[Glorthoron]

Hey guys,

My friends have never played SR4 20A, and I don't want to force them to read every word in  the book to learn what has changed and what has not from SR4.  Is there a place that I can get a list of all the changes to make it easier for them?

Thanks.

[Netzgeist]

If you looked at the FAQ, you would have found it. But to save you the trouble, here's the link to a practical 3-page document with the changes from SR4 to SR4A: Changes Reference Document.

[Glorthoron]

If you looked at the FAQ, you would have found it. But to save you the trouble, here's the link to a practical 3-page document with the changes from SR4 to SR4A: Changes Reference Document.

No need to be rude, just asking a question.

The last time I checked the FAQ, it had a link that didn't lead anywhere.  That was a while ago though.

[Netzgeist]

Sorry if it sounded rude; English is not my native language, and sometimes the same sentence can change the tone a lot during translation.
It was not my intent, really; as people usually say here, we are here to help. Hope the file has what you wanted.

[Glorthoron]

No problem.  Language barriers can do that some times.  Thanks for the help.

I noticed on that document at least one error: Success Test Difficulty Thresholds say 1-2-3-5, when in the actual book it says 1-2-4-6.  Are there any other errors that people know about?

Thanks in advance.

[Mason]

What they should have done with that table is expand it out, make the difficulties 1-2-3-4-5-6. That way, 7 hits on a success test always succeeds, rather than the original 5, but there is also a lot of room for the GM to fine-tune his tests based om the situation. Also, check the Big List of Things That Need Clarification for the list of things that were not clarified from SR4 to SR4A.

Sorry if it sounded rude; English is not my native language, and sometimes the same sentence can change the tone a lot during translation.
It was not my intent, really; as people usually say here, we are here to help. Hope the file has what you wanted.

you reacted to that well.

[CanRay]

Sorry if it sounded rude; English is not my native language, and sometimes the same sentence can change the tone a lot during translation.
It was not my intent, really; as people usually say here, we are here to help. Hope the file has what you wanted.

Lots of folks here with English as a second (or third, or fourth) language. 

Glad you're here!

[Mara]

Sorry if it sounded rude; English is not my native language, and sometimes the same sentence can change the tone a lot during translation.
It was not my intent, really; as people usually say here, we are here to help. Hope the file has what you wanted.

Did not sound rude to me. Sounded technical and precise. Which, unfortunately, many Americans who have no experience
with technical writing or people speaking precisely to avoid confusion(which seems to be a common thing for English as
a second language people) tend to interpret as "rude."

[JustADude]

Did not sound rude to me. Sounded technical and precise. Which, unfortunately, many Americans who have no experience with technical writing or people speaking precisely to avoid confusion (which seems to be a common thing for English as a second language people) tend to interpret as "rude."

As an American who has to speak precisely as part of my day-job, I wouldn't say "many". To me, that implies a large percentage... something like 20%, minimum. There's certainly a non-zero percentage, though; on the order of 1-3%, based on my years of interactions.

Of that 1-3%, most of them fall in a category I like to call "Craniorectally Inverted". They're morons that don't know they're morons... members of the Cult of Ignorance that think anyone talking over their head is doing it to be snotty and condescending. They'll act incredibly obtuse about something^*, then get offended when, after attempting to explaining things several times in an increasingly explicit manner, one ends up having to resort to "talking to them like they're an idiot" (according to them) because they've failed to comprehend the simpler, less detailed instructions.

The small remainder are generally those who are special little snowflakes who think the world revolves around them. They call anyone who doesn't instantly bend over backwards for them "rude" because, obviously, they're more important than everyone else and should, therefore, get their way regardless of law, company policy, common sense, or physics. They probably don't count for this situation, though.


^*The #1 situation where this occurs is right at the beginning, too. Honestly, what part of "I'll need to start by getting your telephone number, area code first," sounds like I'm asking for your name, the items you're calling about, the time you placed a previous order, the location of the franchise nearest you, your credit card information, or any part of your address?

[Mirikon]

I work 3rd shift at a gas station. You wouldn't believe how stupid some people can be. Especially the idiots who drive up with no ID, and then get upset with me because I won't sell them tobacco without it. And then try to pull the "You didn't ask me for it last time" or "The other guy lets me get it" cards. They REALLY don't like it when I respond to that with "Thank you for pointing out that mistake. Rest assured we will do our best to not let it happen again." The key is to be very calm and polite, because it pisses them off more, and keeps you in the clear. I get cursed out at least once a week, with death threats about once a month.

[Mara]

^*The #1 situation where this occurs is right at the beginning, too. Honestly, what part of "I'll need to start by getting your telephone number, area code first," sounds like I'm asking for your name, the items you're calling about, the time you placed a previous order, the location of the franchise nearest you, your credit card information, or any part of your address?

I work Night Audit at a hotel. I say "Good Evening" to someone, and they respond with "No" or something similar, I do what
I am supposed to do: "Oh..How can help with that? Can you tell me what the problem is?" And they stand there absolutely
confused, and I say,"You responded 'no' to 'good evening'..that means there is a problem. How can I help you sir?"
(Strangely, it is always men....) And then they act insulted!

[Glorthoron]

Sorry if it sounded rude; English is not my native language, and sometimes the same sentence can change the tone a lot during translation.
It was not my intent, really; as people usually say here, we are here to help. Hope the file has what you wanted.

Did not sound rude to me. Sounded technical and precise. Which, unfortunately, many Americans who have no experience
with technical writing or people speaking precisely to avoid confusion(which seems to be a common thing for English as
a second language people) tend to interpret as "rude."

Interesting point of view.  However, I am a very pedantic person when it comes to written communication (so much that I get confused when commas are in the wrong place in a sentance), and pointing out another person's action, such as "if you had checked the FAQ" as fact when really it was only a hunch is not technical and precise communication, it is prejudging a situation, or prejudice if you will.  That's pretty rude in my opinion.  I now understand that English isn't Netzgeist's first language and the communication barrier was the problem, not him being prejudiced or rude.  In fact, I'm sure if English was his first language, there would have been no problem at all.  I am happy to chalk it up as "lost in translation".   

Now, on the other hand, being referred to as American, is down right insulting. 

[Demerzel]

I noticed on that document at least one error: Success Test Difficulty Thresholds say 1-2-3-5, when in the actual book it says 1-2-4-6.  Are there any other errors that people know about?

Since no one has appeared to attempt to answer your question I will do my best, though it will ultimately end in a question.

I have the first printing, the Limited Edition, and each of the PDF's released since the original. I have not yet obtained a second printing. The first printing and LE include the 1-2-3-5+ thresholds, not the 1-2-4-6. So consider the 1-2-3-5+ the correct numbers.

I suspect that I understand where your confusion stems from. There were more PDF versions of the book than there were printings. This is due to a long delay from the original announcement and PDF release and the actual first printing. This allowed Catalyst to incorporate feedback from us end users who played from that original PDF. So the first printing contains changes from the first PDF.

My PDF history includes three distinct files:

The first containing metadata indicating:
Created: 3/10/2009 4:55:49 PM
Modified: 3/10/2009 8:31:21 PM

The second containing metadata indicating:
Created: 3/30/2009 4:04:33 PM
Modified: 3/30/2009 4:26:18 PM

Then finally the third containing metadata indicating:
Created: 3/30/2009 4:04:33 PM
Modified: 12/6/2011 11:33:22 AM

My understanding is that the second corresponds to the first printing, the third corresponds to the second printing. The copyright page on the first printing and the second PDF have WizKids listed as the copyright holder, the third PDF and presumably the second printing (though I have not confirmed) contain the Topps copyright, and removes the Holostreets URL.

When you say, "in the actual book it says 1-2-4-6." I would be interested to know if you have a printing that includes that or if you are referring to a PDF. I understand that the first PDF is common among players for some reason. If you indeed have that version refer to where you purchased it and work with them to get the updated version.

I know that the battleshop has been very responsive for me to reset download counters when I have missed an upgrade window or lost a PDF somehow. You can contact them at customerservice.catalyst@gmail.com. Dawn there has been of great help to me.

If you purchased from DriveThruRPG I don't have any experience with them so I can not provide assistance in obtaining an update as I know nothing of their order process.

I hope that is useful.

Regards,

[Crash_00]

Weird I also have a file with the data showing:
Created: 3/10/2009 4:55:49 PM
Modified: 3/19/2009 11:06:40 PM

And another one showing:
Created: 3/30/2009 4:04:33 PM
Modified: 4/14/2011 1:16:35 PM

First one is the original PDF I got, the second one is the one I got from the Demo Team site, but it's been replaced with the latest one now (the modified 12/6/2011 one). I guess there are even more versions of the PDF out there for some reason  .