The rules on how Brainprint scans work could use tidying up and assembly into ONE area rather than being spread out and having uncertain interrelationships. Gear: Brainprint Scanner (p.152) [color=red]"producing a verifiable brainprint"[/color] and [color=red]"authenticat[ing] against a meshed database entry"[/color] appear to be two distinct tasks. Gear: Fake Brainprint Plug-In (p.156) [color=red]"Make a Variable Opposed Test between the Interfacing skill of the person or AI running the scan with a −30 modifier and the Infosec skill of the subject (or their muse). If the character being checked succeeds and the scanner fails, the fake brainprint passes."[/color] (this presumably constitutes [color=red]"producing a verifiable brainprint"[/color].) Identification: Brainprint Scans (p.159-160) [color=red]"Unless the subject’s brain has been significantly modified in some way (serious mental trauma, head wounds, psychosurgery, heavy drug or narcoalgorithm use, etc.), this will produce a scan of the subject’s brainprint for comparison with databases, no test required."[/color] <--- So this suggests that [color=red]"producing a verifiable brainprint"[/color] in the absence of a Fake Brainprint Plug-In is a no-brainer, despite the phrasing under Gear: Brainprint Scanner on p.152. [color=red]"If the gamemaster determines the scan may produce a deviant brainprint, make an Interfacing Test using the skill of the person or AI running the check, [b]applying appropriate modifiers.[/b]"[/color] It'd be nice to have all of these modifiers in one place, as well as a consistent set of terms. [color=red]"Deviant brainprint"[/color] can certainly be applied to [color=red]"is an Uplift or AGI or running a Fake Brainprint Plug-In"[/color] but does it also detect people with Psi abilities? Probably not. So why use a peculiar term such as [color=red]"Deviant Brainprint"[/color] which appears nowhere else in the text? Again, this paragraph separates out acquiring a successful brainprint from [color=red]"Whether the brainprint matches up with database queries"[/color]. Then there is this line: [color=red]"Whether or not a brainprint gets a match, the brain scans of AGIs and uplifts are automatically identifiable as non-human; apply a +30 modifier to an Interfacing Test for determining the subject’s exact nature."[/color] This is unclear. Does the scanner automatically, without test, detect non-human brain scans? Does it have a +30 modifier to do so? Or (seems most likely) does it have a +30 modifier to determine exactly what [i]kind[/i] of non-human the brain in question belongs to (I.E., This is a non-human brain, successful roll at +30 tells the operator that it is an octopus)? Identification: Cyberbrain and Infomorph Brainprints (p.160) [color=red]"If an Interfacing Test is called for due to a potential deviant brainprint, apply a +30 modifier."[/color] To who? The scanner? Or the scannee? Interfacing suggests the operator rather than the subject (who is rolling Infosec in previous examples) but stating it would help to unmuddy the waters. Is this modifier cumulative with other modifiers? If (as suggested) it is applied to the scan operator, does it apply only to [color=red]"producing a verifiable brainprint"[/color] or to [color=red]"determining the subject’s exact nature"[/color]? In short, this section is woefully unclear, and probably of concern to a considerable number of players who have succumbed to the allure of playing 'undercover AGI or Uplift' characters. Unclear terminology: Success (in what terms? Obtaining a brainprint? Identifying a 'deviant brainprint'? Linking it to an identification entry in a database?) Deviant brainprint Exact nature Contrast these to 'Significantly modified' on p.159 which clearly lists the conditions which affect that test. There is some forum speculation on this here: http://www.eclipsephase.com/eclipse-phase-panopticon-discussion?page=pag... and following comments.

Page 145. Under Exotic Language skill, in Sample Fields it is listed "Arogonese", it should be "Aragonese".

Page 95 includes "the finest collaborator and enemy could hope for". I think it should be "an" rather than "and".

Kind of a necro at this point but it kind of bothers me. Page 117 Smart Dogs: "Modern dogs come equipped with an artificial larynx and the intelligence of a two-year old human child. They can talk, with an average vocabulary of twenty to thirty words." In 2001 a border collie produced solely by old-fashioned selective breeding showed that he recognized over Two Hundred words, and his intelligence was estimated as equivalent to a two-year old. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-mo... And don't get me started on smart cats.