Targeted Assault: Errata / Consensus?

[kaomera]

Concerning the feat Targeted Assault, from Primal Power:

2. I hope you don´t speak about the feat which should give +2 to hit when you are marked, not against marked persons (would be weird on a barbarian)

So, when I first read the feat, I kind of assumed it was a case of a typo in the rules text, and the table was correct. Obviously, this is the opposite of the standing rule that rules text takes precedence over table entries; and as I've looked over the rest of the book there are a number of new Barbarian powers that provide some (pretty sweet, IMO) marking abilities, so the feat seems to make at least some sense either way.

What I'm wondering is: is there any word from WotC on this issue, or a general consensus on how to play it? Personally I think I kind of like the table version better.

 

[keterys]

WotC (Mike Donais) has stated the table is correct, and it will be fixed.

Oct 21, 2009 -- 10:10PM, mdonais wrote:
Today I looked at targetted assault in each document version and it was certainly not meant to work the way it ended up. The short description is how it was intended to work.

I expect some rules update in the future will change it to work that way.

 

[kaomera]

WotC (Mike Donais) has stated the table is correct, and it will be fixed.

Awesome, thanx. I had heard rumblings to this effect, but had kind of ignored them because no-one seemed to be providing an actual quote or link... Guess it doesn't always pay to be skeptical of the internets, after all.

 

[Destil]

Obviously, this is the opposite of the standing rule that rules text takes precedence over table entries

Where is this rule? Because I remember hearing of it in both 3E and 4E, but have never seen it put to paper/bytes.

 

[chitzk0i]

Where is this rule? Because I remember hearing of it in both 3E and 4E, but have never seen it put to paper/bytes.

I know that in 3E it was in every errata document.