Hello, Rogue Trader fans!

I'm pleased to announce the Rogue Trader Errata is now available for download.

Awesome, cheers Sam!

Great !!!

I however spotted an error concerning the Warp Navigation page 5 of the errata : Stage 5, leaving the Warp : the sentence is twice the same.

Lol, I just spotted the first mistake in the errata. On the edges of the pages stands Epoch Koronus, not Errata.

Nevertheless, very nice, I had been waiting for this.

Hey Terelo, thanks for pointing that out! We'll get that fixed right away.

Ciryon, thanks for checking over that as well. However, the two sentences are slightly different. The original test was Perception, which has been modified to Navigation (Warp).

Less an error than a suggestion, but I've got to recommend that the Weapon Master ability be changed to grant a bonus to the Righteous Fury Range of the specialized weapon (8/9-10) in place of a bonus to Initiative, or maybe rerolling damage dice. I have a hard time reconciling with the idea of a Heavy Weapon specialist somehow managing to (re)act significantly faster in a combat than normal, or if he were completely unarmed because he happens to be holding a giant, heavy piece of metal that he's particularly adept at using. I mean aiming it better? Sure! Drawing, reloading, unjamming or bracing it faster? Absolutely! Actually having what is effectively a better reaction time simply because he's holding a thing that weighs 30+ kgs? Not so much. I do understand the principle of abstraction, but I think this is a little over the top.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Lasers said:

Think of it less as the Arch-Militant is actually moving faster and more like they're acting more efficiently. They've been in a combat situation similar to the one they're in at any given point dozens of times before. They know exactly what to do and how to do it. The bonus to initiative is a reflection of the lack of time and energy decision-making required as the Arch-Militant acts instinctually from having used a similar weapon in a similar firefight countless times.

Sure, I get the idea of having the ins and outs of a weapon's use flawlessly committed to muscle memory and all that, but it just doesn't jive with improving one's Initiative, so much as it does with reducing the time (in the form of Actions) required to do things with it. Personally I'd think making the operating of the weapon more time efficient in those terms, and/or improving its lethality through finesse would make much more sense.

I'm not just talking about the use of the weapon. In any given fight. How you're going to act is a decision that requires a certain amount of strategic thinking and planning. What you do also is dependent on what kind of weapon you're using, the terrain, the enemies, and other factors.

The Arch-Militant, by virtue of their experience using a certain kind of weapon, does that decision making instinctively, and is already opening up while the Void-Master (or whatever) is still trying to decide whether to charge or go to cover.

The bonus to initiative, in short, comes from tactical experience, especially with a certain kind of weapon, any one of which would utilize a slightly (or drastically) different set of tactics.

If it's a question of tactical sense, instinct, awareness and insight, those things are general qualities rather than really specific to a certain weapon classification. I really think it's a stretch that defies suspension of disbelief to assert that someone has achieved such a degree of singleminded proficiency that his predictive prowess and general combat instincts/readiness (the kind that allows you to act and fire first) are _substantially_ enhanced when he uses ONLY that particular class of weapon, especially when the many tactically relevant similarities between that weapon type and others are considered (such as a longarm and a pistol).

The bottom line is that acting first comes down to reflexes, prediction/preparation and awareness. Being an expert with a single type of weapon makes your use of that weapon type more efficient, accurate and demonstrative of greater finesse, but enhances none of these three specific qualities in a way that would warrant an entirely exclusive +2 bonus to Initiative. Even looking within the system's own mechanics and abstraction, someone using a weapon he is completely unproficient in merely suffers a loss of accuracy and reliability with that weapon; there is no actual Initiative penalty.

Lasers said:

As you like it. I find the explanation perfectly suitable for my game.

Have not well understoud the rule for sustaining psy :

Errata : In the “Sustaining Multiple Powers” column, both entries should be changed to: “+10 to all rolls on the Psychic Phenomena Table,
decrease Psy Rating by 1 per power.”

There's a 1 penality to psy rating per power sustained ... seem's very simple ...

Ok, but re-reading the original rule there's a sentance that annoy me:

''It is possible but taxing for a psyker to manifest multiple powers at once'' (p157 - Sustaining Multiple Powers)

So for example:

Rnd 1 - Force shield -> Full psy rating

Rnd 2 - Force shield (sustained) + Force Bolt -> Psy rating - 1 (the two powers are affected)

But we can also consider that has it is also said further in the text it's the fact of sustaining multiple powers that induce a penality so as there's only one power maintened, the Force Bolt being just ''cast'' there's no penality (The original rule saying ''Maintening two powers at the same time reduces the psy rating ...'')

Thx for your answers.

I mean they speak both of manifesting and sustaining in the same rule and i'm note sure it's the same thing ...

I'm working on improving my RTSU (ship building utility) and have a question about the morale effects on additional Luxury Passenger Quarters beyond the First. Is the negative modifier cumulative? I assume that it is but notice from on high would be appreciated. Thanks

Interesting question, bobh. I'd say yes, it is cumulative. After all, it's really easy to isolate one luxury quarters, but the more you have, the more you rub the crew's noses in it.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Awesome Thanks!

Any reason why the Security skill for the Explorator costs 200 xp compared to all other skills at rank 1 only costing 100 ?

Potential errata for future updates:

Navis Prima (page 146) "outline safe routes through the warp". Good or Best craftsmanship maps provide a bonus to Navigation ... (Stellar). Surely that should be Navigation ( Warp )?

In boarding actions, "the ship with the higher remaining Hull Integrity provides a +10 bonus to its character’s Command Test for every full 10 points difference in Crew Population between the two ships" (page 216). I'm pretty sure that should be "... for every full 10 points difference in Hull Integrety ..."

Some fuzzy (IMO) rules that could use clarification or modification:

Boarding actions are unclear about whether there's one "attacker" and one "defender", or if defensive bonuses to the Command Test (like from a tenebro-maze) are added on every roll no matter what.

You can get to the maximum +60 fairly easy on the opposed Command Test for boarding actions. Some of the bonuses (like turrets or tenebro-maze) would work better as a penalty to the opponents roll IMO.

Extended repairs (without a planet/space station) are a bit difficult to understand. It doesn't explicitly say that you can only try once.

Iku Rex said:

You can only repair 1d5 HI outside of a repair facility/planet. It's just that, if you want, if you roll badly to start with, you can keep on working on it (a week at a time) to see if you can repair a little. It's just the longer you attempt to fix the ship up a bit, the more supplies you use up (remember, you only have 6 months worth) and the longer you are sitting around not making money.

(I don't want to hijack the thread with a mundane rules discussion, but I think this explains why clarification might be in order.)

MILLANDSON said:

MILLANDSON said:

(What this means is that a really skilled explorator may want to spend a few weeks on repairs, since he's more likely than not to get successes to make up for a single unlucky roll. Whereas a below total skill 50 explorator will want to spend only a week, since doing a more thorough job will increase the chance of failure.)

I'm confused by the strength rating on a Titanforge Battery : 2, when hits by lances are determined by successes (+1 hit per 3 successes). Does this mean you can only have 1 EXTRA hit on lances and 2 max on a titanforge battery?

Contradictory lance crits...

Page 221 gives an example of a lance hit indicating four successes on a hit but it does NOT show the lance hitting multiple times because of this. According to page 220 this would mean TWO lance strikes. The lances are also given a strength rating on page 202, why? Strength is used to determine multiple hits on macrobattereis but if all you need is 1 hit per three successes (page 220) why bother giving them a str rating?

bobh said:

The Strength Rating indicates the maximum number of total hits. Starbreaker and Titanforge Lance Weapons can only ever score a single hit. The Titanforge Lance Battery can score two.

I think there is a mistake on the xeno-mesh armour

In DH, the protection is 4, in RT : 3.

Would be nice to get clarified if the Machine Trait armor stacks with normal armor.

And if Machine trait stacks with Armor Plating as well: On page 375 the Battle Servitor and Grapplehawk Servitor is both stated as having armor plating and machine (4). The Battle Servitor has Armor (Machine): All 6. The Grapplehawk has Armor (Machine): All 4.

The talent would be rather useless to buy up if the armor doesn't stack with worn armor.