Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[Alfaryn]

Regarding the recently posted AS:CE v5.1 errata document

I'm not entirely sure of it, since I don't own any version of the book older than the third printing, but shouldn't the entries for Movement Cost Table (p. 34 and p. 199), Attack Modifiers Table (p. 44 and p. 200),  Artillery Range and Damage Table (p. 47 and p. 201), Artillery (Advanced) (p. 151 and p. 209), and Morale Check Table (p. 170 and p. 210) an pp. 1, 5, 7, 12, 13 of the errata document be repeated in their entirety at the end of the Full Errata section (p. 17) of the document? Currently only the new additions (indicated with asterisks) to Movement Cost Table and Attack Modifiers Table appear there, and I can confirm that at least some of the older errata for the tables in question wasn't fixed on pp. 199+ of the third printing of the book.

[Xotl]

I can't check right now, but IIRC the rear tables had errors different than the main tables at times, and so the errata for the two won't line up directly.  But I'd have to go back over the 1st print for that, and I don't have time.  A future update will ensure that they're properly in sync, if they aren't already.  Thanks for the notes as always.

[Gribbly]

'Interstellar Operations: Alternate Eras' lists the prototype date for the standard AC/10 as 2443 (page 32). The Mackie has an AC/10 in 2439, the Bonaventure and Vigilant Corvettes have standard AC/10's in the early 2300's.

Should the intro dates for the AC/10 be considerably earlier than stated?

[Liam's Ghost]

The Vigilant and Bonaventure already don't fit with the availability table (they both have armor which didn't exist at the time they were launched) so those stats would most likely correspond to later updates (post 2470) anyway.

(this is actually true for a lot of early age of war WarShips. In some cases it can be resolved without changing the stats too much by just adding more of a lower grade of armor. In other cases it can't.)

[Gribbly]

The prototype date should be brought forward to 2439 at least for the AC/10 on the Mackie.

[cmerwin]

I'd personally argue that Delta Galaxy's entry in FM:WC supports Clan Coyote not having an enclave on the planet by the time of the Jaguar Annihilation. That isn't to say that they couldn't have had an enclave in 3050; Clans gaining and losing enclaves was nothing unusual, and the Coyotes certainly lost many over the course of the early 31st century.

The same can also be said of the Nova Cat Abjuration in the same year. I would agree with @GreekFire that it seems likely that the Coyote's were able to fill in the void (66% between combined Jag and the Cat loses), and prevent the Hellions from being the sole possessors of Londerholm. This would also fulfil a possible "in-system" drop description if the Cayote's didn't have a sizeable enclave enough worth mentioning before Annihilation & Abjuration, but took advantage of suddenly a lot of free space otherwise left entirely to the Hellions and committed a Galaxy's worth of warriors to hold part of it.

[ShroudedSciuridae]

Era Report: 2750, p. 149: "Creating Characters in the Star League"

"To reflect these subtle differences, the following rule modifications apply to creating A Time of War characters in the Star League era, and may be used for any characters created from roughly 2700 through 2770."

This seems like an error, but I'm not confident enough to submit it as errata.  I feel 2700 was supposed to be 2600. Thoughts?

[Cerberus Kull]

Alpha Stike anti mech attacks: I believe the rules should be adjusted to allow a VTOL Infantry or BA to perform an AM attack when in base to base with a unit as long at the VTOL unit is at an elevation relative to the unit that would allow the unit to come into physical contact with the unit.  For example: a VTOL Infantry at elevation 1 or 2 should be able to perform the AM attack against a BM or a CV while at elevation 1. 

To me this makes thematic and tactical sense that the unit would fly at the unit and perform the attack without having to completely land.

[pokefan548]

VTOL Conventional Infantry should still not work since they're mechanized.

[Daryk]

That still leaves VTOL BA in contention.

[Sartris]

this is for discussion of errata, not rule changes. unless the above rule is written incorrectly, it's not errata and should be discussed in the appropriate subforum.

[Daryk]

Perhaps you could provide the current rule interpretation of the proposed scenario? ???

[Sartris]

Also not errata

[ShroudedSciuridae]

In the process of updating a ATOW character generator I've been going through IO:AE and updating the ATOW tech/availability with the Dark Age era, in the process finding a few minor mismatches which I noted in the IO:AE thread.

But then I got to Mines, and it's all screwed up, nearly every stat has two different values for all four types of mines. It was then I remembered TO:AUE also has availability ratings so I was hoping for a tie breaker only to discover nearly all of those stats disagree with the other two sources as well.

Which source is correct? Is there a source that's correct?

[Crackerb0x]

p38, Mechanized Battle Armor
after first paragraph add
"A transport carrying Mechanized Battle Armor may not use jump, WiGE, VTOL, submersible or aerospace (thrust) movement."

Could I ask for additional clarity here? As it reads, RAW, it looks like VTOL and Thrust capable units cannot use those movement types while carrying Battle Armor that have MEC or XMEC but are being transported via IT# rather than mounting the unit via their MEC special. I double checked the wording of the Mechanized Battle Armor section in the 5th print and it looks like Mechanized Battle Armor is a term that's used both to describe a Battle Armor that has the MEC special and Battle Armor which are mounted to an Omni capable mech of vehicle.

I guess that also extends into the paragraph on that age in the 5th print that says that "If a transport is destroyed, any units with the MEC or XMEC special ability it is transporting are placed on the map immediately as if they had dismounted." Currently, it reads as though if a IT# transport with MEC capable BA are riding inside using the IT# special of the vehicle instead of MEC special, if it is destroyed, the Battle Armor would survive the destruction of the transport.

[nckestrel]

Mechanized Battle Armor are the ones using the rules labeled Mechanized Battle Armor.  Ie. not using IT, but using MEC (or XMEC).

[pokefan548]

In AToW p. 298, it's stated that the camo ratings given also apply to Total Warfare gameplay. However, while the Camo Sneak Suit's given camo rating is 4 (granting a -2/-1/-0 camo modifier), which doesn't line up with the +3/+2/+1 modifier it yields on TO:AR p. 130.

Should one of these be corrected to maintain parity? Should TO:AR drop the mods down to those of a camo rating 4 suit, or should AToW list the Camo Sneak Suit as having a camo rating of 6?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Errata question about Record Sheets: 3067 unabridged and Record Sheets 3145: New Tech, New upgrades

Question for 3067: The record sheet for the No-Dachi NDA-2KO (page 130) shows the ER Medium Lasers as being forward mounted.  The previous record sheet from the printed collection Record Sheets 3067 showed them rear mounted (leading to much humor as the only mech who's longest-range weapons were facing backwards).  Which is correct?

Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?

[GreekFire]

Errata question about Record Sheets: 3067 unabridged and Record Sheets 3145: New Tech, New upgrades

Question for 3067: The record sheet for the No-Dachi NDA-2KO (page 130) shows the ER Medium Lasers as being forward mounted.  The previous record sheet from the printed collection Record Sheets 3067 showed them rear mounted (leading to much humor as the only mech who's longest-range weapons were facing backwards).  Which is correct?

Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?

No-Dachi: the older sheets. The errata as posted by Ice_Trey in the RS3067U thread can be considered accurate.

Mad Cat Mk II 4/5: under discussion.

[GreekFire]

Question for 3145: The record sheet for the Mad Cat Mk II 4 and 5 (pages 175 and 176) show Lower Arm Actuators on both variants (left arm only in the case of the 5).  I know that minis aren't necessarily accurate to the record sheets, but the minis for both variants don't have any lower arm actuators depicted, and the addition of them is in contrast to all other configurations of the mech.  Are they intended to have lower arm actuators or was this a mistake?

Thanks for your patience here. This was an interesting question.

Ultimately, no errata will be issued for now. The 4/5 were created as TW-scale canonizations of two MWDA-era variants. Both of these had low-slug arms à la Timber Wolf, so the decision was made to give these Lower Arm Actuators once both received official record sheets.

Because of the core guiding idea behind these variants, we have, at this time, decided to leave things as is.

[MyndkryM]

CGL has been really good with updating and pushing out corrected versions of AS:CE. Is there a plan to do the same with the errata that has been compiled for the ilClan Rec Guides?

[Xotl]

Nothing has been announced with regards to that, but I would think that all errata to date would be processed as part of the re-release of the eventual (IIRC) two-volume compilations.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What's the current rule on units that have Artemis IV-equipped missiles?  I noticed that in Rec Guide 28 the Sturmfeur (WoB) and Sturmfeur (Lyran) both have LRM launchers with Artemis IV and MML pods without them.

[ShroudedSciuridae]

In an effort to improve my Sarna editing (and because I'm super bored lately) I'm going through the old Errata threads and noting all those marked as dev-level.  But I'm also seeing errata reported by people who typically issue dev-level rulings that don't identify it as such.

In the absence of a compiled errata file for a title is it safe to assume comments by devs/mods/writers are corrections and not reports? Is there a list of, for lack of a better term, authorized correctors?

[Sartris]

What's the current rule on units that have Artemis IV-equipped missiles?  I noticed that in Rec Guide 28 the Sturmfeur (WoB) and Sturmfeur (Lyran) both have LRM launchers with Artemis IV and MML pods without them.

Forgot to reply to this one. It’s two tons under and the Art4 for the MMLs magically resolved that problem. I’ve posted the errata

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Okay.  Since it was two record sheets I wasn't sure if there had been an errata change and wanted to check before reporting it in the Rec Guide Errata thread.

[SANSd20]

For D&D 4th edition's errata, Wizards of the Coast would publish it in a way where one could print them out on label paper, trim them down and then place it over the old section. Would it be possible for us to get something like this for the core books?

[Daryk]

I suspect not... many of the errata changes I've seen involved column inches of difference.

[Xotl]

The amount of work that would require of me and/or the layout team makes that unfeasible, I'm afraid.

[truetanker]

Instead of column strech, why not a page fix, print a page with updates, and allow us to paste them in...

TT