Talk:Hermes II

HER-2M Errata

I think I found an error for HER-2M. When calculating the stats for this 'Mech, it appears to be a half-ton over weight. On the record sheet (Record Sheets Vol 2, Medium 'Mechs), I noticed a contradiction where a full 200 rounds is located in the Left Torso, but only 100 rounds was listed in the Weapons Inventory on the right side of the page. When looking at various TROs, I never saw any mention of reducing the ammo for the machine gun to a half-ton, but if this were done, it would appear to reduce the weight to the correct 40 tons. Is there an official errata on this?

That is a very old product you're looking at. The most up-to-date sheet is in Record Sheets: 3039 Unabridged. I don't have access to it at the moment, but the problem most likely was fixed years ago.--Cache (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2019 (EDT)

Just checked Record Sheets: 3039 Unabridged and it has the ammo in the LT listed at 100 so I would call that corrected.--Dmon (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2019 (EDT)

I checked as well. It is corrected as a half-ton in the 3039 unabridged. It is incorrect on the Hermes II page description where it says a full ton. Also, why don't we have errata mentioned on the 'Mech page, or at least a link to an errata page?--recordsheet

Why don't we? Because nobody noticed the problem until now, nobody has done it yet, and also possibly because an errata page does not exist. That product is out of print and the currently available products correct the issue. (Variant description is corrected now.)--Cache (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2019 (EDT)

I like how there are references with endnote links that give the source of information for 'Mechs. I think we could improve these in two ways. First, a variant should not have a link that refers to source material that does not mention the specific variant as this is not helpful and wastes time for the person trying to find information on a variant (this is a very common occurrence). Secondly, there should be a standard way to report differences with printed materials. This might not seem important to some when the printed material is more than 20 years old, but even material from the last 5 years contain errors. There is no way for a user to know if the SARNA article contains a typo, or if the book or PDF they are looking at has a typo. If the SARNA article had an endnote link that said at the bottom of the page something like, "The XXXX for this variant was incorrectly listed as XX in the first and second printings of TRO XXXX", then the user would know that the SARNA article contains the correct information. If there is no current practice of something like this, we should agree on a best way to implement it from here on out.--recordsheet

A lot of articles have a notes section that include things like known errors or contradictions in fluff etc. It is possible but more unusual for things like rules irregularities to be included. Seeking to note every mistake in the old products however is a huge task in of itself and likely way beyond the current Sarna team (there are only about a dozen of us who are regularly active), if we had 50 of us maybe.--Dmon (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2019 (EDT)

I do agree though that a note regarding the error and its correction is worth having. People shouldn't expect Sarna to be better than the original BT products, but we can try. :) Frabby (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2019 (EDT)