Where did the errata go??
The unofficial errata is no longer needed. There is now an official errata on the Avalon Hill web site, and the Harris Game Design Web site.
The unofficial errata is no longer needed.
Actually I don’t think that is the case.
Kreighund himself did point out that the extant official errata did not include all errata and some fixes would appear in updates.
I can’t think of a better place to list the pending errata updates than the unofficial errata list Kreighund was generating so the gaming community could access them in the interim.
#500
A potential additions/changes thread rather than a full copy, would be the way to go.
I don’t think an unofficial errata, that contains unapproved additions, which people could use instead of the official FAQ is a good idea.
@Yoper:
What I think he is saying is that this is a good place to have a continuing thread that is where new questions are asked and answered while they are being review for inclusion into the official FAQ.
We know that it takes awhile for the latest batch of Q’s and A’s to be included into anything official since it has to be sent to WotC and approved by them. But meanwhile we could have the running updates here for all to access in the interim.
that’s what I was thinking.
Krieghund did say that some of the decisions / interpretations he was dispensing did not come out in time for inclusion.
And, personally, I wouldn’t look for a second opinion on how the FAQ / errata world of WOTC works after hearing from KH.
#504
Thanks!
@Yoper:
I don’t think an unofficial errata, that contains unapproved additions, which people could use instead of the official FAQ is a good idea.
As I said, it would be new questions, beyond what is in the official FAQ.
It would be questions that have come up since the official FAQ has been published and it would be the ones that would eventually be reviewed for inclusion.
In the parlance of the gaming community, this kind of evolving work is called “Living Rules”. Something that WotC/AH/Hasbro hasn’t/doesn’t/doesn’t care to get.
I think we’re agreeing, but just don’t know it. Well I guess I do now, because that’s what I suggested above.
I would suggest two types of threads - One that covers the more common questions that really don’t need to be in the official FAQ, because they can be answered by rereading the rules or FAQ.
and one for the things that maybe should go in the official FAQ.
Krieghund did say that some of the decisions / interpretations he was dispensing did not come out in time for inclusion.
The only issue that didn’t make it in on time was the clarification of how warships escort transports past an enemy sub.
and what was that specifically?
Q. Submarines can attack transports that move through their sea zone “unaccompanied by surface warships”. Under exactly what conditions do surface warships prevent sub attacks on moving transports?
A. In order to prevent sub attacks, a transport or group of transports must make its entire move accompanied by a specific surface warship or group of surface warships. Each transport or group of transports that is not escorted will be fired upon once by each sub in the sea zone.
The only issue that didn’t make it in on time was the clarification of how warships escort transports past an enemy sub.
okay, I stand corrected re the pluralization. However I wouldn’t wager that further issues won’t arise.
#510
Where did the errata go??
Don’t worry, If you want errata, I am sure the Europe game will bring a lot more of it. :-D
