[Michael Chandra]

Yeah, just make sure all your players know and shit is written down somewhere. There's no Shadowrun rule police and even that lazy smartass wyrm won't come after you for only partially using the GCRB, unless you do something to draw his attention. Speaking of, go Spinrad! 

[0B]

We can't be friends anymore, Chandra, I want Loffy to win

In all seriousness, as long as SR Missions rules are clear, there's no issues. It's too bad the errata teams couldn't combine efforts, though, even with the language barrier

[Michael Chandra]

We can't be friends anymore, Chandra, I want Loffy to win

To quote a Spinrad spider from a short campaign I played in:
“Go lie on a pile of gold coins and brood, you dinosaur.”

[Lormyr]

Well I might get my hand slapped for this but there are many many things that we (the errata team) submitted that do not show up in the corrected CRB. So ... either that means stuff got rejected or there are still more changes coming. That I don't know.

I find it both vexing and frustrating that they can't be bothered to even communicate with you guys about that. Or post a changelog for that matter.

OB, thanks for taking the time to compile all of this for us. I don't have a copy of the updated book to verify, but if I understand the changes listed correctly, I am most glad to see that IC have had their dice pools reduced to host attack rating instead of the previous rating x2. It was major overkill in our playtest as it was previously. Not terribly excited about anything else, and quite disgruntled that grenades were not addressed and strength has been even further devalued. For me, disappointing but expected.

My petty side is facing the urge to play nothing but grenade chucking Collateral rip-offs in Missions games to spread "necessary grenade change" awareness.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well I might get my hand slapped for this but there are many many things that we (the errata team) submitted that do not show up in the corrected CRB. So ... either that means stuff got rejected or there are still more changes coming. That I don't know.

I find it both vexing and frustrating that they can't be bothered to even communicate with you guys about that. Or post a changelog for that matter.

Jason posted a message on facebook about a changelog:

"We wanted to get the update out along with the GM screen/Cutting Black announcement, but that didn't leave time to get a fully laid out version of the errata. We'll be on that after the holiday weekend!"

OB, thanks for taking the time to compile all of this for us. I don't have a copy of the updated book to verify, but if I understand the changes listed correctly, I am most glad to see that IC have had their dice pools reduced to host attack rating instead of the previous rating x2. It was major overkill in our playtest as it was previously.

I'm not sure if the fan-compiled list you saw got the nuance correct.  IC uses Host's Attack Rating for its own Attack Rating.  It still rolls Host Rating + Host Rating for its actions.

Unrelated, but since you mentioned hacking being an unfun issue your group's been having:  Note that in this edition Hosts don't substitute Host Rating in for Willpower or Intuition when defending against matrix actions; you put in the defending Spider's appropriate mental stat instead. (and if there is no Spider, then those dice pool contributions are 0s- see host hacking example sidebar on pg 178) This is an indirect and rather subtle nerf to Host dice pools, but it's dramatic in consequence.

Not terribly excited about anything else, and quite disgruntled that grenades were not addressed and strength has been even further devalued. For me, disappointing but expected.

My petty side is facing the urge to play nothing but grenade chucking Collateral rip-offs in Missions games to spread "necessary grenade change" awareness.

It's not a matter of Errata or SRM committees being unaware of grenade DVs

[Lormyr]

Cool, glad that isn't being skipped entirely. Thanks for the info SSD.

[0B]

LMAO, I brought my umbrella and there was no rain, again. Looks like we'll be getting a more efficient changelist after the holidays, according to facebook SSDR literally said that 2 posts ago... oh well...

[Aria]

Can anyone talk me through what has happened with adepts?? Just looking through 0B's list of changes (and skimming the rules), as far as I can tell the German rules for adept points and karma (char gen karma does add to adept points) haven't made it in but magic loss is now added at least to both.  So as suspected it's a slow start for newbie adepts, it's a nerf from SR5 but not necessarily a bad thing, means you have to think carefully about magic choice (considering the potential longevity of the PC)

(Edited after actually reading it twice  )

[0B]

I think initially, there was confusion with what happened to adept power points when they lost essence/magic. It isn't so much a change, so much as it was "change-blindness" between editions.

Since it doesn't seem like GCRB rule changes are going to be in the SR Missions rules (Which may be the "most official"), it's up to you and your group if you adopt these changes. Any change the GCRB makes has at minimum been OKed by CGL. However, that doesn't mean it won't conflict with an english rule, either now or in the future.

Was there something specific you were looking for? It seems like you understand the change alright

[skalchemist]

I am a bit curious- are the missing errata a case of "not approved yet" or "did not fit in the layout"?

When I did a compare PDF process in Adobe Acrobat it was interesting, because it was comparing as images, not as text.  So you could see multiple places where it seems like they subtly "squeezed" the font/kerning to make sure that changes would not alter the overall layout (e.g. page numbers in the index).  Re-indexing a document like this is probably a substantial piece of work, so I can see why they would do what they could to avoid having to do that. 

Its possible that major pieces of errata might never be included in the PDF (only in a separate document), because they would just cause too much disruption to be worth the labor costs.   But who knows?  I hope we find out soon, I eagerly await the separate document.

[penllawen]

Re-indexing a document like this is probably a substantial piece of work, so I can see why they would do what they could to avoid having to do that. 

And it breaks every other book that has “see CRB page xx” text, too. Which I think there is already some for 6e, even though it’s new.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Errata has to not alter the layout.  Exactly for that reason.

It's rather often a game of trying to make errata shaped like a square peg somehow fit into a round hole in the original text.  A smaller hole, rather often.

If you ever scratch your head about "why was the errata worded so confusingly" or "why wasn't that fixed? It's SO obvious it needs a fix!"... sometimes this is why.

[skalchemist]

Errata has to not alter the layout.  Exactly for that reason.

I hadn't thought of page numbers in other books, but obviously that is an important thing.

There is an interesting example of this on page 53 of the new PDF, where compare PDF shows that the layout person subtly shrunk the line spacing between the lines on the right hand column so all the stuff would still fit on that page.  I can't see it at all with my naked eye, but the thumbnail image Acrobat creates to show the difference makes it obvious.

Say what you want about the rules themselves, but much respect to Matt Heerdt (layout) and the art directors Brent Evans and James Mosingo.  The book really does look great; easy to read text with clear headings, sidebars, etc.   I find the border graphics a bit busy, but overall the impression is very good, and I love that purple color.  They did a bang up job, I think. 

When that second errata file hit his desk, there must have been places where Matt Heerdt was like "Jesus, Mary and Joseph, you want me to squeeze WHAT into that column?!"  :-)  I don't envy his job.

[penllawen]

Say what you want about the rules themselves, but much respect to Matt Heerdt (layout) and the art directors Brent Evans and James Mosingo.  The book really does look great; easy to read text with clear headings, sidebars, etc.   I find the border graphics a bit busy, but overall the impression is very good, and I love that purple color.  They did a bang up job, I think. 

Agreed, I also find the 6e typesetting and design faster to navigate than the 5e style. Even though the 6e layout is slightly denser, I think (that Neo-A book that was re-printed for 6e lost a few pages in the transition, IIRC.)

[FastJack]

The new typesetting and design (especially the table design) cut No Future page count by about 16 pages. In the reprint, they filled the pages with The Johnson Run fiction preview.