I think I've found quite a few errata.
Most of them are just nitpicking on my part (but useful for the print version), but some could be quite substantial, if confirmed.
Errata up to page 28:

Page iii, column 1, Line 3, "at" should be lower case: "Player-knights at Court".
Page iii, column 1, Line 4, "in" should be lower case: "Art in This Book".
Page iii, column 1, Line 13, "the" should be lower case: "Perqs of the Court".
Page iii, column 1, Line 15: "Crown" should be upper case: "Pleas of the Crown".
Page iii, column 2, Lines 7-8, "Financial Opportunities" should be on one line, not two.
Page iii, column 2, Line 15: The correct Latin plural would be "The Eight Civitates"; if it’s considered invariable, you should probably use quotation marks: "The Eight «Civitas»".
Page iii, column 2, Line 16: "Rights" should be upper case: "Seigniorial Rights".

Page iv, column 2, Line 9: Change period to colon: "H: Glossary" (also in the main text).
Page iv, column 2, Line 16: Should "with" be lower case?
Page iv, column 2, Line 12: Change period to colon: "K: King" (also in the main text).
Page iv, column 2, Line 13: Change period to colon: "L: Key to" (also in the main text).
Page iv, column 2, Line 14: Change period to colon: "M: Regions" (also in the main text).

Page v, title "Alphabetical list of tables": Why are tables listed in alphabetical order, when most of them are numbered/lettered and thus are listed in page order? Just one Table begins with its name and not with a list number/letter (why?).
Page v, column 1, Line 11: Add a colon after the table number: "Table 1.2: Distribution" (also in the main text).
Page v, column 1, Line 12: Add a colon after the table number: "Table 1.3: Royal" (also in the main text).
Page v, column 2, Line 14: Tables A-H (they are at pages 60-62) are missing.
Page v, column 2, Lines 14-15: "Table J" should be listed AFTER "Table I".
Page v, column 2, Lines 14-15: For consistency’s sake, Tables J and I should have a colon like the other tables, not a period: "Table I: Whispering", "Table J: Random".
Page v, "Alphabetical list of tables": The following Tables are missing from the list: "British Church Sites", page 79; "Roman Church Sites", page 85; "Pagan Sites", page 89; "Faerie Gateways", page 91.

Page 6, column 1, Lines 5-12: This whole paragraph ("Dukedom") is repeated almost verbatim at page 26, column 2, lines 4-12 ("Ducal Armies", first paragraph). One of the two instances should be eliminated.
Page 6, column 1, Line 8: Does "dux militias" mean "leader of the troops"? In this case, shouldn’t it be "dux militiarum" (plural, troops) or "dux militiae" (singular, army)?

Pages 6-7, Table 1.1 is not cited anywhere in the main text.

Page 9, Table 1.2, Row 9: Why is the "total assized rent" for bishops & abbots rounded to 5000 (instead of exactly 5022) when all others are not rounded?
Page 9, Table 1.2, Column 6: The percentages should be 22, 62 (not 61), 16.

Page 9, column 1, Line 10: Here it says "A total of £5,600 of Logres is rented out to nobles in return for a flat annual fee, called a ferm"; this sum is repeated twice, however Table 1.2 reports a total of £3,676 for all ferms.
Page 9, column 2, Line 8: Here it says "About 75 percent of Logres has been granted to the king’s many barons."; this total is repeated twice, however Table 1.2 (incorrectly) reports a total of 61% (it should be 62%, see above) for all Barons. Are also Bishops & Abbots included? In this case the total should be 78%.

Page 13, column 1, Line 6: Change "declare" to "declared".
Page 13, Table 1.3 is not cited anywhere in the main text.

Pages 14-15: While not an "error" per se, the format of the forests’ names is not consistent between Table 1.3 and the "Royal forests and hunting lodges" Map: sometimes the term "Forest" is present in the Table and not in the map, or vice versa.
- Table: "Bernwood"; Map: "Bernwood Forest";
- Table: "Boarbush Wood"; Map: "Boarbush Woods";
- Table: "Circle of Trees Forest"; Map: "Circle of Trees";
- Table: "Coleswood Forest"; Map: "Coleswood".

Page 15, "Royal forests and hunting lodges" Map: The Bernwood Forest Lodge, called "Hill", is mistakenly called "Rydychan" in the Map (or, Forests 2. and 21. are exchanged in the Map and Hill Lodge is missing).
Page 15, "Royal forests and hunting lodges" Map: The Rydychan Woodlands Lodge is not indicated on the Map (it is misplaced in Forest 2., or, again, Forests 2. and 21. are exchanged in the Map and Hill Lodge is missing)
Page 15, "Royal forests and hunting lodges" Map: all Lodges are indicated only by their proper names, without "Lodge"; just "Boar’s Lodge" includes the term "Lodge".

Page 16: Two of the three list titles are plural: "Officer’s Castles", "County Castles"; the first is singular: "Royal Demesne". Shouldn’t it be "Demesnes"?

Pages 16-17: In the Map, "Corinium Castle Castle" should be "Corinium Castle".
Pages 16-17: Corundum Castle is shown in the Map as a King’s Castle, but is not included in the list at page 16.
Pages 16-17: "Castle of the Peached Hedge" in the Map, "Castle of the Pleached Hedge" in the list.
Pages 16-17: "Castle by the Great Bridge (after 482)" is shown in the Map but is not included in the list at page 16.
Pages 16-17: "Castle on the Red Mount" in the Map, "Red Mount Castle" in the list.
Pages 16-17: "Tintagel Castle" in the Map, "Tintagel" in the list.
Pages 16-17: The map legend uses different terms from those of the list at page 16: "King’s Castle" in the Map, "Royal Demesne" in the list; "Royal Officer’s" (also missing the word "Castle") in the Map, "Officer’s Castles" in the list.

Page 21, column 1, lines 9-16: This whole paragraph is repeated almost verbatim at page 31, column 1, lines 2-9 ("Chancery"). One of the two instances should be eliminated.
Page 21, column 2, Line 8: Change "p. 123." to "p. 124."

Page 22, Uther’s (and all subsequent) character sheet: All characteristic scores (for traits, passions, skills) are too off-center, they make the sheet seem too crowded in some places and too empty in others. This is especially severe for skills, where the scores are almost superimposed to the tick boxes. Each numerical score should be approximately vertically centered in the respective "column", at similar distances from both the left and the right.

Page 24, right sidebar, Line 12: Change "Loose official" to "Loose officials".
Page 24, right sidebar, Line 17: Change "Seize persion" to "Seize person".
Page 24, column 2, Lines 23-24: Change "cumula-tivly" to "cumula-tively"

Page 25, column 2, Line 16: change "equivalent to the barons." to "equivalent to that of the barons."

Page 26, column 1, Line 4: Change "conroi" to "conrois".
Page 26, column 2, Lines 4-12: This whole paragraph ("Ducal Armies", first paragraph) is a repetition of the one at page 6, column 1, lines 5-12 ("Dukedom"). One of the two instances should be eliminated.
Page 26, column 2, Line 7: Does "dux militias" mean "leader of the troops"? In this case, shouldn’t it be "dux militiarum" (plural, troops) or "dux militiae" (singular, army)?
Page 26, column 2, Line 19: Add a period at the end of the line: "Linden Pool."
Page 26, column 2, Lines 24-29: These lines include the following castle names: "Castle of the Buck", "Castle at the Loud Stream", "Stoneskeep", "Castle Terrabil", "Camulos’ Castle", "Leir’s Castle". None of these castles is listed at page 16 (or in the map at page 17), even though that is supposed to be a complete list: "He keeps a firm hand on their construction, even preventing many which logic would presume to be necessary. Thus this list can be considered to be complete." (page 16). Some explanation is in order.

Page 27, column 1, line 4: shouldn’t the description in "plain English" include the explanation of "segreant" (i.e., "rampant with wings addorsed and elevated"; or, even clearer, "rampant with wings raised on the same side (addorsed), tips upwards (elevated)"). Or maybe all heraldic terms should be included in "Appendix H: Glossary" at pages 140-141?
Page 27, column 2, line 2: Change "heraldric" to "heraldic".

Page 28, single column, line 3: It seems that there are two spaces between "change or" and "augment the".
Page 28, single column, lines 4-5: "Here" should be upper case; delete "are", "some of"; "minimal" should be lower case: "courtiers. Here the minimal stats are given,".
Page 28, single column, line 6: Delete the comma after "(p. 144)": "(p. 144) features".
Page 28, left sidebar, line 6: Change "changed" to "charged": "all counter-charged".
Page 28, column 1, line 3: Delete "(480)".
Page 28, column 1, line 5: Add "in 480" after "Age: 21": "Age 21 in 480 (b. 459)".
Page 28, column 1, line 15: Here Madoc is explicitly described as "generous", but "Generous" is not included in his notable Traits. Seems strange.

Page 28, column 2, line 5: Add "in 480" after "Age: 20": "Age 20 in 480 (b. 460)".
Page 28, column 2, line 2: Change "Amorica" to "Armorica".

Wow! You've been busy. We'll address these asap, but that probably won't be for awhile — at least six months, if not more. Thanks for your diligence. Even though we have a team of at least five proofreaders that pour over the text (and maps) and literally report hundreds of issues — clearly we need at least one more!

Some of the issues you report like place-names not being identical on maps and lists are not really errors per se, but constraints of space, etc. Also, many place-name have "formal" and "colloquial" names — one used in official documents and one by the people in conversation. Thus the "The Castle on the Roe Deer Ford" might also be appear as "Roe Deer Castle" and so forth.


Best,


T.

Page 28, column 1, line 15: Here Madoc is explicitly described as "generous", but "Generous" is not included in his notable Traits. Seems strange.


Here I can help. :)

Note that it is 'generous to his followers', not Generous in general. This refers to his Loyalty (Vassals) 17. If you look at his character sheet, you'll see he actually has Generous of 7, so a stranger would get a cold shoulder from him. But a household knight in his service needing help or deserving of a reward? Of course, my good man!

Also, while it is not the case in this particular, not all of a character's notable traits are necessarily mentioned in these short write-ups. This is especially true if the space is limited, as is the case with the Dukes (they certainly have more high skills and traits than what is listed on p. 67, we just tried to give a trait or a passion each to give some kind of a handle on them) or if they are less important, like 'Knights often met'.

Also, my thanks for your diligence, too. If someone doesn't nitpick, then overlooked errors don't get corrected! So nitpick away! :)

Thanks Taliesin and Morien for the kind words.
I agree on the explanations of the "errors" on place-names and non-mentioned traits: I just note everything that seems "different" or "wrong", so that we can be sure that any "anomalies" are really voluntary and not simple misspellings or missing text. Regarding the place-names, however, a note acknowledging that different forms are often used would be useful, especially for novice readers.
If you would like to have all my comments in one place, I can send you a file. Just contact me at mandrill_one at yahoo dot it .

All the best,
Roberto


Here's the second part (up to page 59):

Page 29, column 1, line 21: Here Brastias is explicitly described as "noted for his suspiciousness". Maybe a "Suspicious (Everyone but Uther’s privy council) +15" (or something similar) should be added to his profile?

Page 30, left sidebar, lines 6-8: Shouldn’t this be "(A vertical, silver-armored…"?
Page 30, column 2, line 34: Delete the first "been": "land throughout Logres had been donated".
Page 30, column 2, line 37: Change "his of" to "of his": "He spends all of his time".

Page 31, column 1, Lines 2-9: This whole paragraph ("Chancery") is a repetition of the one at page 21, column 1, lines 9-16 ("Writs", second paragraph). One of the two instances should be eliminated.
Page 31, column 1, Line 19: Add "(British Christian)" after "Priest": "Gaming 16, Priest (British Christian) 17".
Page 31, column 1, Lines 43-45: The period "These are borne on several large three-axled wagons towed by oxen." makes no sense to me, especially if referring to the wardrober, barber and beautiful laundress. The following period, beginning with "He also ensures…", singular, makes me think that this sentence has been misplaced and another one should have been in its place.
Page 31, column 2, textbook "Court offices", line 5: Insert a space between "regis (L." and "«court of the king»).": "regis (L. «court of the king»).".

Page 32, column 2, Sir Sadinal’s heraldry: The symbol depicted on this shield is not a caduceus, but a "Rod of Asclepius". It is connected with doctors and healing, not with heralds, messengers and commerce. A caduceus is a WINGED rod with TWO entwined serpents, whereas the Rod of Asclepius has got no wings and just one serpent.

Page 35, column 2, line 8: Change "Valour" to "Valorous": "Proud 17, Valorous 18, Battle".

Page 36, column 1, lines 16,18: How can sir Gaudifier be "haughty" (line 16) and be notable for his "Modest 17" (line 18)?
Page 36, column 2, line 21: Change "Aurellius’ " to "Aurelius’ ": "Many of Aurelius’ and Uther’s".
Page 36, column 2, line 32: Why is not Geraint’s Glory reported? How can he be a "Renowned Baron" when he is "Household" (line 31)? The term "Renowned" is reported in parentheses for all other characters.
Page 36, column 2, lines 36-38: Is it normal that Geraint is a "Combatant" type without any notable combat skills (lines 37-38)? Is "combatant" a purely metaphorical term?

Page 37, column 2, line 12: It seems that there are two spaces between "Battle of" and "St Albans in 495,".

Page 38, column 1, line 7: Shift "16" before the comma, add "(British Christian)" after "Priest": "Hate (Tax cheats) 16, Priest (British Christian) 17".
Page 38, column 1, lines 24-25: Is it normal that Gracian is a "Combatant" type without any notable combat skills (lines 37-38)? Is "combatant" a purely metaphorical term?
Page 38, column 2, lines 24-25: Traits and Passions are listed before Skills for all characters, so "Indulgent 18" should come before "Courtesy 10".

Page 39, column 1, line 5: Add "in 480" after "32": "Age: 32 in 480 (b. 448)".
Page 39, column 1, line 8: "Type:" should be in bold.
Page 39, column 1, line 16: Change "is" to "has been": "if he has been critically".
Page 39, column 1, line 19: The stabbing does not make sense to me: shouldn’t it be THE BOOR’S dagger (the boor stabs) vs. MONEVAL strength (not armed)? If my hunch is correct, then change to "(boor’s Dagger Skill vs. Moneval’s STR)".
Page 39, column 1, line 29: Add "in 480" after "27": "Age: 27 in 480 (b. 453)".
Page 39, right sidebar, lines 3-4: Add "langued gules" after "dragon heads": "two dragon heads langued gules addorsed".
Page 39, column 2, line 11: Add "in 480" after "44": "Age: 44 in 480 (b. 436)".
Page 39, column 2, line 16: Add "in 480" after "32": "Age: 32 in 480 (b. 448)".
Page 39, column 2, line 22: Add "in 480" after "37": "Age: 37 in 480 (b. 443)".
Page 39, column 2, line 27: Are all reported Skills at 21? In this case, it would be better to repeat the scores: "Spear Expertise 21, Sword 21, Dagger 21".

Page 40, column 1, lines 6,12: Should these abbreviated profiles include "in 480" in their "Age" entries?

Page 43, single column, line 2: change "pergform" to "perform".
Page 43, Table 2.1: Some readers could not be familiar with the economic system laid out in "Book of the Manor" and "Book of the Warlord", so the use of the "Automatic check" and "Opportunity roll" columns can be unclear. Some explanation should be provided.
Page 43, Table 2.1, row 6, column 5: "Just" is not a Skill, but the column title says "Key Skill".
Page 43, Table 2.1, row 18, column 5: "Honest" is not a Skill, but the column title says "Key Skill".
Page 43, Table 2.1, row 18, column 5: "Loyalty" is not a Skill, but the column title says "Key Skill".
Page 43, Table 2.1, row 21, column 5: "Piety" does not exist anywhere in the current character sheet. Should this be "Spiritual" (the Trait that has substituted "Pious")? If it is so, "Spiritual" is not a Skill.

Page 44, column 1, lines 7-9: Some consistency should be applied to Latin nouns: do we keep the Latin plural forms? Then it’s “capita majora” (line 7) and “civitates” (line 9). Do we treat them as invariable? Then it’s “caput major” (line 7) and “civitas” (line 9). Do we make English-like plurals? Then it’s “caputs maior” (line 7) and “civitases” (line 9). Of course, I don’t like the last option…
Page 44, column 1, line 23: According to the calendar on page 45, July 1 is a Tuesday, not a Monday.

Page 45, The King’s Progress Table, row 4, column 7: There are two July 18; the second one (Saturday) should be 19.
Page 45, The King’s Progress Table, row 5, column 2: The summer solstice is on June 21, not on July 21.
Page 45, The King’s Progress Table, row 6, columns 6-7: August 1-2 are marked on “The King’s Progress” Table as “Travel to Leir’s Castle” and “Leir’s Castle”, respectively; however, there is no mention of this castle in the list at page 16.
Page 45, column 2, line 19: Change “on” to “of”: “the Bishop of Londinium”.

Page 49, column 1, lines 33-37: As said above (Page 45, The King’s Progress Table, row 5, column 2), the summer solstice is on June 21, not on July 21. Either change the month of the Progress to June, or change the celebration.
Page 49, column 2, line 25: Add a period at the end of the line: “orders the king.”.

Page 50, column 1, line 14: Change “it’s” to “its”: “with its own light.”.
Page 50, column 2, line 22: The “next day” after July 30 (line 14) is July 31, not August 1: this day should be July 31.
Page 50, column 2, line 22: August 3 is not in “The King’s Progress” Table.

Page 51, column 1, line 9: Delete the comma after "note": "giving a note (essentially".
Page 51, column 2, line 9: Delete "these"; change "141" to "140": "Use the table in Appendix G (pp.136-140) to".

Page 55, "The sheriff is a busy man" box, column 1, line 5: September 29 is called "Micklemas" here, but is called "Michaelmas" at page 58, column 1, next to last line.

Page 58, column 1, line 18: Delete "if": "is called up only when".
Page 58, column 1, next to last line: September 29 is called "Michaelmas" here, but is called "Micklemas" at page 55, "The sheriff is a busy man" box, column 1, line 5.
Page 43, Table 2.4, column 2: Elsewhere, there’s usually no space between the "£" symbol and the numerical amount ("£3", "£2d4+1", see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). In this table, a space is always present ("£ 5", "£ 3d6+5").

Page 59, column 1, lines 10, 13, 23: Two titles are singular ("Opportunity"), one is plural ("Opportunities"). Are they based on the number of opportunities presented after each one? In this case, "Clerical opportunity" should be plural, "Clerical opportunities", because it presents two opportunities. Otherwise, these titles should be uniformly singular or plural.
Page 59, column 1, line 12: Add a period at the end of the line: "a sheriff does.".

I agree on the explanations of the "errors" on place-names and non-mentioned traits: I just note everything that seems "different" or "wrong", so that we can be sure that any "anomalies" are really voluntary and not simple misspellings or missing text.


Quite agreed, keep them coming! :)

I'll try to answer where I can shed more light to things.



Page 36, column 1, lines 16,18: How can sir Gaudifier be "haughty" (line 16) and be notable for his "Modest 17" (line 18)?


Good point, that is a contradiction. I think it could be that he is snobbish, but even then, I would not give him a Notable Modest, which should make him more self-effacing rather than haughty. We caught a couple of these mistakes where description didn't match the traits, but obviously we didn't get all of them.



Page 36, column 2, line 32: Why is not Geraint’s Glory reported? How can he be a "Renowned Baron" when he is "Household" (line 31)? The term "Renowned" is reported in parentheses for all other characters.


I don't have the book before me at the moment, so I am a bit on thin ice here...

I suspect Geraint's Glory is simply missing due to a mistake: he was a late addition to replace the previous Seneschal, who got killed off, which also explains some of the other layout oddities about him. The exact Glory is not that important, the Renowned label gives the approximate Glory already, although it would have been a good idea to have the new Glory scale as an appendix, too, for those who don't have BotW.

As for the Household label, I'd have to see how it is used with he other characters. He is a Baron, but he is also a member of the King's Household. It doesn't mean that he is a household knight (bas chevalier).

(EDIT: Nope, it is a mistake. It should be 'Baron, Officer'. The 'Household' seems to imply a household knight in all other cases. Copy-Paste error from the previous Seneschal, I am sure.)

(EDIT 2: I went through my notes for Appendix K, and the Glory of Geraint is listed there: 6347. For some reason, it wasn't updated to the main text nor to Appendix K.)



Page 36, column 2, lines 36-38: Is it normal that Geraint is a "Combatant" type without any notable combat skills (lines 37-38)? Is "combatant" a purely metaphorical term?


I -think- "Combatant" is being used in those character write-ups to signal which of these guys are knights/combatants and who are not. The lack of Notable Combat Skills can be due to two possible things:
1) He doesn't have any Combat Skills at 16+, or
2) His role is as the Senechal, so we don't really care if he has Spear Expertise of 16 or 18 (we'd probably care if he has Spear expertise 20+, since that is starting to make him one of the best fighters at the court).

(EDIT: Checking from the book, I see the "Combatant" label DOES NOT equal to a knight, but seems to be more of an indication of skill set, since we have Hunters and Cavalrymen there, too. However, it is a bit surprising that some guys without any Notable administrative or courtly skills are labelled 'administrators' while Geraint is labelled 'combatant'... I'd switch his and Eliezier's types.)

For instance, notice how those 'Knights often met' don't really have any combat skills mentioned, but can have a skill of less than 15 mentioned as 'Notable'? This is because that skill is something that the character most likely would use when the PKs interact with him, whereas it would be unlikely that the character would be in a fight with the PKs. If the latter happens, the GM can feel free to choose what he wants, although I would check the Appendix on the characters just in case to see if there are more skills there that were omitted from the short write-up. Such as Ulfius' write-up with the other Great Barons lists fewer Notable values than are listed for him in the Marshal -slot.

Of course, then you can justifiably ask why many of the other write-ups DO have weapon skills mentioned even though it is very unlikely that they will get to use them. One of the guys who actually worked more on this section would be a better one to answer that, but as far as I can recall, the argument at the time was that we might just as well give out as much information as we can on the off-chance that a GM might find a use for those stats (and if a particular GM wanted to come up with his own stats or even his own characters for these officers, more power to him!). I'd assume that space considerations started playing a role at some point, too, e.g. see the previous paragraph. Compromises, compromises.



Page 38, column 1, lines 24-25: Is it normal that Gracian is a "Combatant" type without any notable combat skills (lines 37-38)? Is "combatant" a purely metaphorical term?


Same answer as above, although in Gracian's case, I'd personally give him pretty high weapon skills due to his martial occupation.



Page 39, column 1, line 19: The stabbing does not make sense to me: shouldn’t it be THE BOOR’S dagger (the boor stabs) vs. MONEVAL strength (not armed)? If my hunch is correct, then change to "(boor’s Dagger Skill vs. Moneval’s STR)".


That is correct. Like said, I don't have the book before me, so I can't check how it is now phrased, but if the setup is the boor trying to stab Moneval who is grabbing the boor, leading to a contest of Dagger vs. STR, it should be obvious which is which. :) So I suspect something got lost in the phrasing, perhaps due to those space considerations mentioned. Layout is a cruel mistress, as Taliesin can certainly tell you. :)

(EDIT: Somehow those got switched. Yes, it should be the boor's Dagger (not STR) vs. Moneval's STR (not Dagger).)



Page 39, column 2, line 27: Are all reported Skills at 21? In this case, it would be better to repeat the scores: "Spear Expertise 21, Sword 21, Dagger 21".


Yes.



Page 43, Table 2.1: Some readers could not be familiar with the economic system laid out in "Book of the Manor" and "Book of the Warlord", so the use of the "Automatic check" and "Opportunity roll" columns can be unclear. Some explanation should be provided.


Agreed. Here are the explanations from BotE, p. 31:

Key Skill: This skill, required for the office, always receives a check during the year, in order to attempt
to advance in the Winter Phase.
Automatic Check: Officers also check this Trait every year to attempt advancement.
Opportunity Roll: Officers may attempt this during the year. A successful roll provides a check for
advancement in the Winter Phase.



Page 43, Table 2.1, row 6, column 5: "Just" is not a Skill, but the column title says "Key Skill".
Page 43, Table 2.1, row 18, column 5: "Honest" is not a Skill, but the column title says "Key Skill".
Page 43, Table 2.1, row 18, column 5: "Loyalty" is not a Skill, but the column title says "Key Skill".
Page 43, Table 2.1, row 21, column 5: "Piety" does not exist anywhere in the current character sheet. Should this be "Spiritual" (the Trait that has substituted "Pious")? If it is so, "Spiritual" is not a Skill.


Key Skill, confusingly I admit, can be whichever Stat, Trait, Passion or Skill that is most important to the job at hand. So they are correct. Maybe it would have been better to call it 'Key Talent' or even 'Job Roll'. In Table 3.3 Officers' Skills (BotE, p. 31), it is "Key Skill / Trait", which makes it explicit that it can be either. even though it doesn't mention a Passion (Loyalty, which is in the table). A Laborer would be someone whose 'key skill' is probably good old brute STR. (EDIT: Apparently 'Hard Work' in BotEntourage, p. 31. I don't care, it is STR in my campaign now. :P )

Piety should be Spiritual, yes.

Here's a post from DTRPG:

Jeremy D says:
On p. 98, the Latin word "civitas" is used a couple of times as a plural, though it is in fact singular. The plural is "civitates."

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/161509/Book-of-Uther#anchor_widgets

Here's a post from DTRPG:

Jeremy D says:
On p. 98, the Latin word "civitas" is used a couple of times as a plural, though it is in fact singular. The plural is "civitates."

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/161509/Book-of-Uther#anchor_widgets


That is very good to know, thanks.


T.

This is the errata up to page 83.

Page 60, Table A., Title: Add “Events” after “A.”: “Table A. Events” (it is called so at page 63).
Page 60, Table A., row 4, column 2: add "with" after "the hall": "a fight outside of the hall with…".
Page 60, Table A., rows 9-10, column 2: Are the suspension needed here? The text in Tables D, E is not the direct continuation of these cells.
Page 60, Table A., row 7, column 3: Change "Table" to "Tables": "Tables G and H:".
Page 60, Table B., row 2: Since all entries are the direct continuation of the sentence "someone has disappeared from among…" (Table A.), they should be all plural: here, "Foreign emissaries".
Page 60, Table C., row 10: Add "a servant from" (or something similar) before "a Player-knight’s kitchen": "A servant from a Player-knight’s kitchen".

Page 61, Table E., row 2: Insert "An" before "assassin"; change "assassin" to lower case: "An assassin" (all other entries begin with A/An).
Page 61, Table E., row 5: "spy" should be lower case: "Cambrian spy;".
Page 61, Table E., row 19: Delete a space before "A foreign".
Page 61, Table G., rows 15-16: These two rows are identical. They should include different entries, or be merged in a sigle row.

Page 62, Table H., rows 3, 13: These two rows are practically identical.
Page 62, Table H., row 15: Change "threaten" to "threat": "A threat to harm".

Pages 61-62, Tables G.-H.: These two Tables have the same name ("Woman troubles"). Maybe they could be differentiated this way: "Table G. Woman troubles - Who?" and "Table H. Woman troubles - What?".

Page 62, Table I., rows 2, 10, 14, 15: There is no uniformity in referring to rolls on other Tables: "(roll on Table G)", "(see Table D)", "Roll once on on Table C: Hostility to find out who", "(roll on Table E.)". I suggest to write uniformly: "(roll on Table XX)" in all four instances. Please note that a decision should be made to include or leave out the period after the table name: "G" or "G."
Page 62, single column, lines 2-3: Change "some one" to "someone": "Perhaps it’s someone the Player-knights encounter".
Page 62, single column, line 3: Change "you" to "they": "someone they manage to ingratiate".
Page 62, Table J., row 11, column 2: Here it is "Pader", but it was "Padern" at page 32.

Page 63, right sidebar, line 4: Change "detail" to "detailed", or add "on" after "detail": "provide detailed workings of the courts." or "provide detail on workings of the courts."
Page 63, right sidebar, line 15: Change "Deceive" to "Deceitful".
Page 63, right sidebar, line 35: Change "women" to "woman".
Page 63, right sidebar, last line: Change "judical" to "judicial".
Page 63, single column, line 7: Change “(Table H)” to “(Table I)”: “uncovers a Whispering Campaign (Table I).”
Page 63, column 1, line 10: Delete the closed parenthesis: “being a drunk.”
Page 63, column 1, line 11: Change “Pride” to “Proud”.
Page 63, column 1, line 20: Change “make” to “makes”: “and makes casual”.
Page 63, column 2, line 16: Change “Oratory” to “Orate”.

Page 65, column 1, line 18: “any” should be lower case: “state: any feudal”.
Page 65, column 2, line 21: Change “Warlords” to “of the Warlord”: “Book of the Warlord.”

Page 66, column 2, lines 1,3: “comes” is Latin, should be italic: “comes”.
Page 66, right sidebar, lines 2-3: Delete “is a”: “the cup is a receptacle”.

NOTE: Up to page 65, all heraldic colors/metals have been lower case: “gules”, “azure”, “or”; here at pages 66-67 they are all upper case: “Gules”, “Azure”, “Or”; please uniform them either way.

Page 67, left sidebar, line 8: Add an open parenthesis before “A gold”: “(A gold fasces”.
Page 67, column 1, line 5: Add an apostrophe after “Lucius”: “Sir Lucius’ holdings”.
Page 67, column 1, lines 6-7: Add “those of” after “than”: “other than those of King Uther”.
Page 67, column 2, line 10: Add “he” after “title”: “a title he has gained”.
Page 67, right sidebar, line 26: The plain English description of Edaris’ heraldry is missing.
Page 67, right sidebar, line 34: Add an open parenthesis before “A black”: “A black bear”.
Page 67, right sidebar, line 38: Since this whole paragraph should be within parentheses, this line would probably be better within en dashes to avoid parenthesis nesting: “facing - the bearer’s - left“.
Page 67, right sidebar, line 43: Add a closed parenthesis after “right”; delete the period: “on the right)”.

Page 72, left sidebar, line 9: Delete the period at the end of the line: "silver field)".
Page 72, left sidebar, lines 16-17: "field" is repeated: delete one of the two instances.
Page 72, column 1, line 24: "taile" is a misspelling, it needs at least a double "l" ("taille"); I would also suggest putting "ée" at the end: "taillée".
Page 72, column 1, line 28: change "b. 480" to "b. 455".
Page 72, column 2, line 5: Change "becomes" to "become": "he will become one".

Page 73, column 1, line 10: Either Arnoullant is born in 435 and is 45 years old (not 35), or he is 35 years old and is born in 445 (not 435). Correct accordingly.

Page 75, column 1, line 8: Change "hierarchal" to "hierarchical".
Page 75, column 1, line 18: What are "daughter houses"? Some explanation/note would be useful.
Page 75, column 2, line 21: Change "smaller the churches" to "the smaller churches".

Page 76, column 1, line 30: Delete the first "to": "he handed the Holy Grail over to a lineage".
Page 76, column 2, next to last line: Change "have" to "has": "but instead has Teachers,".

Page 77, “A typical abbey” map: The correct spelling is “cemetery”, not “cemetary”.
Page 77, column 2, line 11: Change “monastic” to “monk”: “ a single monk, who lives”.

Page 78, "British Abbeys of Logres" Map: The abbey of the "Thorns" is misspelled "Horns".
Page 78, "British Abbeys of Logres" Map: The "Abbey of the Island" is spelled "Abbey of the Isle" here. Is this voluntary/acceptable?

Page 79, “British Church Sites” Table, row 25, column 4: The correct spelling is “Grantabridge”, not “Grantbridge”.
Page 79, “British Church Sites” Table: Nine of the abbeys reported here are not included in the detailed list (“BRITISH ABBEYS OF NOTE”) at pages 80-81. Is this voluntary?

Pages 80-81, “BRITISH ABBEYS OF NOTE”: In which order are the abbeys listed here? It seems alphabetic at the beginning, but then at page 81 we have Exe, Wells, Thorns, Kingston; after these, the alphabetic order seems to resume.
Pages 80-81, “BRITISH ABBEYS OF NOTE”: The first three abbeys at page 80 are reported as “Abbot(-bishop) of Xxxxx abbey, Yyyyy”; at page 81 we have “Linden Pool Abbey, Abbot(-Bishop) Lampades”, with similar wording but in a different order. Why?

Page 81, column 2, lines 32-35: Here it is written: “Patron of this, the baron of Grantrabridge, is Ulfius the Duke.”; then, “Its patron is the Baron of the Castle Behind the Waters.” One of the two must be false; I suspect the second to be false, since Grantabridge is also indicated as the patron in the Table at page 79.
Page 81, column 2, line 32: The correct spelling is “Grantabridge”, not “Grantrabridge”.

Page 82, column 2, line 19: Change “grant” to “grants”: “the original grants to support”.

Pages 83-86, “The Roman bishops of Logres”: In which order are the bishops listed here? If it’s alphabetic, “Camulodunum” should be before “Corundum”.

Page 83, column 2, line 8: Change “keep” to “keeps”: “He keeps two concubines”.
Page 83, column 2, line 19: Delete the space before “see p. 87”: “(see p. 87 to”.
Page 83, column 2, line 28: Something is missing here: “is less able to enforce this on the counties outside of his”.
Page 83, column 2, line 32: Change “Huntlamd” to “Huntland”.

Roberto

Page 73, column 1, line 10: Either Arnoullant is born in 435 and is 45 years old (not 35), or he is 35 years old and is born in 445 (not 435). Correct accordingly.


I suspect the latter. It would make more sense for him to be just 4 years older than Segurant (31 in 480) rather than of another generation. At 35 he would be at the height of his physical prowess, too, rather than a decade into the aging rolls.



Page 78, "British Abbeys of Logres" Map: The "Abbey of the Island" is spelled "Abbey of the Isle" here. Is this voluntary/acceptable?


It is in the Isle of Wight, which has been renamed "Island that was Raised", so I suspect that the full name of the Abbey should be "The Abbey of the Island that was Raised", or the Abbey of the Island for short.



Page 79, “British Church Sites” Table: Nine of the abbeys reported here are not included in the detailed list (“BRITISH ABBEYS OF NOTE”) at pages 80-81. Is this voluntary?


There doesn't seem to be any particular reason why they do not appear in the pages 80-81... At first, I was thinking maybe there is an income cut, but no. Thorns has less income than Deertown-on-Thames or St. Cofa's Tree, for example, but Thorns is included and those two are not.



Page 81, column 2, lines 32-35: Here it is written: “Patron of this, the baron of Grantrabridge, is Ulfius the Duke.”; then, “Its patron is the Baron of the Castle Behind the Waters.” One of the two must be false; I suspect the second to be false, since Grantabridge is also indicated as the patron in the Table at page 79.


I think you are right, Ulfius is the Patron. I suspect this entry, Thorntree, got confused with Thorns, whose patron is the Baron of the Castle Behind the Waters.

And these are the correction up to page 99, i.e. to the end of BoU proper.
These will be followed by the corrections to the "GPC Expansion" and the Appendices.
The first corrections refer to pages 66-67, since these are errors that I found after sending out the previous installments.

Page 66, column 1, lines 24-25: The "Age" entry is missing from Cadwy’s profile (maybe it is voluntary, since he’s "ancient beyond memory"…); add (in bold) "Notable:" before "Courtesy"; "Courtesy 20, Diplomacy 35" should NOT be bold.

Page 67, column 1, line 3: The "Age" and "Notable" entries are missing from Lucius’ profile. Even though he has no notable trait, passion or skill (being 3 years old), it would be better to include "Notable: none".
Page 67, column 1, Lucius: Some notes explaining that Lucius was knighted at 4, the exceptionality of this and the reason for this exception should be included.

Page 84, "Roman churches and abbeys of Logres" Map: "Carlion-on Usk" is spelled "Caerleon". Is this voluntary/acceptable?
Page 84, "Roman churches and abbeys of Logres" Map: "Caerleon-on Usk" does not seem to have a Cathedral symbol nearby.
Page 84, "Roman churches and abbeys of Logres" Map: "City of Legions" is not present on the map. Is this voluntary?

Pages 85-86, “Roman Church Sites” Table: Six of the abbeys reported here are not included in any of the detailed lists at pages 86-88. Is this voluntary?

Page 85, “Roman Church Sites” Table: Silchester is in the incorrect position: now it is between Noviomagus and Riverford, but it should be between Riverford and Spearshaft.

Page 86, column 2, line 8: Change “occitan” to “Occitania”.

Page 87, column 1, line 21: Is really “Lancacounty” a place?
Page 87, column 1, line 23: Add “a” before “relatively”: “He is a relatively impoverished”.
Page 87, column 2, line 36: Change "Corinium" to "Silchester".
Page 88, column 1, line 22: "Abbot’s Abbey" is not in the Table, is this "Black Abbot’s Abbey? This is the only Roman abbey to have its Abbot (Sexts) listed, why?
Page 87, column 2, line 1: Change "Abbbey" to "Abbey: "Huntsman Abbey".

Page 89, single column, line 1: Change "worshiping" to "worshipping": "remain, worshipping a colorful".
Page 89, column 1, line 6: Change "principle" to "principal": "The principal organizations are".

Page 90, "Sacred pagan sites and faerie places of Logres": The three "White Horses" places are not differentiated: how can the reader know which one is "White Horse" (in Gentian), which one is "Westport White Horse" and which one is "Fire Hill Circle White Horse"?

Page 94, column 1, line 2: Change "villain" to "villein".

Page 96, column 1, last line: "civitas" is the singular form. The proper plural form of "civitas" is "civitates": "they are called civitates".
Page 96, column 2, line 8: "civitas" is the singular form. The proper plural form of "civitas" is "civitates": "not franchised as civitates.".

Page 97, column 1, lines 14-16: This phrase is referred to "these towns", so its pronouns should be plural: "Thus, even if they had a large population, they lack the necessary additional rights needed to make them profitable.".
Page 97, column 2, line 13: Delete "from": "more rent by leasing them out".

Page 98, column 1, line 7: "civitas" is the singular form. The proper plural form of "civitas" is "civitates": "The eight civitates".
Page 98, column 1, line 21: "civitas" is the singular form. The proper plural form of "civitas" is "civitates": "The civitates are included".
Page 98, column 2, line 19: "Llud’s Stream" seems to be out of place: alphabetically it should be between "Linden Pool" and "Lonazep"; or is "Ll" considered a single letter, an "out of the alphabet" digraph?

Page 99, "Market towns of Logres" Map, legend: At page 96, right sidebar, market towns are defined as having 625-750 population, while cities (small & large, not great) have between 750 and 5000+ population. In the map legend, market towns and cities are both listed at "pop. 700-5000". Is this intentional? In my opinion, these should be differentiated, and changed to "pop. 750-5000" for Cities and "pop. 625-750" for Market Towns.

Page 99, "Market towns of Logres" Map, legend: At page 96, right sidebar, market towns are defined as having 625-750 population, while cities (small & large, not great) have between 750 and 5000+ population. In the map legend, market towns and cities are both listed at "pop. 700-5000". Is this intentional? In my opinion, these should be differentiated, and changed to "pop. 750-5000" for Cities and "pop. 625-750" for Market Towns.

The problem, in my opinion, is getting fixated on the population figures:
Unlike the smaller settlements, Towns, Market Towns and Cities all overlap in population, and the p. 96 population figures are misleading, as quite evident in the discussion on p. 97 how a town can be as big or bigger than a market town, but still not be a market town since it lacks the additional rights. Same can be said between the Market Towns and Cities. The differentiating factor is NOT (only) the population, but the charter/rights that the settlement has.

There are JUST 8 Cities (Civitates) in Britain. We are using City as a very specific term in BotW and BotE, and 'small city' is an abomination that should be cleansed with fire, IMHO. :P If p. 96 sidebar is to be believed, all Civitates / Cities have a population 5000+ ("Large City (civitas)"), but given the whole issue with the gap between 1500 - 5000 and 'small cities', I can't be sure. Those 'small cities' would then be simply large Market Towns, not 'Cities' (= civitates) in the BotW terminology.

There are some indications that there is a general progression in size from town to market town and obviously the civitates are the biggest of all.

I'd have something like:
Town = average 500 inhabitants = 375 - 2500 (or so)
Market Town = average 1000 inhabitants = 500 - 5000 (or so)
(The average of Market town ~twice the size of Town would fit with the BotE fortification calculations, where the example Market Town had 2.5 times the area of the Market Town. I'd be happy enough with 750 - 5000, too, with average around 1250 inhabitants. Which would match the average town population times 2.5 exactly.)
City = 5000 - 10 000
(However, I would be quite happy to drop the city category to encompass lower populations, too, like 2500 - 10 000, if the overlap is desirable.)
Great City = 10 000+

Point is, if it is not a civitas, it is not a City (in BotW definition), period. And to avoid confusion, I would prefer not calling anything ELSE than a civitas a city, too.

There doesn't seem to be any particular reason why they do not appear in the pages 80-81... At first, I was thinking maybe there is an income cut, but no. Thorns has less income than Deertown-on-Thames or St. Cofa's Tree, for example, but Thorns is included and those two are not.

Without looking it up I think this might be because some abbeys are barons, others are not

Auch!
I wanted to buy this book....but after seeing all of these errata I think that I'll wait until they get fixed ...
I tend to immediately print my pdf but, if all those errors (and possibly more) are still present, buying the book now is not for me.

Auch!
I wanted to buy this book....but after seeing all of these errata I think that I'll wait until they get fixed ...
I tend to immediately print my pdf but, if all those errors (and possibly more) are still present, buying the book now is not for me.

Understood. We apologize for the inconvenience, and know how frustrating it is to purchase a book with this many errors. We work really hard for months on these books, and frankly, I'm sort of amazed that there are this many issues lurking in there, but relatively few are substantive — most of them are minor formatting issues that escaped us. That said, we will fix them, for sure. If it's any consolation you can buy the PDF now and the upgrade is free when we're able to finish collecting and implementing the errata, which probably won't be until late in the first quarter of 2016. That way you can at least have the content, even if it's not in the printed fromat you'd prefer.

Best,


T.

I'll wait for the fix too before I buy the book in deadwood format. Will you send an email update when the corrected version is out?

These are my corrections to the GPC Expansion and Appendix A (which is also included in the stand-alone GPC Expansion); they should be suitable for the stand-alone Expansion as well, assuming that it's identical to the one included in BoU.
Page numbers refer to BoU; to obtain the corresponding page numbers of the stand-alone Expansion subtract 101 (page 102 of BoU is page 1 of the GPC Expansion; page 113 of BoU is page 12 of the GPC Expansion, and so on).



- GPC Expansion

Page 102, column 2, line 16: "Gamemaster’s" should be upper case.

Page 103, column 2, line 14: Change "Brittania" to "Britanniae" (one "t", two "n", ends in "e").

Page 104, column 1, line 2, and all other similar entries: I know it’s standard from GPC; but if this entry is called "Victor", shouldn’t the main item be the person winning (i.e., Uther here), and the accessory item be the victory conditions (i.e., "Decisive Victory " here)? In this case, the entry would be "Uther [Decisive Victory]".
Page 104, "480 Events" Map: All regions report the region name (es. "Lothian", "Logres"), except two that report the people name: "Picts" and "Irish". Shouldn’t these be "Pictland" and "Ireland" (or "Hibernia", or "Pagan Shore")?
Page 104, column 2, line 2: Change "Brittania" to "Britanniae" (one "t", two "n", ends in "e").
Page 104, column 2, line 38: Change "escaped" to "escapes".

Page 105, column 2, line 32: All other subsequent "Royal Conversation" sections are written as the direct words of the King, so it should be the same here: change "our King" to "Us"; "We" should be upper case: "to Us, so We are mustering".
Moreover, lines 31-32 are identical to lines 24-26, above (which are Ulfius’ words). Maybe a small change of wording would be better.

Page 106, column 1, line 4 from bottom: Add "per knight" after "rouncy": "and a rouncy per knight.".

Page 107, column 2, line 5: Change the period to a comma: "Sparrowhawk, and Leir’s Castle".
Page 107, column 2, line 33: "Awareness" should be written in bold.
Page 107, column 2, line 43: Square brackets are usually reserved for the description and results of Skill, Trait or Passion rolls. None of these is included here; either change the square brackets to round ones, or describe the roll to be performed.

Page 108, column 1, line 28: Delete the period, let the exclamation mark stand: "quiet—too quiet! They are".
Page 108, from column 1 line 41 to column 2 line 3: Square brackets are usually reserved for the description and results of Skill rolls. This is an Intrigue roll, so the round brackets should be changed to square ones.
Page 108, column 2, lines 13-14: Nested square brackets are cumbersome. Since the inner ones simply include a reference to the KAP handbook, I would transform them to round ones: "Martinus [Average Knight (King Ar-thur Pendragon 5.1 p. 175), Suspicious 13]."
Page 108, column 2, line 17: "Awareness" should be written in bold.
Page 108, column 2, lines 22-23: Change all square brackets to round brackets: "Assuming (some of) the Player-knights decide to fol-low the lady (or the Prince), they will".
Page 108, column 2, line 33: "Recognize" should be written in bold.

Page 109, column 1, lines 1-2: Change "Cour-tesy roll:" to "Cour-tesy:" (bold).
Page 109, column 1, line 7: "Awareness" should be written in bold.
Page 109, column 1, line 28: "Deceitful" should be written in bold.

Page 110, column 1, lines 16-18: Change all square brackets to round brackets: "of Nohaut (son of Hengest and brother of Aesc, King of Kent) and Eosa of Deira (son of Horsa and Hengest’s nephew), besiege".
Page 110, column 2, line 2: Previous battles had the number of rounds in digits, not in letters. Change "Six" to "6": "Battle: 6 rounds".

Page 111, column 1, line 6: Change "manages" to "manage".
Page 111, column 1, line 6 from bottom: Add "over 2:1" after "outnumbered": "is outnumbered over 2:1: -5".
Page 111, column 1, line 3 from bottom: Add "over 2:1" after "Uther": "outnumbers Uther over 2:1: +5".

Page 112, column 1, line 4: Delete the comma at the end of the line: "Healing Rate 3".
Page 112, column 1, lines 9-10: Shift "18," from line 10 to line 9; it should be:
"Key Traits: Generous 18, Valorous 19, Proud 18,
Worldly 16, Reckless 16, Indulgent 16"
Page 112, column 2, line 12: "delete "and" before the round bracket: "good armor (and that".



- APPENDIX A

If my comments are confirmed, Appendix A is a bit of a mess! Basically, it should be completely revised taking into account the following comments.

Page 113, column 1, lines 12-16: According to this paragraph, only “adventure scenarios” should have their title in italics, and all of them should include their source. In the subsequent pages:
- No source is ever reported for any entry written in italics;
- several entries are in italics, but many of them are battles (e.g., “The Battle of Menevia”, “The Battle of Salisbury”, “The Conquest of Bedegraine”): are they considered “adventure scenarios”? If they are, they should report the source; if not, they should not be in italics.

Page 113, column 1, lines 21-22: According to this paragraph, “items marked with a dagger (†) are new events, detailed elsewhere in this book.” As a consequence, no event after 484 should have a dagger, since they are not new events “detailed elsewhere in this book”: no new event after 484 is described in the book outside of Appendix A. Or does the dagger mean “detailed in the book, either in Appendix A or elsewhere”? In this case, change the sentence to “new events, detailed either in Appendix A or elsewhere in this book”.

Page 113, column 1, lines 17-20: “Items marked with an asterisk (*) have changed in some way…”. However, several events that are different here when compared to the GPS are NOT identified by an asterisk. For example (but many other are present):
- Page 114, column 2, lines 2, 11, 17: These entries are different (not new) from the respective GPC synopsis, but they include a dagger and not an asterisk;
- Page 114, column 2, line 35: in GPC the court is held in Windsor;
- Page 114, column 2, last line: in GPC the Duke is Lucius.


On the other hand, these corrections are punctual and can be made straight away:

Page 113, column 1, line 19: Is “King Uther Pendragon 5.1” a new RPG by Greg?? I’ll buy it immediately! ;-) Change “Uther” to “Arthur”: “King Arthur Pendragon 5.1”.
Page 113, column 1, line 24: Wouldn’t it be better to write “whenever” instead of “wherever”?
Page 113, column 1, line 29: Delete “use”: “a location from Table G:”.

Page 116, column 1, line 19: It seems that there are two spaces between “from” and “the”.
Page 116, column 1, line 38: the aggressors in Roestoc and Malahaut are missing; add “by Saxons” at the end of the line.

Page 118, column 2, line 4: Change “Morguase" to “Morgawse”.
Page 118, column 2, line 35: Add “on” after “sit”: “sit on the throne”.

Page 119, column 1, lines 35-36: the aggressors in Bedegraine, Lambor, Lonazep, Roestoc, Linden are missing; add “by Saxons” at the end of the line.
Page 119, column 1, line 35: Change the semicolon after “Lonazep” to a comma: “Lambor, Lonazep, Roestoc;”.

Page 120, column 2, line 11: Delete the period at the end of the line: “Hartland by Saxons”.
Page 120, “The Infamous Feast” box, column 1, line 29: The closed round bracket here has no open bracket before it. I suggest deleting it.
Page 120, “The Infamous Feast” box, column 2, line 12: “F.” is the Butler. Change “F.” to “G.”: “G. Merlin. The great magician”.


Roberto

Understood. We apologize for the inconvenience, and know how frustrating it is to purchase a book with this many errors. We work really hard for months on these books, and frankly, I'm sort of amazed that there are this many issues lurking in there, but relatively few are substantive — most of them are minor formatting issues that escaped us. That said, we will fix them, for sure. If it's any consolation you can buy the PDF now and the upgrade is free when we're able to finish collecting and implementing the errata, which probably won't be until late in the first quarter of 2016. That way you can at least have the content, even if it's not in the printed fromat you'd prefer.

Best,


T.

No problem! I know what it means to edit texts made by others ...
And even when I edited something by me (Doctoral thesis) I remember how those bloody errors were continuosly coming up!!
So, Good Work, and be sure that sooner or later I'll get this book since I know it'll be great anyway, even if I'll wait a few months.
I know the authors' work on Pendragon and I also know that the final result will be excellent.

These are my corrections to the GPC Expansion and Appendix A (which is also included in the stand-alone GPC Expansion); they should be suitable for the stand-alone Expansion as well, assuming that it's identical to the one included in BoU.
Page numbers refer to BoU; to obtain the corresponding page numbers of the stand-alone Expansion subtract 101 (page 102 of BoU is page 1 of the GPC Expansion; page 113 of BoU is page 12 of the GPC Expansion, and so on).


They are identical, yes.



- GPC Expansion

Page 105, column 2, line 32: All other subsequent "Royal Conversation" sections are written as the direct words of the King, so it should be the same here: change "our King" to "Us"; "We" should be upper case: "to Us, so We are mustering".
Moreover, lines 31-32 are identical to lines 24-26, above (which are Ulfius’ words). Maybe a small change of wording would be better.


Most of your comments had to do with the layout, so not really something I need to comment on. I do agree that consistency in presentation helps the understanding, and for example, the "Victor: Uther [Decisive Victory]" would be a better format than what we have now. It is still better than the GPC format, which is all over the place.

However, you do point out a genuine content errata in Royal Conversation in Year 481. For some reason, Ulfius' comment got put into the King's mouth, too. Royal Conversation should read:

“The King of Bedegraine has insulted our Royal Person, and refused our simple requests. Such insolence will be punished, lest others be drawn to a similar error. A writ has been sent to Our loyal vassals to join Us at Leir's Castle a month hence, with one fifth of their knights.”

which incidentally also addresses your 'first person' -convention. :)



- APPENDIX A

If my comments are confirmed, Appendix A is a bit of a mess! Basically, it should be completely revised taking into account the following comments.

Page 113, column 1, lines 12-16: According to this paragraph, only “adventure scenarios” should have their title in italics, and all of them should include their source. In the subsequent pages:
- No source is ever reported for any entry written in italics;
- several entries are in italics, but many of them are battles (e.g., “The Battle of Menevia”, “The Battle of Salisbury”, “The Conquest of Bedegraine”): are they considered “adventure scenarios”? If they are, they should report the source; if not, they should not be in italics.

Page 113, column 1, lines 21-22: According to this paragraph, “items marked with a dagger (†) are new events, detailed elsewhere in this book.” As a consequence, no event after 484 should have a dagger, since they are not new events “detailed elsewhere in this book”: no new event after 484 is described in the book outside of Appendix A. Or does the dagger mean “detailed in the book, either in Appendix A or elsewhere”? In this case, change the sentence to “new events, detailed either in Appendix A or elsewhere in this book”.


Wee bit harsh, Roberto. :)

The information contained within Appendix A is still very useful, usable and correct (apart from some typos). So the content is OK, and that is what would be important to me as a GM. The references, asterisks and daggers would be useful, but I'd rather have the correct content than incorrect content with perfect indexing.

Naturally I agree that we should go back and go through the Appendix again to get every asterisk and dagger where they belong, to make that part of it right, too.

As for your two main comment in the above, searching my memory, I think I can recall two things:

1) Missing sources
In the first draft of the timeline, which covered pretty much the whole timeline of Pendragon, the main author had put down also suggested dates for the adventures found in other books. As the timeline shrunk to just the Uther Period (appropriate enough for a Book of Uther), these extra adventures got stripped off, too, and we basically ended up with a timeline of 480 - 484 (Expansion) and 485 - 495 (GPC). At which point, the source quoted would have been pretty much just BoU or GPC. I vividly recall that the Introductory Imber Bear Hunt scenario from KAP 5.1 was in the timeline, too, originally, but it was stripped off as well. I think the argument might have been that adventures are simply too fluid to pin down to an exact year, which I would agree with. Anyway, the point is that since everything before 485 is in this book, and everything after it is in GPC, the source entry is a bit superfluous. Unfortunately, the intro blurb wasn't amended to reflect this.

2) Why are there daggers in post-485 events?
Greg included the 497 King's Progress to the book, which includes more details of the Great Sword Feast and the Lindsey Embassy (which is MISSING a dagger), changing both of them, by the way. I am not sure why some of the Easter Court events have daggers and some do not. Merlin being still tired after Battle of Mt Damen merits a dagger, since we have expanded the Battle of Mt Damen in BoU. The Argan duel entry in 493 is also missing a dagger.


Content errors in Appendix A

Looks like I spoke a bit too soon...

I seem to have noticed a discrepancy in the Timeline after all, relating to the Great Sword Feast and the Lindsey Embassy:
- In the Appendix A (as in GPC) these two are separate events.
- In The King's Progress, p. 50, Merlin produces the Sword of Victory under his robes, whilst recounting the story of the Sword Lake before Uther and Corneus in Lindsey. Hence, the implication seems to be that the Great Sword Feast and the Lindsey Embassy are the same event in BoU.

Aaaand I noticed another one. Someone inserted Sir Lamorak to this event in 492 (instead of the unnamed messenger in GPC):
"Norgales. Sir Lamorak from Norgales
arrives at court, desperately seeking news
of the whereabouts of his father and liege,
King Pellinore,"

This is WRONG, since if GPC is to be believed, Lamorak isn't born until 501. So either change 'father' to 'brother' and have this to be the famous Lamorak's uncle, in whose memory the Round Table Knight was named (not that I know of such an uncle, but Pellinore's brothers are mentioned in GPC as a group), or switch it out fully to the GPC unnamed messenger. If you were to claim that this is the famous Sir Lamorak, he would have had to be born in early 470s, making him about 30 years older than he is in GPC, and leading to a question if he is such hot stuff from mid-510s onwards, why doesn't he manage to take his father's throne back during Anarchy? Anyway, this is a spurious addition, and should be corrected.

(The whole de Gales ages and timeline are a bit of a mess, incidentally, but that is a discussion for another thread. I have mentioned it here:
http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/showthread.php?2180-King-Pellinore-s-Age-amp-Death-and-Other-De-Gales-Ages&highlight=Pellinore+Lamorak
It is also a bit curious how Pellinore is having a host of these legitimate sons way AFTER he has abdicated as King and is spending all his time chasing Glatisant...)

Wee bit harsh, Roberto. :)
The information contained within Appendix A is still very useful, usable and correct (apart from some typos). So the content is OK, and that is what would be important to me as a GM. The references, asterisks and daggers would be useful, but I'd rather have the correct content than incorrect content with perfect indexing.
Naturally I agree that we should go back and go through the Appendix again to get every asterisk and dagger where they belong, to make that part of it right, too.


Hi Morien, I'm sorry if I came through as too harsh; as you probably guessed, English isn't my native language (I'm Italian), so I am sometimes "blind" to nuances of meaning and/or mood... I'm really sorry and would like to ask the forgiveness of all authors and collaborators if they felt slighted by my harsh comment: it was not my intention at all.
Believe me, I'm very well aware of the ENORMOUS work that goes into these KAP books, I'm really in awe of the amazing results and really LOVE every single KAP book (incidentally, I owe tham all). My comment was aimed EXCLUSIVELY at the aspects which I'm commenting upon, i.e. layout, grammar, misspellings, punctuation and internal consistency: "proofreading" in its most mechanical meaning. In this sense, the intro to Appendix A gives three "legends" (adventures in italics and with source, changes with dagger, new things with asterisk) and none of them is respected in the text; hence my comment.
I'm not, in fact, able to comment upon the intricacies of dynasties, who was where in which year, and so on. Of course I agree that having correct info and a messy layout is better than vice versa, but I feel that form is also substance, and that ANY error detracts from the pleasure of reading and using these amazing books (or any other book, for that matter). I wish they were perfect and give my small contribution toward that inattainable goal. Thanks Greg, and all the people who worked on them, for your amazing results!

Roberto

Hi Morien, I'm sorry if I came through as too harsh; as you probably guessed, English isn't my native language (I'm Italian), so I am sometimes "blind" to nuances of meaning and/or mood... I'm really sorry and would like to ask the forgiveness of all authors and collaborators if they felt slighted by my harsh comment: it was not my intention at all.

Hi Roberto. As it happens, English is not my native language either (I am a Finn by the way), so occasionally I misinterpret something, too. It was the 'completely revised' that felt a bit harsh and led me to leap to the defense of the content, which, apart from those couple of minor mistakes I mentioned, should be fine (at least I couldn't spot other mistakes on a re-read). After reading your comment again, it is clearer that you meant to correct the layout issues. I am in total agreement with you that we should peruse the timeline again, entry by entry, to make sure that those daggers and asterisks are correct, and correct the typos identified, and that we should strive to deliver consistent style, typo-free content. Your efforts in the proofreading are very much appreciated, believe me! I only wish that we would have had the benefit of your diligent eye before the book went public, so that we could have corrected these before rather than having to play catch-up! :)

- APPENDIX B

Page 121, line 12: Add “did” before “not appear”: “but did not appear”.



- APPENDIX C

Page 122, “Supreme Collegium of Britain” Map: Change “Bishop-abbot of St Albans” to “Abbot-bishop of St Albans”.
Page 122, “Supreme Collegium of Britain” Map: The “Abbot of Jagent” cannot be found anywhere in Table C.1. Is this the “Abbot of Brightstream” of Table C.1, which is based in Jagent? In this case, change its name in either place as needed.


Page 123, Table C.1, row 6: The Abbot-bishop of Exe River is listed among Logres’ legates, but his location is in Cornwall in the map (page 122). If this is not an error, an explanation would be useful.
Page 123, Table C.1, row 8: The “Abbot of Brightstream” cannot be found anywhere in the Map at page 122. Is this the “Abbot of Jagent” of the Map? In this case, change its name in either place as needed.
Page 123, Table C.1, row 28: The legate of Seafort is an “abbot-bishop” here, but he is an “archbishop” in the map (page 122).
Page 123, Table C.1, row 28: The legate of Lugh’s Wall is an “abbot-bishop” here, but he is an “archbishop” in the map (page 122).
Page 123, Table C.1, row 29: This Caledonian legate is called “Abbot-bishop of the Fort of the Britons” here, based in “Fort of the Britons”, but in the map (page 122) it is called “Britains”, not “Britons”. I know there’s a certain variability in the place names, but this seems more an error than a “normal” variation.
Page 123, Table C.1, row 29: The “King of Garloth” location cannot be found anywhere in the Map at page 122.



- APPENDIX D

Page 124, column 1, lines 22-23: The subject of the first sentence is “a common plea”; so, it seems strange that the following sentences says that “it sits at Winchester”. Of course, it’s the corresponding Court that sits at Winchester. I propose writing: “A common plea is a suit of one subject versus another subject, of which the king has no interest. The Court of Common Pleas sits at Win-chester, and is known contem-porarily as «the Bench».
Page 124, column 1, line 27: Change “sat” to “sit”: “judges who sit in on the cases.”.

Page 125, column 1, line 22: Change “chattal" to “chattel”: “prop-erty (chattel) may be”.



- APPENDIX E

Page 126, title: Change “Resource” to “Resources”: “Logres’ Natural Resources”.
Page 126, Table: Why is this Table without a name? Since this Appendix has 2 tables,it would be useful to indicate them with “E.1: Natural resources of Logres”, “E.2: Resources taken by Uther”.
Page 126, Table, column 4: Why is the “Royal Share” column width so large? A more balanced width distribution among all columns would be more pleasant. Maybe another column should have been present, with the “Total Annual Income” information (it is included in the other Table at page 128)? If the “Total Annual Income” column is missing, here are its content:
Total annual income
£400 (stone huge)
£250 (stone small, med, large)
£500 (salt small)
£500 (salt large)
£300 (iron)
Page 126, Table, column 5: The values here do not have the “£” symbol, those in the following Table (page 128) have it. I suggest inserting the “£” symbol here or, even better, insert it just in the first row: “Income Value (£)”.
Page 126, Table legend, lines 3-4: The “Total Income” column does not exist, so its definition is useless. I suspect that it has been inadvertently eliminated and should be re-inserted (see above).
Page 126, Table legend, line 4: Change “blocks” to “block”, delete the period at the end: “sack, or block”.

Page 126, column 1, lines 6-8: The quarry locations are indicated in different ways, two with “in” (“in Summerland”, “in Lonazep”), two without (“Dorsette”, “Clarence”). All four should have, or nor have, “in”.
Page 126, column 1, line 10: Change “it is” to “they are located”.
Page 126, column 2, line 23: Change “bloomer” to “bloomery”: “terms of bloomery and smeltery”.

Page 128, "Resources taken by Uther” Table: This table has the “Total Annual Income”, although it is almost useless (4 out of 5 entries are identical to "Income Value"), but the previous one hasn’t got it. I suggest adding a “Total Annual Income” to the previous Table (see above), or deleting it from this Table.

Page 128, Table, columns 5-6: There is a space between the “£” symbol and the values here (e.g. “£ 500”, “£ 1,500”). In the book’s main text, there’s never a space (e.g. “£500”, “£1,500”). Delete all spaces. I would also prefer to insert the “£” symbol in the first row (title cells, “Total Annual Income (£)”, “Income Value (£)”) and eliminate it from all other rows (value cells).
Page 128, Table, column 5, row 6: “£” is missing here; insert it: “£100”.
Page 128, Table, column 6, row 6: Change “$” to “£”: “£50”.
Page 128, column 1, line 29: Change “Pliney” to “Pliny”; change “Britanniae” to “Britannia”: “man Pliny the Elder said, “In Britanna [lead] is”.
Page 128, column 2, line 1: Add “further” before “heated”: “The lead is further heated, and”.
Page 128, column 2, line 2: Change “cupilation” to “cuppellation”: “This is called cuppellation.”.
Page 128, column 2, line 26: Change “it” to “the mine”; change “as” to “since”: “Slaves work the mine, since the families”.



- APPENDIX F

Page 129, column 1, line 9: Change “gamemasters” to “Gamemasters”.
Page 129, column 2, line 2: Should “modern” be changed to “Roman”? It seems strange that the cities retain modern names since they are Roman… It seems “retain their Roman names” would be more reasonable.



- APPENDIX G

Page 135, column 1, line 7: Either add “in” after “found”, or change “that” to “where”: either “places in Logres that he is likely to be found in.” or “places in Logres where he is likely to be found.”.
Page 135, column 1, line 31: Change “demense" to “demesne”: “royal demesne, always”.
Page 135, column 2, line 2: Change “demense" to “demesne”: “part of the royal demesne”.
Page 135, column 2, line 10: Add “the” after “«Plotting”: “for “Plotting the Progress,” below”.
Page 135, column 2, line 11: Change “Feif” to “Fief”: “Fief holder: Title”.
Page 135, column 2, line 19: The total number of days owed in "Table G: The King’s Progress" is 385, not 394. This could be different if there are errors in the "days owed" and they are corrected (see my comments for pages 136-139, below). Otherwise, change "394" to "385".
Page 135, column 2, lines 23-24: The total number of days owed within King Uther’s holdings adds up to 78 days in Table G, if one considers all holdings listed as "Royal Demesne" in column 6 ("Fief Holder"); they become 83 including those that report "Prince Madoc" and "Treasurer" as "Fief Holder"; and 89 also including all entries reporting "Officer, Royal" in column 5. In any case, even taking the highest figure (89), the upkeep collected amounts to (365 - 89) = 276 days, not 252; of course, if these calculations are correct, the king feeds himself for 89 days a years, which is 24%, or about a fourth (not a third) of the year. The calculations could be different if there are errors in the "days owed" and they are corrected (see my comments for pages 136-139, below).
Page 135, column 2, next to last line: Change “he” to “they”: “this table they will easily”.

Pages 136-140, "Table G: The King’s Progress", column 5 ("Type"): What does "County (x2)" mean? That the location is divided between 2 counties, thus the king’s upkeep is paid by two counties instead of one? Some clarification would be useful.
Page 136, column 5, row 25: Since the "Days owed" for this entry is zero, shouldn’t the "Type" be "Exempt"? It is listed as "Baronial".
Page 137, column 5, rows 13, 15: Since the "Days owed" for these entries are both zero, shouldn’t the "Type" be "Exempt"? They are listed as "Baronial" (row 13) and "Officer, Royal" (row 15).
Page 138, column 5, row 5: Since the "Days owed" for this entry is zero, shouldn’t the "Type" be "Exempt"? It is listed as "Officer, Royal".
Page 139, row 10: The "Days owed" for this entry are 4, but the "Type" is "Exempt". Either change the Type or the days owed.
Page 139, column 5, rows 16, 24, 28: Since the "Days owed" for these entries are all zero, shouldn’t the "Type" be "Exempt"? They are listed as "Baronial" (lines 16 and 24), "County" (line 28).
Page 139, column 5, line 23: Shouldn’t "Treasury" be "Officer, Royal"?
Page 139, column 5, line 23: Change "baron" to "Baronial": "Abbey, Baronial".

- APPENDIX K

Page 144, Table K.1, column 3, rows 2, 3, 9 and others: Non-knights have Glory "N/A"; in the main text the same non-knights had Glory "0" (zero); for consistency the same format should be adopted in all places.
Page 144, Table K.1, column 4, rows 11,12: Change "Spear Expertise, Sword, Dagger 21" to "Dagger, Spear Expertise, Sword (all at 21)", which is much clearer, in the correct alphabetical order and the same format used below for the third man of the trio, Sir Heliandor (row 27).
Page 144, Table K.1, column 2, row 14: At page 30 Sir Diocenar is listed as a "Vassal", not a "Household Knight".
Page 144, Table K.1, column 2, row 15: At page 34 Sir Diocenar is listed as a "Vassal", not a "Household Knight".
Page 144, Table K.1, column 1, row 16: Lady Dyagenne is not described with the other Ladies of Court at page 40; however there is a Lady "Dyanne" at page 40 who has the same statistics and Glory as Dyagenne has in Table K. Is she the same Lady? Dyanne is described as a concubine of Uther; Dyagenne is described as seduced by Uther and cuckolding her husband Argan. If they are the same Lady, the info on her (including the name) should be made consistent throughout the book; if they are different ladies, Dyagenne should be detailed at page 40 and perhaps given different statistics.
Page 144, Table K.1, column 1, row 20: "Gaudifer" here and in the Index (p. 152) is written "Gaudifier" (with another "i") four times in his description at page 36.
Page 144, Table K.1, column 2, row 22: Since Geraint becomes Seneschal after Goreau’s death, it would be better to write "(since 491)" or even better "(in charge 491-495)" instead of "(until 495)".
Page 144, Table K.1, column 3, row 22: Why is Geraint’s Glory never specified (here and at page 36)?
Page 144, Table K.1, column 4, row 22: Here Geraint has "Trusting 16"; at page 36 it had "Just 16". Which is correct?
Page 144, Table K.1, column 4, row 24: Here Gracian has "Honor 16"; at page 38 this passion is missing. Which is correct?
Page 144, Table K.1, column 1, row 25: Gwenwynwyn is never mentioned among important people at court. Is this intentional or has he been left out mistakenly?
Page 144, Table K.1, column 1, row 26: "Gwylim" here is written "Gwillim" (with two "l") five times in his description at page 33 and in the Index (p. 152).

Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, row 9: Just one of Merlin’s three special skills is listed here; since it’s followed by a comma, I suspect the other two have been mistakenly forgot. In this case, add: "Magical Armor 20, Reverse Attack 20" after "Magical Disarm 26,". Otherwise, delete the comma or the entire skill as appropriate.
Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, rows 10-11: "Prudent 16, Homage (Uther) 16" are missing from the description of Minodos and Minodalis at page 39.
Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, rows 10-11: At page 39 the twins have the same statistics; here, their Courtesy and Recognize scores are inverted: Minodos has C 18, R 20 and Minodalis has C 20, R 18. Correct here or at page 39.
Page 145, Table K.1, column 1, row 12: Part of the page number is visible here, rotated 90 deg clockwise and superimposed over "Sir Moneval".
Page 145, Table K.1, column 1, row 13: Padern is "Father" here, "Teacher" at page 32. I think that "Father" is reserved for Roman priests, while British priests (like Padern) are called "Teacher".
Page 145, Table K.1, column 2, row 13: Change "Chaplain" to "Confessor". "Chaplain" is never found in BoU except here. Should there be a formal Chaplain? Is this a forgotten role in the Court?
Page 145, Table K.1, column 1, row 15: Add an asterisk after "Sir Sadinal": "Sir Sadinal*" (he’s a member of the Privy Council).
Page 145, Table K.1, column 3, row 15: "7,632" should not be bold and should be centered in the column (not aligned to the left).
Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, row 17: The "Priest" skill lacks the type: i guess it should be "Priest (British Christian) 17" since he’s a Russet Monk. The specification is also missing from Syrion’s profile at page 38.
Page 145, Table K.1, column 3, row 18: Ulfius’ Glory is 8224 here, 9224 at page 35.
Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, row 19: "Trusting (Merlin)" is 24 here, 25 in Uther’s sheet at page 22 (Trusting 16, Directed Trait +9); "Sword" is 22 here, 23 at page 22.
Page 145, Table K.1, column 3, row 21: Add a comma between "1" and "449": "1,449"
Page 145, Table K.1, column 1, row 22: Yvo is a favorite here, but not in his profile at page 37.



- APPENDIX N

Page 148, column 1, lines 6, 16: Is "Book of the Estate" correct? Shouldn’t this be "Book of Uther"? The new place-name system has been introduced by BoE, but this is the bibliography of BoU and uses the same system, so, why referring to BoE exclusively?
Page 148, column 1, line 6: "Book of the Estate" (or "Book of Uther" if it’s changed, see above) should be written in italics.
Page 148, column 1, line 12: Add an en-dash between "Place" and "Names": "of English Place-Names".
Page 148, column 1, lines 26-27: The website address ("http://domesdaymap.co.uk/") is correct, but the link in the PDF file is broken: it goes to "http://domesdaymap.co.", probably due to the line break.
Page 148, column 1, line 29: Should "Pendragon" be written in italics here?
Page 148, column 1, line 34: "King Arthur Pendragon" should be written in italics.
Page 148, column 1, line 36: Should "KAP" be written in italics here?
Page 148, column 2, line 29: Should "KAP" be written in italics here?
Page 148, column 2, line 30: "Book of Uther" should be written in italics.
Page 148, column 2, line 42: Add a period at the end of the line: "and so on.".

Page 149, column 1, line 1: Should "Pendragon" be written in italics here?
Page 149, column 2, line 4: "1283" seems out of place here, perhaps something’s been partially deleted? 1283 was the year Walter was appointed abbot of Westminster, but something’s missing. As a minimal change, delete "1283": "in the reign of Edward I".
Page 149, column 2, lines 6, 19, 26, 39: Should "Pendragon" be written in italics here?
Page 149, column 2, lines 10-11: These two lines are written in a larger typeface than the rest.
Page 149, column 2, lines 22, 29-30: Should "Highly recommended" be written in all capitals? Other entries report "RECOMMENDED" in all capitals, so it seems strange that a stronger recommendation is not in capitals.
Page 149, column 2, last line: Change "alleluiah" to "hallelujah".

- APPENDIX K

Appendix K was one of the last things we went through and added some things we thought were missing/needed changing, but clearly, not everything got updated to the main text & vice versa. We should have gone through it again checking every number.



Page 144, Table K.1, column 2, row 14: At page 30 Sir Diocenar is listed as a "Vassal", not a "Household Knight".
Page 144, Table K.1, column 2, row 15: At page 34 Sir Diocenar is listed as a "Vassal", not a "Household Knight".


Yep, he should be a vassal knight, as evidenced by his manors in Clarence in the main text.



Page 144, Table K.1, column 1, row 16: Lady Dyagenne is not described with the other Ladies of Court at page 40; however there is a Lady "Dyanne" at page 40 who has the same statistics and Glory as Dyagenne has in Table K. Is she the same Lady? Dyanne is described as a concubine of Uther; Dyagenne is described as seduced by Uther and cuckolding her husband Argan. If they are the same Lady, the info on her (including the name) should be made consistent throughout the book; if they are different ladies, Dyagenne should be detailed at page 40 and perhaps given different statistics.


They are different ladies; the name in Appendix K is in error (should be Dyanne). Dyagenne is seduced in 493, while Dyanne is Uther's current squeeze in 480. I would have preferred a different name for Dyanne to avoid this very confusion, but... *shrugs* As far as I know, we don't give any stats for Dyagenne, except to say that she is gorgeous, and leaving it at that. We also do not give Lady Eleri's stats (wife of Sir Diocenar). Due to layout considerations, I do not see this changing even after fixing other errata.



Page 144, Table K.1, column 3, row 22: Why is Geraint’s Glory never specified (here and at page 36)?


In my notes (for Appendix K), it is: 6347.

For some reason, it wasn't updated to the main text nor to Appendix K.



Page 144, Table K.1, column 4, row 22: Here Geraint has "Trusting 16"; at page 36 it had "Just 16". Which is correct?


Hmm. Unfortunately, a lot of the commentary was done in a review board hosted by a paysite, instead of via email or commented pdfs. Which made it easier to comment and see other people's comments, don't get me wrong, but it is a pain in the tuckus now since I can't go back and see them anymore. I don't know if our editor has access/saved pdfs of the comments.

Anyway, I am willing to go on a limb here and say that 'Just 16' is correct, based on the "Personality: Stern" of Geraint. Also, his predecessor Goreau should probably have Notable Selfish ("Personality: Greedy"), perhaps replacing Trusting (which seems a bit odd trait for a senechal to have), but that is just me. This is probably one of those last minute comments to the main text that didn't get corrected in Appendix K.



Page 144, Table K.1, column 4, row 24: Here Gracian has "Honor 16"; at page 38 this passion is missing. Which is correct?


Homage (Uther) 18 is missing at both, too (exists in my notes)... I think this is my handiwork for Appendix K that didn't get added to the main text, either because of layout considerations or simple mistake. The commander of the watch would certainly be a post where you want to have a loyal man (hence Homage), and Gracian's description hinted, at least to me, that he is a man of his word (hence Honor).



Page 144, Table K.1, column 1, row 25: Gwenwynwyn is never mentioned among important people at court. Is this intentional or has he been left out mistakenly?


Intentional. He is almost NEVER at Court, preferring his ships. Unfortunately, the description part of these people got cut due to space considerations. Maybe we could get in a footnote to his name to explain this? I think that would be a good thing to have.



Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, row 9: Just one of Merlin’s three special skills is listed here; since it’s followed by a comma, I suspect the other two have been mistakenly forgot. In this case, add: "Magical Armor 20, Reverse Attack 20" after "Magical Disarm 26,". Otherwise, delete the comma or the entire skill as appropriate.


Personally, I'd be happy to cut the number of Notable Stats on Merlin down to a reasonable number. I don't really need to know at a glance that he has DEX 17, now do I? If I need that information, there is the whole character sheet waiting for me. But this was one of the preference discussion points... If we are listing ALL Merlin's 16+ values, then we should make sure that we do list ALL of them.



Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, rows 10-11: "Prudent 16, Homage (Uther) 16" are missing from the description of Minodos and Minodalis at page 39.
Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, rows 10-11: At page 39 the twins have the same statistics; here, their Courtesy and Recognize scores are inverted: Minodos has C 18, R 20 and Minodalis has C 20, R 18. Correct here or at page 39.


Again, something that I suggested and which got changed in Appendix K, but didn't get propagated to the main text, either because of layout considerations or a simple mistake.

I thought it would be fun that the two twins were not perfect carbon copies of one another, and that the PKs might pick up on that small difference in their areas of expertise after some exposure to them.



Page 145, Table K.1, column 1, row 12: Part of the page number is visible here, rotated 90 deg clockwise and superimposed over "Sir Moneval".


So it is.

Speaking of Sir Moneval, I though tit curious that all three - the Duo and Moneval - had the same exact Glory amount. So I changed Moneval's Glory in my table to 2686. Again, this didn't end up into the book for some reason.

Moneval probably has Notable Homage (Uther), too, being one of his enforcers, which we might add as well? Homage (Uther) 17 would do the trick, I think.



Page 145, Table K.1, column 1, row 13: Padern is "Father" here, "Teacher" at page 32. I think that "Father" is reserved for Roman priests, while British priests (like Padern) are called "Teacher".
Page 145, Table K.1, column 2, row 13: Change "Chaplain" to "Confessor". "Chaplain" is never found in BoU except here. Should there be a formal Chaplain? Is this a forgotten role in the Court?


Yes, he should be "Teacher" and "Confessor". There might be a chaplain as well, but given that Uther is the King, there is probably a bishop or an abbot hanging around in his court, and he might tap one of those worthies to lead any mass that Uther might attend (probably pretty rare, given his lack of interest in religion).



Page 145, Table K.1, column 3, row 18: Ulfius’ Glory is 8224 here, 9224 at page 35.


9224 is correct. We upped Ulfius' Glory a bit at the last moment (when adding stats to the Great Barons section), and the correction didn't get propagated to Appendix K, unfortunately.



Page 145, Table K.1, column 4, row 19: "Trusting (Merlin)" is 24 here, 25 in Uther’s sheet at page 22 (Trusting 16, Directed Trait +9); "Sword" is 22 here, 23 at page 22.


In Trusting, both are wrong. Uther's Trusting should be 6 (the 16 is a typo). +9 for Trusting (Merlin) and it is still only 15, not 24 or 25.

We upped Uther's Sword to 23 to make him one of the premier warriors in Britain, which is why he doesn't have a champion. (The GPC write-up Sword 18 is a joke, especially as the description says: "He is almost 40 years old and has spent little time doing anything but practicing his skills as a warrior." Mind you, we corrected his age, too.) The Sword 22 was an earlier version, and should be amended to 23 as well.



Page 145, Table K.1, column 1, row 22: Yvo is a favorite here, but not in his profile at page 37.


Yvo should be a favorite. He is the only non-Pendragon who is allowed to carry the Pendragon Banner!

A few other things I noticed whilst going through the whole book:

Page 6: “Six men bear the title of Duke. This is a military office, not a rank of nobility.” Except that it is a rank of nobility in BotW. Can be argued a bit either way, since yes, it is primarily a military title.

Page 8, Landholding Glossary: “Assized Rent: The value of the harvest.” is slightly misleading, since it is not the WHOLE harvest, just the part that the peasants pay to the lord holding the land (rent).

p. 66-67 & GPC Expansion Year 480:
- Duke Edaris should not be an appointee. This is my mistake, since it was said in BotW already. Easy fix, we'll just have to rewrite his 'short desc' in page 67 and make him just inherit the title in 480, rather than being a 'new duke'.
- Duke Ulfius is the lone appointee, but the Dukedom of the Vale is also existing already in Aurelius' time, so it is not a new dukedom, either. Also, Ulfius is the Baron of Buck and Stone by blood inheritance in BotW, and there is no mention of an heiress wife. Hence, he hasn't bootstrapped himself up from nothing, but is from a baronial family by his own right. Hence, his short desc in p. 67 needs to be adjusted on that score, too.

Oh well. Will fix.

EDIT:
For GPC Expansion p. 105 (Year 480), simply replace this part of Uther's coronation:
"King Uther announces the creation of two more dukes: the Duke of the Vale, granting it to his long-time companion, Sir Ulfius; and the Duke of the Marche, to Sir Edaris."
with
"King Uther confirms two new Dukes: Sir Edaris as the Duke of the Marche by inheritance, and Sir Ulfius, his long-time companion, as the Duke of the Vale by appointment."
The exact wording might still vary a bit for layout reasons, but something like that.

Also, since the Duke of the Vale is not a new creation, Roderick's comment on the same page could be amended slightly, too:
Change: “And we will all benefit from a Duke of the Vale, keeping an eye on the Saxons.”
To: “And we will all benefit from Sir Ulfius, the new Duke of the Vale, keeping an eye on the Saxons.”

As for page 67 regarding Ulfius and Edaris, I was thinking something like:

Ulfius
“Ulfius is the hardest-working baron in Logres. He became close friends with Uther as a child in Armorica and has remained a favorite ever since. Baron by blood, he has earned his way to the top through relentless effort in every battle, securing whatever part of the field he was in even if the rest of the army ran away, and uncompromising loyalty to the king, his friend.”

Edaris
“Duke Edaris' elderly father was killed in 479 by Cambrian raiders. Edaris inherits the lands in 480. He has not forgotten nor forgiven, and aims to make those savages pay.”

Note that these are not yet official errata (need Greg's approval for that), but I think they would work well enough.

These are the last ones.


Page ii, last line: Since the book is being revised, it’s best to update the links as well. Change "http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php" to "http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/forum.php".

Page iv, column 2, line 3: Here the title is "Behind the Woods", at page 121 it is "The Appearance of the Savage Forest". Which is correct?
Page iv, column 2, line 14: Here the title is "Regions of Britain", at page 147 it is "Regional Map of Britain". Which is correct?

Page v, column 1, line 3: Should it be "Abbey Plan" (the map name here) or "A Typical Abbey" (the map name at page 77)?
Page v, column 1, line 6: Should it be "Civitates and Market Towns of Logres" (the map name here) or "Market Towns of Logres" (the map name at page 99)? Note that if the first is chosen, it should include "civitates", not "civitas".
Page v, "ALPHABETICAL LIST OF TABLES": None of the Tables included in the Appendices (pages 123, 126, 128, 136-140, 144-145) is listed here. Is this correct?

Page 4, "A map of Britain": "Kent" and "South Seaxe" are written in a different typeface from the other place-names.
Page 4, "A map of Britain": Is "Westrn Isles" correct? Shouldn’t it be "Western Isles"?
Page 4, "A map of Britain": Are we sure of the "Dal Araide" orthography? Should it be "Dal Araidi"? Or "Dal Riada"?

Page 39, column 2, line 27: I know there are space constraints, however the main notable traits and passions of "the trio" are missing here, but are present in Table K at page 144. Add "Cruel 18, Homage (Uther) 20," after "Notable (All):": "Notable (All): Cruel 18, Homage (Uther) 20, Dagger, Spear Expertise, Sword (all 21)".

Page 70, single column, title: "civitas" is the singular form. The proper plural form of "civitas" is "civitates": "The eight civitates".
Page 70, column 1, lines 1, 11: "civitas" is the singular form. The proper plural form of "civitas" is "civitates": "Civitates are the old"; "The civitates are".

Page 104, "480 Events" Map: All regions report the region name (es. "Lothian", "Logres"), except two that report the people name: "Picts" and "Irish". Shouldn’t these be "Caledonia" and "Ireland"? The name "Ireland" is found in the map at page 4, "Caledonia" in the map at page 147.

Page 146, column 1, line 18: Is this symbol called "Warlord Castle" (here) or "Wooden Castle" (map legends at pages 17, 54)?

Back cover, line 13: Change "demense." to "demesne.": "of Uther’s demesne.".
Back cover, line 17: Delete a space (or indent) at the beginning of the line, before "ensuring". "ensuring" should be flush with "knights" in the line above.



- "A Chronology For The Uther Period" booklet
The corrections are the same listed for "Appendix A"; the Chronology page numbers correspond to the Appendix page numbers minus 110: Appendix A page 113 is Chronology page 3, and so on.

Moreover:
Page ii, last line: Since the book is being revised, it’s best to update the links as well. Change "http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php" to "http://nocturnalmediaforum.com/iecarus/forum/forum.php".
Page 10, "Do you like what you see here?" box, single column, line 2: Double colon at the end of the line, delete one: "you will find:".
Page 10, "Do you like what you see here?" box, column 2, next to last line: Change "house" to "houses": "religious houses and".
Page 10, "Do you like what you see here?" box, last line: If you are allowed to do it, I suggest putting here not only the link to DriveThruRPG.com, but also one to the Nocturnal website store for direct purchase of BoU and other books!

That's all for now,

Roberto

Thanks, Roberto!

Stuff like this:

Here the title is "Regions of Britain", at page 147 it is "Regional Map of Britain". Which is correct?

Is not really an error. It's a slightly different way of saying the same thing. There no possible ambiguity or confusion with those, so don't be surprised if some of these kinds of things remain in the next iteration.

Best,



M.

Thanks, Roberto!
Stuff like this:
Here the title is "Regions of Britain", at page 147 it is "Regional Map of Britain". Which is correct?
Is not really an error. It's a slightly different way of saying the same thing. There no possible ambiguity or confusion with those, so don't be surprised if some of these kinds of things remain in the next iteration.
Best,
M.

You're welcome, Taliesin! Very happy if I've been of help!

Respectfully, I don't agree. None of the two versions is incorrect in itself, but it's an error nonetheless. It's the error called "Index entry not identical to the text/title it's referring to". Of course it happens and it's perfectly normal that you find some instances of it, and it's not a big deal. However, frankly I don't understand WHY would you keep it once someone notes it. How is the current situation BETTER than the correct one? It isn't easier, it isn't clearer, it isn't more pleasant. On the contrary, a more neat and precise index is always better. And in this case it shouldn't require any layout or page changes and probably takes just a few moments (i'd be happy to do it if you provide me the relevant files).

All the best,

Roberto

Thanks, Roberto. I'll add these to my 'change log' and forward it to Greg.



Page 4, "A map of Britain": Is "Westrn Isles" correct? Shouldn’t it be "Western Isles"?


An obvious typo is obvious. :)



Page 4, "A map of Britain": Are we sure of the "Dal Araide" orthography? Should it be "Dal Araidi"? Or "Dal Riada"?


Dal nAraidi seems to be the preferred spelling, with Dalaraidia as the Latin spelling.



Page 39, column 2, line 27: I know there are space constraints, however the main notable traits and passions of "the trio" are missing here, but are present in Table K at page 144. Add "Cruel 18, Homage (Uther) 20," after "Notable (All):": "Notable (All): Cruel 18, Homage (Uther) 20, Dagger, Spear Expertise, Sword (all 21)".


I think the solution is to emphasize on Page 28 that these are the Minimal Stats and more may be found on Appendix K. That allows us to give what values we feel are the most important in this section and save the rest (if any) to Appendix K, as space allows.

Incidentally, I'd rather have: "Cruel 18, Dagger 21, Sword 21" listed for the Trio. It shows off the three Notable stats that the PKs might face in a courtly setting: they wouldn't be carrying lances/spears at court, and their Loyalty to the King should not be in question. Their Cruel might show up, though, and correspond with the stated personality. Finally, it all fits in that one line that we have in space...

The other alternative is that we will simply delete all information on Appendix K that doesn't already appear in King Uther's Court -section, which would be a bit of a waste, IMHO.



Page 104, "480 Events" Map: All regions report the region name (es. "Lothian", "Logres"), except two that report the people name: "Picts" and "Irish". Shouldn’t these be "Caledonia" and "Ireland"? The name "Ireland" is found in the map at page 4, "Caledonia" in the map at page 147.


Caledonia refers to everything North of the Wall, not just the Pictish Highlands. I think that line in 480 Events map corresponds to the division between the tribal highlands and the feudal lowlands of Caledonia, but I am not sure if there are any 'catchy' names for those two sub-regions of Caledonia.

I just looked at Beyond the Wall political map, and there Pictish Highlands refers to the smaller area outside Caithness, but there seems to be no good names to separate the two. Maybe 'Pictlands' and 'Northern Kingdoms' or something like that.

In the end, I am not even sure why we have the dividing line there. We are not doing anything there between 480-484, so we could just have it as a single, unified Caledonia?

I've casually found something else...

p. 46, column 2, line 27: Change "Barons" to "Baron": "Sir Edaris, Baron of Leir’s".

p. 103, column 2, line 3: Madoc is knighted before Uther becomes King (correct?), so here it should be "Prince Uther", not "King Uther".

I just wanted to chime in and say how ridiculously awesome Roberto's errata lists are. Thank you, Roberto, for devoting so much time to making the book better!

Agreed. He's our new superstar proofreader. Next time we'll engage him before we send the book off! I don't think we'll be able to get these implemented and back before Christmas, but there will be a big update early in the New Year!


T.

p. 103, column 2, line 3: Madoc is knighted before Uther becomes King (correct?), so here it should be "Prince Uther", not "King Uther".

Yes, and later in the Battle of Menevia commanders, too.

Trystero, Taliesin, many thanks! You are too kind. "Ridiculously good" and "superstar" are not word I find applied too often to my work... I'm just happy if I can give some contribution to make BoU a better book!
And I don't want anyone to forget that the real good work is the book itself, and the real superstars are ALL its authors/editors/collaborators (beginning of course from Greg, who is the best in RPGs and has assembled a terrific team!). I'm honored just to be part of this wonderful world.

For the glory of Arthur!

Roberto

I noticed another one I think:

p. 132 in the Place Names Appendix. Refers to Spearshaft being in Jagent. It is referred to as being in Dorsette in the Place Names Appendix in Book of the Warlord (p. 181) and as being in Dorsette in the list of Roman abbeys (p. 85).

Corresponds to modern Shaftesbury. And in the Salisbury Map it shows up just over the border from the southwest corner. A nice convenient place to be disputed over.