[Michael Chandra]

What is the difference between the Limited and Executive edition of the CRB? They look... similar.

The limited edition (below, to the right of the regular edition) has a kevlar cover and the image of the samurai leaping to attack. The executive edition (below, to the left of the regular), has a kevlar cover as well, a different graphic on the front (it can be seen in the video), comes in a slip-case, and is a numbered edition.

[Cabral]

Thank you, Michael Chandra!

[kr3wZ]

I picked up the CRB at GenCon and they gave us a PDF download code for it but it looks like it's for when it's actually available through the CGL store   womp womp

[Hephaestus]

I picked up the CRB at GenCon and they gave us a PDF download code for it but it looks like it's for when it's actually available through the CGL store   womp womp

I talked with CGL customer service over the weekend, and they were estimating the PDF being released by the end of next week (grain of salt, I know).

[Gamerdad46]

What I don’t understand is the damn silence behind all this. I mean the first thing that comes up when you search for the release date is the 15th. Now if they know it’s not going to hit then, that’s fine. Just tell the damn stores that are posting that up. If you don’t know when that’s fine just say something. Just be clear with your audience, it’s not much to ask. I want to buy the book, support them. All I want is to know when or if not exactly when a good estimate.

Segmenting your audience like this is not cool. Where a precious few have it and the rest of the crowd is waiting around with no idea what the next step is.

[Michael Chandra]

CGL has the policy they never announce street dates until certain. It does surprise me they haven't said it's postponed through more channels yet.

[Shadowjack]

While I am optimistic about 6E despite hearing various issues I have to admit that the delays and the fact that GenCon visitors get the CRB months before me is really irritating and seems like a completely foolish business strategy. It should have all been done on the day GenCon began. Additionally, it is also irritating that when I do receive my CRB it will be riddled with errors, per usual. I feel like this could have been easily avoided.

[Typhus]

That right there is the most irritating part to me, Shadowjack.  It was not only foreseeable, it was known and not addressed, and there are active attempts to prevent reviewers from criticizing it.  Cata knows how bad this was.  They can't not.  They even had a hotfix errata team in place because of it.  This was no oops.  This was deliberately printed and released in known-to-be unedited and incomplete condition.  That may not rise to the level of fraud, but it certainly sinks to the level of hideously unethical.  Just like using unpaid people to fix the problem does. 

It was sooo avoidable too.  If you absolutely had to do a GenCon release, the easiest way to address the issue proactively would have been to do what Pathfinder did and sell it as a Beta.  Fans would have bought less maybe, but thanked Cata for that opportunity, and given feedback in droves to help it hit the mark.  Goodwill restored, successful actual launch potential, and better and sustained sales over time.  Course correction established, nerds rejoice. 

Instead, now people have basically been ripped off by being sold a defective product.  The issue is clear as day, and the wound is only going to deepen further than it has. I am assuming sales will be skidding to a halt after people see how bad it is.  Might get the usual first wave numbers, but second wave is not something I would count on being good, even with an embarrassingly large errata doc as a functional second book so you can play the first one, or a corrected PDF, if that actually happens.  Now you are jacking retailers up too.  Double hit.  Selling them a product customers will return.  Now they will have to rethink then next time you publish something.

When people get to rate it on DTRPG, it's going to get bottomed out fast.  QSR is already tanked on the numbers, ratings-wise. Once CGL loses control over the NDA reviewer situation, word will not be good.  The marketing campaign alone reeks of intentional hiding of flaws.

Management decisions here are the textbook opposite of what to do and how to do it.   

Consider who you are helping when you work on fixing the mess.  Freelancers and Errata people, you are not in safe hands here.  Rig your chutes now, if you haven't already.

I wish you luck, I really do.

[Shadowjack]

Well, said Typhus. I am pretty annoyed by this, there is no worse feeling as a customer when you buy a rule book and have to constantly read things over and over just to confirm they don't make sense and then hunt for errata.

[FastJack]

Thank you for expressing your opinion, Typhus. And thank you for taking the time to detail you're opinion as well. Being a moderator, I want to point out that by going into detail, the criticism can be seen as constructive, and should be an example to others that would just post that they hate the changes and the new rules suck. Even though we disagree on the subject, and I don't believe the product is a ripoff, especially since they outsold BattleTech at GenCon (and I'm still not seeing any of those books up for sale on eBay), I do appreciate you taking the time to give us your opinion on the matter.

The only thing I have to comment on is that you (and others) have been claiming there are active attempts to prevent reviewers from criticizing it. I'd love to see proof of that. If you're going to make the claim, back it up. I know we haven't silenced any criticism on these boards unless it was full of "colorful" language or they didn't not try to be constructive. Even in those cases, we didn't delete any posts, so they are still available for others to see.

Now, to get back on track for the original posters, the release was pushed back at GenCon. I'm not privy to the reasons why, but I suspect that they might be trying to get a second printing done with the hotfix errata (again, I'm not privy, so don't yell at me if it's not true). The timeline of when they are looking to release does tend to fit with sending an update to the printers, getting them printed, then waiting for them to ship from China, in my own opinion.

[Typhus]

The only thing I have to comment on is that you (and others) have been claiming there are active attempts to prevent reviewers from criticizing it

I was referring to the NDAs and whatever other restrictions reviewers have been placed under as a condition of being able to speak publicly about the product.

Even though we disagree on the subject, and I don't believe the product is a ripoff, especially since they outsold BattleTech at GenCon (and I'm still not seeing any of those books up for sale on eBay)

Book sales are no indicator of satisfaction, since the product was sight unseen.  Nor are eBay re-sales any valid indicator this early on.  While folks like me may form opinions fairly early, I would be surprised to learn that all 800 purchasers were of the same bent to consume it so quickly and pass judgement without playing it.  It's literally been two weeks.  Their determination as to being rooked may come after a month of attempting to play it and running across the issues then.  They may also be content to suffer, not being as invested in the idea of a game company having good standards, or write it off as some do. 

Fact is, it's failings are clear, and in big picture terms, it was an irresponsible, unethical, and self-defeating decision to have released in this form.  That defines a rip off, not it's sales or return rates.  Those don't enter the picture this early on.  When you write a rule book and then leave out critical info about *the rules* and you knew you were doing it, you made a choice to sell crap.  That's why we have things known as Lemon Laws around cars.  Bad business people.

For what it's worth, just to clarify, I have no issue with how the forums are run, nor did I mean to insinuate anything about censorship here.  You've been very clear about that, and you kindly putting up with my expressions of frustration should be plenty of proof for anyone who doubts that when you say it.  Feel free to use that. 

I can see the forums has it's own rules, and adheres to them well.  I appreciate how that's done here.  No complaints on that front.  I appreciate your measured response. 

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

The only thing I have to comment on is that you (and others) have been claiming there are active attempts to prevent reviewers from criticizing it

I was referring to the NDAs and whatever other restrictions reviewers have been placed under as a condition of being able to speak publicly about the product.

Speaking for myself here... I say a lot of positive things about 6we because I all in all I like it, and I'd like to add that perspective as a contrast to those who say how they DON'T like it.

Naturally there are some things I don't like. The reason I don't talk about those things isn't because NDA is prohibiting me from airing negative opinions but because NDA is prohibiting me from talking about what I'm doing as part of the errata process.  Naturally, I'm trying to help fix things I don't like, so things I don't like tend to end up falling under NDA.

[Banshee]

The only thing I have to comment on is that you (and others) have been claiming there are active attempts to prevent reviewers from criticizing it

I was referring to the NDAs and whatever other restrictions reviewers have been placed under as a condition of being able to speak publicly about the product.

well independent reviewers themselves like ENWorld (as far as I know) were not restricted by any NDAs, but they may have been provided limited material to work with (That I don't know either way), but those of who were writers and demo agents (which does include the 2 Actual Play groups that had early access) who had early access were limited by NDA and could only talk so much about specifics as things were released publicly. So I would say a claim of "active attempts at blocking criticism" is purely false

[Typhus]

So I would say a claim of "active attempts at blocking criticism" is purely false

And fair enough at that, I am no insider.  I take you at your word, and retract the notion.

However, with absence of information, and a dog of a product, and reviewers clearly hedging their commentary in some corners, it can come across that way.

[Typhus]

Speaking for myself here... I say a lot of positive things about 6we because I all in all I like it, and I'd like to add that perspective as a contrast to those who say how they DON'T like it.

And just to be clear on my dislikes here: I don't necessarily hate the system as a system, though I can't be sure what the system is supposed to be, since it's so underbaked and imbalanced.  The presentation of it is my real frustration. 

If it were just a matter of not liking a dice system, woo woo, I would have shut up like I did about 5th.  5th had editing and layout issues that complicated the understanding and adoption of it, but those were something you can fight through.  It had all the rules you needed to play, just too many of them for my taste.  That was a case of a system that was just not for me.  Same with Anarchy.  I want something different.

I miss playing Shadowrun.  I had hopes this would be good.  It's not so much I don't want to use this book (though I can't imagine doing so at this point), it's that this book is not usable (which is distinct from "unplayable") in it's condition, and I have had to warn my fellow gamers against purchasing it on both the quality and the content basis. 

I have no problem if people like it, or feel it balances out on the whole.  More power to you, happy Shadowrunning.  I would love to be wrong.  I can only excoriate the ears on this forum to push for the improvement of the game, the company, and their own position in a structure that appears to be callous and abusive when viewed from the outside.