(Answered) Errata not added to book (also a questionable rule to begin with)?

[pokefan548]

TechManual's current errata includes the following:

⑤ Choose Primary Infantry Weapons (p. 150)
At the end of the section insert the following new paragraph:
No Primary Infantry Weapon may have a Damage Value greater than 0.60. If the weapon selected has a Damage Value greater
than 0.60, then reduce its Damage Value to 0.60 when determining final damage values (see p. 152). Platoons that have their primary
weapon damage reduced in this way automatically gain the Heavy Burst Weapon special feature.

However, this does not appear in my Corrected 5th Printing copy of TechManual. Furthermore, the rule seems to harshly penalize high-powered Standard Weapons like the Mauser-series rifles, completely negating any differences in weapons that do more than 0.60 damage aside from range. All in all, I can't help but feel the the entire ruling is questionable, especially when weapons affected by it, to my knowledge, haven't had their BV cost adjusted accordingly.

But all that aside, given that it was notably omitted from the physical printing that it was supposedly a part of, is the rule still in effect?

[Xotl]

The rule is still in effect; the formula that resulted in extremely high damage values for a few guns was the result of questionable calculations dating back to MW 3rd ed and is definitely gone.  The expedient of capping the damage of the truly broken weapons was chosen rather than a much-needed redo of the entire system, which was deemed to big too do in the middle of an edition.  You should see corrected record sheets using the above new values for the handful of units affected very soon.

Why this specific errata didn't make it into print is another matter.  Sometimes errata is just missed in the rush to reprint, but I'll be digging into that.  Thanks.

[Xotl]

Can you take a shot of page 150 for me, left column (last para before the examples)?  Because I've acquired a PDF proof for what was made into the fifth printing and the passage shows up in it, meaning it should also appear in the print version.

[pokefan548]

Proof of printing and picture of p. 150.
I should note that BV needs to be adjusted accordingly for Personal Weapons dealing over 0.60 damage, and this will render several TRO: 3085 sheets illegal. In my honest opinion, this fix ends up being an overall detriment. Infantry can be extremely powerful, yes, but I honestly believe capping damage on Primary Weapons in this way creates more problems than it fixes. IMO, this would be better suited as a BV adjustment for certain high damage-for-value weapons.

[Xotl]

Well, that's just baffling.  Thank you very much for the screenshots.  I'll follow up with the layout and leadership folks and see if perhaps an incorrect file was sent to the printers or something.  I'll make a new post here when I learn something.

[Xotl]

Quick follow-up.  Can you describe the cover art on your TM copy?

[pokefan548]

It's the current cover using the old Tactical Handbook art. Kuritan 'Mech facility.

[Xotl]

Well, thanks to your help I think I know what's happened.  It seems that with things selling so fast, the bosses went ahead and ordered a reprint without me being aware of it.  All that changed I'm guessing was the copyright info; if my theory holds, I *think* the TM 5th printing you have is a straight reprint of the 4th except for what's written on page 7.  The easiest way to tell would be for you to look for any other items listed as New Additions in the current TM errata doc and seeing if they're missing as well.  If you feel like doing this, let me know the results, but no pressure there.

Ultimately, my guess is that what I'm calling the 5th in the errata doc is actually going to be the as-yet-unavailable 6th printing.  Unfortunately it's going to be also labelled the 5th printing, so we'll have two different printings out there, each labelled "5th".  However, it will have a different (all-new) cover, so you'll be able to tell them apart even if sealed.

Apologies for the confusion--the price of success, it seems.

[pokefan548]

Looks like some fixes have been implemented, but not others, so it's probably using an early, unfinished 5th Printing version.

Anyways, time to rebuild my Hell's Horses points into 25 one-man squads because squad Secondary Weapons aren't affected and if I'm paying for the whole Mauser IIC, I want to use the whole Mauser IIC. Oh, and if I select a Mauser IIC as my primary, I get free Heavy Burst at no extra cost!

Sarcasm aside, I really feel this is an awful change. It kills a lot of the high-damage-high-cost weapons, and as noted above is completely negated by the small squads exploit, the single biggest hole in infantry rules. A simple BV hike, though not exactly a graceful solution, would generally go over better (the affected weapons are already extravagantly expensive to begin with, so most of their fans will probably just shrug and say "eh, goes with the territory"), and isn't negated by construction exploits. I understand that now's not the time to go deep and upend everything all of a sudden but this is a problematic fix that ends up being the worst of both worlds.

tl;dr, I'd much rather have access to distinctive high-cost high-damage primary weapons, even if I have to pay two or even three times the price per-rifle. I for one, am not bringing Mauser IICs to be competitively-viable, so I don't mind taking a disproportionately large bite out of my budget to have a good time with friends with some meme guns while we wait for the proper rework. Besides, if we're trying to keep infantry from messing with serious play, there are far, far more pressing matters that need addressing.