Errata Discussion Thread - Questions HERE, not in Errata Threads

[pokefan548]

Total Warfare C10P errata differs from the updated PDF copy.

Changes to Destroying a Unit on p. 128 were misplaced within the note on Forced Withdrawal rather than the 'Mechs subheading within Total Warfare.

Changes to VTOL Combat Vehicles on p. 196 were misplaced under the main heading instead of the To-Hit Modifiers subheading within the Errata document.

[Xotl]

I'll flag the Destroying a Unit change for a future reprint and up a quick silent fix for the TW errata PDF as that one is just a minor mislabelling on my part.

[pokefan548]

TechManual states that Remote Sensor Dispensers carry 30 sensors a pop, whereas Alpha Strike seems to treat each dispenser as only carrying a single sensor. That's a pretty big discrepancy, should this be corrected?

[ArcFurnace]

Total Warfare errata (v10.0) page 5, point 3, involves removing a phrase from TW page 55 indicating that voluntary movement of a WiGE vehicle could potentially cause an unintentional charge. The rules for VTOL movement on TW page 54 (at least in my 9th printing) contain an identical passage to that removed from the WiGE Movement rules. Was this section intentionally left intact, or should it be removed as well?

[GreekFire]

Not seeing a proper thread, so posting it here:

Kell Hounds Force Pack, Griffin C card:
---Change PV from 37 to 45.

[Gribbly]

On the expanded movement costs table page 30 TO:AR:

Should footnote 24 (re bogging down) be added to the Tundra entry?

Footnote 6 refers specifically to Sand terrain but is also on the lines for Clear and Tundra. Presumably there should be either a separate footnote for increased MP cost for wheeled support vehicles without 'off-road' instead, or it should be removed from those lines.

[Xotl]

On the expanded movement costs table page 30 TO:AR:

Should footnote 24 (re bogging down) be added to the Tundra entry?

Footnote 6 refers specifically to Sand terrain but is also on the lines for Clear and Tundra. Presumably there should be either a separate footnote for increased MP cost for wheeled support vehicles without 'off-road' instead, or it should be removed from those lines.

I'll add it to my review notes for any future reprint.  Thanks.

[boy_inna_box]

For the new AS:CE 6.0 PRE errata, with the change to Sandblaster SPA using a standard attack, instead of just one of the specials, is there any reason to take Cluster Hitter anymore?  Both cost 2 points, both give a plus one damage, but Cluster Hitter requires standstill and doesn't increase to +2 dmg at short range. 

[Joel47]

In the new AS:CE 6.0 PRE errata, the addition to Multiple Attack Rolls lists

The turret attacks must always be the secondary target when mixed with a non-turret attack.

twice at different points in the new paragraph, on both p26 and p44 of the errata doc.

[Xotl]

In the new AS:CE 6.0 PRE errata, the addition to Multiple Attack Rolls lists ... twice at different points in the new paragraph, on both p26 and p44 of the errata doc.

Corrected in the PRE, though it may appear in the new printing of the book as it may be too late to get corrections in there.  Thanks.

[Daryk]

Is that change to Sandblaster intended to propagate to AToW? ???

[Xotl]

No ASCE changes are intended to spread to other versions of the game at this time.  While CO, ASCE and ATOW all use variants of the same rules in places, each makes changes to those for the purposes of their own unique ecosystem.  It might happen if an ATOW dev decides it's a good idea, but again, no plans at this time.

[Daryk]

Thanks!  I'll keep Sandblaster as it is for AToW characters I make.  :)

[pokefan548]

In the example for special physical attacks, the PNT-9R is listed as having 10"/16"j movement. Was this meant to be a different 'Mech?

[nckestrel]

In the example for special physical attacks, the PNT-9R is listed as having 10"/16"j movement. Was this meant to be a different 'Mech?

PNT-13K

[Terminal]

Under the new errata for Ballistic-Reinforced Armor, it lists FLK in both the reduces damage and won't reduce damage sections

Ballistic-reinforced armor reduces the damage from standard weapon attack that have the AC, FLK, IATM, IF, LRM, or SRM special

Ballistic-reinforced armor will not reduce damage from attacks made using the ART, BOMB, MSL, or FLK specials.

[nckestrel]

AS:CE

p.35
The Unit Movement Mode Table doesn't include VTOL as an Infantry Movement type.

The vehicle/infantry distinctions are being removed anyway, it's just one list of movement types.

(bonus query)
p.38
Are VTOL infantry meant to dismount airborne transports as standard ground infantry, like Jump infantry, or as their own thing?

As standard ground infantry, and please do not put questions in the errata threads.  Errata threads are for final text corrections, not for questions or to request errata.  (Rules questions threads or the general forums for those).  "are VTOL infantry.." is not what will go in the book, therefore it's not errata.

I'm confused by "a transport carrying mechanized battle armor may not go airborne or use WiGE, VTOL......movement" being added to page 38

Do that mean that the Karpov (BA) variant can't fly while loaded with BA if it doesn't start the scenario already loaded with BA?

Edit: I think this is specifically about Omni having units correct? It doesn't impact the normal relationship between CAR and IT?

Yeah, mechanized battle armor is significant there.  Mechanized battle armor are those using the MEC special to ride OMNI units.  And only refers to those units while they are actively using the MEC special to ride OMNI units, not just units with MEC, but units using MEC.

(and see above, questions do not go in errata threads.  errata are the instructions to layout about what should actually go in the book.  questions can go in this thread, rules questions forum, or the general forums. thanks.)

[CReller]

Is there any news on when the 6.0 PRE Errata will be pushed to the errata page on bg.battletech?

Last note had it supposed to be posted on the 6th.

[Xotl]

6th was the ideal day because I have traditionally released errata on the 6th of June.  However, there were some very, very last minute attempts at additions to the new printing and I won't know if those made it in (and in turn, what pieces should be in the 6.0 final errata doc) until I hear from the intrepid layout fellow.  I can say that if I don't know by the 9th, then the errata won't be made official until the end of the month, as I'm going on vacation on the 10th until the 26th abouts.

However, anything in it at this point is going to be official: it's just a matter of what else is going to be added.

[Daryk]

Enjoy your vacation, good sir!  Most of us (at least) will wait patiently for your return...  :)

[SANSd20]

[...] I'm going on vacation on the 10th until the 26th abouts.

Enjoy your holiday to Canopus!

[CReller]

6th was the ideal day because I have traditionally released errata on the 6th of June.  However, there were some very, very last minute attempts at additions to the new printing and I won't know if those made it in (and in turn, what pieces should be in the 6.0 final errata doc) until I hear from the intrepid layout fellow.  I can say that if I don't know by the 9th, then the errata won't be made official until the end of the month, as I'm going on vacation on the 10th until the 26th abouts.

However, anything in it at this point is going to be official: it's just a matter of what else is going to be added.

Thanks for the quick update, have a good vacation!

[Brym]

My physical Battle of Tukkayid book I got a couple months ago is the third printing. But the errata page on the battletech website and the errata thread on this forum only mention a second printing. Do they need to be updated, or am I missing something?

I discovered this because a buddy and I were going to build forces for a campaign. I lent him my physical book and I was working off the pdf. We were surprised to find that we had different FP costs and totals to work with.

Relatedly, does anyone know if the catalyst store updates PDFs to the newest version like drivethrurpg does?  I thought it did, but if I go to my download page it still serves me the second printing pdf. Does a third printing pdf exist?

[pokefan548]

My physical Battle of Tukkayid book I got a couple months ago is the third printing. But the errata page on the battletech website and the errata thread on this forum only mention a second printing. Do they need to be updated, or am I missing something?

I discovered this because a buddy and I were going to build forces for a campaign. I lent him my physical book and I was working off the pdf. We were surprised to find that we had different FP costs and totals to work with.

Relatedly, does anyone know if the catalyst store updates PDFs to the newest version like drivethrurpg does?  I thought it did, but if I go to my download page it still serves me the second printing pdf. Does a third printing pdf exist?

CGL does normally update their PDFs. Odd that your physical copy is a later printing than your digital one.

[Sartris]

i'll put it on a list of things to bug Xotl about when he returns from vacation

[Xotl]

My physical Battle of Tukkayid book I got a couple months ago is the third printing. But the errata page on the battletech website and the errata thread on this forum only mention a second printing. Do they need to be updated, or am I missing something?

I discovered this because a buddy and I were going to build forces for a campaign. I lent him my physical book and I was working off the pdf. We were surprised to find that we had different FP costs and totals to work with.

Relatedly, does anyone know if the catalyst store updates PDFs to the newest version like drivethrurpg does?  I thought it did, but if I go to my download page it still serves me the second printing pdf. Does a third printing pdf exist?

There was a third printing, yes, though I don't have a PDF copy yet so it might be that one doesn't exist yet.  I'll go pester people to see about having one uploaded.

There were a handful of errata pieces for it.  I'll update the errata doc today I think.

[Alfaryn]

Errors found in recently published AS:CE Errata v6.0 document

p. 3
Third point of Unit Type Movement (p. 36) (first point on the page) is missing a mark indicating a printing in which the error was corrected (should be "⑥").

p. 4
Hull Down (p. 38), first point

Remove "⑥" mark at the beginning of the point, and consider adding "This ruling has changed from previous errata versions" below the first line of the point, as there were some changes to the rule in question in previous errata documents.

pp. 13, 35
⑥ Climbing and Standing on Buildings (p. 72), second point

Under “’Mechs Outside of Buildings”, at the end of the paragraph insert the following:
Change to:
Under “’Mechs Outside of Buildings”

p. 25 Multiple Attack Rolls (p. 175) entry

⑥ Multiple Attack Rolls (p. 175)
1) Replace the first two paragraphs with the following:
Change to:
Multiple Attack Rolls (p. 175)
1) ⑥ Replace the first two paragraphs with the following:

(As indicated in the second point of Multiple Attack Rolls (p. 175) entry, some corrections in that point appear in earlier printings.)

Edit:
pp. 5, 6

These pages contain two conflicting entries about ⑥ Transporting [example text] (p. 39). New Additions section of the errata document (p. 31) mentions only the entry on p. 5, not the one on p. 6.

Edit 2:
pp. 7, 32 ⑤ Rolling To Hit [example text] (p. 45)/⑥ Target Number Diagram [example text] (p. 45) entries

These pages disagree on the section title, the exact changes that need to be made to the example text on p. 45 of the book, and on the printing in which the changes were made. On top of it the last sentence of the presumably newer version of the correction on p. 32 contradicts its own math:

The Modified Target Number is 7 [3 (Skill Rating) + 2 (medium range) + 1 (target movement) = 6].

Edit 3:
p. 13
This page has two entries about changes to paragraph “’Mechs Outside of Buildings” on p. 72 of the book. One that provides a replacement text for the entire paragraph, and another one that tells to only change a fragment of the paragraph. The latter entry has already been mentioned above in this post due to another error.

Edit 4:
p. 17
This page is missing "⑥ Large (LG) (p. 86)" entry listed on p. 38 of the errata document.

[Xotl]

Thanks: I'll review on Monday or so when I'm back home.

[SANSd20]

When do we think we will see an updated PDF for ASCE?

[nckestrel]

When do we think we will see an updated PDF for ASCE?

When the print book arrives, still likely months away.