[skalchemist]

Hi.  I'm really not trying to cause trouble with this question, and I understand completely that given current circumstances in the world, errata for 6E is pretty far down the list of concerns.  But I do have a question.

Will an eventual errata document include extra stuff that is not actually corrected in the January PDF?  (e.g. because there was no way to shove it in without changing layout and page numbering)

I ask because if the answer to that question is "no" then, really, I don't need to keep asking about it.  It would be nice to have that separate document, but really others (including Micheal C here on these forums) have already really done the work of itemizing the changes to the January PDF.  If that is all there is going to be, I can stop thinking about it and focus on the rules as they are. 

Not really interested in speculation, interested in an answer from someone who can answer it authoritatively.  If no one exists that CAN answer it, that would also be useful to know.  If this is not the right place to get an authoritative answer, that would also be useful to know. 

I don't need a schedule for its release, and given past history and the current situation I wouldn't really put faith in such a schedule anyway.  Its enough for me to know that a) there are more changes than what are shown in the January PDF and b) those changes will eventually be released in some format.    As long as the lockdown in Ontario continues, I won't actually be playing 6E anyway.   

[Hobbes]

PM Jason Hardy on Facebook, he's the one who could answer that question.

As far as I know the Errata team still intends to issue a FAQ, unfortunately I don't have a time frame for that.

[skalchemist]

PM Jason Hardy on Facebook, he's the one who could answer that question.

As far as I know the Errata team still intends to issue a FAQ, unfortunately I don't have a time frame for that.

Since I'm not a facebook friend of his, I think that might be difficult?  Would the Catalyst Game Labs facebook page be good enough?

Does that mean that no one authorized to answer that question monitors this forum?  I don't mean that in an accusatory way, I just am asking in a factual sense; I accept this might just be a bad place to ask the question.

Also, my question is not about whether a document will be released or not, its whether that document will have EXTRA stuff that hasn't already been seen.  I don't need to know what that stuff is, I can be patient.  But it would be nice to know whether or not we will see other stuff or not.  As an example, it could be that there are a number of changes, but a decision has been made to put those all in some future supplement instead of a separate FAQ/errata PDF.   

I guess my other point is that if all the next document will have in it is an itemization of the stuff that changed in January...that's nice, but really, might as well not bother?  Like anyone working on that is probably wasting their time at this point. 

[Hobbes]

All Errata flows through Jason Hardy.  The Errata team has made and submitted recommendations, which is our bit (basically). 

Jason would approve, then the Errata would either get stuffed into the next .pdf which requires all kinds of editing and layout work, or a creation of a separate Errata Document.  Neither of those steps are what the Errata team does.  Jason would be the one to approve the Errata, and then there would be some kind of business process to approve spending the money on the actual document creation/editing.  Because folks gotta get paid to do that work.

The people who know if such things are happening behind the scenes are most certainly bound by an NDA and unable to answer your question. 

[Lormyr]

Skalchemist, the unfortunate truth about the issue is that Jason takes his sweet time on this stuff. He is the holdup. The current errata team in place is fast and on top of this stuff, and I am very confident their work gets sat upon for months long after it is finished.

I wish I could say that pestering him will speed things along, but I can't say that with certainty.

[Banshee]

Skalchemist .... sadly yes that is your answer. No one other than Jason Hardy can answer your question. I can say there has been additional stuff submitted but that is as far as I know. Whether any of it is or will approved and released is unknown to anyone except Jason as this time.

[Michael Chandra]

And unfortunately we're already two months behind when he intended to publish the errata-document, meaning that there's some form of delay.

[skalchemist]

Hey, I think you all have really answered my question, so no worries!

It seems pretty clear that a) there is more stuff than what was in the January update and b) there is still at least a vague intent for that stuff to be seen eventually. 

I have no desire to pester Mr. Hardy or anyone else, now that I know that.  God knows the current situation makes such things seem laughably unimportant.  I just wanted to know if this was something I should keep keeping an eye out for, keep paying attention to, or if I could leave it and move on.  I think I have my answer on that.

[Lormyr]

I have no desire to pester Mr. Hardy or anyone else, now that I know that.  God knows the current situation makes such things seem laughably unimportant.  I just wanted to know if this was something I should keep keeping an eye out for, keep paying attention to, or if I could leave it and move on.  I think I have my answer on that.

Very true, but in equal fairness, reasonable timeliness has never been a quality associated with him. . .

[Shinobi Killfist]

I kind of wonder if errata will be kind of released via supplements. Like for example the alchemy section(okay 70% of the magic section) needs a total rewrite, maybe the magic book will basically provide the fixes via items, edge moves, talents etc.  Why fix the core issue if you can patch it.