Wel­come, Guest
User­name: Pass­word: Remem­ber me

TOPIC: Errors Found

Errors Found 6 years 4 months ago #591

  • Mozusuke
  • Mozusuke's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 164
  • Thank you received: 127
  • Karma: 8
Page 194. I realise all right-​minded Sus­rah­nites know that Gha­zor is a den of iniq­uity sec­ond only to the sin­ful cesspit of Yaatana, (and per­haps Zhaol), but is that really just cause to inter­min­gle the descrip­tions of these cities?

We have the sec­tion on Yaatana. Then the descrip­tion of Gha­zor pro­ceeds, seems to fin­ish, and then pro­ceeds with more about the pre­ced­ing sec­tion on Yaatana.

Also, there are a cou­ple of minor typos…

Final para­graph in main Yaatana sec­tion we get “Tar¬nished”. Also, top para­graph in right hand col­umn, we get “har¬vested”. (all page 194)
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
The fol­low­ing user(s) said Thank You: Michael

Errors Found 6 years 4 months ago #682

  • Allan
  • Allan's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 409
  • Thank you received: 131
  • Karma: 7
Is the ref­er­ence in Range com­bat about page 74 correct?
Mourn for us oppressed in fear
Chained and shack­led we are bound
Free­dom choked in dread we live
Since Tyrant was enthroned
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.

Errors Found 6 years 4 months ago #704

  • Allan
  • Allan's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 409
  • Thank you received: 131
  • Karma: 7
I posted this on another thread but it may have become buried
With the dis­cus­sion on botch­ing in com­bat being optional does the ref­er­ence on page 101 under eva­sion need to be amended
Mourn for us oppressed in fear
Chained and shack­led we are bound
Free­dom choked in dread we live
Since Tyrant was enthroned
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
The fol­low­ing user(s) said Thank You: Michael

Errors Found 6 years 3 months ago #807

  • Cogs42
  • Cogs42's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 5
  • Karma: 0
This is not so much an error as an omis­sion. Although the acronyms “PC” and “NPC” are used through­out the text, begin­ning on p2 (Table 1.0 descrip­tion), there is no expla­na­tion of their mean­ing that I can find. They are not in the glos­sary either.

Most of us are so famil­iar with this jar­gon that we don’t give it a sec­ond thought. How­ever a per­son who is new to RPG’s — the very peo­ple for whom the sec­tion “What is a Role Play­ing Game” on page one has been included — would prob­a­bly not under­stand them.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.

Errors Found 6 years 3 months ago #808

  • Cogs42
  • Cogs42's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 5
  • Karma: 0
In the sec­tion titled “2. The Order of a Com­bat Round” on page 88, there appears to be some con­fu­sion about the def­i­n­i­tion of “Exchange” and “Com­bat Round”. Ear­lier in the chap­ter (p85) these are described as fol­lows:

“A sub­di­vi­sion of the Com­bat Round is the Exchange, with every Com­bat Round con­sist­ing of two. The Exchange is thus the short­est tem­po­ral divi­sion of a Com­bat Scene, which ulti­mately con­sists of any num­ber of Com­bat Rounds, each made up of a pair of Exchanges.“

On page 88, how­ever, the bul­leted steps of the “Order of a Com­bat Round” men­tion “the first half of the Exchange” and the “sec­ond half of the Exchange”, yet then goes on to say that attacker and defender “roles may have been reversed since the first Exchange.” So are there two Exchanges, or two halves of an Exchange, in a Com­bat Round?

The sec­tion then goes on to state that “Steps 26 con­tinue to repeat until the end of the Com­bat Round”, which seems to con­fuse the Com­bat Round with a Lime­light.

My apolo­gies if it is me who has mis­un­der­stood these terms, but they do appear to be used incon­sis­tently here.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
The fol­low­ing user(s) said Thank You: Michael

Errors Found 6 years 3 months ago #843

  • Cogs42
  • Cogs42's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 7
  • Thank you received: 5
  • Karma: 0
Regard­ing the +1 ATN/​DTN penalty when wield­ing a weapon in the off-​hand — this is men­tioned sev­eral times through­out the text, in descrip­tions of spe­cific maneu­vers (eg. Dou­ble Strike), weapons (par­ry­ing dag­ger), and Assets (Ambidex­trous). How­ever for clar­ity, it should prob­a­bly be men­tioned in a more gen­eral sense some­where in the Melee chap­ter, per­haps where other ATN/​DTN mod­i­fiers are dis­cussed (weapon reach, for exam­ple). It is not men­tioned in the Bind & Strike maneu­ver, where I assume it also applies.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
The fol­low­ing user(s) said Thank You: Michael

Errors Found 6 years 2 months ago #919

  • Mozusuke
  • Mozusuke's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Posts: 164
  • Thank you received: 127
  • Karma: 8
In a pre­vi­ous entry on this thread a cou­ple of instances of the “¬” char­ac­ter erro­neously appear­ing were pointed out. In fact, this char­ac­ter erro­neously pops up all over the place, espe­cially in the Xoth chap­ter. So if you haven’t done so already, I rec­om­mend a search for “¬”.
The admin­is­tra­tor has dis­abled pub­lic write access.
Mod­er­a­tors: Mozusuke, Phil, Michael
Time to cre­ate page: 0.149 sec­onds