[Noble Drake]

The book is rife with small errors, and there are some puzzling rules issues... but who ever said it was broken or impossible to play? I think you guys are getting even more defensive about it than CGL themselves.

That is a hilarious thought, thank you for it.

As to who said broken or impossible to play... that would be certain posters on Dumpshock, and I think I remember seeing someone in one of the threads (I can't recall if it was here, dumpshock, or shadowrun.com) asking if the 2nd printing would include errata stating that they would be waiting to buy the book because they can't play it without errata.

[Ryo]

Riggers are pretty damn hard to play right out of the book. Not only because of the Gunnery rules being confusing as hell, as has been mentioned repeatedly, but the entire table for what autosofts cost is missing, how you repair damage for drones is missing, the drones themselves don't seem to have had their Armor updated from 4th edition, so they're all ridiculously fragile, and so on and so forth. Basically every aspect of Riggers has to have a GM houserule on how to interpret the book, or just outright provide their own numbers like with autosofts, before its a playable archetype.

[All4BigGuns]

As to who said broken or impossible to play... that would be certain posters on Dumpshock, and I think I remember seeing someone in one of the threads (I can't recall if it was here, dumpshock, or shadowrun.com) asking if the 2nd printing would include errata stating that they would be waiting to buy the book because they can't play it without errata.

The first post in this thread seems to be along those lines.

[Noble Drake]

Riggers are pretty damn hard to play right out of the book. Not only because of the Gunnery rules being confusing as hell, as has been mentioned repeatedly, but the entire table for what autosofts cost is missing, how you repair damage for drones is missing, the drones themselves don't seem to have had their Armor updated from 4th edition, so they're all ridiculously fragile, and so on and so forth. Basically every aspect of Riggers has to have a GM houserule on how to interpret the book, or just outright provide their own numbers like with autosofts, before its a playable archetype.

That's not actually all that true...

You can play with confusing gunnery rules - just have your GM choose which part of the book is correct and ignore all others. The different sets of gunnery rules all function, the problem is that there is more than one set in the first place.

You can play without autosofts - they have clear benefits, yes, and you feel less capable without them... but you can still operate a drone without them.

You can even play without repairing your drones - it just gets expensive with all the buying new drones you will be doing. Alternatively, you can patch-fix the problem at the table by using the information present (which gives what skill to use, that the GM decides threshold and interval, and modifiers that might apply to the roll) and borrowing a single sentence from repairing matrix damage (that each hit either repairs 1 box of damage or reduces the interval time by half).

You can play with "ridiculously fragile" drones - you just use a different strategy than trying to have them sit through sprays of bullet fire, and the Steel Lynx is the only one actually referred to as a "combat" drone and can also hold up to gunfire better than most PCs.

None of the complaints that you raise actually prevent anyone from playing a drone rigger - they just make it a little more difficult than you want for it to be.

[All4BigGuns]

Riggers are pretty damn hard to play right out of the book. Not only because of the Gunnery rules being confusing as hell, as has been mentioned repeatedly, but the entire table for what autosofts cost is missing, how you repair damage for drones is missing, the drones themselves don't seem to have had their Armor updated from 4th edition, so they're all ridiculously fragile, and so on and so forth. Basically every aspect of Riggers has to have a GM houserule on how to interpret the book, or just outright provide their own numbers like with autosofts, before its a playable archetype.

That's not actually all that true...

You can play with confusing gunnery rules - just have your GM choose which part of the book is correct and ignore all others. The different sets of gunnery rules all function, the problem is that there is more than one set in the first place.

You can play without autosofts - they have clear benefits, yes, and you feel less capable without them... but you can still operate a drone without them.

You can even play without repairing your drones - it just gets expensive with all the buying new drones you will be doing. Alternatively, you can patch-fix the problem at the table by using the information present (which gives what skill to use, that the GM decides threshold and interval, and modifiers that might apply to the roll) and borrowing a single sentence from repairing matrix damage (that each hit either repairs 1 box of damage or reduces the interval time by half).

You can play with "ridiculously fragile" drones - you just use a different strategy than trying to have them sit through sprays of bullet fire, and the Steel Lynx is the only one actually referred to as a "combat" drone and can also hold up to gunfire better than most PCs.

None of the complaints that you raise actually prevent anyone from playing a drone rigger - they just make it a little more difficult than you want for it to be.

And also, only the Gunnery thing would affect the Wheelman Rigger at all.

[Dangersaurus]

That's not actually all that true...

See, automatically discounting legitimate concerns is what leads to hard feelings on this sort of thing. We're steps away from forming camps and circling the wagons.

There really are issues that need clarification to make the game run smoothly. People really are cancelling hardback orders and sticking with the PDF or some other solution (Lulu FTW). Selling out and topping charts should be a total win for them. How they handle the back end of it is going to majorly affect their public image for years to come. Is CGL going to be the next Steve Jackson Games, or the next Mongoose?

[Noble Drake]

That's not actually all that true...

See, automatically discounting legitimate concerns...

I did not, automatically or otherwise, discount any legitimate concerns.

The expressed concern - that riggers are not playable without errata - is one that is far from legitimate, and I expressed evidence proving such.

Now, had the poster said something subjective - example: I don't want to play such a rigger as is currently possible - rather than trying to state their opinion as unquestionable fact... well, then my post would have been significantly different.

See, concerns aren't legitimate just because someone is having them.

[Dangersaurus]

You just turned "hard to play" which is what he said, into "not playable without errata." IMO you're not thinking clearly on this.

[Sichr]

It's not actually all that rough. There are a few erratas but nothing overwhelming.

I see what you are doing there!!!
Thanx for making me smile over your last 4 posts here, you joker

[Noble Drake]

You just turned "hard to play" which is what he said, into "not playable without errata." IMO you're not thinking clearly on this.

Sure, he started with "hard to play."

Had he stopped there, he would have been right and so would you. He didn't. He continued on to finish with "...before its a playable archetype."

[Ryo]

I outright said, that without the GM providing interpretations and houserules, they are hard to play straight out of the book. Your response was 'That's not true, the GM can just provide all those rules for you!'

...Which is exactly what I said. As written, without the GM having to houserule it, The Rigger archetype is missing huge chunks. Yes, if you specifically build to ignore those problems, you can play a Rigger just fine, but that's exactly what you're doing: Ignoring or houseruling the problems. That doesn't mean the problems aren't there and don't need to be fixed.

[Reaver]

I outright said, that without the GM providing interpretations and houserules, they are hard to play straight out of the book. Your response was 'That's not true, the GM can just provide all those rules for you!'

...Which is exactly what I said. As written, without the GM having to houserule it, The Rigger archetype is missing huge chunks. Yes, if you specifically build to ignore those problems, you can play a Rigger just fine, but that's exactly what you're doing: Ignoring or houseruling the problems. That doesn't mean the problems aren't there and don't need to be fixed.

and for the most part, we aren't disagreeing with you that there needs to be an errata, we are arguing which form that errata will take...

MY stance is that including all the errata into the corebook AT THIS TIME would be too expensive for CGL to do.... and they are most likely to release the Errata either as a separate PDF or include errata for specific rules in the following sourcebooks (like the errata for riggers in the rigger sourcebook) as that requires less man hours of work then adding it to the corebook and then fixing all the formatting AND changing all the incidentals that would come along with that (more pages, more bindings, etc)

OTHER peoples stances are that they refuse to buy the book until they DO put im the errata into the corebook

YET other people are off on other tangents.

[All4BigGuns]

OTHER peoples stances are that they refuse to buy the book until they DO put im the errata into the corebook

And these are the ones that are causing problems. What they're expecting is, in my opinion, the same as going to a fast food burger joint and throwing a wall-eyed hissy fit because of a simple case of human error of putting pickles on the burger that was supposed to be no pickles and expecting two or three free meals out of it (yes people do that kind of crap).

[Reaver]

OTHER peoples stances are that they refuse to buy the book until they DO put im the errata into the corebook

.....going to a fast food burger joint and throwing a wall-eyed hissy fit because of a simple case of human error of putting pickles on the burger that was supposed to be no pickles and expecting two or three free meals out of it (yes people do that kind of crap).

way, way, way too often

[All4BigGuns]

OTHER peoples stances are that they refuse to buy the book until they DO put im the errata into the corebook

.....going to a fast food burger joint and throwing a wall-eyed hissy fit because of a simple case of human error of putting pickles on the burger that was supposed to be no pickles and expecting two or three free meals out of it (yes people do that kind of crap).

way, way, way too often

Agreed, and what's worse is that when they get the free meals they generally have larger and more expensive orders.