Yeah, most of those are from the quotes, for which we’ve copied the book as they are on the page.
So those you’ll have to get onto the novelists about 
1 Like
Some publishers make the almost final PDF available, and a form, to people who have preordered or crowdfunded it in order to get rid of some of those pesky typos that still make it through revision.
I hope Modiphius consider it for its next products. 
Page 265
There seems to be an extraneous “at” in the following sentence:
“A Mentat character who is a wealthy woman working at for a House would not be the same as a smuggler character who is a woman distributing illegal goods at the marketplace.”
Page 287
The Talent “Putting Theory into Practice” for the Noble (Veteran) archetype doesn’t follow the same format as the other pages.
Page 291
A line change is missing in the following paragraph:
“Assets: Hidden Base, Maula Pistol, OrnithopterOrnithopters hum between bases deep in the deserts of Arrakis (…) can pay.”
Page 298
The following paragraph, pertaining to the Military House example section, is missing its indentation:
“Is this a common pattern of this House (…) in exchange for a favor.”
Page 325
There’s a space missing between two words the following paragraph:
“Non-player Character Threat Spends: When a player character’s action would normally add points to Threat, a non-player characterperforming that same action, or making the same choice, must spend an equivalent number of points of Threat.”
The Table of Contents lists a “Kara Moloy” instead of a “Kara Molay”
The name “Vorian Atreides” is never written in bold as the other names.
Is the rules appendix (pg. 326) in error when it says all moves are a skill test with difficulty 2? Or is that the rule. I thought just bold and subtle moves required skill test
I think that must be an error.
On page 166 it talks about the Difficulty 2 being to gain an additional benefit. Simply moving an asset is just your action.
Yeah it’s kind of ambiguous in the rules on p.166 the way it is written as well (at least to me). There are some examples where it mentions npc’s “failing to move” but then there are some situations, such as aiming a ranged weapon into another zone counting as a move, where it would be hard to explain to a player why they failed to do that (not the attack, but just orienting the weapon), the same would go for some of the duel movements, where it might be hard to explain why you failed to move an asset to guard your core zone in situations where the opponent could not be responsible for interfering.
Oh man, if that is wrong, i hope it doesn’t make it to the GM screen, where I imagine that appendix would go–it’s like 50% of the mechanical portion of the game.
*Edit: I guess another interpretation is that you roll regardless, and only get the bonus movement types and advantages on a success, so you may always move in the basic sense.
Ah, in a conflict the only way to move is subtle or boldly, so thats not an error.
Making a skill test using Move would be a different thing though.
For the most part, if you want to use an asset and make an attack you need to be in the same zone,
so failing to move into the correct one means you can’t attack.
But in a skirmish or the like a ranged weapon lets you fire into the next zone, so you have extra options there.
We also experimented with the idea of moving your aim, so you can place your ranged weapon asset in a different zone to you representing where you are moving the centre of the aim.
(thats where it starts getting complicated)
Bear in mind in all of these, conflict is not static. We assume all the combatants and assets are moving and shifting to bluff, counter, feint and seek openings. So failing to move an asset doesn’t mean you were paralysed, it just means you couldn’t find an opening to get a blade deeper into your opponents defences. The same applies in reverse, as you might over lunge and be unable to recover and bring a weapon back to defend yourself with properly.
Hey thanks for the explanation, makes more sense now. I’m still trying to process all the possibilities, coming from more simulationist games.
1 Like
For focuses you get 4 in total.
Its not defined by the level of the skill.
You just get one for primary, one for secondary and two free picks
(check p119 and p109 for more detail)
Not sure what you’re asking about Talents though, but that paragraph is correct.
ah, thank you. So I did have wrongly understand this sentence: A character has one or more focuses for each skill rated at 6 or higher. Mea Culpa
Character Sheet: maybe the ‘Personality Traits’ box should just read Traits, or Personal Traits? Not all Traits are related to the character’s personality.
As Shankr mentioned above, p. 103, Focuses says ‘A character has one or more focuses for each skill rated at 6 or higher’ which does not seem to be how it works, if you can buy 2 ‘free’ focuses at character creation for any skills. Should be deleted.
However:
p. 139, Using advancement points - Focuses. ‘You may purchase an additional focus
for any skill which is rated 6 or higher.’ So, you can only have focuses for skills rated 6+? Character creation implied you can buy them for any skills.
p. 113, Archetype - Focuses. ‘The character receives two focuses for their primary skill.’ This does not seem to be how it works. Should be deleted/rephrased. Maybe it just wanted to mention, ‘the archetype suggests two possible focuses for their primary skill’. But this is not always the case, either. Some archetypes provides two focus suggestions for their primary skills. Some provide suggestions for primary and secondary skills as well.
p. 119, Focuses. ‘Your chosen archetype will provide two focuses, one of which will be associated with the archetype’s primary skill, and the other of which will be associated with the archetype’s secondary skill.’ This is not always the case. Many archetypes suggest focuses belonging only to their primary skills.
p. 133, Focuses. ‘Your chosen archetype will provide two focuses, one of which will be associated with the archetype’s primary skill, and the other of which will be associated with the archetype’s secondary skill.’ This is not always the case. Many archetypes suggest focuses belonging only to their primary skills.
p.117, Scout archetype. The Focuses and Talents headings are swapped.
Yup the focuses have already been noted
(if its the same thing 3 times its fine just to point to other page numbers)
We’re amending that one so you can choose the two focuses listed for your archetype regardless of what skill they connect to, or pick one from your primary and one from your secondary outside those listed.
For the most part you’ll notice archetypes are essentially collations of all the possible combinations we’ve added sense and background to. So it is very much designed for you to shift as you prefer. The summary on p109 is the thing to come back to if you meet any discrepancy.
2 Likes
p. 152, Momentum, Create an Asset. ‘You may spend 2 Momentum to make an Asset created during a
scene permanent (at Quality 0) in which case it is added to the list of assets on your character sheet.’
but:
p. 139, Using advancement points, Asset. ‘You may select an asset (other than one which only existed for a single scene) to make permanent. This costs 3 advancement points.’
So: is it just 2 Momentum, PLUS then 3 advancement points, too? Or these are options, and either can be used?
See also, p. 192, Assets - Character Advancement. ‘You may choose to keep any assets you created
during the previous adventure, up to your character’s maximum limit.’ Does not mention spending advancement points.
Finally, regarding the advancement point cost of asset improving asset quality:
p. 192 - Character Advancement: ‘You may select one of your assets and increase its Quality by 1 by spending a number of advancement points equal to the new Quality of the asset’
but:
p. 139, Using advancement points: ‘you may work to improve one of your existing assets, adding +1 to its Quality, by spending advancement points equal to three times the asset’s existing Quality’
So, is it ‘equal to new quality’ points or ‘3 times existing quality’ points?
For asset permanence, yes either momentum or advancement points are viable options for th esame job.
Improving quality there is a mistake there. We’ll amend that to split the difference. Spend advancement points equal to twice the new quality of the asset (and only 1 level at a time) .
1 Like
[quote=“Andy-Modiphius, post:29, topic:14584, full:true”]
Ah, in a conflict the only way to move is subtle or boldly, so thats not an error.[/quote]
I think the wording of the rules are not really clear on this.
P. 166, Move
*'You move one of your assets (…) from its current location to any adjacent zone. (…) *
When you move, you may choose to try and gain an additional benefit, but there is a risk to this. You may attempt to move in a subtle way, trying to avoid attention, or you may move in a bold manner that provokes a response. In either case, this requires a skill test, with a Difficulty of 2.’
If intention is that you can only move bold or subtle, this should be re-phrased. For example:
'You attempt to move one of your assets (…) from its current location to any adjacent zone. (…).
When you move, you try and gain a benefit, but threre is a risk to this. You must either attempt to move in a subtle way (…) or you must in a bold manner (…).’
By the way: I have not mentioned that, I love the game. I’m digging in deep now, and I greatly enjoy the setup, love the way how the pitfalls of using such a complex literary setting for RPG was solved. I also really like this iteration of 2D20. Finally now zones seem to be a much more integral part of the system than before. OK, I’ll need some experience to get used to the more complex conflict rules, but I like the basic concepts of it really. Thank you for this!
Cool. Sadly we can’t do big rewrites but to be honest I think its still ok.
You can attempt to get a bonus because you might fail the roll and not get that bonus.
You are also choosing between two options, not choosing whether to take either of those options.
But I also appreciate it is a lot to get used to as its a very different system.
Essentially your first instincts were absolutely correct.
I should add you can cull down the system as you prefer.
Its fine to place the whole conflict in one zone and avoid all the moving about.
We wanted to make sure it could be as simple or complex as you want it to be to suit your play style.
OK, understood. Pretty neat.
Not necessary an errata, more like a balance thing:
p. 130. Rapid Recovery talent vs Resilience frenen talent
Resilience is limited to fremen only. It allows you to resist defeat twice, but only regarding a single skill.
Rapid Recovery is available to all. It allows you to resist defeat twice, with no skill limitation. It also allows you to remove an injury Comlication for 2 threats (as anyonce can swap a Complication for 2 threats when receiving it, I guess this can come into play if you take the complication first, but later on change your mind and want to go for the 2 threats instead).
So, Rapid Recovery seems like a better choice overall, no exceptions? (Except maybe for a fremen who wants to stack rapid recovery and resilience for 3 chances of resisting defeat).
Yup, you are quite right.
The Fremen version is a more efficient option, but they can also stack.