Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 77556 times)

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13921
  • Dang it!
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #840 on: 07 September 2017, 12:42:07 »
Good luck, sir. Best wishes with your studies!
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7804
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #841 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. ;)
« Last Edit: 07 September 2017, 14:36:18 by ColBosch »
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Pat Payne

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 859
  • 352nd Combat Group -- Ex cinis ad astra
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #842 on: 07 September 2017, 19:48:42 »
Blessings upon you, Xotl, and the best of luck with your studies!  O0

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13363
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #843 on: 07 September 2017, 19:56:48 »
Best wishes, and hope to see you again.

Our Officer's Club is better than your Officer's Club.

Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

You can kill people with kindness, but PPCs are more reliable.

GoldBishop

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 610
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #844 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.

~permissions by HikageMaru™

"Watch the man-made-lightning fly!"  -RaiderRed

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4415
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: TechManual - 6 June 2016 (v3.1)
« Reply #845 on: 30 October 2017, 18:29:20 »
I suspect they might have meant (E)B...

snrdg091012

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 109
Re: Re: TechManual - 6 June 2016 (v3.1)
« Reply #846 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.
« Last Edit: 31 October 2017, 10:32:21 by snrdg091012 »
Tom R (aka snrdg091012)

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4415
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Re: TechManual - 6 June 2016 (v3.1)
« Reply #847 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.

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13528
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #848 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

snrdg091012

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 109
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #849 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,
« Last Edit: 23 December 2017, 22:35:29 by snrdg091012 »
Tom R (aka snrdg091012)

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4148
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #850 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?

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8127
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #851 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.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2886
  • Macaroons?
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #852 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?
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Alfaryn

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #853 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.
« Last Edit: 04 December 2017, 15:16:09 by Alfaryn »

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2886
  • Macaroons?
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #854 on: 06 December 2017, 10:59:14 »
Well, have not heard a response, so, here goes:

BOXED SET RECORD SHEETS (found here), has an Error on the HUNCHBACK Record sheet.

The RIGHT TORSO location 1-3, #3 is listed as an AC10, not an AC 20
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8127
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #855 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.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2886
  • Macaroons?
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #856 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)
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8127
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #857 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.
« Last Edit: 08 January 2018, 13:00:59 by Xotl »
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4415
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #858 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?

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8127
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #859 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.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4415
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #860 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!

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7804
  • Legends Never Die
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #861 on: 09 December 2017, 17:00:25 »
That is both good and sad news. You've really done an fantastic job, Xotl.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8127
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #862 on: 10 December 2017, 22:59:13 »
Thanks, man.  You set a good precedent. :)
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Alfaryn

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #863 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).

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8127
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #864 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.
« Last Edit: 10 January 2018, 12:02:24 by Xotl »
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Kobura

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Aliis volat propriis.
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #865 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.
Angel of the Light
Serpent of the Night

Proud of Clan
Proud of Honor
Proud of Battle

Kobura Shinja Cape

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12843
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #866 on: 29 January 2018, 13:37:44 »
Page numbers?

Alfaryn

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 164
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #867 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?