Jump to content



Photo

How is the errata looking


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 iggy42

iggy42

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 03:52 PM

Any major bloopers spotted? 

 

I'm wondering if its safe to dive right in, or wait for a 2nd printing.  I know FFG are better than most when it comes to errors but I have a major hate of errata.

 

 



#2 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 03:57 PM

The big one I've found is that the stats for the Sentinel Landing Craft are totally screwed up.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#3 Ghostofman

Ghostofman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,440 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 04:57 PM

Yeah, copy and paste job it looks like.

Go ahead and jump in, its safe, shouldn't be any major problems that haven't already been spotted in eote.

MAGIC HEADPHONES PROTECT ME FROM THE SPACE!


#4 PartTimeGamer93

PartTimeGamer93

    Member

  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:11 AM

Besides, the Sentinel's built off the same chassis as the Lambda, except the S-foils and engines are moved aft behind the passenger section. Upgraded shields and weapons, but otherwise should be identical.



#5 MDB

MDB

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 11:58 AM

Sentinel's showing much different stats than the Lambda in my copy, and they look fairly reasonable, you sure it's not just a misprint in some copies?

 

Only other possible errata I saw is the second Indistinguishable talent in Ambassador costs 5xp despite being on the second line, not sure if that's deliberate or not.



#6 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:44 PM

Sentinel's showing much different stats than the Lambda in my copy, and they look fairly reasonable, you sure it's not just a misprint in some copies?

Does your Sentinel show the exact same Passengers, Encumbrance Capacity and Weapons as the Lambda? All of those should be very different, but in my book they are the same.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#7 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 09:46 PM

Besides, the Sentinel's built off the same chassis as the Lambda, except the S-foils and engines are moved aft behind the passenger section. Upgraded shields and weapons, but otherwise should be identical.

Beyond the weapons, the Sentinel is supposed to be able to carry 54 troops plus support weapons/gear. This is far different from the Lambda that can only carry 20 passengers if it strips out all of its cargo capacity.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#8 iggy42

iggy42

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 12:20 PM

Thanks for the responses.  Looks like the Star Wars money (Sarlacc?) pit will keep swallowing my hard-earned....



#9 PartTimeGamer93

PartTimeGamer93

    Member

  • Members
  • 55 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 01:13 PM

Yeah, the Sentinel-class stats are botched. Needs to be faster, with better shields and different weaponry. As I recall, the Beta rulebook had correct stats. Failing that, a weapon list is available from the usual wiki sources.



#10 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,226 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 03:05 PM

As for the Sentinel, it could very well be that FFG had reason to change the stat block in between the Beta and the core rulebook release.  There were a number of minor changes between the EotE Beta and core rulebook that were intentional changes, so bear in mind that just because it's different now doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.

 

Again, the classic case of FFG putting the HWK-290 at roughly the same size as a starfigher when all the prior "official" documentation placed it as being substantially larger, with folks at the press release even going to so far and look up the ship's article on Wookieepedia as "proof" that FFG was wrong, when in fact it was WotC that was incorrect with FFG having info straight from the Lucasfilm Archives to back them up.


  • Lotr_Nerd, Ghostofman, Agatheron and 1 other like this

Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog - http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/

"You worry about those drink vouchers, I'll worry about that bar tab!"


#11 iggy42

iggy42

    Member

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:09 PM

It's this kind of thing that bugs me and I am that picky.  I waited for the 2nd print of EotE and I think I'll do the same for AoR.  It's not like I've exhausted the existing material.



#12 Yoshiyahu

Yoshiyahu

    Member

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:26 PM

Again, the classic case of FFG putting the HWK-290 at roughly the same size as a starfigher when all the prior "official" documentation placed it as being substantially larger, with folks at the press release even going to so far and look up the ship's article on Wookieepedia as "proof" that FFG was wrong, when in fact it was WotC that was incorrect with FFG having info straight from the Lucasfilm Archives to back them up.

 

Have you actually looked at the two stat blocks to understand what people are talking about? 

 

You constantly reference the HWK-290 situation, but I think you're giving it more credence than is actually deserved. Do you have a reference or a source that confirms that Fantasy Flight Games made the HWK-290 decision based on occult knowledge bestowed upon them by the Lucasfilm archives through special dispensation, or are you just speculating?

 

Since the only place that seems to reference the HWK-290 being larger than the way FFG portrayed it is WotC material, it makes a lot more sense to me for FFG to simply compare the size of the HWK-290 in the original source material (Dark Forces I and II) and literally everything else that was published on the HWK-290 and realize that the people at Wizards had made yet another careless mistake. It's not as big as WotC said in Dark Forces I. It's not as big as WotC said in Dark Forces II. It's not as big as WotC said in Incredible Cross Sections. I don't understand why you put so much stock in one single, contradictory source that has proven again and again to be unreliable.

 

During the beta you argued that the X-Wing's armor rating of 5 was correct for the essentially same reasons, but that turned out to be an error as the vast majority of people suspected. Isn't it possible that someone at FFG simply made a mistake? Or are you seriously trying to argue that a Sentinel Class ship is no bigger on the inside than a Lambda class shuttle?


CorellianCrafts.com is now live! Be sure to check it out for hand-made Star Wars dice bags and accessories!


#13 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:42 PM

The fluff text for the Sentinel still says it can carry six squads of Stormtroopers. That's the 54 passengers that the Beta version had, not the 20 listed currently (which matches the Lambda).


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#14 Ghostofman

Ghostofman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,440 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 04:53 PM

Monster.jpg

Made this based on the WOTC scale... It's possible that all depictions are correct, and that the only error is the failure to mention that Kyle and Jan are both 5 meters tall...


  • knasserII and RedfordBlade like this

MAGIC HEADPHONES PROTECT ME FROM THE SPACE!


#15 Yoshiyahu

Yoshiyahu

    Member

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 05:03 PM

Monster.jpg

Made this based on the WOTC scale... It's possible that all depictions are correct, and that the only error is the failure to mention that Kyle and Jan are both 5 meters tall...

 

Now that's a solution I think we all can accept. Perhaps there's some obscure bit of data at the Lucasfilm archives that confirms Kyle and Jan's unusual height. Tee hee. (Nice job on the model, by the way.)

 

I still think that the Sentinel having the same passenger capacity as a Lambda is like saying that a CH-47 is as big on the inside as a UH-60.


  • Ghostofman and PartTimeGamer93 like this

CorellianCrafts.com is now live! Be sure to check it out for hand-made Star Wars dice bags and accessories!


#16 mwodom

mwodom

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:46 PM

The sidebar titled "Rebel Alliance Military Ranks" on page 393 might have some errata. The Navy column and the Army column both have Lieutenant listed twice. I wonder if the Navy column should have Lieutenant Commander listed under Commander and First Lieutenant listed under Captain in the Army column.

#17 Donovan Morningfire

Donovan Morningfire

    Looking for a saint? Look elsewhere.

  • Members
  • 4,226 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 03:51 PM

Have you actually looked at the two stat blocks to understand what people are talking about? 

Have you seen how many times HappyDaze has gotten into a stink over "FFG did this wrong!" because a stat block doesn't jive 100% with what his expectations are of what it should be, or that it differs from a WEG version?

 

Maybe the Sentinel is wrong in all the books, maybe it's a printing error, or maybe FFG decided to revise it.  All I'm saying is give these guys the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that "FFG got the stats wrong!"

 

if folks are getting this bent out of shape over a freaking starship, i can't wait to see the poo-storms that erupt once Force and Destiny is out :rolleyes:


Edited by Donovan Morningfire, 09 July 2014 - 03:51 PM.

  • Tear44 likes this

Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog - http://jedimorningfire.blogspot.com/

"You worry about those drink vouchers, I'll worry about that bar tab!"


#18 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,974 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 05:46 PM

 

Have you actually looked at the two stat blocks to understand what people are talking about? 

Have you seen how many times HappyDaze has gotten into a stink over "FFG did this wrong!" because a stat block doesn't jive 100% with what his expectations are of what it should be, or that it differs from a WEG version?

 

Maybe the Sentinel is wrong in all the books, maybe it's a printing error, or maybe FFG decided to revise it.  All I'm saying is give these guys the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that "FFG got the stats wrong!"

 

if folks are getting this bent out of shape over a freaking starship, i can't wait to see the poo-storms that erupt once Force and Destiny is out :rolleyes:

 

Try to address my points, Donovan. Making personal statements about me is poor form.


  • LethalDose likes this

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#19 Revanchist7

Revanchist7

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 06:25 PM

 

Again, the classic case of FFG putting the HWK-290 at roughly the same size as a starfigher when all the prior "official" documentation placed it as being substantially larger, with folks at the press release even going to so far and look up the ship's article on Wookieepedia as "proof" that FFG was wrong, when in fact it was WotC that was incorrect with FFG having info straight from the Lucasfilm Archives to back them up.

 

Have you actually looked at the two stat blocks to understand what people are talking about? 

 

You constantly reference the HWK-290 situation, but I think you're giving it more credence than is actually deserved. Do you have a reference or a source that confirms that Fantasy Flight Games made the HWK-290 decision based on occult knowledge bestowed upon them by the Lucasfilm archives through special dispensation, or are you just speculating?

 

Since the only place that seems to reference the HWK-290 being larger than the way FFG portrayed it is WotC material, it makes a lot more sense to me for FFG to simply compare the size of the HWK-290 in the original source material (Dark Forces I and II) and literally everything else that was published on the HWK-290 and realize that the people at Wizards had made yet another careless mistake. It's not as big as WotC said in Dark Forces I. It's not as big as WotC said in Dark Forces II. It's not as big as WotC said in Incredible Cross Sections. I don't understand why you put so much stock in one single, contradictory source that has proven again and again to be unreliable.

"This freighter was made famous by Kyle Katarn’s Moldy Crow in the classic video game, Star Wars: Dark Forces, and the game's developers closely reviewed the video game’s screenshots and engaged in conversations with Lucasfilm Ltd. to confirm the ship's official length." http://fantasyflight...s.asp?eidn=4193

 

Not 100% sure what the point you're trying to make is anyway, that because FFG was right about the HWK-290 that now they're wrong about the Sentinel?

 

 

They probably are wrong about the Sentinel though.


  • knasserII likes this

I'm convinced that you're from Mars


#20 Yoshiyahu

Yoshiyahu

    Member

  • Members
  • 476 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 10:28 PM

Have you seen how many times HappyDaze has gotten into a stink over "FFG did this wrong!" because a stat block doesn't jive 100% with what his expectations are of what it should be, or that it differs from a WEG version?

 

Maybe the Sentinel is wrong in all the books, maybe it's a printing error, or maybe FFG decided to revise it.  All I'm saying is give these guys the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that "FFG got the stats wrong!"

 

if folks are getting this bent out of shape over a freaking starship, i can't wait to see the poo-storms that erupt once Force and Destiny is out :rolleyes:

 

 

So, no. You didn't look at the stat blocks to understand what people are talking about.

 

No one mentioned the WEG version. No one mentioned Wookieepedia. People pointed out an error because the listed encumbrance capacity and troop capacity (and weapons) are the same for both the Lambda and the Sentinel, when the fluff text for the Sentinel clearly states that its troop capacity is much higher. The issue is not a contradiction with some obscure, out of print WEG sourcebook, but within FFG's own book. The fact that the stats were correct in the beta leads most reasonable people to come to the conclusion that it was a simple error and hope that it's fixed in the errata. Six squads does not equal twenty persons.

 

People in the thread were simply pointing out an error. The only person getting bent out of shape is you.

 

"This freighter was made famous by Kyle Katarn’s Moldy Crow in the classic video game, Star Wars: Dark Forces, and the game's developers closely reviewed the video game’s screenshots and engaged in conversations with Lucasfilm Ltd. to confirm the ship's official length." http://fantasyflight...s.asp?eidn=4193

 

Not 100% sure what the point you're trying to make is anyway, that because FFG was right about the HWK-290 that now they're wrong about the Sentinel?

 

 

They probably are wrong about the Sentinel though.

 

 

The point I was making is that Donovan Morningfire tries to use the HWK-290 as an example of how FFG "changed" canon because of secret knowledge bestowed upon them by Lucasfilm when in reality, the HWK-290 was always portrayed as the size that FFG used. 

 

He was suggesting that FFG was given some sort of information from the "Lucasfilm archive" that changed the internal capacity of the Sentinel to a mere 20 persons, and used the HWK-290 as an alleged example of this. I was making the point that FFG made no change because the HWK-290 was always the size FFG portrayed it. Therefore, it is unreasonable to use the HWK-290 as an example of FFG changing the stats or size of a craft in-universe when it's not an example of such.

 

Edit: Typos.


Edited by Yoshiyahu, 09 July 2014 - 11:12 PM.

CorellianCrafts.com is now live! Be sure to check it out for hand-made Star Wars dice bags and accessories!





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS