Error in the Errata

[The One Warlock]

I was overjoyed to see the errata page...until I read this...

>>
Page 113) Weapon Specialization
This is a specialized class feat only available to Army, Barbarian and Marine class members. It also has a prerequisite of the Skill Focus feat for the weapon that is to be specialized in.
>>

Skill Focus only grants bonuses to skills, not weapon bonuses. I assume you mean Weapon Focus which is the standard prerequisite for Weapon Specialization in D&D and all D20 systems.

The One Warlock

 

[bobologic]

it is clear that the errata is in need of an errata, that i am sure will contain errors, thus requiring another errata. *my head is spinning just at the thought* but all kidding aside, it would be nice to have a consistant set of rules that can be used to base a game on.*now standing up on my soapbox* the idea that "the rules are only a sugestion" fall short when the "rules" are SO badly written that the proof reader should have been horse whipped.it almost broke my heart, as a loyal traveller for 22 years, to see the amount of errors, in something as "playtested" as this was. come-on the computer design rules,and the powerplant battery design rules errors jumped out at me in the first reading....and..and...enough venting(ranting). i am wondering if anyone else has the same feelings, and if there IS an "offical" repaired errata ( if not we can just carry on and invent rules on the fly, the way we have been doing with classic traveller and even T20)
oh..and have a happy holiday citizens.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello bobologic,

Please do not take offense, but this probably should have been posted on the Q&A board. My reason for resposne is that the posted comments do not help in fixing what is wrong.

Next, Hunter and staff, hopefully larger than one or two, is also running every aspect of CotI and all other projects in addition to using the submitted errata to create a errata online page. Give them a break. Of course if you are offering Hunter to be the moderator/editor of the errata, he would probably take you up on the offer.

With the above entered I will stop, since I am now abusing this boards purpose of creating errata to make the game go smoother.

Originally posted by bobologic:
it is clear that the errata is in need of an errata, that i am sure will contain errors, thus requiring another errata. *my head is spinning just at the thought* but all kidding aside, it would be nice to have a consistant set of rules that can be used to base a game on.*now standing up on my soapbox* the idea that "the rules are only a sugestion" fall short when the "rules" are SO badly written that the proof reader should have been horse whipped.it almost broke my heart, as a loyal traveller for 22 years, to see the amount of errors, in something as "playtested" as this was. come-on the computer design rules,and the powerplant battery design rules errors jumped out at me in the first reading....and..and...enough venting(ranting). i am wondering if anyone else has the same feelings, and if there IS an "offical" repaired errata ( if not we can just carry on and invent rules on the fly, the way we have been doing with classic traveller and even T20)
oh..and have a happy holiday citizens.

 

[dancha]

Hello all:

I've been spending part of the holiday downtime going through my lovely T20 Handbook, and lightly marking in pencil the errata from the official errata (available at: http://www.travellerrpg.com/T20/THB_Errata-1.html)

I, too, was somewhat dismayed to discover what appeared to be _four_ errors in the Errata document:

(1) entry for p204 duplicated on p3 of Errata
At the top of p3 of the Errata document itself there is an unnecessary duplication of the erratum entry for p204 (Armor Piercing Rounds)

(2) AutoDoc -- confusing correction for cost
The erratum entry (correction) for p.278 (AutoDoc) is itself apparently contradictory. While the values given in the correction for _tonnage_ are consistent for both "in text" and "in table" -- they are _NOT_ consistent (as far as I could tell) for the cost (!). The correction tells us to change the "in text" cost from "MCr10 to MCr0.5" but the change for the "in table" entry is: "cost to 1,000,000."

Shouldn't this be "cost to 500,000" ???

(3a) Entry for Corsair cargo tonnage correction has wrong page number

It is listed as being p335, but is in fact p333.

(3b) Corsair -- cargo tonnage correction is wrong
The new cargo space given for the Corsair is presented as: "should be 165.9 tons." If I follow the correction for _why_ (by changing the tonnage of missile racks), then I come up with a new cargo tonnage of: 161.9

(4) Patrol Cruiser -- cargo tonnage correction is wrong
Same problem here: the new cargo tonnage given for the Patrol Cruiser is presented as: "should be 32.8 tons," but when I follow the Design Specifications alteration (for Beam Lasers and Missile Racks), I get a new cargo tonnage of: 33.8

I'd appreciate if someone else could check the math...

Hunter: I'd be happy to make the corrections to the Errata Document -- but you'd have to send me the "source." OR...now that I think about it, since I own a full version of Acrobat, and there's no security on the Errata.pdf, I could make the changes, and send you the new file to post on your website. Please let me konw if you'd like me to do this.

Thanks!
Dan