Errors in the new rules PDF

[UniversalHead]

C'mon guys, better proofreading please, this is v2!

p10, Inspire Abilities: 'Inspire abilities are powerful ffects'

p10, Inspire Abilities (twice): 'who’s SOI they are activating off of,' Poor English - use of, on or from (I suggest from)

p14, Magic Attacks: 'Willpower attacks follow all the rules for Ranged attacks. In addition, Magic attacks can also generate Backlash.' So has anything changed from 1st ed when magic attacks were like ranged attacks, or is this just a massive typo?

p17, Declare Motivation: 'both players will simultaniously declare'

p18, Sample Terrain Elements: 'impassible'

I didn't look too closely and I suspect there are more as I stopped at p18. Also, lots of basic typographical and layout errors haven't been fixed (eg, that's not how to use dot points).

Sorry to be critical but when I'm buying another book it would be nice to all see errors fixed and more care taken with the layout.

 

[EvilGardenGnome]

p10, Inspire Abilities (twice): 'who’s SOI they are activating off of,' Poor English - use of, on or from (I suggest from)

While I agree, this has become an accepted form, especially in American English.

C'mon guys, better proofreading please, this is v2!
I didn't look too closely and I suspect there are more as I stopped at p18. Also, lots of basic typographical and layout errors haven't been fixed (eg, that's not how to use dot points).

Sorry to be critical but when I'm buying another book it would be nice to all see errors fixed and more care taken with the layout.

<teasing> As an aside, should one find oneself commenting on the grammar and spelling of a text, one should be aware of their own comma splices, use of eg., and run-on sentences. </teasing>

That said, anything that impacts on understanding and clarity should be fixed (like your reference to Magic Attacks). A few, non-impacting, typos can slip through without troubling me too much.

 

[UniversalHead]

I shouldn't worry about it at all, because this is a casual online forum, not a published book of rules that I'm expecting people to pay for. <teasing>In Australian English, a comment like yours would get you called a wanker.</teasing>

If a casual read of some of the book reveals 3 typos, one poorly written expression, and one completely wrong rule, I'd say there's a little more cause for concern. Not to mention the amateurish layout.

CMON do great work and I love their games. But the bar needs to be lifted here, especially when it's the second version of these rules.

 

[Chinkster]

p10, Inspire Abilities (twice): 'who’s SOI they are activating off of,' Poor English - use of, on or from (I suggest from)

Would that be "who's" or "whose"?

 

[UniversalHead]

Yep, of course – whose. So it’s an abomination of a sentence in every way, basically!