Jump to content



Photo

EotE Core Rulebook Errata


  • Please log in to reply
264 replies to this topic

#41 Venthrac

Venthrac

    Member

  • Members
  • 888 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:20 PM

The description for the YT-1300 indicates that it only comes standard with a dorsal turret-mounted medium laser but the stats indicate that it has one dorsal turret-mounted medium laser and one ventral turret-mounted medium laser. Which is correct for the basic version of the ship that PCs can start with?

 

I read the entry you're describing and the text you refer to is prefaced by the qualifying statement "In their factory configuration, a rarity among such versatile and modifiable ships..."

 

I believe the version that the PCs begin play with is one of these modded variations.



#42 Venthrac

Venthrac

    Member

  • Members
  • 888 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:24 PM

Pg. 205 in the "Ranged Attacks and Melee Attacks" text box in the upper left corner, opening sentence:

 

"Ranged attacks or a melee attacks are two different types of attacks."

 

The underlined text is erroneous. I'm not sure what it intended here, but a logical assumption would be "Ranged attacks and melee attacks are two different types of attacks."


Edited by Venthrac, 09 July 2013 - 07:24 PM.


#43 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,658 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:18 PM

The description for the YT-1300 indicates that it only comes standard with a dorsal turret-mounted medium laser but the stats indicate that it has one dorsal turret-mounted medium laser and one ventral turret-mounted medium laser. Which is correct for the basic version of the ship that PCs can start with?

 
I read the entry you're describing and the text you refer to is prefaced by the qualifying statement "In their factory configuration, a rarity among such versatile and modifiable ships..."
 
I believe the version that the PCs begin play with is one of these modded variations.
I think it would be odd for the base stats they provide to deviate from the basic model. Variations are what the hard points are for.

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#44 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:49 AM

Consider the Cloakshape fighter - finding one in its stock config is all but unheard of, but if you do, decrease handling as per not on end of stat. Also, if comparing prices to earlier variants of the swrpg, these ships are definitely of the "used" variety - which supports the claim of HappyDaze I'd say. So, you could - in my opinion - supply the players with a YT-1300 with only 1 turret, and increase its HP by 1.

 

I mean the description of the YT-2400 alludes to a lot more than the 5 HP that is there - comparing to older systems its less customisable than it has been, having no dedicated weapons emplacements and stuff like that, it only has customisation hard points. Not the same... still, fluff text and your (or your GMs) discretion is a deciding factor here I think.


Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#45 Gallows

Gallows

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,596 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 06:30 AM

On page 236 table 7-5 it says

(1T): active character losesthe benefit of a prior maneuver (such as evasive maneuver or AIM) until he performs the maneuver again.

How does this make sense for aim, when aim is only used for the next combat check which is most likely the one creating the above effect?

#46 Venthrac

Venthrac

    Member

  • Members
  • 888 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 07:23 AM

On page 236 table 7-5 it says

(1T): active character losesthe benefit of a prior maneuver (such as evasive maneuver or AIM) until he performs the maneuver again.

How does this make sense for aim, when aim is only used for the next combat check which is most likely the one creating the above effect?

 

Since the aim maneuver specifically states that the benefit from aiming is lost if the character performs any other maneuver or action, I agree with you, it does not make sense to include aim in this use of threat. The threat used to trigger the loss of an aiming bonus would have to have been rolled in a pool that already had the boost die from aiming added to it.

 

Good catch, I had read that and not noticed it.


Edited by Venthrac, 10 July 2013 - 12:57 PM.


#47 Gallandro

Gallandro

    Member

  • Members
  • 138 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 10:42 AM

Rules clarification:

Page 133:  Convincing Demeanor

The rule states that per rank you can remove a Setback die from any Deception or Skullduggery check.  

That seems a little odd as the Talent refers to the character's Demeanor which would mean his appearance.  So basically he appears confident at all times and sure of himself.  So how would that have any application whatsoever in using Skullduggery to pick a lock?  

Now the way I've GM'd it since the Beta has been that you get to remove the Setback when using Skullduggery for things like disguises or slight of hand tricks where distraction and your appearance matter.  For example, I might let a character use Convincing Demeanor when picking someone's pocket in a fairly empty bar, suggesting the character is distracting his target with his movements or how he's speaking in a mile a minute fashion which is causing the victim to lose focus and get confused.  On the other hand I would not allow him to use this bonus to break into a safe... What does his demeanor have to do with that?

So I would suggest a little clarification is in order.

Yancy

 



#48 Rikoshi

Rikoshi

    Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:16 PM

Rules clarification:

Page 133:  Convincing Demeanor

The rule states that per rank you can remove a Setback die from any Deception or Skullduggery check.  

That seems a little odd as the Talent refers to the character's Demeanor which would mean his appearance.  So basically he appears confident at all times and sure of himself.  So how would that have any application whatsoever in using Skullduggery to pick a lock?  

Now the way I've GM'd it since the Beta has been that you get to remove the Setback when using Skullduggery for things like disguises or slight of hand tricks where distraction and your appearance matter.  For example, I might let a character use Convincing Demeanor when picking someone's pocket in a fairly empty bar, suggesting the character is distracting his target with his movements or how he's speaking in a mile a minute fashion which is causing the victim to lose focus and get confused.  On the other hand I would not allow him to use this bonus to break into a safe... What does his demeanor have to do with that?

So I would suggest a little clarification is in order.

Yancy

 

I don't think it's too imbalancing to have the removal of the setback die to apply to all uses of the skill; after all, there are other talents that do that for other skills, and they don't have such a caveat.

 

After all, the name of the talent is just that: a name. The mechanics behind it call out no such limitations. If you want, think of the ability to keep cool in a social situation as also applying to keeping cool and keeping your hands steady while picking a lock.



#49 Venthrac

Venthrac

    Member

  • Members
  • 888 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 01:18 PM

I agree with Rikoshi. I think the name choice is just for flavor, and not intended to be a limitation in any way.



#50 DeadInkPen

DeadInkPen

    Member

  • Members
  • 136 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:20 PM

Demeanor: Conduct, Behavior, Deportment. also facial appearance, mien. 

 

They used the correct word. 

 

I have noticed quite a few typos in the book, but nothing that needs clarification.



#51 Venthrac

Venthrac

    Member

  • Members
  • 888 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:56 PM

Demeanor: Conduct, Behavior, Deportment. also facial appearance, mien. 

 

They used the correct word. 

 

I have noticed quite a few typos in the book, but nothing that needs clarification.

 

Post them here please. I am tracking typos as well as items for clarification.

 

Thanks!



#52 Endrik Tenebris

Endrik Tenebris

    Member

  • Members
  • 680 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 12:59 AM

In the entry for Stun Damage's Stun Setting;

"As a FREE ACTION, the wielder can choose to switch the setting of his weapon to 'Stun.'"

In this book, they haven't called anything free actions.  That seems to be a DnD Pathfinder term.  I believe they meant to say Incidental.


FFG Star Wars RPG Content - Periodic Updates.  Species, items, and more:  https://www.dropbox....3x57/qXerqp6BHq

FFG Star Wars Mass Effect Conversion - In Progress:   https://www.dropbox....woxz/xr0nnETGK4

 

 


#53 Venthrac

Venthrac

    Member

  • Members
  • 888 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 09:00 AM

In the entry for Stun Damage's Stun Setting;

"As a FREE ACTION, the wielder can choose to switch the setting of his weapon to 'Stun.'"

In this book, they haven't called anything free actions.  That seems to be a DnD Pathfinder term.  I believe they meant to say Incidental.

 

Do you know what page that's on?



#54 Rikoshi

Rikoshi

    Member

  • Members
  • 401 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 01:53 PM

 

In the entry for Stun Damage's Stun Setting;

"As a FREE ACTION, the wielder can choose to switch the setting of his weapon to 'Stun.'"

In this book, they haven't called anything free actions.  That seems to be a DnD Pathfinder term.  I believe they meant to say Incidental.

 

Do you know what page that's on?

 

 

Page 157, under 'Stun Damage'



#55 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 02:53 PM

Seeking clarification on: Page 271; Retrofitted Hangar Bay; it might just be me, but the wording on silhouette capacity seems strange, I figure the default capacity is just set: a Silhouette 5 ship can have one silhouette 3 and one silhouette 2 vehicle in its hangar bay or two silhouette 2 - this seems clear enough, but it could be clearer about the modification option; is it five possible modifications increasing maximum capacity by 1? or one modification which increases silhouette capacity by 5? or by its maximum (so 5 for silhouette 5; 20 for silhouette 6 and so on)? or is it something else? I'm konfuz'd.


  • Cerif27 likes this

Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#56 Masque

Masque

    Member

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Posted 11 July 2013 - 09:50 PM

Page 215, States of Health, Third Paragraph.

 

"A character is wounded if he has any number of wounds less than his wound threshold."

 

This should read "..any number of wounds less than or equal to his wound threshold."  On a related note, there really, really, should be multiple detailed examples of doing damage to minion groups with regular damage, criticals, and blasts.



#57 JP_JP

JP_JP

    Member

  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 06:38 AM

Page 215, States of Health, Third Paragraph.

 

"A character is wounded if he has any number of wounds less than his wound threshold."

 

This should read "..any number of wounds less than or equal to his wound threshold."  On a related note, there really, really, should be multiple detailed examples of doing damage to minion groups with regular damage, criticals, and blasts.

 

I'm not sure if the mistake is there or later in the fifth paragraph : "A character is incapacitated once he has suffered more wounds than his wound treshold or more strain than his strain treshold."

If a character has a wound treshold of 13, will he be incapacitated if he suffered 13 wounds ?? My understanding was that if you reach that number, you're out... but maybe he needs to have 14 wounds... which one is the right one ? Both phrases are exclusive to the wound treshold number :(



#58 aljovin

aljovin

    Member

  • Members
  • 177 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:07 AM

No, the PC can still function at 13 wounds, the 14th will incapacitate him/her/it. It was mentioned in one of the Order66 podcast by someone at FFG (can't remember who, Jay Little?)

The same thing hold true to the NPC, a group of 3 Stormtroopers only become a group of 2 once the 6th wound is attained and defeated when the 16th wound is sustained.

Edited by aljovin, 12 July 2013 - 07:10 AM.


#59 Venthrac

Venthrac

    Member

  • Members
  • 888 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:12 AM

 

Page 215, States of Health, Third Paragraph.

 

"A character is wounded if he has any number of wounds less than his wound threshold."

 

This should read "..any number of wounds less than or equal to his wound threshold."  On a related note, there really, really, should be multiple detailed examples of doing damage to minion groups with regular damage, criticals, and blasts.

 

I'm not sure if the mistake is there or later in the fifth paragraph : "A character is incapacitated once he has suffered more wounds than his wound treshold or more strain than his strain treshold."

If a character has a wound treshold of 13, will he be incapacitated if he suffered 13 wounds ?? My understanding was that if you reach that number, you're out... but maybe he needs to have 14 wounds... which one is the right one ? Both phrases are exclusive to the wound treshold number :(

 

 

I believe the fifth paragraph is correct as written. Don't think of this as hit points that you are losing and then reaching an HP total of zero; rather, your Wound Threshold is the maximum number of wounds you can suffer before becoming incapacitated. If you suffer wounds in excess of that value, you are in effect knocked out. So, if you have you have a Wound Threshold of 13, and you have suffered 13 wounds, you're fine; you have not exceeded your Wound Threshold yet.

 

Someone step in and correct me if I'm wrong here.


  • aljovin likes this

#60 JP_JP

JP_JP

    Member

  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 12 July 2013 - 07:17 AM

Ok thanks all... makes sense.






© 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