Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ New Seattle Errata

Posted by: DV8 Oct 5 2003, 08:48 AM

QUOTE ("Mob War @ p. 15")

1 January 2058 - Don James O'Malley is shot and killed by Chimera assassins at his home in Seattle.

QUOTE ("Shadowrun @ Third Edition, p. 35")

2058: Don O'Malley is shot outside his Seattle home, spawning on all-out Mob war as Mafia, Yakuza, Triads and Rings go at each other's throats. The resulting chaos is good for biz, but only if you can dodge the bullets.

Okay, this is all pretty consistent...

QUOTE ("New Seattle @ p. 97")

Capo Don James O'Malley was shot and killed by an assassin working for the organization known as Chimera on New Year's Day, 2057, outside his Seattle home.

Checking out the official http://www.shadowrunrpg.com/resources/errata_nseattle.shtml I couldn't find any corrections for this last entry. This is wrong, right? O'Malley was killed on New Year's Day, 2058, right?

Posted by: hobgoblin Oct 5 2003, 12:29 PM

heh, looks like someone messed up theyre dates

no biggie in my book

Posted by: Rice Bowl Oct 5 2003, 12:29 PM

Definitely 1 January 2058, early in the morning. (Mob War p15)

+ James O'Malley is commenting to Al Cavalieri in Family Business (Mob War p6) about "a woman VP", so definitely AFTER 2057 elections.

Any way, they continuously make typing mistakes (cf chronolgy Mob War p15: 5 january 2048: Inspired by Don O'Malley's death...)

Posted by: EVLTIM Oct 5 2003, 02:22 PM

Uhm I don't know maybe I am strange but I would still read that as Jan of 58 .

Posted by: DV8 Oct 5 2003, 07:30 PM

Well, I'm just glad I didn't screw up this time.

Posted by: Adam Oct 5 2003, 07:59 PM

QUOTE (EVLTIM)

Uhm I don't know maybe I am strange but I would still read that as Jan of 58 .

Still read what as "Jan of 58"? It would be a good idea to quote what you're replying to, since DV8 mentioned three different canon sources, one of which is contradictory. I can assume that you mean New Seattle, but I'm not sure. A little clarity goes a long way.

Posted by: EVLTIM Oct 5 2003, 09:30 PM

QUOTE (Adam)

QUOTE (EVLTIM @ Oct 5 2003, 09:22 AM)

Uhm I don't know maybe I am strange but I would still read that as Jan of 58 .

My bad . I ment the new years day one .

Posted by: KosherPickle Oct 5 2003, 10:38 PM

QUOTE (EVLTIM)

QUOTE (Adam @ Oct 5 2003, 11:59 AM)

QUOTE (EVLTIM @ Oct 5 2003, 09:22 AM)

Uhm I don't know maybe I am strange but I would still read that as Jan of 58 .

My bad . I ment the new years day one .

I wouldn't. New Year's Day is equivalent to January 1st. So, New Year's Day 2057 would mean January 1st 2057.

Maybe you're just weird, or something.

Posted by: 252 Oct 6 2003, 02:05 AM

I would just say some guy hit the wrong number and while reading the dates off something else, and the editor didn't get it. (Which isn't a good thing.)

[This is too the 2057.]