[Michael Chandra]

So, why didn't Catalyst have this work done before the game was sent to the printers?  I have yet to hear a good answer to that question.

They did. But people missed things. It's as simple as that. Just like even after reading through the entire book twice, and seeing months of errata notes compiled by dozens of people reading things, complete newbies still managed to surprise me and them by discovering certain things were never explicitly stated and not yet covered in those notes.

Yes, I would prefer without hotfix. But at least this time they had a day-zero patch (even if communicated poorly), and they're bringing out a second set of errata, AND PDF updates, in a bit over half a year since first release. That's already a massive improvement, thanks to them constantly trying to improve their errata process. And at least CGL doesn't require a Word of God twitter-account to be quoted in rule-debates like D&D.

[skalchemist]

So, why didn't Catalyst have this work done before the game was sent to the printers?  I have yet to hear a good answer to that question.

They did. But people missed things. It's as simple as that. Just like even after reading through the entire book twice, and seeing months of errata notes compiled by dozens of people reading things, complete newbies still managed to surprise me and them by discovering certain things were never explicitly stated and not yet covered in those notes.

Yes, I would prefer without hotfix. But at least this time they had a day-zero patch (even if communicated poorly), and they're bringing out a second set of errata, AND PDF updates, in a bit over half a year since first release. That's already a massive improvement, thanks to them constantly trying to improve their errata process. And at least CGL doesn't require a Word of God twitter-account to be quoted in rule-debates like D&D.

Michael, I have no desire to argue you with you, especially not in this thread.  I meant no personal insult to you by my post.  I think the hotfix/errata folks are awesome for doing the work that they do, and I bear no ill will towards the designers (freelance or on-staff).  My gripe is with Catalyst management for sending a document that was not ready for printing to be printed, and then selling it to me without any indication of its problems.  As this is the first printed new product I have ever purchased from them (I think I picked up some PDFs of older Battletech/Shadowrun stuff in a Bundle at some point), the only thing that matters to me is there actions on this project.  That fact that they have improved is great, but meaningless to me. 

I've gotten that off my chest, so I'm good if you are.

[wraith]

Hey Mikey, I didn't see anyone say anything that could even reasonably be construed as the game isn't playable. Check the hyperbole and maybe brush up on your reading comprehension skills, it's gotten quite old, son.

He has a valid point that SR5 errata did take substantially longer, but that is also not a valid excuse. I'd wager hard money that Stainless and team had the changes ready to roll months ago and the powers that be mostly just sat on it. We can do better.

Struggling last time isn't really a reason to not have anticipated the same problem in this release and exercised sufficient editorial oversight to avoid needing zero-day errata.

As skalchemist says, I'm not throwing shade at the errata folks, but there was absolutely no reason for them to need to put in this much work on a brand new release that hasn't seen wide public play other than sheer lack of success on the folks editing and producing the SR6 core book.

Whoever signed off on it going to print when it did (one assumes Hardy, given his status as Line Dev) should absolutely have known what he was sending to print.  What should we assume from that?  Especially from a Line Dev who's been working on this line for CGL for a decade?

[Lormyr]

Struggling last time isn't really a reason to not have anticipated the same problem in this release and exercised sufficient editorial oversight to avoid needing zero-day errata.

As skalchemist says, I'm not throwing shade at the errata folks, but there was absolutely no reason for them to need to put in this much work on a brand new release that hasn't seen wide public play other than sheer lack of success on the folks editing and producing the SR6 core book.

Whoever signed off on it going to print when it did (one assumes Hardy, given his status as Line Dev) should absolutely have known what he was sending to print.  What should we assume from that?  Especially from a Line Dev who's been working on this line for CGL for a decade?

I agree fully. Improvement is desired, not more of the same.

[Michael Chandra]

That fact that they have improved is great, but meaningless to me. 

I've gotten that off my chest, so I'm good if you are.

To you it's meaningless, but within the context of those arguing SR5 is better, it holds a lot of value as counter-argument. But yeah, that's not really aimed at you, but at others. So I'm good.

[wraith]

SR5 is better at this point.

Because it has had eight years of errata and updates. That's all.

SR6 is likely to be a rules and PR trainwreck for at least a couple more years while CGL scrambles to salvage after tripping out of the gate.

[Finstersang]

SR5 is better at this point.

Because it has had eight years of errata and updates. That's all.

SR6 is likely to be a rules and PR trainwreck for at least a couple more years while CGL scrambles to salvage after tripping out of the gate.

Sadly true. Right now, they still seem to scramble with the very thought that there might be something wrong with the new edition   

However, i don´t think that Narcoject is that big of a problem here. At least not yet, since there are limited options to deliver the payload. Let´s see if the Combat supplement brings back universaly usable DMSO rounds, though 

The combat gases however: Boi. There really should be different strengths for different vectors. Strictly RAW, a gas mask doesn´t help drek against any of the combat gases listed in the CRB. And that´s not a new problem.

[Xelian]

Can we get back on the topic of Toxins instead of commenting again how many things they missed upon the book release And they released the new "errata" sort to say? Anyone see anything about Toxin there? I don't have the updated book

[Michael Chandra]

Alas, my free access is not yet updated so can't check. But on the lists people compiled, I can only find an update to tear gas description. (And the Antidote Spell has been boosted: It's no longer a threshold-facing extended test, but a repeatable directly-impacting test where if you sustain it for a second roll, you don't seem to face drain a second time.)