Shadowrun

Catalyst Game Labs => Errata => Topic started by: JM_Hardy on <09-17-10/1040:30>

Title: Effective errata
Post by: JM_Hardy on <09-17-10/1040:30>
I thought I'd throw this out to help people as they submit errata--following a few simple guidelines can make it easier for us to take what you submit and incorporate it into errata documents and future reprints.

There generally are three kinds of errata, which I'll classify as typos, canon errors, and rules errors. "Typos" is a broad swath that can incorporate misspellings of words, missing page numbers, layout issues, etc. The errors with typos are usually clear--you see the word "taht" on a page, and you think "I'm pretty sure that's not a word, and it should be spelled 'that'," and that's that! For typo errata, a page reference (and, even better, a column-and-paragraph reference) of where the problem is can help us zero in and list the correction.

Canon errata is a little more complicated. This is errata stating that something in a product conflicts with previously published information. It can be complicated by the fact that the Sixth World is always evolving, plus there are parts of it that are subject to interpretation. When posting a canon error, then, it's best to be as specific as possible. Describe the error, then provide a page reference to an already-published source that demonstrates how the new source is in error. Canon errata that starts out by saying "I can't remember what book this is in, but I'm pretty sure at one point . . ." is of the less-helpful variety.

Rules errors can cover a wide range of things, from rules that are stated differently in different locations to rules that seem in conflict with each other. Usually errata is for strictly fact-based errors--for example, if a new product stated that the modifier for firing an unmounted gun in a moving vehicle was 2, an errata note would point out that p. 150 of SR4A (once again, page references are enormously helpful!) says that that modifier should be 3.

Errata can be used to correct a rule that is broken, but notes need to be very clear on how the rule simply doesn't work in the context of existing rules. Sometimes a rule is referred to as "broken" when perhaps it is just cumbersome, or something a player doesn't like. We don't want rules to be cumbersome, of course, but errata generally is not the place to address such issues. Or else we'd get into debates about which rules are "cumbersome" and which are not, and how to fix them, and then heaven help us all once we get to that point.

I appreciate the willingness of people to post corrections so that we can compile official errata!

Jason H.

Edited to incorporate errata!
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: FastJack on <09-17-10/1107:31>
I thought I'd throw this out to help people as they submit errata--following a few simple guidelines can make it easier for us to take what you submit and incorporate it into errata documents and future reprints.

There generally are three kinds of errata, which I'll classify as typos, canon errors, and rules errors. "Typos" is a broad swath that can incorporate misspellings of words, missing page numbers, layout issues, etc. The errors with typos are usually clear--you see the word "taht" on a page, and you think "I'm pretty sure that's not a word, and it should be spelled 'that'," and that's that! For typo errata, a page reference (and, even better, a column-and-paragraph reference) of where the problem is can help us zero in and list the correction.

Canon errata is a little more complicated. This is errata stating that something in a product conflicts with previously published information. It can be complicated by the fact that the Sixth World is always involving, plus there are parts of it that are subject to interpretation. When posting a canon error, then, it's best to be as specific as possible. Describe the error, then provide a page reference to an already-published source that demonstrates how the new source is in error. Canon errata that starts out by saying "I can't remember what book this is in, but I'm pretty sure at one point . . ." is of the less-helpful variety.

Rules errors can cover a wide range of things, from rules that are stated differently in different locations to rules that seem in conflict with each other. Usually errata is for strictly fact-based errors--for example, if a new product stated that the modifier for firing an unmounted gun in a moving vehicle was 2, an errata note would point out that p. 150 of SR4A (once again, page references are enormously helpful!) says that that modifier should be 3.

Errata can be used to correct a rule that is broken, but notes need to be very clear on how the rule simply doesn't work in the context of existing rules. Sometimes a rule is referred to as "broken" when perhaps it is just cumbersome, or something a player doesn't like. We don't want rules to be cumbersome, of course, but errata generally is not the place to address such issues. Or else we'd get into debates about which rules are "cumbersome" and which are not, and how to fix them, and then heaven help us all once we get to that point.

I appreciate the willingness of people to post corrections so that we can compile official errata!

Jason H.
2nd Paragraph, 3rd Sentence. I believe you meant 'evolving' instead of 'involving'.

(Just bein' a stinker! ;))
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: PeterSmith on <09-17-10/1117:20>
2nd Paragraph, 3rd Sentence. I believe you meant 'evolving' instead of 'involving'.

1st line, 1st word. I believe you meant "3rd" instead of "2nd".

(Just bein' a stinker! ;))

Ditto!  ;D
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: FastJack on <09-17-10/1121:26>
2nd Paragraph, 3rd Sentence. I believe you meant 'evolving' instead of 'involving'.

1st line, 1st word. I believe you meant "3rd" instead of "2nd".

(Just bein' a stinker! ;))

Ditto!  ;D
I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that...
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: PeterSmith on <09-17-10/1209:06>
I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that...

I'm waiting for some of the BattleTech fact-checkers to send their notes back to me for the Unabridged 3039 Record Sheet book, I'm already mentally prepared to hit those notes.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: JM_Hardy on <09-17-10/1233:38>
The errata and the errata on the errata have both been addressed!

Jason H.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: PeterSmith on <09-17-10/1503:49>
The errata and the errata on the errata have both been addressed!

If you would like to punch me, please schedule a time and a place next week I can meet you at, to accept your Fist of Flury. ^_^
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: inca1980 on <09-22-10/1441:52>
I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I was wondering if you guys are also compiling comments not just for Errata documents but also to add to your online FAQ.  People really take the FAQ seriously as RAW so it would be great if you could continue to add to it based on common questions which keep on reoccuring.
Thanks!
-Inca
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: JM_Hardy on <09-22-10/2007:59>
I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I was wondering if you guys are also compiling comments not just for Errata documents but also to add to your online FAQ.  People really take the FAQ seriously as RAW so it would be great if you could continue to add to it based on common questions which keep on reoccuring.
Thanks!
-Inca

That would be fine to put in this forum (though not this thread).

Jason H.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: The White Dwarf on <11-03-10/0232:37>
http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=1190.0

This post regarding conflicting statements in SR4A on p166 and p204 seems worthy of a FAQ ruling.

Short version: it seems likely the p166 statement is correct and the p204 statement can be removed, but only the game designers can say which was really intended to be right, in regards to indirect spells vs objects/barriers.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: inca1980 on <11-03-10/0444:23>
Could you please clarify how burst fire when shooting to destroy a barrier is resolved?!  This would be great for the FAQ!
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: Mordoyh on <11-16-10/1455:38>
I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I was wondering if you guys are also compiling comments not just for Errata documents but also to add to your online FAQ.  People really take the FAQ seriously as RAW so it would be great if you could continue to add to it based on common questions which keep on reoccuring.
Thanks!
-Inca

What is RAW?  I keep seeing in various posts but have no idea.  Makes me think of pre-grilled hamburgers.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: Bradd on <11-16-10/1511:59>
RAW = rules as written. RAI = rules as intended.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: Mordoyh on <11-16-10/1731:36>
RAW = rules as written. RAI = rules as intended.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: CrankTrollFan on <12-17-10/1540:57>
http://www.foren.pegasus.de/foren/index.php?showtopic=5452
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=33712
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51136&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=2200
start reading.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: Caine Hazen on <12-17-10/1701:34>
Stahlseele (A.K.A. CrankTrollfan); we ask that you refrain from creating any more alt accounts, per the user agreement.  Your primary account will have a 3 day ban placed on it, all other accounts have been added to the permaban list.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: John Schmidt on <12-18-10/2251:34>
Two links to the same review...Frank that is spam. We don't allow spam but in the holiday spirit I am only going to remove the spam in this thread.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: Blue_Lion on <04-07-12/0521:32>
You know gathering up the list of errata to fix future printins is nice and all but is there a place or link to all the errata for edditions and books for the people who already have the book. Scrolling threw a forum to find what is wrong in your books can be  a pain.
Title: Re: Effective errata
Post by: hobgoblin on <07-18-12/1919:21>
There is, but it has laid fallow since the switch in leadership (never mind the sourcebook reprints that inexplicably got rolled back to pre-errata conditions).

http://www.shadowrun4.com/game-resources/