Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Empyrus]

Neither is correct, actually. 2859 would be the correct BV here--the SSW value isn't accounting for Clan CASE.
Fixed!

Ah, that would be my mistake, i probably forgot to enable Clan CASE in SSW or didn't notice it in the DVS-2-EC RS. Not the first time this has happened...

[ShroudedSciuridae]

I don't think there's an Interstellar Operations Errata thread, or if there is it's parked on a Bug-Eye and I can't see it.

Missing from the Universal Technology Advancement Table is the Personal Re-Entry Unit (SO p. 24, fiction blurb SO p. 162). There's also no equipment write up in TO:AUE or AToW for it, hopefully a later edition can expand on that.

[Sartris]

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/errata/interstellar-operations-4-september-2019-v1-1/

[ShroudedSciuridae]

Thank you!

[Kerfuffin(925)]

Should the Bushwacker X-4 be a sniper? 3/3/2 OV1 doesn’t seem very snipery

[Sartris]

no?

https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3217/thunder-fox-tft-a9
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1567/hunchback-hbk-7x-4
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7184/rifleman-rfl-2n
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3051/starslayer-sty-3dr
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/448/bushwacker-bsw-s2
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2897/shadow-hawk-shd-12c
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2904/shadow-hawk-shd-3k
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1194/ghost-gst-11
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1193/ghost-gst-10
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/986/enforcer-iii-enf-7c3bs
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/985/enforcer-iii-enf-6t
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/718/crab-crb-30
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/717/crab-crb-27b
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6345/centurion-cn11-oe
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1538/hollander-ii-bzk-f5
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/377/blackjack-bj-2
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2861/sentinel-stn-3lb
https://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1503/hermes-ii-her-5sr

seems to fit the mold

[Max Headromm]

Alpha Strike needs some more errata for Woods, I think. According to this thread (https://bg.battletech.com/forums/alpha-strike/woods-and-commander-s-edition-errata-4-1/) the first 2" of occupied woods are not imposing a penalty.

So, p. 45 the example needs correction. Maybe thus:
Remove "As Alice's 'Mech occupies Woods, all her attacks will have a +1 Target Modifier for Woods." (Or replace with some statement about intervening woods between A and G.)
Remove "+ 1 (woods)" in all paragraphs except the last.

[Empyrus]

RS3145NTNU page 11 indicates Clans have access to Caseless AC ammo. Since the Clans have long since dropped standard ACs, per IO pg38 those went extinct ca. 2850 for the Clans, i would assume this was meant to be Caseless PAC ammo.
But below, Flechette and AP ammo specifically mention PACs, unlike Caseless AC ammo.
So, is Caseless AC ammo being available to Clans an error or is the error not saying PAC?

And this leads to BMM and Caseless AC ammo. It says IS only on page 106, but if the Caseless ammo are meant to be available for PACs, perhaps BMM needs to be amended too?

I didn't find existing errata reports for these things.

EDIT It seems Flak and Caseless AC ammo should be PAC-compatible judging by how TacOps words ProtoMech AC rules. So perhaps i should just report the first point as an errata (clarify it means PACs). But this still leaves BMM Caseless ammo status unclear.

[Known Glitch]

Sartris sent me. Not real clear where I should post this.

Wolf's Dragoons Assault Star Force Pack
Davis McCall Mechwarrior card
Special Pilot Ability

Antagonizer Special Pilot Ability section from Corijan Holmes' card, word-for-word.

[nckestrel]

Sartris sent me. Not real clear where I should post this.

Wolf's Dragoons Assault Star Force Pack
Davis McCall Mechwarrior card
Special Pilot Ability

Antagonizer Special Pilot Ability section from Corijan Holmes' card, word-for-word.

You didn't actually list the problem?  If he has the same SPA, it should have the same wording.  Is there something saying he should have a different SPA?

[Known Glitch]

You didn't actually list the problem?  If he has the same SPA, it should have the same wording.  Is there something saying he should have a different SPA?

EDIT: As I said in my post, the SPA is word-for-word from the Holmes card:  "Holmes' unit makes a Piloting roll...Target must move toward Holmes...may only attack Holmes...etc."

Nothing about McCall is mentioned in the SPA on his card and the GDL TO&E in the AS Commander's Edition does not list any SPAs for McCall.

[nckestrel]

Thanks. I don’t have either card, and forgot the pilot card’s version of the SPAs reference the pilots name.  I was thinking of how the Antagonizer rule is written in Campaign Operations or Alpha and not getting why copying the SPA rule was a problem.
The rules aren’t the problem, the references to Corijan by name are.  Yep, that’s clearly errata :).

[Known Glitch]

Thanks. I don’t have either card, and forgot the pilot card’s version of the SPAs reference the pilots name.  I was thinking of how the Antagonizer rule is written in Campaign Operations or Alpha and not getting why copying the SPA rule was a problem.
The rules aren’t the problem, the references to Corijan by name are.  Yep, that’s clearly errata :).

 :thumbsup: 

[Known Glitch]

Sorry to ask another question!  So does this require a new Errata thread?  Unless I'm totally missing it (which is very possible) I don't see one for the Force Packs.

[Sartris]

you are correct, it does require a new thread - assuming errata is being collected

[Xotl]

Thread opened.

[Bison AIs]

Record Sheets: Succession Wars

Dev-level errata

Crab CRB-27 record sheet (PDF, p.116)
-Add hand actuator to left arm.

Curious, is this a kind of ret-con to bring the sheet into alignment with the new art? (The Crab had previously been depicted in a couple places with a single humanoid hand.)

[GreekFire]

Curious, is this a kind of ret-con to bring the sheet into alignment with the new art? (The Crab had previously been depicted in a couple places with a single humanoid hand.)

Yes.

The single-handed artistic interpretation of the CRB-27 was already made obsolete with the release of TR:3050U and its two "pincered" hands. That same art was then ported forward for TR:SW. The single humanoid hand acting as the sole hand actuator was also inconsistent when compared with the CRB-20's older art and record sheet. It itself followed the CRB-27's art over the years, but never settled on a single hand actuator---instead moving from zero to two.

That we now have new art altogether, though, ultimately makes this fascinating history of Crab hand actuators somewhat moot. The new art gives us the freedom to change certain actuator decisions that had been dictated by previous, now obsolete art; the CRD-5M and WSP-3M's missing hand actuators being two notable examples.

[S.gage]

Skinwalker Prime BV Calculations

To start with, I noticed the Skinwalker BV discrepancy while entering it into third-party BattleMech design software, which normally puts out the exact same BV as you publish. I then repeated the BV calculation in Excel, and came within 11 BV points of the software. I did not include modifiers for effective improvements to both piloting and gunnery skills.

I may have made a mistake, left out the PA(L) or armored component value for the cockpit, or perhaps some of the factors have been adjusted in dev-level errata...?

In any case, here are my calculations for the Skinwalker Prime:

Defensive BV:

Armor Value (161) x 2.5 x Ferro-Lamellor (1.2) = 483
Structure Value (91) x 1.5 x Endo-Steel (1) x Clan XL Engine (0.75) = 102.375
Gyro ('Mech tonnage) x factor (standard gyro factor according to IO, p. 193, "Gyroless 'Mechs" - 0.5) = 27.5
Defensive BV before Movement Mod = 612.875
Movement Mod for run of 9 (+3): 612.875 x 1.3 = 796.7375

Total Defensive BV = 796.7375

Heat Efficiency: 6 + 13 DHS - 2 (movement) = 30
Clan Cumulative Weapon Heat/Cumulative BV tally:

2x LPLs 20 / 530
2x MPLs 28 / 530 + 222 = 752
2x SRM6 Ammo 28 / 752 + 14 = 766 (note, Ammo BV would have been capped if exceeding weapon BV)
1x SRM6 32 / 766 + 29.5 = 795.5 (half BV because it is over Heat Efficiency)
1x SRM6 36 / 795.5 + 29.5 = 825 (half BV because it is over Heat Efficiency)

(Above Heat Efficiency)

Total Weapon BV = 825
No other equipment = 0
Add 'Mech tonnage = 55

Offensive BV before offensive Speed Factor = 880
BV x Offensive Speed Factor (1.5) = 1320

Total Offensive BV = 1320
Total Defensive BV = 796.7375

Total BV before multiplying by interface cockpit BV factor (IO, p. 193, "BattleMech Interface Cockpit") = 2116.7375
BV x Interface Cockpit BV factor (1.3) = 2751.75875 = 2752

(For comparison, published BV is 2809, and SSW 0.7.4 and 0.7.6 generated a BV of 2763)

[GreekFire]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would the first SRM-6 not charge its full price as it's the first weapon to go past the heat efficiency limit?

[S.gage]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would the first SRM-6 not charge its full price as it's the first weapon to go past the heat efficiency limit?

Again, this may have been altered in newer printings, but TechManual p. 303 states (bulleted indent):

(Fourth bullet)
"If this new heat is less than or equal to the 'Mech Heat Efficiency, [add the Base Weapon Battle Rating and repeat]. Otherwise, add half the BV for the first weapon that exceeds the unit's Heat Efficiency and  Otherwise, add half the BV for the first weapon that exceeds the unit's Heat Efficiency and half for all the remaining weapons to the Base Weapon Battle Rating, then continue to the next step."

I split the SRM6s into two steps to show that adding the heat of both the first and second would overcome the Heat Efficiency.

[GoldBishop]

RecGuide Vol 24, Elemental III p.14-16 "Record Sheets with Inconsistent BV between Points"

With each variant - AP Gauss, Flamer, and MicroPulse - the Battle Values appear to be "jumbled" and inconsistent with each other on their own respective pages.

...After some experimentation, I was able to determine the values present were likely a result from Random Skill Selection, and have determined the following values using MegaMekLab v0.48.0

[AP Gauss]   = 532  (CAR5)
[Flamer]       = 359  (CAR5)
[MicroPulse]  = 435  (CAR5)

I have not done any manual calculations for BV, but I was able to recreate the errors (via MegaMek) to match the statistics present on the Record Sheet. (skill 2/4, 2/5, and 3/5 for AP Gauss for instance).

Not sure if there's an "official" way to check these values faster, but I was unable to view the "BV Validation" through the program (it shows up blank for me; likely a Java error on my end).  The program shows "valid" to me but I understand this is considered a suggestion until proven otherwise.

[GreekFire]

Again, this may have been altered in newer printings, but TechManual p. 303 states (bulleted indent):

(Fourth bullet)
"If this new heat is less than or equal to the 'Mech Heat Efficiency, [add the Base Weapon Battle Rating and repeat]. Otherwise, add half the BV for the first weapon that exceeds the unit's Heat Efficiency and  Otherwise, add half the BV for the first weapon that exceeds the unit's Heat Efficiency and half for all the remaining weapons to the Base Weapon Battle Rating, then continue to the next step."

I split the SRM6s into two steps to show that adding the heat of both the first and second would overcome the Heat Efficiency.

This was changed, yeah. Current errata for BV calculations can be found here: https://bg.battletech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TechManual-TM_BV4.1-Rev2021.pdf

Long story short, the first weapon to surpass a unit's heat efficiency still charges its full BV.

RecGuide Vol 24, Elemental III p.14-16 "Record Sheets with Inconsistent BV between Points"

With each variant - AP Gauss, Flamer, and MicroPulse - the Battle Values appear to be "jumbled" and inconsistent with each other on their own respective pages.

[AP Gauss]   = 532  (CAR5)
[Flamer]       = 359  (CAR5)
[MicroPulse]  = 435  (CAR5)

This are the correct BV values. They can be posted in the RecGuide errata thread.

[S.gage]

This was changed, yeah. Current errata for BV calculations can be found here: https://bg.battletech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TechManual-TM_BV4.1-Rev2021.pdf

Long story short, the first weapon to surpass a unit's heat efficiency still charges its full BV.
...

Adjusting the SRM6 BV agrees with your published BV. I am glad it is right, and sorry for taking your time!

[GreekFire]

Adjusting the SRM6 BV agrees with your published BV. I am glad it is right, and sorry for taking your time!

No worries! It's always good to have an extra set of eyes checking things for us.

[GreekFire]

Should I submit an errata to the MUL thread about getting it added, then?

No need to post anything for now. The new Hollander variant will be added to the MUL when RS:3150 is released.

[Daryk]

Xotl, thanks for the note about the TM errata and version numbers of the next printing.  I think you had said the pdf version would fix the numbering at least, right?

[Xotl]

Right now the sixth printing PDF is labelled "fifth printing", and both are 2021.  The only way to know it's actually the sixth is to hear about it here, unfortunately, or to have both "fifth" printing PDFs and figure it out on your own.  It's easy to tell that they're different books, because they have different covers, but that's all.

I'll see if it's feasible to re-label the PDF with a simple digital alteration before putting it up, but that might also cause as much confusion as it resolves.

[pokefan548]

I'll look through my old-cover 5th printing and try and pick out what changes originated there sometime this week. Hopefully this mess won't be too much of an issue.

[truetanker]

Why don't you code monkeys place a number after the PDF... such as PDF# to represent the newest version?

So when you check, you can readily seek out what needed to be upgraded via that PDF# line?

TT