As the first printing seem to have some errors I do wonder if there is any second printing on the way with the errata fixed? I don't want to spend $60 as long as it have 7 pages of errata.

Not likely. All games have these errors, FF is just particularly driven to getting the Errata out there. It will likely be several years before we see a second printing.

I don't know how experienced you are with RPGs, or board gaming in general, but almost all projects like this have several pages of errata. If they don't it isusually due to lack of support on the developers end.

While I will not defend the errors FFG makes in publishing (I do not remember stumbling aobut so much errors back in my GURPS or FASA days); if your policy is "no buy as long as their is 7 pages of ERRATA", you will never going to buy any of the core rules. Me guesses.

Personally I've yet to get an RPG book that didn't need at least 7 pages of Errata. Sadly most publishers don't actually publish enough errata. 7 pages isn't usual for a book the size of RT. Also FFG tends to be pretty wordy with their errata, and include a lot of clarification of what rules meant rather than fixing out right mistakes.

Wow...I actually think that Rogue Trader is pretty light on errata compared to most RPGs.

I remember a time when roleplaying games didn't have errata. Errata was something for board games and textbooks. Back then, if there was a rule that didn't work, we either made it work or dropped the rule altogether. We were happier in those times. We didn't grumble and demand game developers constantly re-write books that were already published. We played the game we had, and waited for the next book in the series. That's the way it was. We liked it. And we were thankful.

Attila-IV said:

Amen brother. Back in the day when you didnt know anewbook was comingout until it was on the shelf at the local hobby store!

The errata subject is really an interesting one. I proofread legal documents, which run 25 lines a page, and I often find mistakes even when I have read a document twice. The real problem with proofreading is that you really need 3 or 4 people doing it to actually catch every possible error and then there are still going to be errors! Running a basic spell check program is very poor editing as they do not catch the contextual errors.

For a 400 plus page document, RT has very few contextual errors, i.e. things which make the rules difficult or unplayable. There are many of the atypical errors for certain, but it is a far better printed product than some I have seen.

FYI I offered to proofread FOR FREE anything FFG needed a final proofing on, with a secure server and no leaks, but no one ever took me up on the offer. So when you see the little errors that make you cringe, there really is no excuse for it.

Grand Inquisitor Fulminarex said:

You are assuming in this bit, however, that 1) you are better than the current proofreaders, and 2) you would catch all the typos. No matter how good the proofreaders are, typos slip through. It's one of the banes of the publishing industry.

Also, if you actually want to offer your services, you are probably better off e-mailing Ross Watson, rather than posting said offer on the forum. You are more likely to get any sort of response that way than just hoping for your post to be spotted. Might as well send an e-mail, all Ross can say is no, but there's always the chance he'll say yes

I will fire it off to Ross.

I am not assuming I am better than them. I know I am. I have to submit federal legal documents which have to be error free. And I have seen what the FFG proofreaders put out, and frankly it is either poorly proofed or not proofed at all beyond a basic document scan. I can tell you when someone has proofed something and when someone has merely run a spell check on it. Because I am trained to find errors, it is hard for me to enjoy reading anything these days. I have really seen a huge increase in errata in all forms of printed medium since the spell check programs came along, and it is sad.

However, I am happy with RT, and I have seen much worse editing and proofing in other lines.

Attila-IV said:

I was into this hobby at that time too, but back then there were no hardcover, full color books and they were nowhere this "expensive". I just feel that when they (FFG) put so much work into those beautiful books they could at least read through the character creation part a couple of times to get it right. I don't want to have to make notes in the skill lists and so on to clarify for my players. I rather wait until another printing comes out. I eliminated some of the erratas in Dark Heresy by buying a later printing.

I mind the typos less than I mind some of the nonsense rules which can only mean that no-one playtested them or that they weren't listened to when they said 'Our gaming group can't make head nor tail of this rule.' The errata isn't a litany of typographical errors but does have a lot of poorly constructed sentences and rules that only make sense in the authors heads not to the reader. It's annoying that there's so much errata (especially given that there's a lot of rules duplication between the books) but I'm not surprised by it. If we could massively increase the numbers of roleplayers worldwide it would be easy to justify spending more on proof reading and play testing but these are not best selling books.

What I'd like to see now that all 3 games have been published is a clear move to unified books. A 2nd edition of Dark Heresy with all the rules that should be in it (careers included). A proper Bestiary to cover all the major races for all 3 games (the Creatures Anathema is a tiny, tiny, ridiculously small, hugely inadequate, almost entirely pointless book). An Armoury book with a clean section of all the standard patterns of all the weapons, weapon qualities and so on, then expanded sections that give some variant patterns where applicable (not the jumbled mess of IH). A book of Psychic powers with all published powers in it (and any they're writing for foreseeable supplements). A big book of vehicles. I just really don't see the point now in publishing books about enemies, the imperium/galaxy or kit that aren't general WH40K books instead of game specific ones.

SmokedHalibut said:

Remember, the games differ in tone as well as in the specific part of the setting they occupy. Different threats and enemies are present within each one - the Rak'Gol and the Stryxis have essentially no presence outside of Rogue Trader, while the various cults, conspiracies and syndicates of the Calixis Sector have significantly less influence and relevance outside of Dark Heresy, and the forces of the Tau are too far away to influence anything but Deathwatch.

You might personally prefer books full of generic 40k info, and that's a fine preference... but it doesn't do justice to specific settings, nor does it allow the more detailed, regional examinations that game-specific information allows. Beyond that, there are elements where the individual games don't overlap - such as starships and Navigators, which are specifically Rogue Trader rules - meaning that generic 40kRP books may still end up containing information that can't be used in one or more games. On top of that, while many of us - myself included - own and enjoy anything 40kRP, regardless of the game it's for, there are people that only play, and/or only care about, one or the other.

On a couple of more personal notes: as a writer, the prospect of 'generic 40kRP' books doesn't particularly inspire me - specific is more interesting to write than generic, and it's much more useful to me as a GM to see things that don't just exist in the tabletop game (in regards to aliens, "the major races"), simply because it's much easier to keep players off-balance and uncertain when presenting creatures that don't have a wargame presence and thus are unknown.