Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[jasonf]

Speaking of the Tech Manual, did the MUL team recently update the C-Bill costs of all units to be consistent with what's calculated in MegaMek Lab by any chance? I noticed the costs I downloaded a while back were all off and the new costs are now consistent with what's in MML.

I'm pretty sure that MML gives the incorrect costs based on the TM rules, though.  :( The specific issue is that it counts ammo as part of the unit's cost, but Tech Manual (p. 282) says to explicitly exclude the ammo costs (and I didn't see anything in the errata that changed this). I'm pretty sure the older costs excluded ammo costs, and were therefore consistent with the TM rules.

I also checked SSW. It includes ammo in its total cost, too, but also has the correct cost as the unit's "dry cost" if you dig deep enough to find it.

You can check by comparing old costs to the current C-Bill costs (which currently equal the costs from MML). The difference should be the adjusted ammo cost ...e.g., for BattleMechs, the difference should equal (Cost of all ammo)*(1 + tonnage/100) C-Bills.

[Sartris]

you are correct. the MUL values currently account for ammo costs, which isn't right. fixing that will... suck.

[truetanker]

you are correct. the MUL values currently account for ammo costs, which isn't right. fixing that will... suck.

 :whip:

TT

[jasonf]

you are correct. the MUL values currently account for ammo costs, which isn't right. fixing that will... suck.

Oof...  :-[

I noticed because I've been keeping a spreadsheet on these things that I've been using to figure out Campaign Ops operating costs for all units. Good news is that means it includes ammo costs (as well as the old MUL C-Bill costs for those that had them).

Bad news is that I only have it updated through 3067 so far, and the ammo costs are hand-input. MML or SSW might have more automated ways to get the costs where you won't have to worry about data entry errors.

I'm happy to PM and share what I have, though, if you think it'll help.

[Hammer]

I've open a ticket for MegaMekLab to produce unit costs with no ammo. We don't have an expected time frame for that to happen.

[Daryk]

So... SSW has the "more correct" numbers at the moment?  ???

[jasonf]

So... SSW has the "more correct" numbers at the moment?  ???

Actually, the listed cost in SSW is wrong, too, and is off in a different way than MegaMek...  ???

But SSW has the correct cost if you dig deep into a unit's description. Specifically, select the unit, then choose Tools-->Show Summary (or click Alt+U), and "Total Cost (Dry)" will be the correct cost.

For example, for a SHD-2H Shadow Hawk (55 tons, 1 LRM, 1 SRM, 1 AC5 ammo, 61,500 C-Bill ammo cost):
True cost:            4,444,057 C-Bills
MML Cost:           4,539,382  C-Bills (+95,325, which equals 61500*(1 + 55/100), the unit type/tonnage-adjusted cost of the ammo)
SSW Listed Cost: 4,505,557 C-Bills (+61,500, which is equals the ammo cost without the final unit type/tonnage adjustment)
SSW Dry Cost:     4,444,057 C-Bills (correct)

[Daryk]

Or, when you export it to the clipboard and paste it, it's right there next to the "Listed Cost" in the latest builds.

[Alfaryn]

The recently published TO:AUE v.6.0 PRE document contains the following entry:

Flail (p. 101)
Under “Game Rules”, first paragraph, first sentence

The Flail attacks like a hatchet (see p. 146, TW), with an additional +1 to-hit modifier to all attacks.
Change to:
The Flail attacks like a hatchet (see p. 146, TW).

The problem with it is that according to BMM and the recent answer in the Physical weapon attack modifiers rules questions thread (here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/tactical-operations/what-are-the-to-hit-modifier-of-to-mech-sized-melee-weapons/) flails are supposed to get a +0 to-hit modifier, while according to TW, BMM, Intro Box manual etc., hatchets get a -1 to-hit mod, so the flails do indeed get a +1 to-hit when compared to hatchets.

Perhaps to avoid confusing players as to whether the phrase "attacks like a hatchet" includes the -1 mod hatchets get, it would be best to say that a flail "attacks as a Physical Weapon Attack [...]", just like the rules for maces (on p. 102 TO:AUE) do? If so, then the same change should probably be done for lances (also p. 102 TO:AUE).

Alternatively the rules could say that "The Flail attacks like a hatchet (see p. 146, TW), but with a +0 to-hit modifier instead of hatchet's -1." and use similar phrasing, but with +1 to-hit mod for lances and maces.


Xotl: Good catch, thanks!

[Alfaryn]

Xotl, the change you've just made in Flail rules works fine there, but you may also want to add something like:

Lance (p. 102)
Under “Game Rules”, first paragraph, first sentence

the Lance attacks as a hatchet (see p. 146, TW) with an additional +1 to-hit modifier,
Change to:
the Lance has a +1 to-hit modifier,

to the errata to avoid the same kind of ambiguity with Hatchet's -1 to-hit modifier in the Lance rules that Flail rules had.

[Alfaryn]

Sorry for triple posting, but I've thought some more about the errata to Flail and Lance rules, and in my opinion it would be safer to add references to Physical Weapon Attacks (p. 146 TW) after all (assuming there is enough space in the rules boxes of course) just like it is done in the Mace rules on p. 102. For two reasons:
1. All other weapons in the BattleMech Melee Weapons section (pp. 100-104 TO:AUE) have similar references.
2. Not all weapons in that section use Physical Weapon Attacks rules. For example Claws use Punch Attacks (p. 145 TW) rules instead, so leaving Flails and Lances without such references may cause some players to think that perhaps these weapons also use some rules other than the ones in Physical Weapon Attacks section in TW.

If space is a problem then perhaps just adding "(see p. 146 TW)" right after "has a +XX to-hit modifier" in Flail and Lance rules would work?


Xotl: Good points, changes made.

[Alfaryn]

Xotl, the changes discussed in the post directly above this one still did not make it to the file linked in the TO:AUE errata thread. Were they not supposed to end up in the errata document, or did you forget to upload the new file or make sure it is linked correctly?

[Xotl]

Strange.  Ah well, try again: should work now.

[Alfaryn]

It does. One more suggestion while I'm at it - you may want to change "The Mace attacks as a Physical Weapon Attack" to just "The Mace attacks as a Physical Weapon" in the Mace rules section on p. 102, TO:AUE if you haven't already. This way the rules should feel more natural, and more consistent with how the Flail and Lance rules ended up being phrased. Of course this is not a change that would need to end up in the errata document, just the book itself.

[Xotl]

The finalized TacOps errata docs have been uploaded to the main website.  Thanks all who contributed.

[Gabriels_Sword]

So not everyone will know to come to these Errata threads to read them can a link be put on the Errata download page of bg.battletech.com to help people find the current ongoing Errata updates as most documented updates in the threads are not put in the documents available for download (should they not instead be living documents instead of waiting for reprinting?)

[Ardent Fury]

I know its been standing in the old book for a while, but there has to be something wrong with the Artillery Cannons on the Fuel-Air Munitions table on page 160 of Interstellar Operations: Alternate Eras or with the BV changes for the Fuel-Air munitions. As it stands there is a 4BV increase for Sniper cannons to go from dealing 10 damage in 1 hex to dealing 20/10/5 at radius 2. Thumper Cannons have 2 BV increase for a similar increase in damage and LTCs have a 16 BV increase and each one at least doubles the potential damage output of  the weapons.

[Xotl]

So not everyone will know to come to these Errata threads to read them can a link be put on the Errata download page of bg.battletech.com to help people find the current ongoing Errata updates as most documented updates in the threads are not put in the documents available for download

There's already a link to the Errata forum on the errata webpage.  I'll add a more specific note saying to go the Index thread if they're looking for a specific product though.

(should they not instead be living documents instead of waiting for reprinting?)

Living documents require living people to constantly update them and upload them to the website.  I simply don't have that time.  Off-reprint updates do occur on occasion, but for the most part it's easier to wait for reprints, considering the increased pace of them nowadays.

[GoldBishop]

Just double checking to see if this was in error or not.

While looking up Artillery Homing Rounds, I found the following:

ASCE p.158 second paragraph
"Like artillery, homing rounds are fired at a targeted POI, with
the flight time calculated based on that fixed point. On the turn the
homing missile is calculated to arrive at its destination, one target
unit within 42” of the homing round’s POI must be successfully
“painted” by a unit with target acquisition gear [...]"
[ the 42" value repeats in 3rd paragraph]

went back to check in the core AlphaStrike book, found identical wording in the same position on p.75:
"Like artillery, homing rounds are fired at a targeted POI, with
the flight time calculated based on that fixed point. On the turn the
homing missile is calculated to arrive at its destination, one target
unit within 34” of the homing round’s POI must be successfully
“painted” by a unit with target acquisition gear [...]"
[ the 34" value repeats in 3rd paragraph]

While I know I have an out-of-date copy of TacOps (2018), on p.354 under Arrow IV I have the following entry, 2nd billet:
"On the turn the homing missile arrives, it may attack any unit successfully designated by friendly TAG within 8 hexes of the chosen hex. [...]

Knowing that AlphaStrike converts 1 hex to 2", shouldn't the above range values for Homing Artillery Rounds in both AlphaStrike books actually be 16" (of the PoI) instead?

[pokefan548]

Will a thread be made for PseudoTech: Arcade Operations errata?

[Xotl]

I'll make one now.

[pokefan548]

Many thanks, errata submitted.

[jasonf]

Responding to MUL battle armor discussion here (since it's a discussion now...)

This has indeed been considered. But it would require having to manually create 800ish new entries (which includes faction data). It would also clutter the infantry search results fairly severely, especially with units like the Elemental.

Actually, if you took the approach to only include the battle armor sizes that exist in cannon, it would be far fewer new entries... but still quite a bit of work for Team MUL.

For example, units that are exclusive to WoB/Comstar would just need to be upgraded to [BA_name] (6) and changed to only include the 6-trooper stats and AS card. Same for Clan-only BA (for 5-trooper stats). You would only need new entries for BA that have availability to factions that use different sizes (e.g. FWL and WOB). You would also then need to split out the faction availabilities across the (now) two entries.

So, not too many new entries, but a lot of work.

[Sartris]

Many options have been considered, including the two above, and all require more man hours than we are willing to put in at the time being. Apologies for any continued inconvenience

[pokefan548]

For the time being, I think the best option (since I believe the original concern for this recent discussion was over the force builder) is to let players using the force builder scale the number of BA in a squad/point/etc. Lump that in with all the other badly-needed force builder features (adding duplicates of the same unit, and more) to probably be done eventually.

Either way, the actual unit page gives you the correct BV for sizes 4-6, and I strongly maintain that doing BV by hand is still the best way, if a bit slower.

[Sartris]

That is not possible at the current time.

People keep asking the same question and I’m afraid, at present, I have to keep giving the same answer.

[pokefan548]

Hence why I say eventually.
There's frankly more important things to come first.

[Lorian Sunrider]

Possible missing rules in the Battlemech Manual.

Page 97 of the Battlemech Manual goes into rules for Arrow IV. It mentions Direct Fire and Indirect Fire, but there does not seem to be any mention of the 6 hex minimum range mentioned on page 153 in Tac Ops: Advanced Rules under direct fire.

Not sure if this was done on purpose or not.

[Xotl]

Corrected infantry record sheets reflecting the recent TM change to absurdly-high-damage infantry weapons have been added to the first post to this thread.  They are official replacements.

[Alfaryn]

An error in the Alpha Strike: Commander’s Edition Errata v5.0 PRE document:

pp. 13 and 20 of the document

⑤ High-Altitude Drops (p. 178)
Change to:
⑤ QuadVees (p. 178)