Many of the Adversaries Weapons and other Features seem to be inconsistent with their Characteristics, Talents and Traits.

I´ve only skimmed through it a bit but here are some examples of what I mean.

Bloodletter: Is clearly missing the +1 AB for his movement for being Hulking. He also misses the damage bonus from Crushing Blow in his Hellblade stats. His WS is either 50 or 60 (depends on whether he´s frenzied or not) so it should be +3 (unless a half WS Bonus, 2.5 in this case, gets rounded down).

Brazen Myrmidon: Again Hulking is not considered in movement. His Hellblade for some reason has 1d10+15 as opposed to the 1d10+13 of the bloodletter (pen 0 is obviously a typo), and that with the exact same characteristics and talents that matter. What to make of it? Is the damage bonus from Crushing Blow included here (thus also implying that 2.5 gets rounded down)?

Space Marine: While his movement is correct (Hulking is included), the damage for the Astartes Combat Knife seems to be wrong (unless it has base stats of 1d10 - 2)

So possible typos aside, the fundamental question is, are adversaries even meant to be consistent with their characteristics, talents and traits?

It´s kinda annoying because for now I feel the need to doublecheck and calculate everything.

Yes, it's meant to be consistent.

Yes, FFG sucks at proofreading.

Yes, you have to double check if you care about everything being 100% legit.

As for rounding numbers down, it's a rule so common in various roleplaying games, most authors forget about spelling it out and only note the exceptions.

Morangias said:

Ok got it

As for the rounding. Just to have 100% clear, rounding down is the default?

Last game I´ve played used commercial rounding so I`m not used to it.

I can't tell you with a 100% certainty, but in most games I've played, the default rule was rounding down.

In the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war... and rounding down.

Ok, thanks guys

FFG is unfortunately known for not proofreading very well and is often inconsistent. Add to that slow to errata. But they're still the best overall, in my opinion, so you better just learn to live with it and make judgement calls yourself, if you're the GM.

We cannot tell you explicitly, because it's never explicitly stated. But yes, generally, the default is to always round down.

I personally prefer to round it; 0.1-0.5 Down & 0.6-0.9 Up . But the standard is most definitely to round down.

Fgdsfg said:

I wouldn't have said that slow - most companies take ages to come out with errata, and some never come out with any (such as many of the problems with nWoD by White Wolf, or no errata at all for about half of my RPG collection). It just takes a while to come up with a sizable document that covers most of the problems, playtesting fixes enough that they don't then break the game, and then publishing it.

I have to agree that FFG has been one of the best companies I've encountered when it gomes to errata.

That said, the errata is in many cases very necessary since a number of rules and items were unclear, could be wildly overpowered depending on interpretation or just missing things.

I love FFG and blindly buy their 40K RPG products whenever a new one comes out, but even so the lack of proper editing and proofing is probably their greatest weakness. And it doesn't look as though its going to change...so yeah, as someone above me said: Best get used to it.

The listed adversaries should really only be guidelines anyway. A starting point and not much more. At least that's how I view it =).