Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Alfaryn]

Re. mvp7's post above - changes to Battle Hawk, Battlemaster, Phoenix Hawk and (obviously) Griffin's quirks listed on p. 7 of the BattleMech Manual Errata v4.11 document have not been implemented in the BMM 4th edition pdf.

[mvp7]

Another matter related to the Quirk list:

3rd printing p.84 "Jettison-capable Weapon" quirk description lists BattleMaster, Griffin and Phoenix Hawk as examples (together with Wolverine). Those three no longer have jettison-capable weapons as of errata 4.11. Only wolverine has the quirk.

I won't post the actual errata report since I can't confirm what the situation is in the current edition.

[Xotl]

I'll go over the quirk list and update things on a per-printing basis.  Thanks.

[Xotl]

In a few cases for some of the Classics it will list a quirk that not all examples of the unit have, despite the quirk section text explaining how the section is intended to work.  I've updated the BMM errata document to reflect this state as best I can, and apologize for the confusion.

[Alfaryn]

@Xotl

Actually now that I have taken a closer look at the entry about quirks in the errata document, the thing that confuses me the most is the note at the bottom:

Errata note: Remember that the BattleMech Manual only lists quirks for a unit if every variant of that unit would have that quirk.
Removing a quirk is thus not necessarily saying that some examples of that unit don’t have the quirk—only that all of them don’t.

Its first and second sentences contradict each other. Either every variant of that unit needs to have a given quirk in order for the quirk to be listed (in which case the first sentence of the note is true, and the second one is false), or you remove a quirk from the list only if all, not some, variants of a given unit don't have the quirk (in which case the first sentence is false, and the second one is true).

I imagine that you may want to edit this note. It may even be an opportunity to explain why you decided to restore some of these quirks not shared by all unit variants (like listing Jettison-Capable Weapon (PPC) on BattleMasters and Griffins despite the fact that not all variants of these 'Mechs mount PPCs).

[Xotl]

I'm painfully aware of the contradiction: the issue is that the Classics are doing something that the other 99.9% of the quirk list isn't, which will inevitably lead to issues like this.  I guess I can add an "except for the Classics, which are weird", which is unsatisfactory but probably clearer even if confusing in its own way.

[Alfaryn]

Yeah, but even leaving the issue of the classics aside the note in the errata document is self-contradictory - if some but not all of the variants of a 'Mech have a given quirk, then according to the first sentence of the note the quirk shouldn't appear on the list, but according to the second sentence of the note it shouldn't be removed from the list.

[nckestrel]

Maybe something about how the quirk may only be meaningful on some models of tie chassis?
All Griffins have the jettision-capable (PPC) quirk, even though it is only meaningful to those with a PPC?

[mvp7]

I guess there will be some level of inaccuracy no matter what but how about listing the quirk as something more generic like "Jettision-capable weapon (right arm main)".

It would leave something for interpretation but personally I'd take that over quirks being removed entirely. They are optional rules after all so it still shouldn't become a massive problem in some tournament for example.

[Alfaryn]

@nckestrel

You mean something like making an exception under Base Designs vs. Variants on p. 89 for quirks that refer to a particular piece of equipment as long as all variants of a given 'Mech that mount that piece of equipment have this quirk, and update the tables accordingly? I guess it could work in theory, and would even be a very welcome change as far as I'm concerned, but consider that:
A. even considering all the work Xotl has already done on his Random Assignment Tables, I imagine it would take a lot of effort to make an update like that,
B. I'm afraid that such change would generate so many new entries to the BattleMech Quirk Table that it would be difficult to squeeze all of them on the six pages dedicated for it in BMM.

[Xotl]

I'll probably just change the errata document explanation for the next release to clarify what's going on.  Thanks all.

[nckestrel]

@nckestrel

You mean something like making an exception under Base Designs vs. Variants on p. 89 for quirks that refer to a particular piece of equipment as long as all variants of a given 'Mech that mount that piece of equipment have this quirk, and update the tables accordingly? I guess it could work in theory, and would even be a very welcome change as far as I'm concerned, but consider that:
A. even considering all the work Xotl has already done on his Random Assignment Tables, I imagine it would take a lot of effort to make an update like that,

Xotl tables are awesome, but not relevant to discussion of official products.

B. I'm afraid that such change would generate so many new entries to the BattleMech Quirk Table that it would be difficult to squeeze all of them on the six pages dedicated for it in BMM.

I didn't suggest doing that.  I was suggesting how to cover the quirks TPTB clearly want included there, but clearly don't apply to all variants. 
It may be the issue is beyond the scope of just being about particular weapons though, so maybe it doesn't really answer the problem.

[Alfaryn]

Um, Xotl? You should probably remove the third page from that MechWarrior: Destiny errata document you've just published. It looks like it ended up there by mistake.

[Xotl]

Thanks. :)

[Iceweb]

I know the April releases aren't really the biggest Errata concerns, but I saw something interesting in the Caveat Emptor TRO.  While reading the Phoenix Hawk I saw that it mounts a 45 engine, and then Hardened and Modular armor.  However it also mounts 2 improved jump jets giving a movement profile of 0/1/2. 

Now my understanding is with improved jump jets you can only mount jets up to your run speed, and if the run speed is reduced (such as with Hardened armor) it limits the number you can mount, instead of going up to the unmodified run speed. 

Now I understand that designers make mistakes, and that in character TRO authors get things wrong or just plain lie; And finally I know better to take anything in an April product as gospel.   

In any case since many of the mechs in this TRO have the illegal quirk, it seems Errataing this mech to have the illegal quirk (mounts improved jump jets greater than run speed) fixes the issue quite handily.   

[Sartris]

not errata

This MP reduction does not affect the number of Improved Jump Jets that can be mounted

see also: the UrbanMech UM-R96 with a 2/2/3 movement profile

[Iceweb]

not errata

see also: the UrbanMech UM-R96 with a 2/2/3 movement profile

I've been doing it wrong then
Thank you for the info

[Alfaryn]

Posting it here instead of the Total Warfare errata thread, because I'm not sure if it is just a problem with the recently published Total Warfare Errata v8.0 PRE document, or an omission that actually ended up in the TW 8th printing files sent to the printer.

The following change to Piloting/Driving Skill Roll Table:

Under “Building Movement”, change each instance of “entering/leaving” to “entering”

was supposed to be applied to both copies of the table on pp. 60 and 306 TW, but in the errata document it is mentioned only for p. 60, not 306.

[Xotl]

It made it to the print and I've updated the errata doc to match.  Thanks.

[mvp7]

The pre-release errata is up, with an aim to be finalized on 6 June.  Any items mentioned here but not included are either typo-like or still be wrangled over.

Does this mean typos and small fluff related issues are not listed in errata or that they are not changed in future printings?

[Xotl]

They are fixed when reprints happened but not mentioned in errata docs because no one cares when trying to find actual rulings (it's actually aggravating to wade through typo fixes when looking for stuff that actually affects gameplay).

[mvp7]

Okay, thanks!

[Alfaryn]

Can anyone explain to me why has my suggestion for p. 19 of the AGoAC rulebook:

A ’Mech standing in Depth 1 water may attack ’Mechs in water with weapons not mounted in the legs.
change to:
A ’Mech standing in Depth 1 water may not attack with weapons mounted in the legs.

not ended up in the recently published v. 5.0 PRE errata document?

I thought my suggestion was reasonable, because in AGoAC level rules partially submerged 'Mechs shouldn't be able to make with leg-mounted weapons regardless of whether the target is in water or not (rules for such attacks appear only in TW and BMM). On top of it the rules for leg-mounted weapons on pp. 14-15 say that you can't attack with such weapons through a hex that provides the attacker with partial cover (as opposed to for example "through or from" such hex), which in case of partially submerged 'Mechs may be confusing since in this case it is the hex attacker is in, not the one next to him, that provides partial cover. The wording that I suggested makes it explicit that you can't fire with submerged weapons.

At the same time I don't believe that we need a rule that explicitly allows 'Mechs standing in depth 1 water to shoot at other 'Mechs standing in depth 1 water with weapons not mounted in legs since between the rules in the Water Hexes section on p. 14 and Partial Cover Modifier section on p. 17 make it clear that you can fire at partially submerged 'Mechs, and they get partial cover regardless of whether the attacker is standing in water or not, so if you just say that you can't shoot with leg-mounted weapons of a partially submerged 'Mech at all (as in my suggestion), you no longer need the current rule on p. 19 I suggested removing as long as you include the rule I suggested replacing it with.

TL;DR I think that the sentence I said to include on p. 19 solves existing rules ambiguity regarding shooting leg-mounted weapons from a partially submerged 'Mech and at the same time makes the rule on the same page I said to remove redundant (which is why I suggested removing it).

[Xotl]

I just didn't feel it warranted a formal errata entry.  The change was made for the upcoming 5th printing of the box, however.

[Alfaryn]

Thanks for the quick answer. Hopefully you're right and even without formal errata no one who owns first through fourth printings of the box will have a problem with the ambiguity regarding shooting submerged weapons I mentioned above. To be fair I think that it is not a problem that many people will even notice (much less be unable to correctly solve correctly). I guess I'm just maybe too attached to my take on Murphy's law for rulebooks which goes more or less like this - "Any ambiguous rule will be misinterpreted in the worst possible way".  ;)

[Xotl]

I agree with you and make tons of those sorts of changes to the BMM especially, and to AGOAC to a lesser degree.  For example, AGOAC's TMM section on the Attack Modifiers Table was redone after the first printing because I thought it implied a wrong idea as to what cumulative meant.  The Piloting Skill Roll Table in both were reordered recently to make a subtle distinction between causes of PSRs and things that just apply modifiers to PSRs.  Neither is really errata: just trying to be a bit clearer.  There's hundreds of untracked wording changes like that, or your comment, in those two.  I just don't want to document them all because I don't want another TacOps-style errata document of doom.

My philosophy is that if you could probably figure it out on your own, an improvement is not really errata.

[Alfaryn]

The link to the pre-release version of v. 5.0 errata posted in the AGoAC errata thread isn't working for me anymore. Have errata maintainers replaced the file on dropbox servers and forgotten to update the link?

[Xotl]

I thought I simply updated it, but I guess Dropbox didn't agree.  I'll fix the link.

[ShroudedSciuridae]

BattleTech Legends doesn't have a complied errata yet, will the errors pointed out be corrected in the forthcoming print edition? Posted in that thread before I saw this one, sorry  :-[

[Xotl]

It will not.  Anytime there's errata to go with a printing there's a document to go with that (with the sole exception of Campaign Operations).  All noted issues will still appear in the first printing (which may be the only printing, for all I know).