Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads (Read 336055 times)

ColBosch · « **Reply #750 on:** 11 July 2016, 12:07:41 »

Quote from: nckestrel on 11 July 2016, 11:55:49

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

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

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

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

truetanker · « **Reply #751 on:** 11 July 2016, 19:40:02 »

Quote from: ColBosch on 11 July 2016, 12:07:41

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

Your a Munchkin ColBosch! A Munchkin I say!

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

TT

nckestrel · « **Reply #752 on:** 11 July 2016, 19:50:11 »

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.

truetanker · « **Reply #753 on:** 11 July 2016, 20:08:14 »

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! )

JadedFalcon · « **Reply #754 on:** 11 July 2016, 22:11:04 »

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.)

nckestrel · « **Reply #755 on:** 11 July 2016, 22:20:54 »

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

ColBosch · « **Reply #756 on:** 12 July 2016, 06:59:29 »

From the CM: Kurita thread:

Quote from: nckestrel on 12 July 2016, 05:14:25

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

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

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

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

nckestrel · « **Reply #757 on:** 12 July 2016, 07:19:04 »

Quote from: ColBosch on 12 July 2016, 06:59:29

From the CM: Kurita thread:

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

I will keep that in mind for the future CMs.

ColBosch · « **Reply #758 on:** 12 July 2016, 07:27:42 »

Quote from: nckestrel on 12 July 2016, 07:19:04

I will keep that in mind for the future CMs.

That's all I can ask. Thank you!

Cryhavok101 · « **Reply #759 on:** 19 July 2016, 16:13:35 »

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.

wantec · « **Reply #760 on:** 20 July 2016, 06:40:36 »

Quote from: Cryhavok101 on 19 July 2016, 16:13:35

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.

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

Cryhavok101 · « **Reply #761 on:** 20 July 2016, 07:33:47 »

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

Wrangler · « **Reply #762 on:** 26 July 2016, 13:51:53 »

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

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

Feel free to move this post to right place.

Thanks!

nckestrel · « **Reply #763 on:** 26 July 2016, 14:38:01 »

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

Vampire_Seraphin · « **Reply #764 on:** 27 July 2016, 09:50:56 »

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.

Xotl · « **Reply #765 on:** 27 July 2016, 10:15:14 »

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.

Vampire_Seraphin · « **Reply #766 on:** 27 July 2016, 11:01:55 »

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.

nckestrel · « **Reply #767 on:** 27 July 2016, 11:28:34 »

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

Xotl · « **Reply #768 on:** 27 July 2016, 11:31:01 »

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.

Vampire_Seraphin · « **Reply #769 on:** 27 July 2016, 11:49:04 »

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.

nckestrel · « **Reply #770 on:** 27 July 2016, 12:12:09 »

Quote from: Vampire_Seraphin on 27 July 2016, 11:49:04

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.

No. It has nothing to do with elevation.

Vampire_Seraphin · « **Reply #771 on:** 27 July 2016, 12:25:27 »

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?

nckestrel · « **Reply #772 on:** 27 July 2016, 14:43:57 »

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

Hammer · « **Reply #773 on:** 29 July 2016, 20:48:20 »

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.

GoldBishop · « **Reply #774 on:** 24 August 2016, 00:18:04 »

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

S.gage · « **Reply #775 on:** 01 September 2016, 07:37:36 »

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

Maelwys · « **Reply #776 on:** 30 September 2016, 18:00:13 »

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?

ColBosch · « **Reply #777 on:** 30 September 2016, 19:09:08 »

The Primitives series specifically overrides previous material.

Daryk · « **Reply #778 on:** 13 November 2016, 18:16:44 »

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)

Daryk · « **Reply #779 on:** 19 November 2016, 19:14:35 »

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.