Hi, i'm an italian fan of Feng Shui
I have read the topic in this forum about the errata, but i'm searching something official,
any news about?
We're working on an official set of errata for the Feng Shui 2 releases today, in fact. It's not online just yet, but if you watch the Feng Shui line page, there'll be a link in the links sidebar once we've got it finished and online.
Thanks!
I'm excited to see the fixes.
Looks like it's taking a tad longer to get posted, or am I just missing it?
Will there also be updated Archetypes, or even updates to the DrivethruRPG version of the book?
I just got a notice that version 1.2 is available from DriveThruRPG. I downloaded it but haven't checked the changes.
Guess those'll probably come in 1.3. I wonder what was updated in 1.2 ...
Many errors were fixed between 1.1 and 1.2 that you didn't list in the big list of errors over on the other thread.
However, I've gone through all of those errors and we're preparing 1.3 based on those.
Note: Many of the errors spotted aren't actually errors but intended design, such as the different new skill AVs provided by Awesomeing Up under the Big Bruiser, Bandit, etc etc. The majority of the errors spotted by folks are either typos or version errors we made during production.
An errata list is currently posted for v1.2 archetypes that corrects the printed archetype sheets that were sent out to backers (those are 1.1 versions.) A more extensive errata list of changes between 1.2 and 1.3 will be posted next week.
Thank you Cam!
Here's the errata if anyone's looking for it: atlas-games.com/fengshui/fengshui2errata.php
So what does Atlas intend to do to fix the Archetype Sheets we shelled out $30 for? No real excuse for sending out such an error riddled product. I could have just printed out the sheets from the PDF and laminated them myself for a loy less.
If Atlas won't be sending us replacements, how about sending out sticker sheets with the corrections so we can actually fix the sheets.
Drop us a line at crowdfund AT atlas-games DOT com with questions and concerns about Kickstarter rewards and shipping issues, including questions about refunds or replacements or related issues. We don't answer those here on the forums, sorry!
A friend of mine caught an inconsistency on Dim Mak between the Martial Artist archetype page and the listing in Fu Paths. I am guessing the listing in Fu Paths is the correct one. Can someone confirm this?
So I see the Archetype errata is out, are we expecting a general errata for the rest of the book anytime soon?
Case in point - the "Shadow of the Future of the Apes" mooks. In the first battle they have 8 attack & 15 defense (!). In the second, 8 attack & 8 defense. I assume both to be errors of some sort, the standard mook is 8 attack & 13 defense and that's what I'm swapping their stats out for for the moment.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Was a little odd. I really think this could be a great game if some of these little problems are ironed out. Is the latest version still v1.3?
I think - I think - I should be able to post the latest errata on the Atlas Games site today. I think!
Any idea when this might happen Cam? Thanks!
Errata page is updated!
Now includes all corrections made to the book up to 1.3, as well as two new corrections about Fire Stance and Dim Mak. So, technically it's version 1.31.
Awesome, thanks Cam!
P123 Battle scavenge all levels- possible error. Text says if you fail a reload check. Should that be if you fail a rearm check since the bonus and topic are about rearming?
P125 reactive fire is not listed on any upgrade paths or archetypes. Is that intentional?
Errata for the errata for printed to 1.3
P102 is correct and the shot counter is on p348
P140 should be for Beard of the dragon, not breath.
In regards to Battle Scavenge: If rearm checks triggered the ability, it would be extremely usless, since rearm checks are very uncommon. The way I looked at it was the bonus to rearm was to make the schtick more useful.
Reactive Fire is something everyone has access now, except it's triggered by people doing things that are "non-fighty." Furthermore, someone from atlas said that schticks that aren't found in progression blocks can be taken by people using that type of fighting style at the storyteller's/game master's discretion. (Primarily things like gene freak, cyborg, supernatural creature, but I assume this pertains to other archetypes as well.) Ones that no archetype has by default may not have been play tested, so "milage may vary." I've used the schtick in a game, and it was relatively usless, as way aweful fails aren't exceptionally common.
The game really feels as if it were still in the testing phase. It's not bad, and it's lotsa fun, but it needs A LOT of work. I wouldn't be afraid of house-ruling things for the sake of fun and to make characters more enjoyable.
For example, I'm making a gambler that gains a transformed animal schtick every time she gets a tattoo.
Our current system is as follows:
Choose one of any other class's advancement blocks. You may use that as if it were native to your archetype.
Every five advancements you "unlock" one stat advancement and one "out-of-path" advancement. The rule for out-of-path is that it has to fit your character.
For example. I have a player that is a gambler/sorcerer who uses magic and teleports around the battlefield. There's a gene freak schtick that does exactly this.
Long and short, ANY tabletop ruleset should be used as a guideline, not law. ESPECIALLY FS2. The game prides itself on style and fun over restrictive rules.
Ah. Thank you the scavenge thing makes a lot more sense after reading your reply. And I also rewatched The Killer between posting and reply... That probably helped as well. I suppose if someone took this and it seemed under powered you could allow a rearm roll against the highest opposition defense as well.
Regarding reactive fire... It was opportunistic fire that became a general option rather than a schtick p112. I just found it odd to have abilities that weren't used somewhere. Odd for things other than specific paths or spell lists etc.
And I agree about style over rules especially in FS2. I just finished a full read through and was puzzled.
There were also some odd mook defenses in the included scenario. For the same group of mooks it is 15 in one place and 8 in another. That might be intentional to tune the fight but it might not.