Seeking clarification on: Page 271; Retrofitted Hangar Bay; it might just be me, but the wording on silhouette capacity seems strange, I figure the default capacity is just set: a Silhouette 5 ship can have one silhouette 3 and one silhouette 2 vehicle in its hangar bay or two silhouette 2 - this seems clear enough, but it could be clearer about the modification option; is it five possible modifications increasing maximum capacity by 1? or one modification which increases silhouette capacity by 5? or by its maximum (so 5 for silhouette 5; 20 for silhouette 6 and so on)? or is it something else? I'm konfuz'd.

Given my players want a Hangar Bay attached to their Wayfarer at some point, I'm curious about this as well.

Yup. My players and I would like to be able to use their Wayfarer, The Beast With Two Backs, as a base of operations and will need clarification here as well.

Clarification or errata, you decide:

Page 190; Marksman Barrel attachment. Can only be applied to Blaster Rifles and basic mod increases range one range band. Modification option lists Sniper shot talent, which would have no effect since the basic modification already increases the range band to Extreme range. Should the talent be removed, and if so should it be replaced by something else, like for instance a Pierce +1 or +2 mod?

Clarification or errata, you decide:

Page 190; Marksman Barrel attachment. Can only be applied to Blaster Rifles and basic mod increases range one range band. Modification option lists Sniper shot talent, which would have no effect since the basic modification already increases the range band to Extreme range. Should the talent be removed, and if so should it be replaced by something else, like for instance a Pierce +1 or +2 mod?

I suspect it will be the same answer as most of the others...it is made to be future compatible. In other words, they will have some sort of other talent or gadget that utilizes that talent in some way.

But who knows, maybe it really was an oversight like the "Sensor" Skill.

But who knows, maybe it really was an oversight like the "Sensor" Skill.

You mean Surveillance?

Hi, Venthrac. Will you be releasing a PDF of the compiled Errata once you have it all sorted?

These things tend to become never-ending stories don't they....

Yeah, they do. I was expecting FFG might do an official one, but i imagine the team has its hands pretty full with getting the AoR beta underway. A PDF compilation file of errata and rules Q&A is a great idea though.

There is any Official Errata data release announcement yet?

Thanks!

Yeah, they do. I was expecting FFG might do an official one, but i imagine the team has its hands pretty full with getting the AoR beta underway. A PDF compilation file of errata and rules Q&A is a great idea though.

Yeah. When you think it's ready, send the PDF to FFG's way if they haven't paid too much attention to this thread yet.

Hi everyone. Sorry if I missed this in the thread, but I have a question about how much it costs to become a Force Sensitive Exile. On page 275, it says that it costs 10 times the number of specializations including this specialization. So, for example, if this is your second specialization, it costs 20. It also says that this is the same cost as taking another career specialization, but in Table 2-4 on page 92, it says that the cost for another career specialization is 10 times the number of purchased specializations (emphasis mine). The way I'm reading it, this would mean that your first purchased specialization (other than the free one you get when you make a character) would cost 10 XP.

I'm not sure if they meant to have universal specializations like Force Sensitive Exile cost more than Career specializations or not. Does anyone have any input on this?

Thanks!

Hi everyone. Sorry if I missed this in the thread, but I have a question about how much it costs to become a Force Sensitive Exile. On page 275, it says that it costs 10 times the number of specializations including this specialization. So, for example, if this is your second specialization, it costs 20. It also says that this is the same cost as taking another career specialization, but in Table 2-4 on page 92, it says that the cost for another career specialization is 10 times the number of purchased specializations (emphasis mine). The way I'm reading it, this would mean that your first purchased specialization (other than the free one you get when you make a character) would cost 10 XP.

I'm not sure if they meant to have universal specializations like Force Sensitive Exile cost more than Career specializations or not. Does anyone have any input on this?

Thanks!

I know, at the very least, that universal specializations are meant to cost as much as career specializations. That table is somewhat confusing, but the text quite clearly spells out the intention that it's supposed to be 10 times the total number of specializations (including the one all characters start with). So regardless of career, if FSE is your second specialization, it costs 20 XP. This is the minimum cost to buy into FSE.

In the State of Health sidebar on page 215, there is the following text:

"A character is wounded if he has any number of wounds less than his wound threshold."

then, later:

"A character is incapacitated once he has suffered more wounds than his wound threshold..."

It seems that having a number of wounds exactly equal to your wound threshold does not have a health state associated with it, which is surely a minor oversight. I believe the erroneous line should read:

"A character is wounded if he has any number of wounds up to his wound threshold."

Page 156. The header and description for Knockdown is out of alphabetical order. Should be placed after Ion (Passive).

Minor issue, really, but I went looking for Knockdown and my eyes hit Ion first and then went down the page to Limited Ammo, and I immediately hit the Index thinking I had somehow missed. it

Page 155. The header and description for Blast (Active) is out of alphabetical order. Should be placed before Breach (Passive).

Same issue as above. This one might possibly be a layout issue, but eyeballing it looks like it should fit in the first column and Breach and Burn can move to the second column.

Page 185. The header and description for Death Sticks is also out of alphabetical order. Should be listed after Booster Blue.

Again, minor issue, but if part of the list is going to be listed alphabetically, it's usually a good idea to make the rest of it consistent.

I can keep going now that I'm looking. A bit disappointing, but this is attention to detail I imagine many gamers don't look at or don't get wrapped up over.

Table 5-11 on page 189 has a number of entries that aren't in alphabetical order and no clear rhyme or reason for it (bipod mount after blaster actuating module, bowcaster accelerator enhancement after bowcaster automatic re-cocker, under-barrel flame projector after under-barrel grenade launcher). The corresponding headers and paragraph descriptions for those items are likewise out of order, and in some cases don't even follow the order of the table itself (descriptions for spread barrel, serrated edge, and superior weapon customization are all out of order).

Ugh. I could go on but I'll stop there. Suffice to say that FFG could do with hiring some stronger copyeditors to catch this sort of stuff. Details matter, if only from a usability standpoint. Don't make your readers and players work harder to find the content you've spent time putting together and don't assume they'll use the Index exclusively to track down information.

/end rant

Glad you'll be getting an AoR beta book soon, Ineti. Perhaps with your help, FFG can correct this stuff before retail.

Glad you'll be getting an AoR beta book soon, Ineti. Perhaps with your help, FFG can correct this stuff before retail.

Thanks to you, my friend.

Heh, the Age of Rebellion Beta book semms to have fixed the table sorting issues.

On page 29, in the "Obligation in play" d100 is marked d00, as followed :

"...Gm rolles a d00 and sompares it to the..."

I figure a d00 is hard to roll.

Quite to the contrary a d00 is the easiest thing to roll.

On page 29, in the "Obligation in play" d100 is marked d00, as followed :

"...Gm rolles a d00 and sompares it to the..."

I figure a d00 is hard to roll.

Quite to the contrary a d00 is the easiest thing to roll.

"Interesting - the only winning roll is not to roll. How about a nice game of chess?"

Re:

Pg. 261, under the "Weapons" entry for the ILH-KK Citadel-class light freighter

"Port and Starboard Turret Mounted Twin Light Ion Cannons (2) (Fire Arc Forward)"

The fire arc for the twin light ion cannons would seem to be in error: if they are turret-mounted the fire arc should be "all" as is consistent with other turret-mounted starship weapons.

I'm fairly certain that these are the same turrets mounted on the Y-Wing. Just as on the Y-Wing, they are fixed mounts by default, but it may be possible to add gunnery stations to the Citadel to work them independently. I would suggest that, if they are usinig the default fixed forward and fired by the pilot configuration, that they should be treated as a single weapon system with Linked 3 rather than two independent weapon systems with Linked 1.

Should the Concussion Missile Launcer entry on page 271 be ® since Concussion Missiles themselves are ® according to page 229?

For that matter, there are several ships that mount Concussion Missile Launchers (and presumably Concussion Missiles in them) that are not listed as ®. Is this an error?

Same as above regarding the Proton Torpedoes on the Skipray. Shouldn't that vessel be ®?

Considering that several concussion missile-armed ships can be found for cheap or in non-military hands, I'd dare suggest that the concussion missiles themselves shouldn't be ®.

Considering that several concussion missile-armed ships can be found for cheap or in non-military hands, I'd dare suggest that the concussion missiles themselves shouldn't be ®.

That would clean-up all of the problems except that Y-Wings and the Skipray should still be ® if the Proton Torpedoes are ®.