player266669

EotE Core Rulebook Errata

287 posts in this topic

I went ahead and split the errata into two sections, one for errors and one for seeking clarification based on changes from the final beta update or other things that are not entirely clear.

 

I also tried to make it a little more user-friendly and readable.

 

Keep up the good work, guys! I'll continue to update the first post as new errors come in.

EldritchFire likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post and aportation people!

 

But it will be possible to gather all erratas on the first post every few days?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 261: "Weapons: [snip] Port and Starboard Turret Mounted Twin Light Ion Cannons (2) (Fire Arc Forward ..." Shouldn't that be "all" or fire arc specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 244, in Table 7-9, the "Navicomputer Failure" result lists:

 

"...in the case of a ship without a navicomputer, its R2 Unit..."

 

This should probably read "its astromech droid," since R2 units are only one possible model of astromech a ship could have.

Edited by Rikoshi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 29, in the "Obligation in play" d100 is marked d00, as followed :

 

"...Gm rolles a d00 and sompares it to the..."

 

I figure a d00 is hard to roll.

Raistlinrox likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 144, the 'Trees' entry under 'Targeted Blow' lists Mercenary Soldier as one of the specialisations that has access to the talent. The Mercenary Soldier specialisation tree on page 79 does not contain Targeted Blow, however.

Edited by Relm Skye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, I don't have the book in front of me.

 

But in the Combat chapter, in the table where it lists the various Critical Injuries (the d100 table), it lists that anything above 151+ leads to death.

 

On the following page, when the book references that table, it says something like, "anything above 141 is death".  I'm sure this text means to say 151.

 

Can someone with the book in front of them take a look?  Page 200 something I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 15, paragraph 4 of the Characteristics subheading under The Basic Dice Pool:

...(such as a Politico character with high Presence or a Soldier with a high Brawn rating)

 

[bold and underlined added for emphasis]

 

Soldier is capitalized, as if in reference to a career or specialization by the name of Soldier.  However, there is only the Mercenary Soldier in this current book.  While not a big deal, it could lead to some confusion, especially if they have a regular soldier in Age of Rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But in the Combat chapter, in the table where it lists the various Critical Injuries (the d100 table), it lists that anything above 151+ leads to death.

 

On the following page, when the book references that table, it says something like, "anything above 141 is death".  I'm sure this text means to say 151.

You die at the end of the turn at 141-150 crit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 174, the description for the Cybernetic Brain Implant:

 

"...provides +1 Intelligence..."

 

Should be "...provides +1 Intellect..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 113:

 

Under the Negotiation skill in paragraph two under the entry it says:

 

"Characters need to effectively negotiate if the ever hope to pay down their Obligations. Negotiate is opposed by the subject's Presence and Cool.  See Social Skill Interactions on this page for more information."

 

However Under Table 3-3 Social Skill Interactions (also Page 113), it indicates when Negotiation is the Acting Skill, Negotiation or Cool is the Opposing Skill.

 

Yancy

 

EDIT:  Re-reading the entry I think the language just needs some clarification.  It appears the paragraph I was quoting is specifically when using Negotiation to pay down Obligation as it says later in the entry when discussing negotiating deals or prices that the opposing skill is either Negotiation or Cool (just like the chart).

 

Just think the language needs some clarification.

Edited by Gallandro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.217 - Typo

-> Chapter VII: Starships and vehicles

- -> Starship and Vehicle Modifications

- - -> Attachments

- - - -> Retrofitted Hanger Bay

 

Pretty sure they meant "Retrofitted Hangar Bay"

Edited by Aazlain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.233-234 - Clarification

-> Chapter VII: Starships and vehicles

- -> Starship and Vehicle Combat

- - -> Actions

- - - -> Damage Control

 

It could be worth clarifying how many hull trauma the Damage Control maneuver can restore.

Is it only 1 point?

Or maybe 1 point plus 1 extra point per additional XCc1CUb.pngXCc1CUb.png, like the Manual Repairs maneuver?

Edited by Aazlain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now