Winds of Chaos

I think the pdf has been updated with the latest errata, but does anyone know if the hardcopy has as well, or if not, if it will be?

they haven't announced any plans to update the hardcover in future printings, and i'd assume that's because they're not going to deal with editing it for print all over again.

That's disappointing. But surely if they've updated the pdf, the editing is already done?

I feel that they will do it when the current print will finish and they'll go for a second print.

mormegil wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:28 am I feel that they will do it when the current print will finish and they'll go for a second print.

Here's hoping. It's not exactly an unmanageable amount by any stretch, but I admit to having a bit of a bugbear when it concerns errata.

Rat Catcher wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:57 am It's not exactly an unmanageable amount by any stretch

Believe me when I say the errata needs many more entries before done...

CapnZapp wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 4:58 am

Rat Catcher wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:57 am It's not exactly an unmanageable amount by any stretch

Believe me when I say the errata needs many more entries before done...

That doesn't sound encouraging. Can you provide an example?

Rat Catcher wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:29 am That doesn't sound encouraging. Can you provide an example?

To be honest (and somewhat self-aware) you should probably ask someone else...

I'm wondering if the errata is actually errata or if it's just personal preference over how a rule should work. For example, some think the magic system is too demanding for a spellcaster. That's not errata, that's just a personal opinion and disliking of the magic system. This doesn't of course, negate the fact that most still might believe the rule should be changed.

The official errata represents how the devs think the game should work.

Rat Catcher wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 8:57 am I'm wondering if the errata is actually errata or if it's just personal preference over how a rule should work. For example, some think the magic system is too demanding for a spellcaster. That's not errata, that's just a personal opinion and disliking of the magic system. This doesn't of course, negate the fact that most still might believe the rule should be changed.

The errata is purely for actual mistakes in the text - things the devs feel are wrong. There’s stuff that a lot of people feel is unclear in the text, or open to multiple interpretations, that the devs have not included in the errata because the text is technically correct (for those you have to look at the FAQ, or else track down discussions on Facebook or Discord to find out what the devs have said on it).

macd21 wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 10:00 am(for those you have to look at the FAQ, or else track down discussions on Facebook or Discord to find out what the devs have said on it).

I find ambiguity as bad as errata, maybe even worse. If something is plain wrong (errata), you could guess the correct intent. But with vague rules, anyone can be right or wrong - because it's all up for grabs.

So, for those who have read the link below:

www.cubicle7games.com/wfrp-in-defence-of-defence

Would you say a player has to read it to understand the rules of defence, or are they just commentary? In other words, if I did not read the above link, would the rules for defence work fine?

Rat Catcher wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 1:26 pm So, for those who have read the link below:

www.cubicle7games.com/wfrp-in-defence-of-defence

Would you say a player has to read it to understand the rules of defence, or are they just commentary? In other words, if I did not read the above link, would the rules for defence work fine?

For me and my group, yes.

If the following true, it is a deal-breaker for sure.

"4ed combat suffers from the rule where bigger opponents are easier to damage. Example, +40 for griffin grants you an increased maximum of +4 because damage derives from success levels. This means, since an elephant is big, you gain a bonus to hit it, which translates into damage inflicted on it."

Is that how combat works?

Rat Catcher wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 1:26 pm So, for those who have read the link below:

www.cubicle7games.com/wfrp-in-defence-of-defence

Sorry I gave up half-way through. A typical case of someone using ten words where one would do.

Rat Catcher wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:32 pm
Is that how combat works?

My advice to you is to simply play the game first, before worrying about Elephants.

That, and asking rules questions in a new thread... Let this thread be about errata

Cheers

Page 161

Difficulty: Easy
Modifier: +40
Example: Shooting an Enormous target (Griffon Size)

After a little "Search" in my pdf, I got the answer I was looking for. Easily house ruled but the impression I get from other posters, is that there are a ton of little "quirks" like this that would need house ruling.

Rat Catcher wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:32 pm If the following true, it is a deal-breaker for sure.

"4ed combat suffers from the rule where bigger opponents are easier to damage. Example, +40 for griffin grants you an increased maximum of +4 because damage derives from success levels. This means, since an elephant is big, you gain a bonus to hit it, which translates into damage inflicted on it."

Is that how combat works?

This is how the rules on pg. 162 are read as-written, yes. note that a beast that size can brush aside smaller foes (like your meatshield) and deathblow on every successful hit (striking you after hitting someone else in reach and they brush them aside) engaging you in melee and therefore unable to use most ranged attacks. i suggest running a couple practice combats to determine how serious the issue is for your group.

note that pg. 341 instead says that the smaller opponent gains a flat +10 to hit and does not reference the previous rule, so you may combine the bonuses, or ignore one as desired according to what your table feels is the more valid rule.

Yeah, i know...i know.....

Orin J. wrote: Thu Sep 05, 2019 5:11 pm Yeah, i know...i know.....

Exactly what I was thinking Orin