[SteakAndSpirits]

Not sure if this has already been noted.  Appears to be an inconsistency between the Priority Table vs. the Priority Selection Examples.

Priority Table indicates Attributes(C) provides 12 attribute points.  The Priority Selection Examples paragraph appears to indicate (that this was once) 14 points.

"To be honest, she’s a little concerned that the 14 attribute points from Priority C will be a little thin, but she figures the extra Karma for customization and a negative quality or two will help fill in any gaps she might have."  (SR6 BBB, pg. 64)

-s&s

[Hephaestus]

Good catch. That made it through the first printing, the hot-fix, and the revised PDF. The value should reflect the priority table value, which is 12.

The example matches the old D priority attribute value from 5th edition, which were 24/20/16/14/12. Not really sure why they changed that spread, but its probably because argle bargle, foofaraw, hey diddy hoe diddy no one knows (pg. 127).

[GuardDuty]

but its probably because argle bargle, foofaraw, hey diddy hoe diddy no one knows (pg. 127).

Has it actually been confirmed that that line was an accident?  I've only seen the small section of text it is from, but if it's written in-character it is slightly possible it was actually intentional.

[Hephaestus]

but its probably because argle bargle, foofaraw, hey diddy hoe diddy no one knows (pg. 127).

Has it actually been confirmed that that line was an accident?  I've only seen the small section of text it is from, but if it's written in-character it is slightly possible it was actually intentional.

It is in the printed book and the updated PDF, so I have to assume it was either intentional, or CGL doesn't care enough to change it.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

but its probably because argle bargle, foofaraw, hey diddy hoe diddy no one knows (pg. 127).

Has it actually been confirmed that that line was an accident?  I've only seen the small section of text it is from, but if it's written in-character it is slightly possible it was actually intentional.

It is in the printed book and the updated PDF, so I have to assume it was either intentional, or CGL doesn't care enough to change it.

Or it could instead just be that not everything that's been proposed for errata was approved in time for changing the .pdf before release.

Or even, maybe it was just missed in favor of working on other stuff.  Constructively pointing things like these out is a great way to affect positive change in combing out the kinks. If noone on errata wants to read a complainy post, valid points therein will go missed.

[Hephaestus]

Or even, maybe it was just missed in favor of working on other stuff.  Constructively pointing things like these out is a great way to affect positive change in combing out the kinks. If noone on errata wants to read a complainy post, valid points therein will go missed.

Ctrl+F for "argle bargle" and delete isn't that time consuming, SSDR. On a related note, I didn't know that argle-bargle is an actual word, and it fits the book! You learn something new every day!

r·gle-bar·gle
/ˌärɡəlˈbärɡəl/
noun
noun: argle-bargle

    1. copious but meaningless talk or writing; nonsense.

[Xenon]

Hephaestus, you salty or something...

Why is even "...doesn't care enough to change it" one of your very first assumptions and why do you think that would be the appropriate answer that the opening poster came here for?

I apologize for ranking down on you specifically like this, I know there are a few more posters that do this, I also know that you only have some <200 total posts on this forum, but right now you are in the rules part of it.

People come here to ask rules related questions. They expect relevant and accurate answers. In this case this would have been more than enough:

"Good catch. The value should reflect the priority table value, which is 12."

[penllawen]

Constructively pointing things like these out is a great way to affect positive change in combing out the kinks. If noone on errata wants to read a complainy post, valid points therein will go missed.

So to summarise, then:

1) Catalyst have released a book with pretty serious issues [1]
2) the errata team are working as volunteer stand-ins for Caralyst’s non-existent customer service and community support
3) People who bought the book are pissed because of (1)

Threatening to ignore valid points raised by the purchasers because you don’t like how they expressed them isn’t going to help. I appreciate you’re volunteers, and it sucks that Catalyst staff aren’t here being paid to absorb this stuff instead of you. But that’s not our fault.

Purchasers being annoyed because the thing they bought is sub-par are not being unreasonable, and attempting to tone police by threatening to ignore their feedback isn’t helpful.

[1] Perhaps you want to disagree with my characterisation of “pretty serious.” I have brought receipts so we can go at that, if you like.

[Michael Chandra]

Hephaestus, you salty or something...

Why is even "...doesn't care enough to change it" one of your very first assumptions and why do you think that would be the appropriate answer that the opening poster came here for?

I apologize for ranking down on you specifically like this, I know there are a few more posters that do this, I also know that you only have some <200 total posts on this forum, but right now you are in the rules part of it.

People come here to ask rules related questions. They expect relevant and accurate answers. In this case this would have been more than enough:

"Good catch. The value should reflect the priority table value, which is 12."

Yeah, nobody should assume the hotfix errata are perfect. They did what they could, but even then they're still human. Essence starting at 6 and you dying at 0 is something they definitely would have included had they realised. So nobody's perfect, but they're doing their best. We're all passing things on in the hopes the errata team, if they didn't know already, can work it through their list for the next wave.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Constructively pointing things like these out is a great way to affect positive change in combing out the kinks. If noone on errata wants to read a complainy post, valid points therein will go missed.

So to summarise, then:

1) Catalyst have released a book with pretty serious issues [1]
2) the errata team are working as volunteer stand-ins for Caralyst’s non-existent customer service and community support
3) People who bought the book are pissed because of (1)

Threatening to ignore valid points raised by the purchasers because you don’t like how they expressed them isn’t going to help. I appreciate you’re volunteers, and it sucks that Catalyst staff aren’t here being paid to absorb this stuff instead of you. But that’s not our fault.

Purchasers being annoyed because the thing they bought is sub-par are not being unreasonable, and attempting to tone police by threatening to ignore their feedback isn’t helpful.

[1] Perhaps you want to disagree with my characterisation of “pretty serious.” I have brought receipts so we can go at that, if you like.

To be clear there was no threat made.  I've got the power to choose to not read your posts, you've got the power to choose to not read my posts. That's the nature of the forum. My point was, if one is going to give oneself a reputation as someone who's posts don't even get read, whatever valid points and potentially great ideas therein would then go unrealized by those who might have been able to use them.

[Hephaestus]

Hephaestus, you salty or something...

Why is even "...doesn't care enough to change it" one of your very first assumptions and why do you think that would be the appropriate answer that the opening poster came here for?

I apologize for ranking down on you specifically like this, I know there are a few more posters that do this, I also know that you only have some <200 total posts on this forum, but right now you are in the rules part of it.

People come here to ask rules related questions. They expect relevant and accurate answers. In this case this would have been more than enough:

"Good catch. The value should reflect the priority table value, which is 12."

Considering I paid $50 for an unfinished hardcover book at GenCon, yeah, you could say I am a little salty. The same could probably be said for about 800 other people.

As for accuracy/relevance, I added the ability spread from fifth to show a likely place where the incorrect value was pulled from. The argle-bargle was intended to be a joke, but as is common in forums, humor doesn't always flow well through text.

My response about "not caring" was not about the change from 14 to 12. It was to the "argle bargle" sentence in the core book, which has been a point of embarrassment for this edition since the PDF was leaked back around GenCon. You would think that something that is both a focal point of bad writing/editing, and has no mechanical issues tied to it, would be an easy fix so that it wouldn't be in the PDF. But here we are...

And MC, I agree that the hot-fix would not have caught all the argle bargle, since it wasn't tied to anything mechanical. But I would expect it to be edited out of the first PDF release, because they had ample time to Ctrl+F as I stated before. They could have just deleted it, or said that there are spirits that adopt metahuman appearances and demeanors, for reasons wholly their own.

To concur with penllawen, implying you're going to skip over someone's posts because you don't like their tone does come off as a threat, especially if you're tied to CGL in any official capacity. And to be completely honest, I have no idea what "ranking down" on me means on this forum.

[penllawen]

Considering I paid $50 for an unfinished hardcover book at GenCon, yeah, you could say I am a little salty. The same could probably be said for about 800 other people.

Ah, shite. Sorry I'd be hopping mad in your shoes.

Constructively pointing things like these out is a great way to affect positive change in combing out the kinks. If noone on errata wants to read a complainy post, valid points therein will go missed.

To be clear there was no threat made.  I've got the power to choose to not read your posts, you've got the power to choose to not read my posts. That's the nature of the forum. My point was, if one is going to give oneself a reputation as someone who's posts don't even get read, whatever valid points and potentially great ideas therein would then go unrealized by those who might have been able to use them.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "unrealized by those who might have been able to use them" but in the context of your former quote it sounds like you mean in the context of making it into the errata?

In which case let me be very clear about something: I don't care about that in the slightest. It is neither my job nor my desire to clean up Catalyst's mess. If the entire errata team put me on ignore and consequently things I point out are broken stay broken then that's Catalyst's problem, not mine. I will not be affected at all.