variant G? Or has this just been pending for six years? Should two MGs just be removed?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 September 2017, 01:20:37
Dear all,

I've just uploaded the initial release of the BattleMech Manual errata to the official website.  With this release, my tenure as BattleTech Errata Coordinator and Rules Team Admin comes to an end, at least for the time being.  Real-life demands mean that I need to give up on BT in general for about a couple of years, until I complete my schooling.  I've notified the higher-ups and they are currently in the process of searching for a new coordinator.  I will still be around, but not really posting much (other than perhaps with BattleMech Manual stuff -- that's my baby and I'll be watching over it still).  In particular, you'll likely notice a slow-down in the answering of rules questions, but I'm sure that will be short-term: I was only ever the face and groundskeeper of the rules team, while its heart was and continues to be the dedicated team members who crunched the info and produced the answers I typically wound up posting.  Please be patient with The Powers That Be while the necessary admin stuff is worked out to replace me.

I've been errata coordinator for over six years, and a rules team member for over five.  It's been a privilege to serve the community all that time, and I hope to still contribute where I can once in a while until such time as I can safely dive back into the game full-throttle.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 07 September 2017, 04:07:22
Best of luck Xotl!  Thanks for all you've done these past years.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 07 September 2017, 11:11:03
@Xotl-- you will be missed dearly.  Many thanks for your time, wisdom, and patience.  Best of luck to you in all your future endeavors.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Wrangler on 07 September 2017, 12:42:07
Good luck, sir. Best wishes with your studies!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 07 September 2017, 14:34:07
I cannot say enough good things about what Xotl's done. When I proposed the Errata Coordinator position, I hoped it would just streamline the errata process. (The main document I was given at the outset was a single, poorly-arranged spreadsheet, covering mostly long out of print books!) I know I left things in a bit of a mess due to my abrupt departure, but Xotl picked up the baton and ran with it. He has really worked hard the past six years to make this little subforum a force to be reckoned with. The BattleMech Manual is nothing short of awesome, and it's fully due to Xotl.

Glad to hear you're moving on to ever bigger and better things, sir, and I'm glad you'll still be around once in a while. O0

Edit: Okay, to be fair, Welshman briefly filled in before Xotl took over. ;)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Pat Payne on 07 September 2017, 19:48:42
Blessings upon you, Xotl, and the best of luck with your studies!  O0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 September 2017, 19:56:48
Best wishes, and hope to see you again.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 06 October 2017, 16:34:33
Errata Query: Mine Dispensing in Alpha Strike.

Currently, there is no time frame (whether phase or action declaration) for units with the Mine Dispensing Special (MDS#) found in the Alpha Strike core rulebook, page 107.

A suitable solution has been found in TacOps under "Vehicle (and Battle Armor) Mine Dispenser", p.325 to resolve the action as "Part of Movement, at the beginning or end of a unit's Movement during the Movment Phase".

...I'm not sure who's in charge of adding Errata anymore, and didn't feel comfortable posting directly to the Alpha Strike Errata thread... so I am posting my finding here.
Title: Re: TechManual - 6 June 2016 (v3.1)
Post by: Daryk on 30 October 2017, 18:29:20
I suspect they might have meant (E)B...
Title: Re: Re: TechManual - 6 June 2016 (v3.1)
Post by: snrdg091012 on 31 October 2017, 10:12:32
Morning from WA Daryk,

I suspect they might have meant (E)B...

Can you provide supporting information from one of the books for the special feature designation of the Hellbore Assault Laser?

I was not able to find anything.
Title: Re: Re: TechManual - 6 June 2016 (v3.1)
Post by: Daryk on 31 October 2017, 19:08:53
Correction: I bet they erroneously thought it was "(E)B".  It's a twin barreled weapon, but not actually burst fire (it alternates between the two barrels to mitigate the heat).  I pulled the above from Sarna, but it's referenced to "Lostech", a book I don't have, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 01 November 2017, 08:31:08
Do not post comments or questions in the errata reporting threads, please.  This is against the rules for this section of the boards outlined here:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=2412.0
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: snrdg091012 on 01 November 2017, 10:55:21
Morning Moonsword,

Do not post comments or questions in the errata reporting threads, please.  This is against the rules for this section of the boards outlined here:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=2412.0

Thank you for the reminder and my apologies for the gaff I made and I have sent you a PM.

Respectfully,
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 02 November 2017, 12:27:18
I'm not sure if this has been discussed or not, but some of the various unit quirks have changed with the release of the Battlemech Manual (Improved communications now allows you to ignore the first level of Ghost Targets, IIRC, while before it allowed you to ignore the effects of ECM).

Are there plans to add these changes to the errata from the various other rulebooks. For instance, SO is where Improved Communications was originally, so has the original definition, but Improved Communications has also been defined in IO under the Strategic Battleforce section, and who knows where else. Are there plans to adjust everything across the board so its the same from point A to point Z?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 02 November 2017, 12:50:07
I had intended to errata SO at the very least, although now that my time for BT is pretty scarce I think I'll just put out a Quirk Update PDF that has the changes so as to address all the relevant books at once.  It won't contain the all-new quirks, nor the mech quirk list.

The quirks for Battleforce and other higher-level abstract rulesets won't change: we'll just let them do something different there in the interests of minimizing errata.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 04 December 2017, 14:34:50
I found an error in the BOX-SET Record Sheets PDF but see no-where to report it.

Where can I put it?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 04 December 2017, 14:48:12
There seem to be a couple of problems with the current errata documents for the Second Printing of Tactical Operations regarding Conventional Infantry Armor Table (p. 317) (p. 26 of the errata document):

1. The change to the Environment Suit, Light is labelled (6) indicating, that it is a new change to the document, but it is not repeated in the New Additions section of the document (should be added around p. 43 of the document).

2. The errata document also says to change Introduced (Date) from 2790 to 2500 under MechWarrior Cooling Suit, but the table in the book already says 2500. I think, that it could be something, that was intended only for the first printing of the book, but was also left here by mistake. The second part of the entry (change the Cost from 500 to 5,000) seems correct.

1a. There seems to be the same problem, as 1. above, with the errata document for the First Printing (only the entry is on p. 59, and should be repeated around p. 93 of the document).

I'm posting it here as those seem to be problems with the errata documents themselves, and not with the TO book.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 06 December 2017, 10:59:14
Well, have not heard a response, so, here goes:

BOXED SET RECORD SHEETS (found here (http://bg.battletech.com/download/CAT3500A_BoxSet_RecordSheets_with_Counters.pdf?x64300)), has an Error on the HUNCHBACK Record sheet.

The RIGHT TORSO location 1-3, #3 is listed as an AC10, not an AC 20
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 December 2017, 12:49:05
There's a thread for the intro box set: check the index.

As we're working on the new box set, I'll double check this if the Hunchy is to be included.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 06 December 2017, 13:59:54
There's a thread for the intro box set: check the index.

As we're working on the new box set, I'll double check this if the Hunchy is to be included.  Thanks.

Found and already reported (back 2011)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 December 2017, 04:31:09
Okay, my last act as Errata Coordinator is today's big release.  Catalyst is working on print reprints of Total Warfare, TechManual, Tactical Operations, and Strategic Operations.  As such, all four are getting big errata updates that will in turn be folded into these reprints, as is standard for any Catalyst reprint.

Unfortunately we didn't receive a great deal of notice on these.  As such, you may notice that errata you reported didn't make it in.  That's because there was simply so much of it to deal with (83 pages, plus an additional BattleForce supplemental set of corrections for SO that runs another 14 pages) in so short an order that some things simply couldn't be checked and fixed in the time we had.  However, we were able to address the vast majority of issues.  If you see something that was missed, I'd appreciate it if you reported it again.

For the above four errata documents, you might notice that they are only for the previous printing.  That is, they don't list every change ever going back to the first printing, as is usually the case.  That is because these are going to layout and so information about all the stuff that was already fixed in previous printings was cut, because for layout (which doesn't need to know that) that info is only confusing.  If you have an older book, I suggest you keep the older errata documents so you know everything that changed.  I'm sorry, but there just wasn't time to do this the normal way; I'll try to find time to go back to the old way in the new year and release updated documents that match the older practice.

Additionally, since I was working on the text for the new box sets (and with the usual time passing and fresh reports coming in; special thanks here to Alfaryn) this prompted some additional errata for the BattleMech Manual.  It's not a lot, but I figured I might as well put it out as all this other stuff is coming out.  This ensures that the Manual, the box sets, and the upcoming TW/TO reprints are almost entirely in sync in terms of rulings.

As always, I have no street date for when the reprints are due.  When Catalyst is certain as to when they'll hit the shelf, you'll find out then.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 09 December 2017, 08:51:42
Thanks again for all you've done here, Xotl.  I had a couple of reports that were missed in the last iteration, and I already re-reported them.  Should I hit them a third time?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 09 December 2017, 10:39:46
I remember those reports.  Give me until later in the month to check them though; I have to fly out for a while and won't be around.

Hope I didn't miss anything vital; apologies.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 09 December 2017, 10:54:01
No worries, I know you've been super busy.  They were both in TacOps (one for clarity with regard to Bloodhound probes, the other to bring two infantry armor kits into line with the Companion conversion rule)... thanks for looking!
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: ColBosch on 09 December 2017, 17:00:25
That is both good and sad news. You've really done an fantastic job, Xotl.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 December 2017, 22:59:13
Thanks, man.  You set a good precedent. :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 23 December 2017, 15:45:27
Hi, I've noticed, that a clarification about TAG Troopers ranges has been added to p. 341 TO in the ver. 3.0 of the TO errata, but there still is no entry for TAG Troopers in the Conventional Infantry Combat Data on pp. 412-413 TO. Shouldn't it be added there? See http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56272.0 for details, and some of the details, that I think should go to the table (like cost and weight of the infantry TAGs).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 January 2018, 00:48:23
For those of you who like old books, over in the Historical Errata thread I've added errata from the distant year 2000 for the Field Manual series of books, plus Clans: Warriors of Kerensky and Shattered Sphere.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=22155.0


EDIT: Field Manual series link corrected.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Kobura on 29 January 2018, 10:39:41
 An oversight in TechManual (Fanpro) publishing and perhaps onwards allows aircraft dependent on atmosphere to operate within 18000m of a celestial body in a vacuum. Prop Fixed-Wing Support Vehicles and Airships with Environmental Sealing are permitted in vacuum despite having no ability to generate lift.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 29 January 2018, 13:37:44
Page numbers?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 23 February 2018, 21:58:59
While comparing my copies of Technical Readout 3075 (2008 Second Printing, Corrected), and Record Sheets 3075 (2010 print edition) for the purposes of a recent errata report, I've noticed plenty of disparities between Battle Values in the TRO, and the Master Units List. I've also found one such disparity between the RS and the MUL (there may be more of those - I didn't check all BV values in those books). None of those issues were addressed in the errata threads for TRO 3075, and RS 3075.

Errata files posted in the Historical Errata Thread for old TROs also don't contain any information about BV changes and because of change from BV 1.0 to BV 2.0 after at least some of those old TROs were published practically all BV values in those books are now wrong.

Since Master Units List seems to be de facto place for any BV related errata, and seemingly none of the BV corrections get reported in the TRO and the RS threads, why not make it official, and add a note in the Errata Forum Rules & Index, that all BV erratas are listed in the Master Units List (and should be reported in the MUL errata thread), and not in the threads for the TRO, RS, and other pdf or printed products containing BV information?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 23 April 2018, 07:59:54
Please don't reply to anything in the errata threads.  If you've got questions about an errata report, do it in here, per the rules posted here:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5884.0

I've done the errata collation thing once when I was subbing for Xotl because he was unavailable.  Trust me, having commentary in there would only make that job harder and it can be rough for the major books, especially when you're under the gun from a big release.

If there's something problematic in one of those threads, hit the "Report to moderator" link.  Even if we're on our phones, we can yank the post fairly readily.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: VhenRa on 15 May 2018, 01:19:03
There is a dead-link in the Record Sheets 3075 Unabridged thread for an updated Merkava VII record sheet. Kinda annoying, I was looking at Merkava specs and found my current record sheet for the VII is not-valid... but the updated one doesn't exist anymore.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 15 May 2018, 13:22:16
Link recreated.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2018, 03:27:12
New errata for the year.  Mostly small, and it's all stuff to do with the core book line reprints that I worked on some months back; it's just now that they're being formally released.  The only thing that's completely new is the BattleMech Manual release, which isn't getting a reprint but since it's my baby I'm keeping up on it.

TW got a new release because I forgot to list a couple of the changes that made it into the reprint.  There were no such problems with TM, TO, and SO, so they're staying the same.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 07 June 2018, 09:50:20
Hi, I've noticed small issues with a couple of entries in the recently published TW errata v5.01 document.
Quote
* Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement (p. 168)
Before the “Vehicles” paragraph insert the following new paragraph:
WiGEs: While WiGEs cannot enter a building, a WiGE moving over a building immediately collapses that building if its tonnage x 0.25 exceeds the building’s current CF (see Collapse, p. 176).
In my TW book (Corrected Third Printing. Second Printing by Catalyst Game Labs, 2011 print edition) there is no such section title as "Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement" on p. 168 or the preceding page. Unless something changed in later printings "Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement (p. 168)" in the errata document should be replaced with something like "'Mechs and Vehicles [continued] (p. 168)".
Quote
* Fighting Off Swarm Attacks (p. 222)
Under “Mechanized Battle Armor”, right column, delete the first full paragraph on the page (“Even if the …”).
The paragraph in question is the first paragraph on the page as the errata document states, just the first paragraph in the right column.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2018, 12:43:51
Perfect, thanks.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 07 June 2018, 14:04:19
Hi, I've noticed small issues with a couple of entries in the recently published TW errata v5.01 document.In my TW book (Corrected Third Printing. Second Printing by Catalyst Game Labs, 2011 print edition) there is no such section title as "Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement" on p. 168 or the preceding page. Unless something changed in later printings "Wing-in-Ground Effect (WiGE) Movement (p. 168)" in the errata document should be replaced with something like "'Mechs and Vehicles [continued] (p. 168)"

Just thought I'd point out, the Corrected 4th Edition (C) 2013 also does not have this section.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 07 June 2018, 17:18:16
I've made a silent update to the TW errata on the webpage to correct those typos.  Same version number, as it doesn't meaningfully change any of the answers.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Alfaryn on 08 June 2018, 09:13:20
Good to know, thanks.
Title: Re: Campaign Operations
Post by: pheonixstorm on 09 June 2018, 14:38:54
 ::) I shoulda say that coming...
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Scotty on 20 June 2018, 22:24:35
There's some weirdness going on with some Battle Armor cards.  The Golem Assault Armor (Rock Golem) card for the 6-man squad has a damage profile of 3/3*/0, and I have absolutely no clue what could possibly have happened behind the scenes to make "3*" a thing.

The Warg (Reactive) also somehow manages to conjure a point of long range damage in the 6-man, where there's no damage there at all before.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 20 June 2018, 23:59:26
There's some work going on behind the scenes to roll in the new PV update.  That perhaps is responsible.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BLOODWOLF on 24 June 2018, 18:23:45
Megamek has caught this error in the Clan Diamond Shark and Ghost Bear Dominion transport dropship RATs from FM 3085 and the Clan Sea Fox transport dropships RAT from ER 3145.

Code: [Select]
The unit Mule C (2842) could not be found in the 3085 Clan Diamond Shark Transport Dropships RAT (default.zip:(3076 - 3100) - FM 3085/Clan/Clan Diamond Shark/Aerospace/3085 Clan Diamond Shark Transport Dropships.txt)
The unit Mule C (2842) could not be found in the 3085 Ghost Bear Dominion Transport Dropships RAT (default.zip:(3076 - 3100) - FM 3085/Clan/Ghost Bear Dominion/Aerospace/3085 Ghost Bear Dominion Transport Dropships.txt)
The unit Mule C (2842) could not be found in the Clan Sea Fox Dropships - 3135+ RAT (default.zip:(3135+) - ER 3145/Clan/Clan Sea Fox/Aerospace/Dropships.txt)

In FM 3085 it calls for a Mule(TR3057) pg 224 for Diamond Shark.
Same Mule for Ghost Bear pg 226.
Mule(3057) for Sea Fox ER 3145 pg 180.

A clan version of the Mule doesnt exist so, what clan dropship should replace that Mule for these RATs?

These are all we have for the Mule:
(https://i.imgur.com/TX4xnu2.png)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 03 July 2018, 00:27:24
The formal Alpha Strike  (and ASC) errata has been uploaded to the errata section of the website.  They're functionally the same as the PRE versions: just a couple of typo corrections (and the removal of "PRE").
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: BrokenMnemonic on 20 July 2018, 14:00:54
I wanted to check if this was intentional or errata before posting in the relevant thread. In Historical: Reunification War, there's a section on how the Star League Defense Force was built. In each of the Great House sections, there's a subsection entitled "Integration with the SLDF" that includes the number of regiments and WarShips that particular nation passed to the SLDF, with the exception of the entry for the Lyran Commonwealth on p40. I'm not sure if the omission is deliberate or not; I noticed it because I was re-reading the book and thought I'd be able to work out how much the HAF provided to the SLDF from the numbers, and suddenly realised I was missing the Lyran details.
Title: BattleMech Manual
Post by: pascal on 22 July 2018, 13:21:41
I have some questions/suggestions regarding the BattleMech Manual, which aren't quite errata, but probably should affect a future (re-)printing of the product:

On page 8, the book has a mini mech sheet illustrated, but the book has no full size sheet in the back, given the denseness of the sheet, having a full size version in the book would seem like a good idea. Given the new soon-to-be-released starter set, I would suggest considering to include full size mech sheets for both the Griffin and the Wolverine in the back of a future edition of the BattleMech Manual.  (BTW the mini mech sheet on page 8, still has the old battletech logo :)

On page 22, Line of Sight paragraph, the paragraph talks about when line of sight overlaps a hex-to-hex border exactly, where the defenders gets to choose which hex is used to terrain rules purposes. However then the rules refer to the Line of Sight between two hexes diagram, which suddenly drastically changes the line of sight path, from an undefined point in the attackers hex (as opposed to center), to the same, but still undefined point in the defenders hex. So the rules seem incoherent with the diagram, and the diagram itself isn't unambiguous either. My guess is that the rules are correct as written, but the diagram is misleading. Especially since the diagram itself doesn't make it clear that these alternate paths may only be taken when the primary line of sight path runs perfectly along a hex-to-hex boundary.

On page 47, the Ammunition Critical Hits Effects paragraph is a bit terse on how to calculate damage, and the examples given, assume that you know some weapon statistics by heart already. The Missile Launchers bit on page 102, does a much better job of explaining critical hit damage. Please consider changing the wording on page 47 to something more in line with better example on page 102.

Why isn't the BV2 Pilot Skill Adjustment Table (TechManual Pg. 314?) included into this book? It would seem rather important to be able to balance out a force point wise, and lugging around the TechManual just for pretty much one table isn't great either. I would argue that a future edition of this book should have this table for reference at least in the back of the book.

Also it seems the BattleMech Manual is missing generic scenarios (or any scenarios at all). Given that the BattleMech Manual is all one should need for mech-on-mech combat, I would have expected 6 (so D6 randomization is easy) well playtested generic scenarios (similar in concept to the, unrelated, scenarios in the Alpha Strike Companion).

The BattleMech Manual also seems to miss an index, but I'm probably not the first to point that out.

I hope you'll consider the above for a (hopefully soon) reprinting of the BattleMech Manual.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: cavingjan on 22 July 2018, 17:04:10
I've made a silent update to the TW errata on the webpage to correct those typos.  Same version number, as it doesn't meaningfully change any of the answers.

Minor suggestion for when this is done: add an "e" or epsilon after the version. I indicates that it has been edited. It will help explain the minor differences if someone ends up comparing them later.
Title: Re: BattleMech Manual
Post by: Xotl on 22 July 2018, 17:46:33
I have some questions/suggestions regarding the BattleMech Manual, which aren't quite errata, but probably should affect a future (re-)printing of the product:

Thanks for taking the time to give your feedback: I really appreciate it.

Some things I can't help you with.  For example, I strongly advocated Scenarios be in the book because it's an area that I think BT has needlessly fallen down on and I think they would have fit very well here, but no one else agreed (though to be fair, other avenues are being explored in that regard).  Similarly, an index was deemed not necessary by senior command; I regret the absence.

BV modifiers were left out because there's no BV in the entire book.  If Scenarios were in, I'm sure it would have been in, but as it is such a table makes no sense when a reader would otherwise have no clue as to what BV was.

There's no blank record sheets because there's no design rules.  The book assumes you're using pre-filled sheets.  Blank sheets don't make sense without a procedure to fill them in.

Page 22: Not sure about.

Page 47: I agree.  I've rewritten it completely, and if the book gets a reprint (fingers crossed), you'll see it there.  Sample text below:

A critical hit to an ammo slot only explodes the ammo in that slot. Exploded missile ammo deals damage equal to the number of missiles remaining in the slot times their Damage Value. All other ammunition types deal damage equal to the number of shots remaining times their Damage Value. For example, one ton of exploding machine gun ammo deals 400 points of damage (200 shots x 2 damage), while one ton of SRM-2 ammo deals 200 points of damage (2 missiles per shot x 50 shots x 2 damage per missile). Apply the resulting damage to the Internal Structure Diagram (ammunition explosion damage starts the damage resolution process at Step 2, as described on p. XX).
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Daryk on 22 July 2018, 18:19:33
Xotl, if my two cents can help on the index issue, I back one 100% (and have asked in the Line Developer sub-forum about it, and for IO).  I'm more than a little mystified how anyone contemplating a hard copy book would deliberately leave out an index.  Sure, the search function works just fine for pdfs, but the dead tree implementation of that is an index.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: pascal on 24 July 2018, 13:03:51
Xotl, thanks for the response.

The BattleMech Manual was a spectacularly good idea to begin with.

With regard to the scenarios, I assumed it was due to release commitment pressure or something along those lines. A conscious decision to leave them out baffles me. Pretty much every high(-ish) volume commercially published wargame rulebook in the last few decades has at least a few generic ones. Even if you'll release a nice scenarios book, or a PDF people can print themselves, we'll still be lugging around two books to be able to properly play the game, which is unfortunate...

With regard to the BV2 Pilot Skill Adjustment Table, and surrounding force building guidance, seems essential be to able to play a fair and varied game. It's a significant omission.

With regard to the record sheet, I didn't mean blank ones, it would have been nice to have one or two completely filled out example mech sheets. So you always have some mech sheets handy while reading the rules (particularly for newer players, and/or for example while traveling?). In light of the new starter, picking the Griffin and Wolverine would make heaps of sense.

With regard to Page 22/Line of Sight, I hope you can stir some internal discussion about that.

With regard to Page 47: And there was much rejoycing :)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: mbear on 07 August 2018, 07:53:42
Errata report. www.battletechisawesome.com, first release. Several unit names are misspelled. Suggested fix: Replace content in bold with content in italics

-Pestch Pesht Regulars
-Davion Briade Brigade of Guards
-Deneg Deneb Light Cavalry
-Confedeation Confederation Reserve Cavalry
-Eight Eighth Army (ComStar)
-Eight Eighth Division (Word of Blake)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 19 August 2018, 08:08:19
Not really sure if its worth reporting, but I figure some discussion might help...

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62526.msg1438046#msg1438046

As you see there, the Grand Crusader originally had the Directional Mount Quirk for its LRM20s, but lost it during the beta process. The reasoning given is apparently "Because all the variants don't have the LRM20s."

But all the variants of the Grand Crusader DO have the LRM20s in the Torso. The 01 and the 02. Those are the only two Grand Crusader variants out there, and they have the LRM20s in the torso.

True, the Grand Crusader II doesn't have the LRM20 torso mounts, but the Grand Crusader II is a completely separate design (hence the II designation) and has its own list of quirks.

So is this something that's worth reporting in the Errata thread for the BMM, or is it something that's been dead set against?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 19 August 2018, 13:17:45
This is already noted in the current errata, so the original GC does have a Directional Mount again.
Title: Re: Re: Campaign Operations
Post by: Waritec on 21 September 2018, 12:02:54
Page 62. Anvil lance
Requirements: ...all units must... possess at least 40 points of armor.
 Isn't it too low for an assault lance variation?  Maybe it should be 140 points of armor?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Moonsword on 21 September 2018, 13:40:06
Page 62. Anvil lance
Requirements: ...all units must... possess at least 40 points of armor.
 Isn't it too low for an assault lance variation?  Maybe it should be 140 points of armor?

Questions should not be put into the errata thread.  You might do better to put this in Ask the Writers, honestly.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Waritec on 22 September 2018, 02:27:30
Oh sorry. Thank you.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: GoldBishop on 21 November 2018, 13:02:47
Possible Errata for Battle Armor LBX AC and missing content from latest printing "TacOps 3rd Printing" or the Retro-Art cover...

"Bandit Queen" posted the concern in the .here. (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=63345.0) and I can't seem to send the image properly in a PM, so I am sharing the image file here instead.

I opened my copy of the 2nd Printing PDF by mistake, found the line on p.384 for "BA-LBX" BV (answer: 20/-) but with the "3rd printing"  missing the single line item, I wasn't sure if it was deliberately left out or not

Here is the side by side image I tried to send via PM
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 21 November 2018, 14:08:09
Yep, it's been noted.  Some major content has also gone missing from pages 107-108.  I'm not sure what's happened, but if anyone notices anything else that has vanished please let me know.

Anything that's single-line will be just noted in the errata doc, but I've spoken to the layout fellow and he says he can generate some updated pages for the really large absences that we can hand out for free.  That should happen in January.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: CVB on 10 February 2019, 16:03:55
When there are discrepancies between the MUL and a printed/PDF canon source, where should it be reported?
MUL errata thread or product errata thread?

(Example Slayer SL-15: MUL states introduction year as 2657, TRO 3039 states designers had little time to craft the airframe because the Amaris Crisis (2766+) was raging)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 10 February 2019, 16:20:55
*Ideally* the MUL should take preference, as it's intended to work that way and is an updateable source, unlike an old print book.

That having been said, like any human endeavour it can be wrong.  It's perfectly fine to report a contradiction you've spotted, because we may have overlooked something.  We'll take a look and see if we're talking about a deliberate change to fix some wider continuity issue, or a mistake / oversight on our part.  Use the MUL Errata thread, please.  If it's right, we'll make a note for the product errata thread.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 10 February 2019, 17:03:22
I think I mentioned this previously, but there's an anachronism on the IndustrialMechs. I don't think any of the Industrials in Historical: Reunification War (p 204) are shown as being invented before the 2600s. This would mean that the Periphery Powers had them, but they also didn't exist?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 10 February 2019, 18:42:49
I think I mentioned this previously, but there's an anachronism on the IndustrialMechs. I don't think any of the Industrials in Historical: Reunification War (p 204) are shown as being invented before the 2600s. This would mean that the Periphery Powers had them, but they also didn't exist?
Weren't those industrial 'Mechs intended to represent similar but older models? It is not like a lumberjack 'Mech changes much, a lumberjack or mining 'Mech predating the Mackie wouldn't be really different from one dating after the BattleMechs even got perfected.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 10 February 2019, 21:25:16
Weren't those industrial 'Mechs intended to represent similar but older models? It is not like a lumberjack 'Mech changes much, a lumberjack or mining 'Mech predating the Mackie wouldn't be really different from one dating after the BattleMechs even got perfected.
I could agree with that statement. But it does create a bit of an anachronism to call something specifically a CON-1 Carbine when it didn't exist for another 100+ years. Saying the 'Mech rolled out in 2491 instead of 2691 would fix the problem and not really interfere with the text in the Vehicle Annex. As opposed to creating a whole new set of Industrials for the Age of War period.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 10 February 2019, 21:30:15
We were given precise instructions that they were just generic, so we’re not using them to change intro dates.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: TigerShark on 10 February 2019, 21:42:10
We were given precise instructions that they were just generic, so we’re not using them to change intro dates.
Ahhh. Ok. That makes sense then. So, basically, a Crosscut is just the brand name of the most-well-known version, not necessarily the first Industrial used for logging.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HuronWarrior on 09 March 2019, 10:48:15
Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask, but why was the Beagle Active Probe removed from the Raven -3L? And what was the weight replaced with?

I saw on the Sarna wiki that the errata (version 2.0) for Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade removed the BAP. And a google search found this thread, with a dropbox link: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8600.0 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8600.0)
But it doesn't say why the BAP is gone or what's in its place. Is the errata here in error?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: NeonKnight on 09 March 2019, 11:03:41
Hi, I hope this is the right place to ask, but why was the Beagle Active Probe removed from the Raven -3L? And what was the weight replaced with?

I saw on the Sarna wiki that the errata (version 2.0) for Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade removed the BAP. And a google search found this thread, with a dropbox link: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8600.0 (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=8600.0)
But it doesn't say why the BAP is gone or what's in its place. Is the errata here in error?

**EDIT**

The older one has the layout's a lot different and it is there...just 'buried'.


I'm not the errata Guy, but the Raven 3L shows as having a BAP.

There is currently two record sheets for 3050, one (C) 2007, and one (C) 2011. The 2007 omitted the BAP, but the 2011 has the BAP.

Make sure the cover looks like this (2011):

(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/d/d0/Record_Sheets_3050_Upgrades_Unabridged_Inner_Sphere.jpg/474px-21rik95e6w7y9w32azfe24l4uy6xvo6.jpg?timestamp=20111213151354)

as opposed to this (2007):

(http://cfw.sarna.net/wiki/images/thumb/3/30/RS3050U.IS.jpg/280px-mxaosb5rts0o5wkbtp3l9rcxw6j0329.jpg?timestamp=20080410021653)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 March 2019, 11:06:00
It was only removed from the Armament list.  It's still on the 'mech, it's just not a weapon.  It was just updating to stay consistent with what is listed in armaments.  The Firestarter has an active probe, but is not listed in Armaments for example.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 09 March 2019, 12:02:38
I think that's a bad move. The list should be weapons and equipment, so you have 1 spot to find everything the unit can do, as opposed to hoping you find the equipment on the crit sheet, and then also know what it does. It's making it harder, not easier.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: HuronWarrior on 09 March 2019, 12:03:30
Thank you all for the clarification.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 09 March 2019, 12:10:50
I think that's a bad move. The list should be weapons and equipment, so you have 1 spot to find everything the unit can do, as opposed to hoping you find the equipment on the crit sheet, and then also know what it does. It's making it harder, not easier.

I agree.  I was looking through record sheets last night and noticed a few in 3145 that have Coolant Pods listed in the crit table but not under the weapons and equipment.  Makes them easier to accidentally overlook.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 March 2019, 12:12:11
I think that's a bad move. The list should be weapons and equipment, so you have 1 spot to find everything the unit can do, as opposed to hoping you find the equipment on the crit sheet, and then also know what it does. It's making it harder, not easier.
It’s listed on that page already under targeting and tracking. As ECM is under communications. The Beagle Probe was listed twice. Once under armament and again under targeting and tracking.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: nckestrel on 09 March 2019, 12:12:57
I agree.  I was looking through record sheets last night and noticed a few in 3145 that have Coolant Pods listed in the crit table but not under the weapons and equipment.  Makes them easier to accidentally overlook.

We are not taking about the record sheet. We are talking about the Technical readout.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 09 March 2019, 13:21:26
it's still listed in the RS (see RS: Succession Wars for the most current example). The sheets were made in MML, which puts gear in the equipment box.

(http://puu.sh/CXuIb/458ae3f4a3.png)
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Paul on 10 March 2019, 13:39:03
Ah, I misunderstood. Nothing to fix.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Maelwys on 27 March 2019, 23:16:05
So was looking at IO for various reasons, and noticed that the Universal Technology Advancement Table (pg 51) has the Availability rating for the Standard JumpShip Construction option as "DEDF".

Is this correct? It seems a bit off that the availability is even higher than it is for the Succession Wars.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Xotl on 06 June 2019, 15:01:46
New errata for the year is out.  Biggest changes are to StratOps by far, but note the unique situation with TO, as mentioned in the TO thread.

Not huge releases for the most part, as I'm still not around much.  SO gets a lot of love because it's been in-progress for years and neglected for almost as long.

I'm also going to be putting out a special quirks update thread in a minute.
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Empyrus on 06 July 2019, 13:14:47
I noticed that Follow-the-leader missiles column in IO page 61 is mostly blank. And it doesn't quite agree with Tactical Operations (pg368).

TO says that FTL missiles are based on Star League's experimental missiles. The extinction date in IO's entry seems to refer to this then but lacks R&D start date. TO has R&D date for FedCom research only, and this date (3049) doesn't seem to match IO's retrieval date of '46 (though i suppose FTL missile research could start way later after the tech is found).

Does TO need original SL R&D date, or was the project minor enough FedCom R&D date is intended to be featured?
Regardless of that, IO needs a Star League intro date and column correction.


Also, flare missiles. IO has them listed, refers to Tech Manual which does indeed mention them but they lack rules of any kind as far as i can determine.
As i understand it, previous versions of BattleTech had flare missiles. So, are they mentioned because they exists in-universe but just lack rules in current version of BT?
Title: Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
Post by: Sartris on 14 July 2019, 21:13:52
i doubt this counts as errata but it is something that might be fixable in possible future print runs

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65995.0