[markelphoenix]

Is there more errata being worked on? If so, is there a schedule for it? Really want to dig back in, but was...woefully disappointed with quality of rules released.

[Xenon]

What are you missing?

[Shinobi Killfist]

If you think there is going to be rule change style errata I kind of doubt it. Maybe they will do something with spirits and immunity to normal weapons. But otherwise I am not expecting anything. The fixes that clarify rule intent, or fix a missing referenced rule I think are already done outside a couple things like melee combat.

[Finstersang]

Stuff like fixing Spirits/Hardened Armor (btw: Just turn it into a soak dice bonus, FFS!) would already be very substantial change.

I mean, of course there will be no total rollback on the core premises ("We decided to totally abandon the Edge System, Armor adds soak dice now.") due to negative feedback. The people that disagree with 6th Editions design choices on such a fundamental level will have already abandoned the ship. But even for those who agree (or at least put up with it...) there´s still a huge amount of shortcomings in the RAW that could be adressed, either via Errata or (which I suspect for many of these issues) a supplement: Hardened Armor, Flechette and APDS Ammo, the bad Full Auto options - just to name a few that might be adressed in Firing Line.*

There´s just still so many little thing where you just can´t keep a straight face and say "Yep, works as intended". Just see what happens RAW when you fire out of cover while using an image scope.

And then there´s the stuff that might have worked RAW if the original design hadn´t been gutted by the Editing team. F.i., the Matrix rules.

And then there´s the fact that even the latest errata isn´t up to date with the latest CRB and incomplete. Strength adding to melee weapon AR is still only referenced in an example text, f.i.

If CGL wants to keep 6th Edition alive (which I´m not sure about rn... but at least there´s content coming from Pegasus press  ), there needs to be more - at least in the form of "advanced rules" in the supplements. Else, every supplement will just inherit these problems.

[Xenon]

I am well aware of the fact that the book got some editing issues. Last edition that had a good editing level was probably the 20th anniversary 4th edition.
...a lot of people played 5th edition anyway


Having said that, most things just need a bit of clarification.
Very few things are contradicting or out right wrong and thus in need of actual errata. The a big portion of the content in the errata (both of them) were clarifications rather than rules that got totally changed. An official document with clarifications is something that we should have had for 5th edition as well I think (but never got).

...like fixing Spirits/Hardened Armor

It might be intended that normal weapons should not be very efficient against spirits with immunity against normal weapons.

Flechette

It might be intended that shots deal less damage [against armored targets which a vast majority of all our targets seems to be] but are easier to hit with (compared to slugs).

APDS

It might be intended that armor piercing bullets deal less damage than bullets that are not armor piercing (small entry hole, small exit hole) and it might also be intended that APDS have higher armor piercing properties than regular ammo (high AP is is represented with high AR in this edition).

(having said that, I think they could have added an optional rule to make them better against targets that have 'hardened armor').

the bad Full Auto options

While I would like Full Auto against more than one target to act more like a frontal cone AoE attack that hit both friend or foe (similar to suppressive fire in 5th edition) this implementation seem to work quite well as well.

This needs errata because....?

Just see what happens RAW when you fire out of cover while using an image scope.

It might be intended that the chance of gaining edge when being attacked is increased while you take cover but in return you don't get to earn edge when you attack.

It might also be intended that if if you have a scope you get to trade a minor action to prevent a fortified target from gaining edge when being attacked.

This needs errata because....?

And then there´s the stuff that might have worked RAW if the original design hadn´t been gutted by the Editing team. F.i., the Matrix rules.

I am assuming you are talking about slaved devices (or are you thinking about anything else?).

This was an issue in SR5 as well (in several sections they talk about PAN as all your electronic devices you carry on your body and in other sections of the book they talk about PAN as a limited number of devices, such as drones, slaved to your master device).

The only thing missing here (both editions) seem to be a distinction between wireless devices in general (which perhaps you can have an unlimited amount of as long as you carry them and your commlink close to your body) and drones (and vehicles and smart firing platforms etc) that can be several hundred meters away, but use the explicit slave limit when it comes to how many you can connect to your network at once.

Strength adding to melee weapon AR is still only referenced in an example text

Agree that this could be clarified.
Hopefully they plan on doing that with the next update of the PDF.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

As being intimately involved in the "STR adds to AR" errata, I'll speak out and confirm that yes there was a line that was supposed to be added to state that Strength adds to melee weapon ARs. For reasons that I don't know, it failed to show up in the published output.

As for the other very good points Fintersang bought up: rest assured they have not gone undiscussed.  All I feel comfortable saying is you've seen in the official errata what came, and didn't come, thus far of those discussions.

[Finstersang]

It´s true that most of these points (the list is far from exhaustive, though) isn´t "Errata" in the strictest sense, i.e. printing errors, missing tables etc. I´m conflating these with issues (i.e. stuff that somewhat works, but not as intended), bad design (stuff that works as intendend, but the intentions are bad) and clarifications (stuff where you only know the intention if you scour the forums for it). Hence my notion that some of these sings might rather be adressed in a supplement. Note that due to the lack communication with the community (besides Banshee, blessed he shall be) about these choices, we also don´t know what "works as intended" and what is faulty due to editing errors or unforeseen interactions.

The rules for Firing out of Cover and Imaging scopes are a very good example of this. This one is bad design all the way through, top to bottom: It starts with the top-tier decision to use "can´t earn or use Edge on this" as an effect for certain Qualities, Perks and Combat factors in the first place. This alone is highly questionable because

• It undermines the purpose of the Edge System
• It leads to redundancies with other effects...
• ...including the super-important Limit of 2 Edge per Combat round!
• It´s adding to an increasing pile of "modifier types" that are used instead of the good old dice pool modifiers. By now, we already have: You (or your opponent) gets Edge, You (or your opponent) get Edge for this test only, You (or your opponent) can´t get Edge, You (or your opponent) can´t use Edge, You (or your opponent) can´t get and use Edge, Your Edge uses get cheaper, AR or DR increases and decreases, lots of miscallenous bonuses (Whooohoo! Thanks to the Hydraulic jacks I can jump a whole 20cm higher  ), and dice pool Modificators, because these still exis... wait, wasn´t this Edition supposed to be streamlined?

But let´s not dive to deep here. The decision was made, all the appeals were ignored: "Can´t earn or use Edge on this" is now an official Ersatz Modifier. Let´s spread it all over the place, from Drug withdrawal to Imaging Scopes  to the Cover mechanic. What could go wrong? Well, turns out that for both Cover and Scopes this effect is an especially bad choice.

For Cover, it´s mostly due to effect clutter (see above). Instead of just one or two effects, Cover has up to five: Bonus dice to the Defense test, Bonus DR, the need for an additional Minor, the Edge restriction and -2 dice for Cover IV. You can probably argue that this is intended, though.

For Scopes, the effect is so unfitting that I´m honestly not sure if this is still the case here. The weapons that are intended to be used with a Scope all have pretty good AR in the higher ranges, especially if used with a vision magnification (which has a different effect for some reason?). To earn Edge from AR/DR as the defender, you have to be a Cybered Troll or a Steel Lynx. Or you have to be in close range, because that´s where Longarms have bad AR ratings. In other words, Scopes are best when used in Close Combat. Now that makes sense . My suspicion: The effect was originally designed with a different distribution of AR values in mind, where the AR would always decrease with range and even Sniper Rifles have only a few points in the Extreme Ranges. But then these were changed to their current state, and now the ig effect of the Scope doesn´t fit its RL purpose anymore.

But the real magic happens when you put both of these rules together: If you are in Cover, you can´t get Edge for shooting. And if you use a Scope while in Cover (I know: Snipers using cover? What a wild idea  ), your opponent can´t get Edge as well, which means that AR/DR is completely disabled. Armor? Range? Recoil? Your shitty APDS Ammo? Doesn´t matter. Even if the individual effects of Cover and Scopes are intended (which I doubt at least for the Scope), this interaction is clearly not.  I´m 99% sure that these were conceived by two different people and they were never properly tested together.
 
Of course, many of these things don´t need errata. F.i. with the Ammo types, even if APDS and Flechettes are shit options (and also have unfittingly similar effects, while they should and always have be opposites), you can always do the ol´ "WeLl No OnEs FoRciNG yOu tO USe tHeM" and call it a day. Likewise, if a critical mass of players don´t understand or have mixed interpretations for a certain part of the rules, you can always claim that it´s "the GM´s call or whatever". But then you shouldn´t be surprised if more and more players turn their backs on the game. Just because it´s not an "errata issue" in the strictest sense, doesn´t mean that it isn´t an issue. And if the Errata already included some substantial improvements (like adding Strength to Melee Weapon AR), why stop there?

As being intimately involved in the "STR adds to AR" errata, I'll speak out and confirm that yes there was a line that was supposed to be added to state that Strength adds to melee weapon ARs. For reasons that I don't know, it failed to show up in the published output.

As for the other very good points Fintersang bought up: rest assured they have not gone undiscussed.  All I feel comfortable saying is you've seen in the official errata what came, and didn't come, thus far of those discussions.

Edit: Phew, the dangers of long-ass rant posts 

Glad to hear that there´s still something on the way.

[Michael Chandra]

As my previous list proved, there's still a few errors that need to be fixed. (Asides from some rebalances/clarifications I would prefer.) https://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=31170.msg536323#msg536323

But like 90% of my old points are already addressed. So hopefully a third batch will be enough.

[Xenon]

... especially if used with a vision magnification

Imaging scopes include vision magnification

The classic top-mounted scope that includes a micro camera and vision magnification, along with a Capacity of 3 for additional vision enhancements (p. 275)./quote]
...so benefits of using an imaging scope are actually:

Attack Ratings for Medium, Far, and Extreme ranges are increased by 2, assuming the attack being used has a non-zero Attack Rating in those categories and [/i]your target cannot gain Edge by having a higher Defense Rating.[/i]

(and depending on how you look at it you are either paying with a minor action or a dice).