Register Register

Author Topic: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads  (Read 128012 times)

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4844
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #900 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.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8758
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #901 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.
Master Unit List - List of all canon units, faction availabilities, Alpha Strike unit cards, Battle Values
Combat Manual Lite series - Steiner, Liao, Marik, Calderon, Invading Clans, Comstar. Also Record Sheets for the CM: Kurita and CM: Mercs unique pilots.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4844
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #902 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.
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

HuronWarrior

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 119
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #903 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
But it doesn't say why the BAP is gone or what's in its place. Is the errata here in error?

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4591
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #904 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
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):



as opposed to this (2007):

« Last Edit: 09 March 2019, 11:08:49 by NeonKnight »
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8758
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #905 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.
Master Unit List - List of all canon units, faction availabilities, Alpha Strike unit cards, Battle Values
Combat Manual Lite series - Steiner, Liao, Marik, Calderon, Invading Clans, Comstar. Also Record Sheets for the CM: Kurita and CM: Mercs unique pilots.

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13795
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #906 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.

HuronWarrior

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 119
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #907 on: 09 March 2019, 12:03:30 »
Thank you all for the clarification.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 17454
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #908 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.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8758
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #909 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.
« Last Edit: 10 March 2019, 13:48:17 by nckestrel »
Master Unit List - List of all canon units, faction availabilities, Alpha Strike unit cards, Battle Values
Combat Manual Lite series - Steiner, Liao, Marik, Calderon, Invading Clans, Comstar. Also Record Sheets for the CM: Kurita and CM: Mercs unique pilots.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8758
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #910 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.
Master Unit List - List of all canon units, faction availabilities, Alpha Strike unit cards, Battle Values
Combat Manual Lite series - Steiner, Liao, Marik, Calderon, Invading Clans, Comstar. Also Record Sheets for the CM: Kurita and CM: Mercs unique pilots.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9732
  • CR 21 Bullshit Elemental
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #911 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.


Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13795
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #912 on: 10 March 2019, 13:39:03 »
Ah, I misunderstood. Nothing to fix.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4586
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #913 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.

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9151
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #914 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.
3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Empyrus

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5201
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #915 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?
Valiant VLT-3E variant, Void (Minelayer) for fan funding


Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9151
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #917 on: 29 August 2019, 11:28:55 »
Thanks to nckestrel's hard work, Alpha Strike has had a full slate of errata documents released, available for preview in the first post of each thread as usual.  Please note that regular Alpha Strike will no longer receive errata documents, as it's been superceded by Alpha Strike Commander's Edition (the Companion still will, but such material won't be referencing stuff reprinted in ASCE from this point forward).
3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

sadlerbw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1499
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #918 on: 06 September 2019, 16:57:25 »
p78, HEAT (HT#/#/#)
Add after the first paragraph
"A unit with a HEAT value at a range it does not normally deal damage at may make a special weapon attack in place of its standard weapon attack that only deals the effects of the HEAT special ability."

Is the special called HEAT, or should that just be HT? I don't have my book in front of me to check. Also, and this it totally minor, it my head it is easier to read if written like, "A unit with a HT value at a range at which it does not normally deal damage may make..."

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4586
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #919 on: 07 October 2019, 00:33:17 »
Can someone check something for me?

Is it just me, or on the Additional Alternate Era Weapons and Equipment chart (page 215+), is every single piece of equipment missing its Dark Age Availability Code?

Edit
In Interstellar Ops of course
/edit

Nemesis

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #920 on: 15 November 2019, 12:50:08 »
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but where can I find all the official errata?

bg.battletech.com/errata only has errata for the core rulebooks. What about the TRO's, Record Sheets, etc?

I can read through the threads for each product, but that only tells me what people think might be an error, not what officially is one or what the correct stats would be. In many cases there's a contradiction between one product and another and the errata report is simply asking which one is correct, which points out what I should look at but still leaves me with the same question.
Star Adder, Star Adder, he drives a pitch black Mech
Star Adder, Star Adder, with Heavy Laser tech

(with apologies to Rowan Atkinson)

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8758
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #921 on: 15 November 2019, 13:49:47 »
Hmm, good question, but basically you're asking for something that doesn't exist.

Core rulebooks get an official, compiled errata.  There's no such thing for non-core rulebooks.
Errata for other books is a cooperative effort between official and fans. Generally, if it's posted here, it is considered errata, regardless of who posted it.  If it's wrong, it will hopefully get removed/official statement declaring the official answer at some point.

Questions shouldn't be in the errata threads,but sometimes we miss one.  (Even the official errata maintenance is volunteer). You can post the errata question here, or if it's a rules question to the rules question threads, or if it's background to ask the writers/developers to get it sorted out (which is where the question should have gone instead of errata threads).
Master Unit List - List of all canon units, faction availabilities, Alpha Strike unit cards, Battle Values
Combat Manual Lite series - Steiner, Liao, Marik, Calderon, Invading Clans, Comstar. Also Record Sheets for the CM: Kurita and CM: Mercs unique pilots.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13873
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #922 on: 06 December 2019, 17:45:03 »
Just to be clear, the latest TacOps Errata document will be the LAST one for the combined volume, and new threads will be created for the split ones, right?

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9151
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #923 on: 06 December 2019, 18:19:04 »
Probably.  At the same time, it depends on what errata there is and how much free time I have.  Maybe I can support both versions.
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

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13873
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #924 on: 06 December 2019, 18:31:27 »
I'll keep looking at the single volume then, until you let us know otherwise...

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9732
  • CR 21 Bullshit Elemental
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #925 on: 06 December 2019, 22:49:37 »
Any word on if the next TM printing will fix the spine image misalignment? I’m anal retentive enough to spring for one if it’s been fixed 

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9151
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #926 on: 06 December 2019, 23:43:00 »
I don't know, I'm afraid.  Can you give me a shot to show me what you're referring to?
3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

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

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9732
  • CR 21 Bullshit Elemental
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #927 on: 08 December 2019, 01:50:25 »
I don't know, I'm afraid.  Can you give me a shot to show me what you're referring to?
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

i had posted it in this thread because i wasn't sure if it classified as errata

NeonKnight

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4591
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #928 on: 08 December 2019, 10:20:17 »
i had posted it in this thread because i wasn't sure if it classified as errata

Sorry to inject into this, Here is a shot of mine, same height etc.

Except on mine, the art does not line up.  :(
« Last Edit: 08 December 2019, 10:23:18 by NeonKnight »
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13873
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads
« Reply #929 on: 08 December 2019, 10:26:23 »
I think that's identical to the problem Sartris pointed out, it's just that he shifted his books to line up the art.  If you look at the top of his image, you can see the top of one book is higher than the other.

 

Register