As we are talking errata, one discussion that has been discussed ad nauseum, however, I consider the rule book and errata still isn't clear, is spell damage. While I've been advocating let the troupe sort out edge cases, I consider Spell Damage in the rules is to the point of being too vague.
Page 116 states
"Many spells have damage listed in the form +X. This is an abbreviation for stress die + X. The damage inflicted by such spells varies from one casting to another."
On page 171 "Combat sequence" we'd jump straight to 2e as there is no attack roll.
Page 172 states "If you hit, subtract the opponent’s Soak Total from your Damage Total. The opponent
suffers wounds depending on the amount by which your Damage Total exceeds his Soak Total, and the opponent’s Size".
I read that and think after the spell is successfully cast, there is 1 die roll, the damage roll, which achieves a damage total, which is then reduced by the soak total. The end.
Some people believe there should be a defensive die as in conflict there are nearly always 2 opposed die, however, in this situation there is not. Is a defensive die intended?
An errata such as the following would be helpful clarification.
Spell damage (p. 116): Add the following sentence to the end. "The damage total is applied to the opponents soak total with { no other die being rolled / a stress die added to the soak total.}"
Page 178 under wounds states "The character suffers a penalty to all actions (rolls and totals) equal to the sum of all penalties due to his wounds,"
As it says (rolls and totals) soak is written as soak total, so one interpretation is the wound penalty applies (same with damage total) . Another interpretation is soak is not an action thus is not affected. I consider the intent is soak and damage totals are not affected by wounds.
This does lead to the weird situation that a heavily wounded person is more likely to get gravely wounded or killed by a punch than a pilum of fire, however, that's not terrible (and was discussed to death in another thread).
Because of this weird situation, some people do think wound penalty should apply to soak checks again spells. Clarity would be helpful.
An example errata with the 2 possible interpretations.
"Wounds (p. 178) Add the following sentence. "Wound penalties do not reduce damage totals or soak totals {except when resisting damage from spells}.
A really clear indication of what is intended would be great. People could then house rule to their hearts content. Doing the soak die or not; applying wound penalties or not, capping wound penalties at -10, etc.
A parting comment. The thread below covered the wound penalty stuff extensively, so I doubt we need to go over that again. If there is no desire to put a canonical errata, regarding defence rolls, and wounds, all good.