Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: imthedci on <02-04-20/1105:39>
-
Basically, I'm wondering why it's taking so long for the Jan. errata only sheet to be released. (I know the CRB pdf was updated two weeks ago, but I haven't seen anything about a sheet with *just* the errata)
Is it because there's going to be an FAQ with it? That's the only reason that seems to make sense. I could see it taking a little bit to get out if there was going to be a FAQ with it.
Then again, it might be out already and I just didn't see it posted anywhere... :-[
I'm trying to make personalized cheat sheets for our group, but I'd like to have the errata first to make sure I don't put anything down wrong....
-
Purely guessing, but probably they have a queue for layout (and as much as many of us would be happy with a .txt document listing From: xxxx To: yyyy, realistically they are not going to send it out without final editing and formatting and layout using their template)
-
Basically, I'm wondering why it's taking so long for the Jan. errata only sheet to be released. (I know the CRB pdf was updated two weeks ago, but I haven't seen anything about a sheet with *just* the errata)
Is it because there's going to be an FAQ with it? That's the only reason that seems to make sense. I could see it taking a little bit to get out if there was going to be a FAQ with it.
Then again, it might be out already and I just didn't see it posted anywhere... :-[
I'm trying to make personalized cheat sheets for our group, but I'd like to have the errata first to make sure I don't put anything down wrong....
I wish I knew the answer as well.
What I can say is it's not because FAQ is going to be included in them. That's another project independent of getting errata printed.
-
Then again, it might be out already and I just didn't see it posted anywhere... :-[
Theres an unofficial errata compilation by ZeeMastermind, D4rvill, and numerous others here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Shadowrun/comments/eg2uzy/compilation_of_the_6e_errata_thread
It also includes the changes made by Pegasus in the German CRB.
-
Sorry, but there is an incredible mess. There is a German errata from Pegasus and a CB change from January. Why don't the authors issue an official errata, where it will be clear? I don't want to read the rules again and look for possible changes, I want a list!
-
The errata-document is underway, but apparently delayed. We don't know when this will release, because in the past there has been too heavy backlash over dates promised that couldn't be kept due to circumstances.
As for the German errata: That's for the German edition. Forget about Pegasus if you want to use the official English rules.
-
Forget about Pegasus
Or don't, because Catalyst don't have a monopoly - or even majority - of Good Ideas About Shadowrun. Pegasus have decent game design chops and their stuff is worth reading and considering.
Edit - and honestly, 6e needs every scrap of help it can get.
-
The errata-document is underway, but apparently delayed. We don't know when this will release, because in the past there has been too heavy backlash over dates promised that couldn't be kept due to circumstances.
How dare these uppity customers who paid money for things expect to receive desperately needed fixes in a timely fashion! They should feel lucky that fixes might arrive at all, unlike (say) 5e and Anarchy, where the errata team's diligent work has languished unpublished for years.
-
"As for the German errata: That's for the German edition. Forget about Pegasus if you want to use the official English rules."
The changes Pegasus made are either invented by CGL or proposed from Pegasus and confirmed by CGL.They are of course not the official English rules, but they sure contain clarifications, intentions and improvements, which might help you until Catalyst releases the official errata - and its likely that some amount of them will find its way into the official English errata.
Let us all hope that Catalyst releases a new official errata document any time soon - it will help to solve this mess.
-
The changes Pegasus made are either invented by CGL or proposed from Pegasus and confirmed by CGL.
Do you have any source for that claim? Because right now all evidence points to the contrary: Both in SR5 and SR6 Pegasus has made mistakes or significant rule changes in their adjusted version, which are unmatched by the CGL rules and errata. Letting Mystic Adepts freely gain PP is such a change, I have seen zero evidence that this is a CGL-approved change.
-
Because right now all evidence points to the contrary: Both in SR5 and SR6 Pegasus has made mistakes or significant rule changes in their adjusted version, which are unmatched by the CGL rules and errata.
You're suggesting that this is because Pegasus is overstepping some line in the sand you've drawn, but an equally valid hypothesis is that it is because the Catalyst rules and errata don't go far enough.
Letting Mystic Adepts freely gain PP is such a change, I have seen zero evidence that this is a CGL-approved change.
A mystic adept who wants 5 power points in 5e would put A into magic and then spend 25 karma - and they'd have 10 spells. In 6e, under the Pegasus rules, they'd need to put priority A into Magic, and then spend 25 karma - and they'd have no starting spells at all. Sounds like it's a long way from "free" to me. Are you suggesting this is so grossly unbalanced that Catalyst could never have agreed to it?
-
Because right now all evidence points to the contrary: Both in SR5 and SR6 Pegasus has made mistakes or significant rule changes in their adjusted version, which are unmatched by the CGL rules and errata.
You're suggesting that this is because Pegasus is overstepping some line in the sand you've drawn, but an equally valid hypothesis is that it is because the Catalyst rules and errata don't go far enough.
Letting Mystic Adepts freely gain PP is such a change, I have seen zero evidence that this is a CGL-approved change.
A mystic adept who wants 5 power points in 5e would put A into magic and then spend 25 karma - and they'd have 10 spells. In 6e, under the Pegasus rules, they'd need to put priority A into Magic, and then spend 25 karma - and they'd have no starting spells at all. Sounds like it's a long way from "free" to me. Are you suggesting this is so grossly unbalanced that Catalyst could never have agreed to it?
In my opinion (and I think this is where MC is heading too) it's more that Pegasus is basically a completely different game once they start doing their own thing (Jason only gives them a cursory review at best so they free reign to do a lot of what they do). Can you use their stuff as semi-official house rules ... sure, but it's not official CGL supported English rules. This really only matters for Missions play though.
As for mystic adepts... it's not about what was it in 5e but rather what we have seen approved so far for 6e and how it doesn't line up on both sides of the pond.
-
This really only matters for Missions play though.
Tbf I have zero interest in Missions play, which might be why I'm being hard on this line of reasoning.
-
In my opinion (and I think this is where MC is heading too) it's more that Pegasus is basically a completely different game once they start doing their own thing (Jason only gives them a cursory review at best so they free reign to do a lot of what they do). Can you use their stuff as semi-official house rules ... sure, but it's not official CGL supported English rules. This really only matters for Missions play though.
As for mystic adepts... it's not about what was it in 5e but rather what we have seen approved so far for 6e and how it doesn't line up on both sides of the pond.
Exactly: If you want to know what the official English rules are (which indeed mostly only matters for SRM and strict GMs), unfortunately the German CRB cannot support you as far as I can tell. If you're unsure and want some inspiration for your own houserules, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with using Pegasus. It's simply not official for the English version.
-
This really only matters for Missions play though.
Tbf I have zero interest in Missions play, which might be why I'm being hard on this line of reasoning.
Absolutely agree ... but it's an important distinction to make, especially here on the forums
-
I had things to say, but they were already said by Michael Chandra and Banshee.
I guess I can add that if you want concrete evidence that Pegasus sometimes creates changes that aren't CGL-blessed, take a look at the Ares Dragon. Compare its body value in the original CRB release, hotfix errata value/1st reprint, and then the Pegasus German CRB value.
-
Absolutely agree ... but it's an important distinction to make, especially here on the forums
Aye, fair enough!
-
Do you have any source for that claim? Because right now all evidence points to the contrary: Both in SR5 and SR6 Pegasus has made mistakes or significant rule changes in their adjusted version, which are unmatched by the CGL rules and errata. Letting Mystic Adepts freely gain PP is such a change, I have seen zero evidence that this is a CGL-approved change.
During the development of Genesis I was contact with Pegasus for clarifications. Sometimes I got forwarded CGL mail responses, more often I was informed that they contacted CGL for clarifications. E.g. the how adepts gain PP was a last minute change Pegasus needed to make because of an answer from CGL. This makes me pretty confident that most of the changes have been blessed by CGL.
Of course I am not in a position to confirm that for every change they made. Also, I have no explanation why not all those CGL-blessed changes show up in the January update. All I am saying is that Pegasus usually talks with CGL about the changes they make.
-
Exactly: If you want to know what the official English rules are (which indeed mostly only matters for SRM and strict GMs), unfortunately the German CRB cannot support you as far as I can tell. If you're unsure and want some inspiration for your own houserules, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with using Pegasus. It's simply not official for the English version.
I agree.
-
Of course I am not in a position to confirm that for every change they made. Also, I have no explanation why not all those CGL-blessed changes show up in the January update. All I am saying is that Pegasus usually talks with CGL about the changes they make.
They usually do, yes. But as mentioned, not every deviation from the English language rules is something they talked to CGL about. And there's nothing wrong with that- they have the license to essentially issue their own game over in europe.
I think the cogent point is that just because something is different in Pegasus' German language rules, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's evidence of CGL's intent.
-
Do you have any source for that claim? Because right now all evidence points to the contrary: Both in SR5 and SR6 Pegasus has made mistakes or significant rule changes in their adjusted version, which are unmatched by the CGL rules and errata. Letting Mystic Adepts freely gain PP is such a change, I have seen zero evidence that this is a CGL-approved change.
During the development of Genesis I was contact with Pegasus for clarifications. Sometimes I got forwarded CGL mail responses, more often I was informed that they contacted CGL for clarifications. E.g. the how adepts gain PP was a last minute change Pegasus needed to make because of an answer from CGL. This makes me pretty confident that most of the changes have been blessed by CGL.
Of course I am not in a position to confirm that for every change they made. Also, I have no explanation why not all those CGL-blessed changes show up in the January update. All I am saying is that Pegasus usually talks with CGL about the changes they make.
But at the same time those of us on the errata team have submitted changes to Jason saying this is how Pegaus did it and then he says no ... so there's that. As I said earlier Jason does review at least most of what they do but I wouldn't count it with the same weight until you see the same change in the English version.
Edit: sniped by SSDR
-
Normally I wouldn't mind it taking so long, but they already updated the CRB, so they know what the errata is. I know that they're working on more than one thing at a time and errata usually gets put on the back burner. I understand that part. What i don't understand is why it takes so long to just put the errata on a sheet of paper. I know there's fancy layout stuff that has to be done, but I really don't see where that should take more than a day or two.
Also, I know they got bit in the past for missing deadlines, but the whole radio silence thing they have going on now is getting to the point of ignoring everyone. If it's going to take a little while to get the errata sheet out, I don't love it, but that's ok. Just tell me that. Keep me in the loop. Otherwise it feels like you don't care about me. :(
-
But at the same time those of us on the errata team have submitted changes to Jason saying this is how Pegaus did it and then he says no ... so there's that. As I said earlier Jason does review at least most of what they do but I wouldn't count it with the same weight until you see the same change in the English version.
I get your points.
*sigh* :'( That does not help at all. If Pegasus reaches out to whomever at CGL with a question, gets a reply, prints it, you contact Jason and he rules otherwise - then the whole process is broken.
In the german forums there is a thread where the person responsible for the errata is collecting requests and compiles a list of things to ask CGL for clarifications. One would hope that CGL would remember the questions and the rulings they made and use it for their own errata. From what you said, I am not very confident anymore.
-
But at the same time those of us on the errata team have submitted changes to Jason saying this is how Pegaus did it and then he says no ... so there's that. As I said earlier Jason does review at least most of what they do but I wouldn't count it with the same weight until you see the same change in the English version.
I get your points.
*sigh* :'( That does not help at all. If Pegasus reaches out to whomever at CGL with a question, gets a reply, prints it, you contact Jason and he rules otherwise - then the whole process is broken.
This seems like a really important point to me.
Assuming that a) Pegasus asked about some change, and received an answer that they printed and b) that change was then rejected for the English language rules, then that is like the worst of all possible worlds. It both increases confusion, and also treats the German language version as some kind of red-headed stepchild set of rules.
I get that the powers that be might not have that much time to review the German changes, but the better response would be to either tell Pegasus "sorry, we cannot answer your questions yet" and then Pegasus has to make some hard decisions (e.g. make no changes to their version, or print knowing they may end up on the wrong side of it), or answer their questions and then stick with their answers.
-
...and then Pegasus has to make some hard decisions...
FWIW, when Pegasus prints rules that contradict with CGL, I presume this is the reason why. I seriously doubt they do it just for giggles.
But again, when Pegasus deviates from CGL, it does NOT necessarily mean the deviation shows CGL's intent.
-
Until Spinrad grows powerful and dumb enough that they dare send hitsquads after people following the Wyrm's rules, you don't have to worry about your home games.