TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

See the listing of known errata on the thefantasytrip.game news page. Mark these in your book, if you are so inclined.

Am I missing anything significant?

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

The life or death question for TFT is the cleanup of "Dying" vs "Dead".

This is my stab at the issue: https://www.hcobb.com/tft/house_rules.html#Death

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Wait - is Hexagram #3 in development now? Coming soon? Kickstarter?

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Clarify that IQ increases from XP is not intended to provide points for the acquisition of talents or spells (i.e. is XP now the only way to gain talents/spells post character creation?).

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

* Typo to the errata: Can't find "the second sentence under Ingredients" on page 152.

* The "army/police auxiliary" job shows a $250 salary. Seems clearly a typo that should be $50 as in original ITL.

* The new 2-handed damage of 2d+2 for ST 13 bastard swords is an exception to the usual damage curve, and embarrasses ST 14 great hammer users who only do 2d+2. Original 3d-2 worked better because average and min damage are lower than 2d+2. An alternative fix could be to make great hammers do 3d-1.

* No explanation what it means that PC gargoyles are 32-points, but summoned gargoyles are 39 points, as far as what NPC gargoyles in the population might be like. Or why encumbrance rules show very heavy/large gargoyles and reptile men when the PC versions have been nerfed to human ST. Reptile Man fans also wanting mention of higher-ST reptile men.

* New XP table very 32-point oriented. Doesn't work well for races that don't start at 32 points. No direction on how to handle that.

* Some people read the new options list as a change meaning Dodge is an option that can't be changed to after Movement.

* Some people read the new options list as a change meaning Defend requires a figure to be engaged, or even engaged at the start of their movement phase because of the wording "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."

* Some people read the new options list as a change meaning Defend requires only having moved one hex (rather than 1/2 MA as listed in original rules) because it is in the engaged options section so mentions shifiting one hex.

* Some people read the pole weapons charge rules as meaning a defender can only get pole weapon bonuses if a figure moving up to them from a non-adjacent hex literally takes the Charge Attack option, meaning they think they can deny the pole weapon bonuses if they take any other option (Defend, Disbelieve, whatever), or if they only moved one hex.

* Some people (well, Henry) think that a Brand can be cast on an arrow, crossbow bolt, or wooden weapon as a cheesy cheap way to get a Flaming Weapon effect and think it would do as much damage as that $10,000 enchantment.

* People wonder if in Legacy you can no longer attack with a Spike Shield as a second attack like a main gauche.

* People wonder if Unarmed Combat kick bonus damage stacks on top of Unarmed Combat punch bonus damage (hopefully not, as that gets really high).

* People wonder if you can really get +2 damage in all unarmed combat from the new IQ 7 1-point Brawling talent for "dirty brawling", or if it's only for surprising people when escalating a brawl. Since actual daggers only do +3 damage in HTH, this seems excessive to some and not well balanced with the harder Unarmed Combat talents.

* People wonder if Brawling and Unarmed Combat damage bonuses apply to gargoyles, cestus, and reptile men.

* People wonder if/why ST 13 PC gargoyles seem to do the same claw damage as ST 20 summoned/NPC gargoyles.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I think it would be extremely helpful to have an errata that stated clearly and directly how all the various two-weapon and off-handed-weapon modes of fighting work. The rule book presents these ideas in several different contexts (net and trident, two nunchucks, two cesti, weapon and main gauche, normal melee weapon in each hand, shield rushes, spike shield punches, and, of course, two weapon talent). Some of these seem inconsistent with each other; others imply something that sounds like it should apply more broadly but isn't found in the other places, others are probably intentionally unique, others are just never stated one way or the other (like, do you get your shield bonus to armor protection on the same turn you punch with a spiked shield?). We've had a lot of threads that circle around to this problem, and it could all be cleared up in a Hexogram page worth of rules.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

My fix for forcing retreat is to make it a one turn avert.

And the term for "flintlock arquebus" is "musket". This means that they do have flash powder and any chemist should be able to devise ninja style flash/smoke bombs.

This moves the gun timeline from 1400 to 1630, so expect to encounter a rifle eventually. (Accurate shot at 600 hexes.)
https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetec.../gun-timeline/

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

The more I think about removing the chance of falling into pits on a retreat, the more I can't resist ranting against it. Please read.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I don't have an elaborate set of house rules for push backs and forced retreats, but I effectively enforce a version that is very good for the pusher and very bad for the pushed because I love what these options do to the tactics of the game and the interaction of combatants with terrain. The simple version is that I let the aggressor choose the direction of movement, and the victim gets a 3d save vs. DX only to do something like grab the edge of a pit - not to negate the move or pick a different hex.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

ITL p.153 "Notes to Greater Magic Item Creation Table" Note B. In a thread, several people tried to figure out how "5 wizards, 3 apprentices, and 12 doses of potion to make a ST17 powerstone" was arrived at. The conclusion was that it doesn't work. Please work through this problem.

ITL p.45 Under "Learning New Spells and Talents," it states that "Each new spell or talent learned costs 500XP - or 1,000 for talents marked (2) in the listing, and so on." Is the sequence 500/1,000/1,500/2,000 XP or is it 500/1,000/2,000/4,000 XP for those marked (1), (2), (3), and (4) respectively?

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Some posts in this thread fail to distinguish between errata (i.e., mistakes) and "things I, personally, would have done differently." If you find actual mistakes, please post them here. If you disagree with how Steve has designed something, feel free to write a house rule for it, but that's not errata. Please keep the distinction in mind.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Clarity of the designer's intent should also qualify, I think.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Staff to Snake states that 'killing' the snake will cancel the spell and break the staff, but would Staff II (or higher) be effected by this consequence since it is not a result of the Break Weapon spell.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Yes, the staff would be broken by killing the snake, because you are not killin git with the Break Weapon spell and thus that immunity is irrelevant.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I can follow the logic, but did Mr. Jackson intend to create this odd vulnerability? To my earlier point, understanding the designer's actual intent for these kinds of rule interactions is a valid function for errata and this thread.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

as 3 or 4 or Skarg queries indicate, the Dodge and Defend rules need serious clarification as to the writer's intent (So must get into errata). We've put our matches on hold rather than house rule this since we'd like to know what Steve intended. (I'm sure Retreats would have also become a thing so I'm waiting on that too)

Please have a claiifying paragraph in the errata on Dodge and Defend points brought up by Skarg

(thanks)

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Such a paragraph, or at least one that comes close for purposes of clarifying Dodge and Defend, once existed Fridge.

This was in Advanced Melee, immediately following the list of options, and also appeared in the first edition of Wizard. Was it left out of the Legacy edition on purpose, or by accident? If by accident, then putting it back in the new Errata might be appropriate. This is the "missing" text:

CHANGING OPTIONS
It is legal to change options AFTER the movement part of the turn, to meet changing conditions. The only requirement is that the figure must not have already moved more than the NEW option allows. If you moved 0 or 1 hex, you may switch to any option you could have taken when the turn began; if you moved ½ your MA or less, you may attack, defend, dodge, or drop; if you moved over ½ your MA you may do nothing else that turn.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

It hasn't been left out of LE; it's still there on p102 of ITL at the start of the section on Options. It's also in the new editions of Melee and Wizard. The statement is not exactly as you've written but makes it clear you CAN change options subject to restrictions.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Weapons table p 110
Main gauche DX mod is +1, surely meant to be -1, like large shield

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Yes but it is not clear what those restrictions actually are. The original wording made it clear. The new wording has some people seeing there are several changes to the original game, as mentioned in my comment above and in the endless forum discussions about it.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

That new paragraph on ITL 102 isn't nearly as comprehensive as the original one I quoted above.

In particular, changing options to Defend after moving up to half MA appears to be illegal except for the explicit example in that original paragraph, as does Drop.

And nothing else in the rules anywhere clarifies the system as succinctly as the one statement: "If you moved 0 or 1 hex, you may switch to any option you could have taken when the turn began". That's an important principle that covers all the options without needing examples.

Heck, that paragraph should be retained in Legacy editions because it was just brilliant writing by Steve Jackson, and it's historically significant to TFT's legacy.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

* Some people have been confused about the mention of initiating HTH from the "rear" (as a way to allow an attempt, and as an exception to the 6 result where the defender hits the attempter). That is, they wonder whether entering from a Side hex counts as "rear" for those purposes, or not. That is, can you initiate HTH on someone who isn't cornered and who has as much MA as you do, if you do so from the side? And, can a HTH initiation defender hit an HTH attempter with a 6 result if the attempt is via a Side hex?

* Some people think thrown weapons get Side and Rear bonuses from more than one hex away (though there is no diagram defining those arcs) because the rule about Missile Weapons not getting them says missile weapons, and thrown weapons have language about being like hand weapons.

* It's also not clear whether a 2-hex jab would get side/rear bonuses, and if so, it's not clear whether a 2-hex jab along the spine between a foe's Side and Rear hexes would get a +2 or a +4.

* GM screen: "Wing: -2 DX if target flying" ... doesn't mention that's in addition to the flying penalty of -4, total -6.

* GM screen: "Fighter using a weapon in each hand and striking with both in the same turn: -4 on both attacks." This contradicts ITL p.111, which says a figure without Two Weapons of a main gauche would be at -6 DX to each weapon attack.

* GM screen: "Target is Blurred" should read -4, not 4.

* GM screen: "Target is a multi-hex figure in flight -1" - That's not what it says anywhere else. Actual rules are on ITL p.116 (Oversized Targets section).

* Flight spell on ITL p. 25 description of penalties (-2 for melee attacks due to unfamiliarity) is very inconsistent with the general Aerial Combat rules, which say even natural fliers make melee attacks at -4.

* GM screen also mentions "Using a Flight spell and attacking with a melee weapon or casting spell: -2" but does not list the standard -4 to make attacks while flying.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

From the TFT Companion / Space Gamer SJ Designer's notes article, Errata section, almost all the errata was applied to Legacy edition except...

* The Advanced Wizard page 27-28 errata (magic item table) saying to add notes B, A, and C to certain enchantments. These changes actually would have a major effect on the feasibility of these enchantments for multi-hex creatures, especially monsters who might be able to use these items if taken from humans, but if they have note B won't be able to use them unless special items were made to be able to be used by multi-hex creatures, since e.g. there would not be much call for 7-hex (let alone 14-hex) Stone Flesh...

* The Draper Kaufman clarifications along the same lines also weren't inserted in Legacy.

Of course this could be a GM campaign setting choice for whether they want dragons to be able to use those enchantments or not, but it would be good to see it get an answer or at least an official "A GM should think about whether these should be Note B (A, C, etc) enchantments or not."

It looks to me like some of them were chosen because they have defensive effects but no ST cost to use (Stone Flesh, Iron Flesh, Blur, Fireproofing), and others are offensive effects that would be good to have extra cost to be able to make one that can affect a large figure (Trip, Slow Movement, Sleep, Freeze, Drop Weapons), while Detect Life and Detect Enemies seem to have been thought wanting a price to get greater range.

Compare to how some defensive enchantments were not listed, but these have ST costs (e.g. Reverse Missiles, Spell Shield).

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Some brief comments so you know I'm reading the thread :)

Henry, I understand that you are asking about death and dying, but I don't know what your question is. Is there an apparent erratum or contradiction?

Yes, Hexagram 3 is almost finished. Follow us on Kickstarter to know when new projects launch there.

The staff-to-snake question may not be an erratum, exactly, but it's a good question and I don't mind seeing it here. My intent was really RAW - the staff breaks if the snake dies. That would disincline me, if I were a high-level wizard, from using the spell. An interesting and complicated change, of course, woud be to say that S2S gets more powerful with each added level of Staff and at some level the staff is not broken. I'm not ready to do that, but if you house-ruled it, I would nod benignly :)

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I've gamed Staff-to-Snake as "the snake dies, the staff breaks". Though a serpent torc can be restrung, so maybe a broken staff in this instance can be repaired, perhaps via the Repair spell? Typically though there are more enchantments on a staff than a torc.

I do like the idea of more powerful staffs yielding more powerful snakes. That could also neatly recreate the biblical scenario of one staff-snake eating another.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Thanks for the clarification Steve. As I said, understanding the designer's actual intent is just as helpful as corrections for me.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Death the confusion:
ITL 10 distinguishes between "just barely dead" and "actually died"
Which of these sets the one hour timer for
ITL 33: "This spell will restore any dead creature to life, as long as death took place less than an hour ago."

My understanding is that at noon, ST 12 Bob is bitten by the three-eyed snake and takes 30 damage, reducing him to adjST negative 18 and he is now "just barely dead".

At any time from Noon to 1pm Judy can pour 18 healing potions down Bob's throat and change his status from "just barely dead" to "unconscious" and with a 19th healing potion he'll be able to stand up and walk around (at reduced DX due to injury).

At 1pm Bob's status changes from "just barely dead" to "actually died", but Judy can use a Revival spell or potion to restore him to "unconscious", at the cost of five attribute points.

At 2pm Bob's status changes to "really really dead" and unless he rises as a ghost (or vampire?) he won't be seen again.

Now what happens if Judy cast Revival between noon and 1pm (when ordinary healing potions would revive Bob)? Does it work? Does it cost him five attribute points?

The clarification I suggest is to rename "just barely dead" to "dying" with just "dead" an hour later so that it is clear when you can use what on the person in question.

More complex issues such as casting Aid every 59 minutes to restore a dying figure to unconscious and repeating this over and over for the next month until they heal up can be handled with house rules.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I may be mistaken, but on the Scolopendra (ITL, p. 95) entry, it does not specify if the -2 DX is cumulative with additional bites. If it is, I would suggest the same rule applies from Rope spell "If a figure’s DX is reduced to 2 or less by a rope, he falls to the floor, helpless." (ITL, p. 23).

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

IIRC, the one and only ability restricted to heroes (no wizards allowed) is Berserking(ITL 121). Does this need errata to enable the IQ 17 Goblin Pythonesses to go in and out of berserk at will, or is this actually intended to be heroes only?

Also the new ITL disagrees with the new Melee/Wizard on fist damage. Which of the new rules is correct?

Suggestion: Bare handed damage ITL 122

Subtract one point from each result to match to Wizard page 12 (where ST 12 does 1d-3 against an adjacent hex) and Melee page 18 (where ST 12 does at most 1d-2 in HTH). Talents then increase these reduced damage ratings as printed.

Under the current rules you are better off flipping your javelin around and throwing it like a club. Using the pointy end and your Pole Weapons talent subtracts one point of damage.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I’m not in favor of using pages from Hexagram for errata. I think it’s much better to make a web document for errata that can be updated as needed, rather than a printed article that is frozen forever. Use those pages for more interesting content.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Indeed. On top of that, we're paying for Hexagram and a list of errata should be free.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Excellent point.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Agreed on both points. I feel like Hexagram is good because it is fun and creative. Errata are important, but not fun and creative. Maybe use the TFT web site to distribute errata?

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I stand with Skarg! (Please note the previous statement sounds best shouted on the battlefield just before the fray.)

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Long-Range Missile Fire at ITL page 125 alternates "yards" and "hexes" as if these were identical, but a yard is three feet and ITL page 11 says:

"Hex – A hexagonal space on the gameboard, representing an area four feet across."

This length conversion also happens at ITL pages 113 and 124.

Other uses of "yards" measure vertical distance, while the "standard hex" (for Create X spells, and also enchantments?) is four feet in "diameter" and ten feet tall.

At ITL 55 if the distance from the center of one hex to the centers of the six nearest hexes is four feet, then the distance from the center of the center hex of a megahex to the center of the center of the nearest megahexes is two and and half times that, or 10 feet and not the "3 yards" listed. And the error compounds at each step up from there.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

If a hex were 3.5 feet across measured side to side, the diameter of a circle drawn around that hex, being the same as the distance from corner to corner, would be 4.0 feet exactly. Not sure that makes any difference to this or not. I was surprised to see 4 feet given as the new size of a melee hex, but now would say that's actually not a terrible approximation if we're talking 3 feet from side to side, or from the center of one hex to an adjacent one.

My cohorts and I always treated melee hex-to-hex distance as 1 yard when scaling things, and I'm sure I always will.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Can I be halfway in agreement? There will be a web document which is kept updated, just as we are supposed to be doing for everything. (In this case, probably, more than we do for most things, because more people are playing this game actively.)

But it's very much in the old-school spirit for a game's zine to have an errata-and-updates article. And I have taken some heat in the past when we produced content that was not available in hardcopy. I'm really not comfortable having it only on the web. If, Cthulhu forbid, something ever happens to SJ Games or to the site, this will still be around.

It's all of two pages. We're saving that much by not running ads this issue. Let me have this one, ok?

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

OK, Steve. ;)

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

"99-100. Rats may stack at two per hex; they must still be attacked individually."

IIRC, Rats can only attack targets in their own hex. Therefore leather armor is complete protection against Rats as the pair of rats on a single character can't roll double or triple damage on one die. Therefore the comment on ITL 100: "If you are wearing leather, which takes 2 hits, then the first two rat bites each turn don’t count, but the rest do. A rat must be on the figure’s hex to attack." makes no sense as there will only be two rat bites to roll each turn.

My suggestion is:

• Limit of four (to at most six) vermin per hex.
• Limit of two slimes per hex (counting as multiple vermin each).
• Vermin and slimes do not engage and are not engaged by other creatures.
• When a vermin or slime moves into a standing figure's hex that figure may roll 3/DX to hop to an adjacent empty hex and evade for a turn.
• Risk of the evasion roll is a roll of 17/18 (12 for acrobatics) chance of falling down in their own hex and losing next action.
• Once vermin/slimes are in the hex they cling to the victim and follow them around into fires and such.
• Slimes are medium sized and crawling, hence +4 to hit.
• Crawling vermin are crawling(+4 to hit), but also tiny and evasive(-4 to hit), which cancels out.
• Flying vermin are not crawling but are evasive (-4 to hit with non-ranged attacks).

Also

ITL 41 Two Weapons "parry with both weapons, adding an extra die to attempts to hit you and stopping 4 points of damage from any successful attack, but not threatening the enemy"

The extra die here is from taking the defend option, not an extra die over the defend option?

If the later then...

Goblin Wizard ST 6, DX 11, IQ 15
Silver Dagger Staff(1d-1/1d), Silver Dagger(1d-1)
Staff IV, Knife, Two Weapons, etc.

To double parry and occult blast zap in her traditional three-handed style.

And MA adjustments are missing from ITL 132 "Armor for Riding Beasts". If chainmail barding reduces a warhorse to MA 6 then you will never get the 8-hex move needed for "The Cavalry Lance" at ITL 131.

Rate of fire for these firearms is actually closest to the Wheellock, which can be used for one-shot traps also.

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-a...7-18th-century

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I'm really happy that there will be a pre-printed paper copy to look at...

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

ITL 40: "An Expert Horseman can train riding animals as though he were an Animal [Handler] ..."

Strike ITL 136 "Thus, thrown spells are unlikely to work at a great distance" and add a maximum range to prevent people from attempting Control Person on whomever is sitting in that throne three countries over or Knock on a trapped door the next dungeon level down.

My suggestion is that no Thrown or Special Spell may be attempted if the adjDX to cast the spell is zero or less.

Another reasonable ruling would be to apply "number of MH equal to the basic ST of the wizard who cast it" (ITL 135) as the maximum range for all spells not specifically noted as having greater range than that. This would be another hit against wizards who attempt to get by with ST as a dump stat.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

p. 78: Hafflings are listed to be "... skilled with missile and thrown weapons ...", but only include an automatic "Thrown Weapons talent"; Nothing for missile weapons.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

pg. 148 -- "The wizard can strike with it to do magical damage without casting a spell himself or otherwise expending strength."

pg. 18 -- "Regardless of what the staff looks like – rod, wand, quarterstaff, etc. – it is an occult weapon that does one die of damage (front hexes only) when the wizard points with it. The wizard spends 1 ST and makes a regular die roll to hit."

Seems inconsistent "without ... otherwise expending strength" or "spends 1 ST".

Also, do staffs do any damage when "striking" with them, or only pointing with them.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Also a small one on fencer in case it is useful:

pg. 40: Fencer (3): Equivalent of Weapon Expertise, specically for the fencing weapons: rapier, saber, and main-gauche.... Two weapons: The Fencer has the Two Weapons talent, as de ned below, for fencing weapons only.

pg. 41: Two Weapons (2): ... If you are a Fencer (p. 40), you automatically have this talent – but you must use either two rapiers, or a rapier and main-gauche, as your two weapons, since these are the two-weapon techniques taught to fencers....

Looks like the "Two Weapons" text was old text that left out the addition of "saber" to the fencing weapons.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

There are two comments on ITL 148 that work together to define the staff as a magical weapon (a plus zero magical club, sword, dagger or whatever), even without using the occult blasts.

"The wizard can strike with it to do magical damage without casting a spell himself or otherwise expending strength."

and

"A wand. Advantages: light, stylish, can be concealed. Disadvantage: does no damage of its own if you strike with it."

So a staff in any form does the usual physical damage of the type, but as magical damage against foes who can only be injured by magical weapons. So your choices are to spend either two weeks enchanting up a +1 sword or just 5 fatigue to cast the Staff spell on it. (Best of all it takes Dissolve Enchantment at 50 ST (ITL 31) to remove Staff while the enchanted club can be blunted with Remove Thrown Spell (ITL 166) for only 2 ST.)

Text at Melee page 13 and ITL page 111 is "The left-hand dagger, or main-gauche" so is this any dagger in the left hand or just the main-gauche? Does an off-hand dagger which isn't a main-gauche stop one hit or does it just allow a -4 DX secondary attack?

ITL page 41 says "Any character can fight with two weapons at once – if one of the weapons is a dagger, main-gauche, or spike shield". Does this only allow for option (a) listed below, or can you use (b) and (c) as well? Also, what is the rule to attack with spike shield on the same turn as the primary weapon?

Also on Staff as a magical item.

Does Iron inhibit rolls to use a magic item for example say a steel sword that cast lightning bolts?

Does the occult strike of a staff act like a spell or like the activation of a magic item?

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

This may be a contradiction:

ITL p. 172 Entry on Huldre Forest states "Travel on the Bright River and the high-road to its north are reasonably safe."

ITL p.173 Entry on Tro states "The high road from Tro to Dranning is always busy, and well-guarded where it passes near the swamp."

On the map they appear as separate roads, unless they are viewed as a sort of "Duchy of Dran bypass".

Duly noted: it is never The High Road, but always the high road (lower case).

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I took high road to be a raised road in the Roman fashion that wouldn't be flooded.

Secondary roads ought to be no slower, so long as the weather is clear.

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

I always took "high road" there to mean the main roads.

Seems to me secondary roads have many specific ways that they could be slower to travel than main roads, and I think classifying roads by how fast they enable travel makes sense and works well.


I found a new erratum:

In the magic item table, auto-correct seems to have renamed "Insubstantiality" to "Insubstantiability" ... LOL

I think Steve should add a description for that new spell... Sounds useful for legal trial situations. ;-)

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Melee rules page 21: "A giant must be in the front hexes of two [one-hex] foes to be “engaged.”"

Re: TFT Errata for Hexagram #3
 

Locking this down. The zine was sent to print a few weeks ago.

Steve will post a new thread when he is ready to tackle another wave of possible errata.