Arms & Equipment erratas and clarifications

[almightygm]

Page 97, Divine Magic Spell Matrix
The "divided by three" in the first paragraph under this section shouldn't be there if the example in the next sentence is correct.

 

[Bartleby]

Heater shield missing from weapons table.
Target shield seems to have Size and Length the wrong way round (unless the spike really is meant to be that long...)
Quite a few page cross references seem to be off.

 

[gran_orco]

Will be there an A&E errata?

 

[gran_orco]

Its clear by now that there are issues with A&E.

I have it on my list of tasks to comb the book, find what went wrong, and then look into remedies.

This list is very helpful and I know there's a building list of questions, but bear with us while we investigate fully and comprehensively.

Loz, are you working with an official errata for this book, like the core rulebook?

 

[Raegenhere (Huscarl)]

Page 17-18 - 'Adventuring Gear and Basic Items' - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

The table on page 17 to page 18 has a number of entries that are not described in the descriptive section of page 3 to page 16, and vice-versa, they are:

• In description, but not in table: 'Flash Powder'
  In description, but not in table: 'Offering Bowl'
  In description, but not in table: 'Scattering Sticks'
  In table, but not in description: 'Musical Instrument'
  In table, but not in description: 'Reversable Clothes' (and in fact, in the table, there is no data for this item)

Just to note, 'Hourglass' is in the wrong position in the table, as per the description, it should come between the entries for 'Horse Nails' and 'Howler'.

Page 4 - 'Altar Shroud' (LHS column bottom of page) - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

Is the Altar Shroud inherently magical? For example, could a person wear it to prevent being magically detected (thinking along the lines of Cleopatra and the carpet)

Page 6 - 'Chain' (RHS column top of page) - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

Should this be -30% to a 'Brawn' test rather than an 'Athletics' test to break the chain?

Page 7 - 'Crowbar' (LHS column top of page) - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

Should this be +10% to 'Brawn' tests to open rather than +10% brute force 'Athletics' test?

Page 7 - 'Doorjamb' (LHS column middle of page) - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

Should this not be a -10% penalty to 'Brawn' to force open rather than -10% to 'Athletics'?

Page 9 - 'Grappling Hook' (LHS column bottom of page) - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

Should the test be a 'Brawn' test rather than a brute force 'Athletics' test to dislodge while in use?

Page 9 - 'Grappling Hook, Assassin's' (LHS column bottom of page) - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

Should the test be a 'Brawn' test rather than a brute force 'Athletics' test to dislodge while in use?

Page 11 - 'Listening Cones' (RHS column top of page) - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

'... he may otherwise to be privy to ...', should read '... he may otherwise not be privy to ...'

Page 11 - 'Listening Cones' (RHS column top of page) - Section Adventuring Gear and Basic Items

'... stick provides this bonus applies only if ...', should read '... stick provides this bonus only if ...'

 

[Loz]

Loz, are you working with an official errata for this book, like the core rulebook?

I don't know yet.

This is no joke, BTW, I'm working round the clock on a whole host of Mongoose projects. I slot in a bit of sleep here and there, and try to answer as many forum posts as I can, but, you know, there's only so many hours in the day.

Do bear with me.

 

[MongooseMatt]

This is no joke, BTW, I'm working round the clock on a whole host of Mongoose projects. I slot in a bit of sleep here and there, and try to answer as many forum posts as I can, but, you know, there's only so many hours in the day.

He's not kidding - there is truly a mountain of work going round at the moment, so send your well wishes to Loz (and Pete!) as they lovingly craft your next favourite gaming books!

Wouldn't be so bad, but Loz is currently working on some of his most loved gaming material, which of course leads him to say 'wouldn't it be a whiz-o-whiz idea if we also did X, Y and Z?' Go forth and create, we tell him

You'll be seeing the fruits of their labours very soon. . .

 

[Stainless]

This is no joke, BTW, I'm working round the clock on a whole host of Mongoose projects. I slot in a bit of sleep here and there, and try to answer as many forum posts as I can, but, you know, there's only so many hours in the day.

He's not kidding - there is truly a mountain of work going round at the moment, so send your well wishes to Loz (and Pete!) as they lovingly craft your next favourite gaming books!

Wouldn't be so bad, but Loz is currently working on some of his most loved gaming material, which of course leads him to say 'wouldn't it be a whiz-o-whiz idea if we also did X, Y and Z?' Go forth and create, we tell him

You'll be seeing the fruits of their labours very soon. . .

Matt, forgive me for noting something troubling here.

i) This is one, of many, threads about errata in one of your publications.
ii) Some of the errors are quite major.
iii) One of the writers is letting us know that he is working around the clock on the next project.
iv) You, as the owner of the company, chip in that they are indeed working their socks off.
v) Do you not suspect that point iii) above may be contributing to effects such as i) above? It seams logical to me.

I know I've made comment on this type of thing before, and beleive me I'm not arguing on being soft to the writers (sorry guys 8) ). I just wonder if the QA on Mongoose products might improve if a bit more realistic schedules are set. The forums are full of feedback to writers/publishers/software developers/etc. that the customer would much prefer to see delays in production rather than poor quality products.

Just my 2p worth.

 

[almightygm]

Cheap. Fast. Good. Pick any two.

 

[Rurik]

Cheap. Fast. Good. Pick any two.

Two?

 

[sdavies2720]

Cheap. Fast. Good. Pick any two.

Good first.

After "Good", I guess I'd pick "Fast" over "Cheap", but it's a distant second after "Good".

"Good" to me means
1. Solid systems (MRQ2 nailed this, AE2 was solid but marred by obvious errors).
2. A couple of innovations (MRQ2's Combat Maneuvres was a perfect example, AE2 provided it in spot rules).
2. Few obvious errata.
3. Errata corrected quickly (comprehensive errata sheet for the print version, new PDF with errata incorporated for the e-version, errata incorporated in second printing of main book).

Steve

 

[Leofwyn]

Cheap. Fast. Good. Pick any two.

Two?

It is a theory/philosophy from the business world. (at least that is where I heard it first)

Imagine a triangle with each side being Cheap, Fast, and Good. It is impossible to have all three things - doing two invariably costs the third. Ideally you seek a ballance point in middle of triangle but that is in an ideal world - usually you can only get two out of three. Thus you can have:

Cheap and Fast - but it won't be good
Good and Fast - but it won't be cheap
or
Good and Cheap - but it won't be fast.

 

[Stainless]

Just give me good, I don't care so much about the other two.

 

[ryhopewood]

He's not kidding - there is truly a mountain of work going round at the moment, so send your well wishes to Loz (and Pete!) as they lovingly craft your next favourite gaming books!

Wouldn't be so bad, but Loz is currently working on some of his most loved gaming material, which of course leads him to say 'wouldn't it be a whiz-o-whiz idea if we also did X, Y and Z?' Go forth and create, we tell him

You'll be seeing the fruits of their labours very soon. . .

Hi Matt,

Sorry to be so negative here, I have been a long-term purchaser of many Mongoose products, but I don't think you are catching the prevailing mood in the more recent posts. You sound a little like a disreputable salesman with your talk about great future products when two of the last three (specifically the GM screen and AE2) have been poorly viewed by your fans and customers. I strongly urge you to sort this out quickly as if the next few books are not indeed "great" then your sales for this important line of books may drop through the floor.

 

[andyl]

Just give me good, I don't care so much about the other two.

So you would prefer one book a year and published at twice, or three times, the current price?

Even if so - then the market isn't just you. Price goes too high, people buy a different game. Not enough support books, people look elsewhere and equally importantly the business model is a bust.

That isn't to say that things are perfect. For me Arms & Equipment could have been delayed. I don't see it as a particularly important book although I am sure others may disagree.

 

[Deleriad]

I will say that I was disappointed enough in A&E to warn my group not to buy copies until we hear more from Mongoose. I know that rather sadly my FLGS has cut back down on RQ. He's pretty old school, opened the GM screen and was surprised by the poor selection of tables. He got burned on A&E and is now only stocking pre-orders of RQ products.

I'm frankly astonished at the workload for Loz and Pete. I know they worked like trojans to get RQII out without the production and editing problems that had plagued the RQ line until then. I had actually stopped buying MRQ1 because of it.

For the record, I was a playtester on Monster Coliseum and can say that the final version I saw looked pretty sound. There were minor issues which my group flagged and clearly everyone has their own opinions about which creatures to include. If there turn out to be A&E levels of problems with Monster Coliseum and the text is close to the final one I saw, then us playtesters will also have to take their share of the blame. I haven't seen the published version yet.

 

[MongooseMatt]

We are still looking into the extent of the issues with A&E, and will have an answer for everyone very soon.

However, I can say right now that the person chiefly responsible for the issues in the book has been fired.

 

[Stainless]

Just give me good, I don't care so much about the other two.

So you would prefer one book a year and published at twice, or three times, the current price?

Even if so - then the market isn't just you. Price goes too high, people buy a different game. Not enough support books, people look elsewhere and equally importantly the business model is a bust.

That isn't to say that things are perfect. For me Arms & Equipment could have been delayed. I don't see it as a particularly important book although I am sure others may disagree.

I think your example is a disingenuous extreme. I accept that Mongoose is a business and that, in order to survive, let alone make a comfortable profit, they need a volume of products out the door. I don't claim to know the economic ins and outs of a business like this. What I'm proposing is that their current volume:QA ratio needs to be tweaked and one of the most obvious ways it could be improved, I suspect, is to decrease the volume somewhat. By how much to maintain business viability and find the sweet-spot, I don't know. Clearly one book a year is unrealistic. But Mongoose's volume is pretty high. Decreasing it by say 20% may be all that's needed to bring the QA up to 'standard' and maintain profitability. Considering the long standing, consistent and voluminous complaints about Mongoose quality (it's fair to say they have a poor reputation for it that periodically becomes inflamed), sorting out QA issues should pay its own dividends.

Then again, the business may be so carefully balanced that the volume has to be maintained at this level. If so, sack the editor(s) and proof readers and get (significantly) better ones. It's demonstrable that the tasks are currently not being carried out adequately. Mongoose is very attuned to their customers as evidenced by their policy of replacing faulty books free of charge. Thus, it strikes me as odd that they are still not attuned to this issue as most responses to it have been denial of the problem in general.

 

[MongooseMatt]

If so, sack the editor(s) and proof readers and get (significantly) better ones. It's demonstrable that the tasks are currently not being carried out adequately. Mongoose is very attuned to their customers as evidenced by their policy of replacing faulty books free of charge. Thus, it strikes me as odd that they are still not attuned to this issue as most responses to it have been denial of the problem in general.

I would agree with much of this and, after A&E has been reviewed properly, we may end up doing this again. Believe me, we don't enjoy questions being raised over a book, as it means we have to backtrack when a project should be done and dusted.

As I said before, the person chiefly responsible for the issues with A&E lost their job over that and some other problems. For a while now there has been set (and fairly standard, editorially speaking) procedures in place for all our books to eliminate problems - this person chose to ignore them. I won't mention names (and will edit/delete any posts that do - the person has lost their job, and that's that), but there are now no editors working for Mongoose who have not been professionally trained to be editors. Look at the other books being released right now - you will find them fairly bulletproof.

 

[Stainless]

...there are now no editors working for Mongoose who have not been professionally trained to be editors.

Cool. Does that mean they are all members of SfEP?

http://www.sfep.org.uk/