I'll show you my errata list if ...

[hcobb]

Anybody else going through all of the errata comments and noting down each and every place the flaw remained (and those places new errors were introduced) in a bizarre obsessive compulsive frenzy?

http://www.hcobb.com/tft/house_rules.html

[Skarg]

Well almost. I went through the book spot-checking less obsessively (I haven't been going through all the beta reports), and so far I've found several good fixes, some fixes I really liked that I wasn't counting on, and I think so far only one section I was really disappointed in (the part where it says

The options available to a figure depend on whether
it is engaged, disengaged, or in HTH combat at the moment
its turn to move comes.

... but it has to mean "action" where it reads "move", or else you could take disengaged actions even if you find yourself in HTH when your adjDX comes up later that turn. (Mainly I'm just disappointed anticipating the continued confusion by others about what options, since it's always been clear to me that Wizard and Advanced Melee's Changing Options section was the only way it plays right to me.)

I was pleasantly surprised by the adjustments to:
* the wording of the -2 DX penalty for taking 5 hits (now affects the victims "next action" rather than "next turn" (yay!).
* the wording of the Trance spell (which is how I house-nerfed it)
* the wording of physicker healing per "mishap" rather than per combat (which I think supports how we always played it, per wound, but still leaves room for people who like per-combat to do that)
* the UC IV/V kick/punch effects got distinct uses

[TippetsTX]

Ha! I was just thinking about this too... I said to myself "Boy, I really want to know how much of all that errata that folks posted was actually fixed, but man, I really don't wanna dig thru all that myself. I hope one of these other guys will do it for me."

[hcobb]

I want to do something about the thousand different rulesets for disarming, but next weekend I'll be prone.

For example:

page 106: A figure on the ground, crawling, or bending over to pick up a weapon is considered to face rear in all six directions; it has no front, except for purposes of determining where it may cast spells. For casting spells, a prone or kneeling wizard has normal front hexes.

and

page 116: Crossbows may be fired from a prone position.

But he has no front hexes to fire into!

[TippetsTX]

So how much of the posted draft errors do we think got fixed in the final PDFs?

[hcobb]

The process worked very well at fixing simple one-point errata, but did less well for logic and flavor issues.

I've only spotted three single location errata issues in the new text.

Several people pointed out the Light spell, Acute Hearing movement in darkness, two sabre fencer, two different talents for Astrologer, second arrow shots sequence, creation in the dark, learning time per skill point, and Immunity to Break Weapon problems between the listed examples and the actual text.

Most of the logic or balance issues I've spotted after the fact were caught by nobody during the process. For example that the prone crossbowman from the earliest days of melee can't actually hit anybody given the current rules.

[Skarg]

The worst one I know of is the options section saying your choice of options is limited by your engagement state when you "move", not when you "act", even though I think/hope/pray it means when you "act" - i.e. when you actually do something, and not "I can't Defend because we moved first and I wasn't engaged until my opponents moved to engage me, but I guess I can Dodge and re-sheath my sword if I change weapons".

I also think the various XP and race issues are in want of revision in several ways, but I didn't really expect them to manage to fix that given their schedule.

Also there's a bit of an inconsistency between new basic Wizard saying you can hit people with any sort of staff the way you could in old TFT, but the new ITL saying it's a zap attack that uses 1 fatigue. But GM's can/will just have to make a simple choice of which way to do it.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Also there's a bit of an inconsistency between new basic Wizard saying you can hit people with any sort of staff the way you could in old TFT, but the new ITL saying it's a zap attack that uses 1 fatigue. But GM's can/will just have to make a simple choice of which way to do it.

As I've pointed out before the Spell Shield text WRT staffs differs between the two sets of rules. Wizards in Wizard are using two handed mauls.

[amenditman]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Also there's a bit of an inconsistency between new basic Wizard saying you can hit people with any sort of staff the way you could in old TFT, but the new ITL saying it's a zap attack that uses 1 fatigue. But GM's can/will just have to make a simple choice of which way to do it.

I have them do it as a physical attack if that is possible, if not then use 1 fatigue to make it a magical attack. If they are defining their staff as a 'Harry Potter' type wand, then all attacks must be magical and cost 1 fatigue.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by amenditman

I have them do it as a physical attack if that is possible, if not then use 1 fatigue to make it a magical attack. If they are defining their staff as a 'Harry Potter' type wand, then all attacks must be magical and cost 1 fatigue.

I'm house ruling in some Potterisms to make the wand the perfect choice for the spell-heavy wizard to drop a thrown spell at range one from an unarmed start.

Speaking of which, what is the advantage of multiple levels of quick draw?