Campaign Operations

[Xotl]

This thread is for all issues and problems with Campaign Operations.

Product Link: http://bg.battletech.com/test/core-rulebooks/campaign-operations/

There is no compiled errata for this product at this time.

Please remember to follow the errata report template when reporting issues.  Thanks.


Developer-Level Errata:
In case of any contradiction, developer-level errata takes precedence over the current errata document.

None.

[pheonixstorm]

pg 43 & 192.
Overhead Compensation is still listed

per cray from this thread http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=25791.msg603995#msg603995

The overhead column will be deleted from the table.

[Maingunnery]

page 146
Clan Coyote uses the wrong color in the map legend. Clan Coyote should be light blue.

[pheonixstorm]

pg 77
MANEUVERING ACE entry

Vehicle crews receive a +1 target modifier on any Piloting Skill Rolls required if the vehicle fails to fulfill the requirements for a turn mode (see p. 25, TO)

This looks like a bad copy/paste from aToW. Shouldn't that read as -1 target modifier? The way it is written it looks like the +1 is making the PSR harder rather than easier.

Vehicles crews receive a +1 roll modifier on any Piloting Checks required if the vehicle fails to fulfill the requirements for a turn mode (see p. 25, TO)

[wantec]

Pg 147, Clan Homeworlds map.

Problem: A blank circle is shown next to Delios and there is text for Gatekeeper, but no circle shown.

Solution: Move the circle to the location for Gatekeeper, color it 100% dark blue (Clan Star Adder) and delete the text for Delios.

[Shin Ji]

Pgs 33 (table) and 37 (text) list different penalties for rape.  Table says -25, text says -10.

Actually, that's true for nearly all the crimes mentioned.  Perhaps I'm missing something.  Is it meant to be -25 for the first incident, and -10 for later ones?

[mbear]

Minor formatting issues.

First PDF Release, page 24, right column, third full paragraph (fourth paragraph on page)

units with the “Easy to Maintain” quirk (see p. 193, SO) multiply
the cost of their spare parts (per ton) by 0.8. units with the “Difficult
to Maintain quirk (see p. 198, SO) multiply the cost of their

Units needs to be captialized.
Difficult to Maintain quirk is missing a closing quotation mark. Suggested change follows:

Units with the “Easy to Maintain” quirk (see p. 193, SO) multiply
the cost of their spare parts (per ton) by 0.8. Units with the “Difficult
to Maintain” quirk (see p. 198, SO) multiply the cost of their

page 28, Second paragraph: Phoenix Hawk needs to be displayed in non-italic text to match the other combat units listed in the example.

[Frabby]

P. 17, "Large Spacecraft Table" (and again in table on p. 188)

Typo in the "Space Station" section: "round up to the nearest"

"Very Rare" section: Lists "Monolith DropShips".
Error: The classic Monolith is a JumpShip class, not a DropShip class.
Possible Error (if the JumpShip class was meant): "Very rare" describes less than 100 in existence. Without going into too much detail, it would seem 100 is too low and ComStar's "less than 50" from the TROs is grossly misleading.

Correction: Change "DropShip" to "JumpShip" - or maybe introduce a Monolith-class DropShip. ;)
Perhaps also change "less than 100" into "low hundreds".

[NeonKnight]

Picture Tag on Page 32:

Outweighed by 275 tons, light Marik Militia ’Mechs have no choice but to be corralled be a Davion Guards assault lance.

Should read:

Outweighed by 275 tons, light Marik Militia ’Mechs have no choice but to be corralled by a Davion Guards assault lance.

[Pat Payne]

Page 42, Master Contract Terms Table:

The content in the "Payment Multiplier" column in the "Unit Reputation Trait" section is missing.

[YingJanshi]

Page 154, last sentence at the end of the "Key Locations" paragraph:

GMs and players are encouraged to ass their own Key locations and benefits to their campaigns.

Should probably change that to "assess their own Key locations...".  ::)

[wantec]

Page 154, last sentence at the end of the "Key Locations" paragraph:

Should probably change that to "assess their own Key locations...".  ::)

Instead of "assess" it should be "add"

[pheonixstorm]

Page 42, Master Contract Terms Table:

The content in the "Payment Multiplier" column in the "Unit Reputation Trait" section is missing.

I am 99% certain that the entire Payment Multiplier section should have been removed as it would have been a holdover from the FM:Mercs rules. See my errata post for Overhead Compensation above. The payment multiplier was (again 99% certainty) replaced by the reputation factor.

So the errata should be the section "Payment Multiplier" needs to be removed.

If one of the devs can chime in on if this post or the quoted post is the correct errata please do so.

[cray]

Per email discussion with Ray, an errata in credits (Special Thanks):

Mike would like to thank Roberta Elder. The system generation chapter wouldn't have happened without your primary stats calculations.

********************************

Addressing errata questions:

Pgs 33 (table) and 37 (text) list different penalties for rape.  Table says -25, text says -10.

Actually, that's true for nearly all the crimes mentioned.  Perhaps I'm missing something.  Is it meant to be -25 for the first incident, and -10 for later ones?

Oops. The p. 37 text is correct, and the table on p. 33 should be corrected to reflect the text.

pg 43 & 192.
Overhead Compensation is still listed

per cray from this thread http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=25791.msg603995#msg603995

Yep, needs to go. Actually, it was deleted in the drafts literally years ago, around the time that post was made. I wonder how it got back in.

I am 99% certain that the entire Payment Multiplier section should have been removed as it would have been a holdover from the FM:Mercs rules. See my errata post for Overhead Compensation above. The payment multiplier was (again 99% certainty) replaced by the reputation factor.

So the errata should be the section "Payment Multiplier" needs to be removed.

Yes, it should be deleted. It was also eliminated from the drafts a while ago.

[cray]

p. 99, "All The Pretty Colors" sidebar, right column:

These Roman numerals, those used in these rules, range from V (sub-dwarf) to I (super giant stars).  In between those values, V refers to the common main sequent dwarfs (the longest phase of a star’s lifecycle)...

The underlined "V" should be "VI," the Roman numeral for 6. The following partially quoted sentence used "V" (5) correctly, though the underlined "sequent" should be "sequence."

[pheonixstorm]

Pg 191 Payment Multiplier column should be removed from here as well. My above thread and the original post covering this only mentioned pg 42

[mbear]

First PDF release, page 62, Battle Lance Variations. This section says the Battle Lance has four variants, but five variants are listed on page 63.

Suggested fix: Add "Berserker/Close Combat Lance" to Variations.

[Liam's Ghost]

Page 103, object type table:

In the outer system column, there is no listed 8 result.

[Hythos]

Question on rolls, which may be sourced from other manuals as I haven't (yet) found an answer in CO;

In reference to availability checks for 'Mechs/Veh/Inf/Aero/Etc:
pg13 "While limited to only one Availability Roll per unit..."

Does the "one check per unit" apply to Spacecraft:
pg19 "An Elite crew would be a challenge to get (Availability 12) but after failing four rolls for an Elite Leopard, Veteran (Availability 11), Regular (9), and even Green (8 ), respectively, the model appears to be entirely out of reach."

** Question -
What determines the number of rolls one may make vs any single unit? (Didn't Merc:3055 associate a flat resource cost per attempt(?)) (My expectation is that it is implied combinations of <vessel> & <crew_skill> are unique).
If at least 4 rolls per any desired unit could be made, if starting off with an extremely long-shot (12's), one would be able to hammer down the list until "finding" one that would be available - at no cost for the search. While this could be RP'd as someone expending time at a computer-terminal or haggling at an auctioneer, it doesn't seem to be limiting.  Is this intentional?

In extension, what would be the frequency (in time) that one may search for large crafts during game-play, if limited...

"Very Rare" section: Lists "Monolith DropShips".
Error: The classic Monolith is a JumpShip class, not a DropShip class.
Possible Error (if the JumpShip class was meant)

hehe Beat me to it ;)

"Failed Administration Table"
2-6 No significant event. Combatants make negative jokes about REMF competency, hurting administrators’ feelings.

Thoughts: LOL

[cray]

Question on rolls, which may be sourced from other manuals as I haven't (yet) found an answer in CO;

In reference to availability checks for 'Mechs/Veh/Inf/Aero/Etc:
pg13 "While limited to only one Availability Roll per unit..."

Does the "one check per unit" apply to Spacecraft:
pg19 "An Elite crew would be a challenge to get (Availability 12) but after failing four rolls for an Elite Leopard, Veteran (Availability 11), Regular (9), and even Green (8 ), respectively, the model appears to be entirely out of reach."

** Question -
What determines the number of rolls one may make vs any single unit? (Didn't Merc:3055 associate a flat resource cost per attempt(?)) (My expectation is that it is implied combinations of <vessel> & <crew_skill> are unique).

You can make one roll per combination of vessel and crew skill. I should've repeated that on p. 17, like it was said on p. 13:

"While limited to only one Availability Roll per unit, players may still roll for close variants, or roll for the same unit with a crew of different experience."

So, I suppose a p. 17 errata would be:

"The formulas contain several factors. Each one starts with
a base equation, usually based on the cost or mass of the
spacecraft. After this equation, which is used for every faction
and era, other factors apply. Rarity factors will require careful
review of Technical Readout sourcebooks; some suggestions
are provided in the Large Spacecraft Procurement Table.
Another modifier is the skill of the vessel’s crew. While
limited to only one Availability Roll per large craft, players
may still roll for close variants, or roll for the same unit with
a crew of different experience."

If at least 4 rolls per any desired unit could be made, if starting off with an extremely long-shot (12's), one would be able to hammer down the list until "finding" one that would be available - at no cost for the search. While this could be RP'd as someone expending time at a computer-terminal or haggling at an auctioneer, it doesn't seem to be limiting.  Is this intentional?

The rules were built with the observation that players tended to more often put together any force that suited them with their favorite 'Mechs and spaceships. Putting an overly strict set of rules on acquisition in place probably wouldn't be used in practice, so this roll-for-availability seemed like a happy balance. For players who didn't even want that much hindrance, they could just skip to the Alternate Flexible Force Creation Rules (p. 30).

[pheonixstorm]

PDF pg 75 Foot Cavalry

So I brought this up before but posting here so it is in its proper place.

Squads led by a Foot Cavalry character gain an additional 15 meters (1 MP) of movement per turn...

Squads led by a Foot Cavalry character gain an additional 15 meters (1 MP) of movement per turn...

Looks like a bad copy/paste. For Total Warfare play it should read "an additional 30 meters (1 MP) of movement per turn..."

edit* Stupid quotes...

[cray]

p. 28, Table, Merchant JumpShip row: fuel should be 439,650.

The totals row should show fuel total of 2,062,350.

In the text, right column, "while the hydrogen will be 1,807,875 CB unless Jason finds a modest water source" should be "while the hydrogen will be 1,803,150 CB unless Jason finds a modest water source"

[Azakael]

Print 1st Printing, p. 162, Example,

The example given for determining Technology Rating is the old, *old* system that had a force with over 50% upgraded 'Mechs, including Clan with only a "D" Tech Rating.

The last four paragraphs of the example should probably be replaced with something along the lines of:

Inner Sphere Standard Rules units = (6/12) x 100 = 50 percent

Clan Standard Rules units = (2/12) x 100 = 16.67 x 2.0 = 33.34 percent

Added together, the total percentage of units with Standard Rules Inner Sphere/ Clan technology is this 83.34 percent (rounding down to 83 percent).

The unit therefore has an 83-point Equipment Rating. Comparing the 83 points against the Equipment Rating Table results in a B Equipment Rating.

[plutonick]

This error also appears in various products that include warchest points such as Era Report 3145 and it originated in Total Chaos see reply #34 -  http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=20265.msg1266756#msg1266756 )

Print 1st Printing, p. 162, Example,

The example given for determining Technology Rating is the old, *old* system that had a force with over 50% upgraded 'Mechs, including Clan with only a "D" Tech Rating.

The last four paragraphs of the example should probably be replaced with something along the lines of:

Inner Sphere Standard Rules units = (6/12) x 100 = 50 percent

Clan Standard Rules units = (2/12) x 100 = 16.67 x 2.0 = 33.34 percent

Added together, the total percentage of units with Standard Rules Inner Sphere/ Clan technology is this 83.34 percent (rounding down to 83 percent).

The unit therefore has an 83-point Equipment Rating. Comparing the 83 points against the Equipment Rating Table results in a B Equipment Rating.

[plutonick]

Page 142, second paragraph

"In this section, players will learn how to how to run a campaign..."

"How to" is repeated

[Netzilla]

pg 20 Technical Personnel, bottom of 1st column states that a tech support team is needed for every 5 Battle Armor Troopers.

Same page, top of 2nd column states that you divide the total number of BA in the force by 4 to determine the number of tech teams needed.  Later, in the same paragraph, a divisor of 5 is used in the example calculation.

[cray]

LOCATION: p. 104, example of object type determination, left column, first paragraph, second sentence

THE ERROR: The example refers to a since-deleted modifier. "He notes that orbit slots 5 to 8 are beyond the life zone, so their rolls will have a +2 modifier"

THE CORRECTION: "He notes that orbit slots 1 to 4 are in the inner system, and so roll on the that column in the Object Types Table, while orbit slots 5 to 8 are beyond the life zone so their rolls will use the outer system column."

[pheonixstorm]

p21

Right column first paragraph after bullet

note their salary is increased per the Salary
Table (p. 23).

Incorrect page reference. The correct page is 25. Page 23 contains examples and example worksheet.

[Alfaryn]

P. 78 Under Natural Grace third bullet point.

"This will allow most bipedial/humanoid 'Mechs to rotate their torsos through 300 degrees (covering all facing except directly to the rear)" should probably be "[...]240 degrees[...]" instead, unless 300 degrees is some wired fluff dictated value, instead of something used to explain how the rules work.

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

Edit by Alfaryn: After thinking about pheonixstorm's post below for I while, I can see his point. I look at both feet and torso of a 'Mech standing in the center of a hex as always pointing to the centers of appropriate adjacent hexes, he looks at the torso as pointing at the center of a hex or anywhere up to 30 degrees to the left or right of that direction.

Either way of looking at those things is valid I guess. I still consider my way of looking at it as easier to explain (an consistent with what we see on the diagrams explaining torso twisting in Intro rulebook and TW. As such I consider it better suited for the text on p. 78 of CO (and p. 224 AtoW, as pheonixstorm pointed out), but I don't see the reason to argue over that point.

I'll leave to the moderators and errata maintainers to either accept or refuse this errata. Moderators feel free to remove this edit if you accept the errata, or this entire post if you refuse it.

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

Edit 2 by Alfaryn:

I've just realised one scenario where my way of calculating angles and those proposed by pheonixstorm would produce different gameplay results. It is if someone tried to adapt those rules on extended torso twisting/no torso twisting to Miniatures Rules (specifically I'm thinking about non-Quick Strike rules on pp. 386 - 400 here) in Strategic Operations. The only problem with it is that I can't find any rules about torso twisting there and Firing Arcs rules on p. 394 don't strike me as confirming either my or pheonixstorm's position.

[pheonixstorm]

If each hexside represents a 60 degree angle then 300 is correct as humanoid/bipedal mechs can twist two hexsides in either direction rather than a single twist.

The wording is also the same as written in A Time of War p224