CKG in the fall

[Fizz]

So, the latest news item on the Troll's main page is that the CKG will not make it by Gencon. But they "have every confidence that it will be out this Fall."

I hope so. It's been the number one on my waiting list for a long time.

-Fizz

[moriarty777]

Well, it does sound like they are working on it in earnest (amongst everything else). I think a 'ready to print' date sometime this fall may not be too unrealistic. I can hope to have this one under the X-Mas tree!

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Buttmonkey]

This one isn't a huge priority for me. C&C is completely playable without a CKG. I'd much rather see more Castle Zagyg stuff.

[Telhawk]

Completely agree with Buttmonkey's statement above, but (whine, snivel) I still want the damn thing!

Sigh. Hopefully it'll be out in September...there's just so much on the fire from Troll Lord that I want to pick up. Castle Zagyg, the Aihrde works, expansions to the monsters lists, the CKG (of course)...plenty to keep going until Christmas.

[Fiffergrund]

I think it will be a good read and I'm looking forward to it. It's not a huge priority, but based on what I know of the contents, it will be one hell of a great gaming book, and not just for C&C.

It has been a long time coming, but it'll be a large book, unless the contents have been reduced drastically.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[DangerDwarf]

Yeah, gimme some CZ. I'll pick up the CKG as well but its the CZ stuff that has me excited.

[Omote]

CZ, ditto. I wouldn't hold my breath for a Septermber release of the CKG. Look more towards NOV/DEC 2007 at the earliest.

.........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Telhawk]

Quote:
I wouldn't hold my breath for a Septermber release of the CKG.

That's what we refer to as bad attitude 'round these here parts. If we just alternate between glaring unblinkingly at the TLG guys and blubbering on our knees with our hands clasped in a servile manner, everything will work out just fine.

[Fizz]

Well, the CKG has been #1 on my list for a while because i'm a big tweaker and modder of rules. I'm very keen to see what it has to say on things like modified classes (and the XP charts), variations on the SIEGE engine, etc.

-Fizz

[Tadhg]

With so many books, mods, campaign world stuff, etc coming out this and next month, I'm not surprised that a release or two will slip.

And the CKG seems like a very tough product to put together, edit and then finish. Seeing all the potential material is pretty mind blowing. And the Trolls want to get it right, so I expect it to be a excellent resource for C&C.
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

[serleran]

I want the CKG. Three copies most likely.

[SavageRobby]

Fizz wrote:
Well, the CKG has been #1 on my list for a while because i'm a big tweaker and modder of rules. I'm very keen to see what it has to say on things like modified classes (and the XP charts), variations on the SIEGE engine, etc.

I'm right there with you on this one. This is the #1 book I want from TLG.

[Fizz]

Does anyone know if the CKG will have the standard stock paper, or the glossy stuff that was used in the 3rd printing of the PH?

-Fizz

[Omote]

I doubt even the TLG guys themselves know that about the book yet.

........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Treebore]

I'll be happy if we see this before Thanksgiving. Just in time for the Christmas list! Not that I would wait that long to get it.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Dangersaurus]

I hate to say this, but I keep hearing that "TL editing makes Mongoose look good." So please please please, take your time. Have someone (and not a fan or someone who worked on it) give it a critical proofread... especially if it's going to have glossy pages (ie non-errata-able).

[Treebore]

Dangersaurus wrote:
I hate to say this, but I keep hearing that "TL editing makes Mongoose look good." So please please please, take your time. Have someone (and not a fan or someone who worked on it) give it a critical proofread... especially if it's going to have glossy pages (ie non-errata-able).

Um, no. Mongoose editing was worse. Mongoose has been pretty good for about two years now.

TLG's editing, over all, has been on par with WOTC and Green Ronin. Monsters and Treasures is the only "bad" one, considering what errata had to be added.

Otherwise, most of their errors have been wrong word useage, mis spelling a few words, and other minor stuff, that didn't confuse rules meanings.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Dangersaurus]

Treebore wrote:
Um, no. Mongoose editing was worse. Mongoose has been pretty good for about two years now.

TLG's editing, over all, has been on par with WOTC and Green Ronin. Monsters and Treasures is the only "bad" one, considering what errata had to be added.

"These guys do a worse job," is never a standard to aspire to. Quite a few people I've spoken to have given C&C a miss purely on the reviews of the 1st printing and the errors therein. Further errors only reinforce the impression, whether it's true or not.

When the above "makes Mongoose look good" quote comes from a game shop owner, you have to wonder how many people get turned off from just one person with that opinion.

And yeah, my copy of M&T has scribblings on nearly every page. More than what's just in the unofficial official errate.

(edit: just to note the irony. Errate. )

Quote:
Otherwise, most of their errors have been wrong word useage, mis spelling a few words, and other minor stuff, that didn't confuse rules meanings.

Do you add any modifiers to spell resistance rolls? Do you gain Con bonuses to hit points after 10th level? Do elementals require magic weapons to hit? What does a hag eye do? Is a poniard really more effective than a long sword? Can you really use (insert 1 of a dozen or so weapons) one-handed? And of course... which, if any, bonuses can be stacked?
Yes, these are little things that any experienced GM could rule on. Minor stuff. It still bugs me. I am just asking with a dozen "pleases" if the Troll Lords will do better.

Frankly, I've told my players to hold off on buying the PHB until I get my hands on a 3rd print to see if everything has been fixed. If they've got to go through and fix a ton of errata (which they won't do), I'm just going to photocopy off the relevant pages they need from my errata'd copy and tell them to spend the money on minis.

[gideon_thorne]

Dangersaurus wrote:
And yeah, my copy of M&T has scribblings on nearly every page. More than what's just in the unofficial official errate.

Got a codified list?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Breakdaddy]

I know it's well underway and the target release of fall is not unrealistic. I will probably use my copy to beat Steve over the head with until he rolls off of the next Zagyg installment, and possibly well after. I hope it's heavy.

[Dangersaurus]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Got a codified list?

I've been trying to drag my cursor over it to copy-paste, but it won't seem to go past the edge of my screen...

[Treebore]

Dangersaurus wrote:
"These guys do a worse job," is never a standard to aspire to. Quite a few people I've spoken to have given C&C a miss purely on the reviews of the 1st printing and the errors therein. Further errors only reinforce the impression, whether it's true or not.

When the above "makes Mongoose look good" quote comes from a game shop owner, you have to wonder how many people get turned off from just one person with that opinion.

And yeah, my copy of M&T has scribblings on nearly every page. More than what's just in the unofficial official errate.

(edit: just to note the irony. Errate. )



Do you add any modifiers to spell resistance rolls? Do you gain Con bonuses to hit points after 10th level? Do elementals require magic weapons to hit? What does a hag eye do? Is a poniard really more effective than a long sword? Can you really use (insert 1 of a dozen or so weapons) one-handed? And of course... which, if any, bonuses can be stacked?
Yes, these are little things that any experienced GM could rule on. Minor stuff. It still bugs me. I am just asking with a dozen "pleases" if the Troll Lords will do better.

Frankly, I've told my players to hold off on buying the PHB until I get my hands on a 3rd print to see if everything has been fixed. If they've got to go through and fix a ton of errata (which they won't do), I'm just going to photocopy off the relevant pages they need from my errata'd copy and tell them to spend the money on minis.

Then your games store owner needs to get up to date. Ever since the "Conan debacle" Mongoose has been doing much better on editing. They still have some problems, but nothing worse than WOTC that I have seen or heard of.

The first printing of M&T was definitely missing a lot. The layout of the first PH was just plain ugly. So the third and second printings are definitely going to be much better. Plus the 3rd printing does clarify one and two handed weapons a bit more throughly.

So they are definitely getting better. Hopefully they will have achieved perfection.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[serleran]

*smacks anyone who thinks M&T was anything but stellar*

Damnit.

Compare any of the C&C materials to, say, The Codex of Erde.... you'll see a remarkable improvement. Are the Trolls perfect? No. Do they want to be? Doubt it. Do they make a fine ass-kicking product? Damn straight.

Some people are just more retentive aboot spellin and, gramar. I don't see how they read anything.

[gideon_thorne]

Dangersaurus wrote:
Do you add any modifiers to spell resistance rolls?

It says, flat out, "The caster of the spell must roll 1d20, unmodified"

Page 5 M&T

Quote:
Do you gain Con bonuses to hit points after 10th level?

Yes

Page 120 PHB 3rd paragraph

Quote:
Do elementals require magic weapons to hit?

Page 30, M&T 4th paragraph

"Elementals are magical creatures can can only be hit by magical weapons." and following is a clarification of what HD and what + required.

Quote:
What does a hag eye do?

Listed in Traveller's errata link, fixed in the M&T 2nd printing.

Quote:
Is a poniard really more effective than a long sword?

Depends on what your doing it with it.

Quote:
Can you really use (insert 1 of a dozen or so weapons) one-handed?

Sure, but it might hurt your wrist a bit.

Quote:
And of course... which, if any, bonuses can be stacked?

If it doesn't specify, its up to you.

Quote:
Yes, these are little things that any experienced GM could rule on. Minor stuff. It still bugs me. I am just asking with a dozen "pleases" if the Troll Lords will do better.

If its not been fixed, then its not 'errata' and up to the CK.
Anything else?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

serleran wrote:
*smacks anyone who thinks M&T was anything but stellar*
Damnit.

Compare any of the C&C materials to, say, The Codex of Erde.... you'll see a remarkable improvement. Are the Trolls perfect? No. Do they want to be? Doubt it. Do they make a fine ass-kicking product? Damn straight.

Some people are just more retentive aboot spellin and, gramar. I don't see how they read anything.

The problems of dealing with a "proud papa".
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Dangersaurus]

gideon_thorne wrote:
It says, flat out, "The caster of the spell must roll 1d20, unmodified"

Page 5 M&T

Page 123 of the PHB agrees, while page 50 of the PHB (2nd print) disagrees.

Quote:
Do you gain Con bonuses to hit points after 10th level?

Yes

Page 120 PHB 3rd paragraph

You're right! I could've sworn I saw something that says about adding Con bonuses each level, but the page I was thinking of says, "each time you roll."

Quote:
Do elementals require magic weapons to hit?

Page 30, M&T 4th paragraph

"Elementals are magical creatures can can only be hit by magical weapons." and following is a clarification of what HD and what + required.

D'oh. The errata needs an errata!

Quote:
Is a poniard really more effective than a long sword?

Depends on what your doing it with it.

d8 damage with +2 against a bunch of different armor types? It's a typo. Pull the other leg. It's got bells on. Next you'll tell me that a mancatcher can be used to automatically deal 14 damage with no hit roll required.

Quote:
Can you really use (insert 1 of a dozen or so weapons) one-handed?

Sure, but it might hurt your wrist a bit.

Ahem.

Quote:
And of course... which, if any, bonuses can be stacked?
If it doesn't specify, its up to you.

Dangit. I was trying to get the wagons circling on that one again.

Quote:
If its not been fixed, then its not 'errata' and up to the CK.

Yeah! Why should my players have to buy the books when they've got me!?

Quote:
Anything else?

:nod: But there's no point. People are being naturally defensive of a great game and a great bunch of people, and what I'm saying boils down to, "please take your time, a polished stone is much more appreciated than one with dozens of tiny little imperfections."

[Dangersaurus]

Treebore wrote:
Then your games store owner needs to get up to date. Ever since the "Conan debacle" Mongoose has been doing much better on editing. They still have some problems, but nothing worse than WOTC that I have seen or heard of.

I'm not going to change his mind. I get the idea that he's been burnt and it's never going to heal. He's the same way with GW, used to be the same way with TSR. Some things don't go away once they're set in people's minds.

Quote:
So they are definitely getting better. Hopefully they will have achieved perfection.

Agreed!

[jman5000]

IMO the phb and codex of erde where pretty close to the same... editing and quality wise (so too was crusader #1, canting crew and a couple of others).

I thought there was a great leap forward with the 2nd printing and the M&T, but have noticed things slipping a bit of late - especially with the modules.

Dangersaurus, I pretty much agree with you 100%

my guess for the ckg. May 2008

but that's me being positive again
Cheers,

J.

[gideon_thorne]

Dangersaurus wrote:
Page 123 of the PHB agrees, while page 50 of the PHB (2nd print) disagrees.

Not anymore.

Quote:
d8 damage with +2 against a bunch of different armor types? It's a typo. Pull the other leg. It's got bells on. Next you'll tell me that a mancatcher can be used to automatically deal 14 damage with no hit roll required.

Thats not what you asked. You asked "Is a poniard really more effective than a long sword". And the answer is yes, for some things. ^_~`

and the damage was fixed in the third printing.

Quote:
:nod: But there's no point. People are being naturally defensive of a great game and a great bunch of people, and what I'm saying boils down to, "please take your time, a polished stone is much more appreciated than one with dozens of tiny little imperfections."

Yes, but what people are also saying is that, comparatively, even to huge companies like WOTC who have a large staff of pro editors, who make pages more errors than TLG does, its excessive quibbling.

The third printing PHB has, perhaps, 4 typo's that have been found. Not so bad' I'm thinking, in comparison to even the largest companies.

50 years later, Lord of the Rings has all kinds of errors still. The point being, the kind of perfection expected of a small company like TLG is just crazy. If the big guys can't do it, with all their resources, how can TLG be expected to be perfect?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

Heh, I believe everyone who was around remembers why the 1st print PHB was so "sloppy." Its called bowing to the wishes of the audience and rushing the book to print. This has happened to other companies, but that's ok. Its not a defense, but a truth: mistakes happen, they either get fixed, or they get ignored. At least, of anything, you can be glad the mistakes TLG has made are being addressed. Most companies have one run of any product... so any problems are just there, always. TLG is on the 3rd run of the PHB and each printing has gotten better: what more do you want, or expect? Would it make you feel better if TLG were like TSR of 2e days and simply reprint the book without caring it had problems, like entirely missing pages or charts (and yes, 2e PHB, I'm looking at you)? Its saying something about the product -- people want it, at least enough to warrant it still getting printed. This can only mean one thing -- C&C is a success, warts, nodules, hairy spot growths, and all. But, it says more about the company: they want their fans to be happy, and they show a marked interest in seeing what the fans have to say, even going so far as to host these very forums and beg you to criticize them (WotC, for example, can't stand being told they made a mistake; go ahead and try to tell them they screwed up and see how long the thread lasts.) Do you think many other companies are like that? Sure they are... after they lose a billion dollars (or, in the case of GM or Ford, 10-12 billion.) Instead of moaning about the "mistakes" perhaps you should be applauding that the company actually gives a damn.

I dunno, I guess I just have never been one to care if the product is "perfect" if its usable. I don't think the "mistakes" in the TLG products render any of the books useless... if anything, I think it adds a little l'esprit de corps, as it were.