[Michael Chandra]

I do believe the issue people have here is not that they don't understand the clarified Recoil rules, it's that they don't like them.

Not really.  Players (and some GMs) will love this rule, mostly because they can now ignore it.

"A Complex Action is required for shooting weapons mounted on a vehicle in any firing mode" Page 183...

So.. Drones and vehicle can't ignore it at all.. because, you know... that makes sense somehow, I guess

Except for that that section is about people using Gunnery. Page 270 mentions that the rules for drone combat are the same as those for regular flesh-and-blood characters, which can be taken as that they have simple actions available for firing themselves. So no, it's not automatically overruled.

[Zar]

Was anyone else disappointed in the size of the Errata?  There seems to be so many more issues including errors in the archetypes, how dual wielding works against a single target, and what the -2 dice is for when defending against AOEs.  I read the 4 pages and while I was happy to get what I did I was wondering why it took 6 months to get that.

[Michael Chandra]

I know there's work on fully legal archetypes, so that will be out some day. I do hope we'll get a proper Multiple Attacks section in the future, and the AoE line not being removed is indeed rather confusing.

[PeterSmith]

Was anyone else disappointed in the size of the Errata?...I read the 4 pages and while I was happy to get what I did I was wondering why it took 6 months to get that.

No:

http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=14801.msg268009#msg268009

[JackVII]

Was anyone else disappointed in the size of the Errata?...I read the 4 pages and while I was happy to get what I did I was wondering why it took 6 months to get that.

No:

http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=14801.msg268009#msg268009

You know, while I can see that, I know someone (probably on dumpshock) is going to come along and call BS on what Hardy said. I get there is a lot of other stuff to be done, but there are some very obvious things that are (hopefully) incorrect and noted at the onset that this errata simply did not address. Unless we're to understand that the issue of submersion costing 30+ karma was examined but not considered critical enough to be included in the first draft of the errata (even though it would literally require a 45 degree turn of a signle character to correct).

[Pontoark]

Was anyone else disappointed in the size of the Errata?  There seems to be so many more issues including errors in the archetypes, how dual wielding works against a single target, and what the -2 dice is for when defending against AOEs.  I read the 4 pages and while I was happy to get what I did I was wondering why it took 6 months to get that.

I was a bit... and this comment:

That all happens while the Beginner Box Set, Stolen Souls, Splintered State, Gun H(e)aven 3, Run & Gun, Coyotes, Runners Toolkit: Alphaware, Shadowrun: Crossfire, Missions, Street Grimoire (upcoming magic core rulebook), and more are being worked on.

Made me think that perhaps they are valuing quantity too much and it's letting quality slide...

[Michael Chandra]

Given how people complain there's not already 2 more source books out, they really can't win this can they?

[Pontoark]

Given how people complain there's not already 2 more source books out, they really can't win this can they?

You can't please greeks and trojans

[PeterSmith]

You know, while I can see that, I know someone (probably on dumpshock) is going to come along and call BS on what Hardy said.

Frankly, I don't care. People on Dumpshock (and this forum) simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes. If somebody wants to spout off from a position of ignorance they're welcome to. I can always use a good chuckle.

Unless we're to understand that the issue of submersion costing 30+ karma was examined but not considered critical enough to be included in the first draft of the errata (even though it would literally require a 45 degree turn of a signle character to correct).

In this day and age, games are more alive than they were even ten years ago. The instant feedback from fans is awesome in picking up things that get missed. If you want to see an example of this, ask a BattleTech player about artillery when Tactical Operations was first published. Fans felt they were horrible, that the odds of dropping a shell on your own launchers was too high. Granted you had to essentially put your guns on the front line for the scenario to develop, but it was enough that a lot of fans complained. That they did so in a polite manner, including reasoning and suggestions for changes, was (IMO) the biggest reason for the change to what artillery became. I fully expect more changes to come later, as resources free up to look at complaints from the core books. My guess (and this truly is a guess AJCarrington ) is we'll see errata come out as they relate to upcoming core books. Why not spend the time going over changes to core rules when you're working on expanding those rules?

[JackVII]

Frankly, I don't care. People on Dumpshock (and this forum) simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes. If somebody wants to spout off from a position of ignorance they're welcome to. I can always use a good chuckle.

Sorry, I don't really buy that and I really don't think you have to understand the gaming industry to be able to formulate an opinion. There are several outstanding items that are in a similar vein to what was offered in this errata. Examples include the TM Submersion karma cost and the Binding Test rules that mention the Summoning skill rather than the Binding skill. It really is bewildering to me why these wouldn't have been included in this initial errata document. They are clearly copy/paste and/or typo errors that DO effect the way the game is played. I can look past not including changing the "Auctioneer Business Clothes" in the Index to "Actioneer" but these items do change the way the game is played if one wants to play by RAW. Are they easy to house rule? Yeah! But they would be just as easy to fix in an errata document. The only explanation I can really think of is that CGL doesn't have a very well organized method for dealing with errata and they simply missed including it. That's fine, people are human and I can hope that it would get included in the next round of errata documents. The problem is if it takes another 6 months before we get the next set, particularly given the lack of communication in general from TPTB over here. It would take six words to fix the TM submersion deal: "It should be an addition sign."

Why not spend the time going over changes to core rules when you're working on expanding those rules?

Because it impacts people's games now?

[Namikaze]

The thing is, the errata is "canon" but ultimately everything in every book is subject to the whims of the GM.  If the GM doesn't like the change to...  say, progressive recoil... then the GM is free to change things.  It is nice to have errata, because it's presumably been playtested and works.  But to make that presumption still requires a degree of understanding that writing errata isn't just a matter of making a list and writing it up.  People can't have their cake and eat it too.  Which sucks, because... well, it's cake!

So the errata doesn't impact people's games so heavily as it seems.  If a table hates the errata they can just throw it out.  Or throw out pieces of it.  Or add pieces to it.  It's irrelevant in the short term.  The only part that the errata really heavily impacts are the Missions campaigns.

[RHat]

Sorry, I don't really buy that and I really don't think you have to understand the gaming industry to be able to formulate an opinion.

An informed opinion, on the other hand...

[JackVII]

Sorry, I don't really buy that and I really don't think you have to understand the gaming industry to be able to formulate an opinion.

An informed opinion, on the other hand...

You know, I originally even had "informed" in there, but decided you don't even need an "informed" opinion to wonder about and question the obvious scattershot nature of this errata document. I'm extremely happy we have something, I'm less excited by the fact that I don't have high hopes that we're going to be seeing even semi-regular updates to it due to the publishing schedule. But keep on keeping on, I guess.

[RHat]

I am a little curious over where the line between "typo" and "errata change" is, to be honest.  But it's almost certainly easier for them to fit further errata into the schedule if they plan on it from far enough out - I'm pretty sure part of the problem is the structure of just how freelancer time gets distributed and so on; when everything is contract based with set deadlines, you don't have a lot of agility to reorient towards a change in plans.

[samoth]

You know, while I can see that, I know someone (probably on dumpshock) is going to come along and call BS on what Hardy said.

Frankly, I don't care. People on Dumpshock (and this forum) simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes. If somebody wants to spout off from a position of ignorance they're welcome to. I can always use a good chuckle.

I'd love to know what's going on behind the scenes...except anyone who can tell us is under an NDA.  Oh, and Hardy made an appearance on this forum today, so we can expect another post from him in 2018 or so.  So many white knights on this forum defend everything, good or bad, that Catalyst release.