T5 Errata Discussion Thread

[DonM]

This thread is for Discussing proposed errata for the original T5 hardback release only...

It is not for discussing the process; if you want to make suggestions, you can PM me.

If your posts are missing, it's because they were not discussing errata.

This is also the thread I will move posts to from the Errata thread if they are simply discussion.

 

[Original_Carl]

I think the skill should read "Engineer-7." Both J-drive and M-Drive would be a knowledge and would not stack with Power Systems. Power Systems is under the skill "Engineer" not "Drives."

I think in this case "Engineer" is a Knowledge and would be limited to 6. Aside from that, I think you nailed the problem on pg 145.

 

[Murdoc]

I think in this case "Engineer" is a Knowledge and would be limited to 6. Aside from that, I think you nailed the problem on pg 145.

No, Engineer is clearly listed as a skill on page 142. If it wasn't it wouldn't have Knowledges.

 

[Lore]

I think in this case "Engineer" is a Knowledge and would be limited to 6. Aside from that, I think you nailed the problem on pg 145.

Thank you

I thought the skills and knowledges were reversed at first too (in beta), but pg 157 is clear about Engineer being a skill. Pg 174 points is clear about J-drive, M-Drive and Power Systems being Knowledges.

In Addition, pg 142 uses the format of Skill as a heading and knowledges underneath the skill as well as listing Engineer as a skill.

 

[Bloo]

Don, where would something like no Fighting skills available to Rogues go?

 

[DonM]

Here.

I was just looking at that myself... I'd like to recommend that as a temporary fix, the Navigation under World Travel be replaced with Soldier Skill, but I'm going to ask Marc why Rogues don't get Fighter and see what he does.

 

[Thoom]

Cool. I made a suggestion in the pre-release forum.

It's also worth looking at it's options compared to the Scholar's Conflict table. Entertainer career cannot get Fighter (though that may not be an oversight, it's more consistent with Entertainers).

This did't come up in playtest??

A scholar gets access to Fighting and Stealth but not a Rogue?

 

[LiminalMask]

This did't come up in playtest??

A scholar gets access to Fighting and Stealth but not a Rogue?

It did, and was posted on the Beta testers forum as Bloo's link shows. There's several things which got lost in the shuffle which many Betas felt needed changing but didn't end up in the final rules.

Thing is, some of these issues aren't as obvious as "no Fighting skill for Rogues". Some of these things are more "wishlist" kind of stuff. So it's sometimes hard to distinguish what was an error (armor values for basic armor), what was an oversight (no Fighting for Rogues, I'm betting), and what was "I wish this was different."

My personal example of the last is the trade and cargo rules. (I brought this up in Beta, here. ) As it stands, there's no difference in cost between a ton of robotics, a ton of raw ore, or a ton of crackers. It's all based on the Trade Codes and TL of the source world (and a dice roll affected by skill at the time of purchase). The types of cargo included are just names for set dressing. Personally, I think this is terrible, but I have always enjoyed the Free Trader game, negotiating for the right cargo at the right price going to the right market. The current system is very fast and easy, for those who don't enjoy that sort of thing. So, do I wish it was different? Yes. But does it work? Yes. So I don't think it's 'errata'.

 

[mechascorpio]

At what point will this errata document be posted outside of CotI? I'm sure there are a lot of KS backers who aren't member of this forum who can't access it, and it would probably help if they could get started on the right foot with the latest information.

 

[Original_Carl]

At what point will this errata document be posted outside of CotI? I'm sure there are a lot of KS backers who aren't member of this forum who can't access it, and it would probably help if they could get started on the right foot with the latest information.

It has be vetted, compiled and edited first. As far as CotI goes, we're just folks with a common interest discussing the game. I wouldn't expect an official errata doc for a month or two at least.

 

[Lore]

Version 0.4 has all items as of this point.

I pointed out an error on page pg 145... it did not make the new list.

 

[DonM]

I pointed out an error on page pg 145... it did not make the new list.

See the explanation. Not everything listed here goes immediately to the document. If it stayed red with Marc, it doesn't go to the document, it means he's making a decision (or just didn't say yes to me).

For example, Original_Carl points out a problem on page 162 -- Marc didn't give me the updated sentence (that's still red). So it's not in the public errata document yet. It's in the "Marc needs to make a decision" document

 

[Lore]

See the explanation. Not everything listed here goes immediately to the document. If it stayed red with Marc, it doesn't go to the document, it means he's making a decision (or just didn't say yes to me).

For example, Original_Carl points out a problem on page 162 -- Marc didn't give me the updated sentence (that's still red). So it's not in the public errata document yet. It's in the "Marc needs to make a decision" document

Great, did want something missed

 

[LiminalMask]

Not everything listed here goes immediately to the document.

DonM, I'm not sure how cumbersome this might be to implement, but if something is brought up as Errata or in need of clarification, and Marc's answer is "Working as intended," or "See page X." or "Nothing more to be said on this issue..." etc. could there be some sort of public record of this? Otherwise, people might feel the question remains unanswered.

Thanks.

 

[Jazzlvraz]

DonM, I'm not sure how cumbersome this might be to implement, but if something is brought up as Errata or in need of clarification, and Marc's answer is "Working as intended," or "See page X." or "Nothing more to be said on this issue..." etc. could there be some sort of public record of this? Otherwise, people might feel the question remains unanswered.

We saw this issue occur in Beta. We didn't have affirmative mention of acceptance or non-acceptance of the items in our errata-input, so if it occurred again in the next iteration, we (or at least I) simply re-submitted them alongside whatever new we saw.

 

[DonM]

We saw this issue occur in Beta. We didn't have affirmative mention of acceptance or non-acceptance of the items in our errata-input, so if it occurred again in the next iteration, we (or at least I) simply re-submitted them alongside whatever new we saw.

Yes, because I had started by working using page numbers, and there were drastic changes between drafts that killed the system.

It's why I'm glad the book is finally out. Now the page numbers (and chapter numbers, and chapter order, and content order in chapters, and material moving from one chapter to another) are fixed. I can easily hit an immobile target.

As to when Marc closes a comment, we'll put a clarification in. So far, we haven't removed a red item without either inserting a correction, omission, or clarification item.

That being said, the items I have not given Marc are the big items LiminalMask has submitted, since the phrasing was that they weren't fully developed yet. So my question now is, should I take them as is, or am I still waiting on those. And I really need to move a bunch of these posts to a separate discussion thread. If LiminalMask's items aren't ready, I'll push them to the discussion thread as well...

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

ACS: Ship's Troops and the Yacht.

Not sure if this is Errata or not, but it seems so to me.

Page 344. A TROOP ACCOMODATIONS. First off, my Spellcheck is giving me the Red Line of Error and telling me that there should be an additional "M" in the word ACCOMMODATIONS.

Second under the table in the second paragraph is states that:

Ship's Troops are also assigned as the crew for one Weapon or Defense (per Squad)*. Their Quarters are located near their ship's weapon.​

*Emphasis mine.

Really, Per Squad? It takes five (5) dudes to run one (1) Triple Beam Laser Turret, or one (1) Meson Screen? That does not seem right to me. I mean, we are shown on page 389 (in addition to previous editions) that there is only one (1) person (the Gunner) present in the Turret to operate the Weapon.

Any chance we can have that addressed?

Page 358 Yacht (Y-EU42). The first sentence says that it is built on a 500-ton, TL-14 unstreamlined hull. All previous versions (including T5 Beta) have the Type-Y Yacht as a 200-ton unstreamlined hull. So, is the 500-ton hull a mistake or a new version of the Yacht?

That is all for now.

 

[pendragonman]

Not sure if this is Errata or not, but it seems so to me.

Page 344. A TROOP ACCOMODATIONS. First off, my Spellcheck is giving me the Red Line of Error and telling me that there should be an additional "M" in the word ACCOMMODATIONS.

Second under the table in the second paragraph is states that:

Ship's Troops are also assigned as the crew for one Weapon or Defense (per Squad)*. Their Quarters are located near their ship's weapon.​

*Emphasis mine.

Really, Per Squad? It takes five (5) dudes to run one (1) Triple Beam Laser Turret, or one (1) Meson Screen? That does not seem right to me. I mean, we are shown on page 389 (in addition to previous editions) that there is only one (1) person (the Gunner) present in the Turret to operate the Weapon.

Any chance we can have that addressed?

[

Per squad makes sense if the person manning it is done by duty roster like a guard post throughout the ship.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Does it?

Per squad makes sense if the person manning it is done by duty roster like a guard post throughout the ship.

So you are saying it makes sense if those five Troops are actually spread out over a couple of Watches? I could see that, but the way it is stated in the MBB is that it is one Squad per Weapon, not that is one Squad on a rotating schedule of Watches and Weapons and Defenses. So I still think it should be Clarified in the Errata. Could just be me though.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

CharGen and Wounds.

Got a question, not so much an Errata (yet).

I am working on NPCs for Greg P. Lee's upcoming T5 Cirque Campaign book and I had an instance where a character failed Risk, but then the Controlling Characteristic was 6 and the roll for failure was also 6.

So using the standard unmodified CC-Roll I get a result of 0. So, does that get the character a Wound Badge or not?

Extremely curious and very much hoping for a quick response on this one.