The Jopp
Aug 15 2006, 11:53 AM
It seems that you can take "Latent Awakening" and be a Technomancer at the same time. If you start the game as a technomancer and has Latent Awakening there will be some confusion - and the biggest karma sink in history for SR4.
Probably just an oversight but worth mentioning.
Serbitar
Aug 15 2006, 12:06 PM
- the indirect combat area spells "have to see the target" issue
- manifesting and planes issue (one way spellcasting, dual naturedness and so forth)
- probably the doubling threshold for possession of objects thing
- clarification that wards in wards are considered "layered wards" and are thus not doable
and my personal oppinion that stun damage spells should have more drain than physical dame spells, not less
Aaron
Aug 15 2006, 03:07 PM
QUOTE (Serbitar) |
- clarification that wards in wards are considered "layered wards" and are thus not doable |
By this do you mean to suggest that there is no such clarification in Street Magic about this? Page 124 says "Wards cannot be layered or overlap in the same area of astral space." I thought that was pretty clear.
Synner
Aug 15 2006, 03:16 PM
How about one thread for actual errata and the other for FAQuestions?
Serbitar
Aug 15 2006, 03:52 PM
QUOTE (Aaron) |
QUOTE (Serbitar @ Aug 15 2006, 07:06 AM) | - clarification that wards in wards are considered "layered wards" and are thus not doable |
By this do you mean to suggest that there is no such clarification in Street Magic about this? Page 124 says "Wards cannot be layered or overlap in the same area of astral space." I thought that was pretty clear.
|
True, this may not be an objective understanding problem, but just a misreading of mine. Consider it solved.
Serbitar
Aug 15 2006, 05:54 PM
- Physical Camouflage should be of Type:P not Type:M
Serbitar
Aug 15 2006, 08:51 PM
- in the german version, spirits on remote tasks count towards the bound spirit limit. in the english version, they do not (which is bad).
hobgoblin
Aug 15 2006, 09:36 PM
i could have sworn they do. alltho the wording is very vague...
RunnerPaul
Aug 15 2006, 09:50 PM
This one is an errata candidate for sure:
Last paragraph on p. 87 talks about a sampling of Unique Enchantements described below. However, the next page begins the section on Magical Compounds, no sampling of Unique Enchantments to be found.
Synner
Aug 15 2006, 09:52 PM
QUOTE (Serbitar @ Aug 15 2006, 08:51 PM) |
- in the german version, spirits on remote tasks count towards the bound spirit limit. in the english version, they do not (which is bad). |
This is not specifically Street Magic errata. SR4 has apparently contradictory text on p. 178 and p.179 which will be clarified in the future FAQ and errata. I believe the likely FAQ answer is that Summoned spirits on remote tasks no longer count towards the limit of Summoned spirits (p.178), but count towards the total Bound spirit limit (p.179).
[edit - Note this does not represent an official answer. Wait for the FAQ for a proper clarification]
QUOTE (RunnerPaul) |
Last paragraph on p. 87 talks about a sampling of Unique Enchantements described below. However, the next page begins the section on Magical Compounds, no sampling of Unique Enchantments to be found. |
Not exactly. Magical Compounds, True Vessels and Unique Radicals are all forms of Unique Enchantments. A couple of more traditional enchantments were left out for length but we'll probably be putting them up in the future.
Slithery D
Aug 15 2006, 10:25 PM
QUOTE (Synner) |
QUOTE (Serbitar @ Aug 15 2006, 08:51 PM) | - in the german version, spirits on remote tasks count towards the bound spirit limit. in the english version, they do not (which is bad). |
This is not specifically Street Magic errata. SR4 has apparently contradictory text on p. 178 and p.179 which will be clarified in the future FAQ and errata. I believe the likely FAQ answer is that Summoned spirits on remote tasks no longer count towards the limit of Summoned spirits (p.178), but count towards the total Bound spirit limit (p.179).
|
Fantastic, now we just need rules to keep the magical terrorists with force 6 fire spirit summoning focus dedicated to drain resistance from sending out an infinite series of Force 3-4 fire elementals with remote services of "set the entire city on fire" or perhaps more realistically and harder to limit by new rules on service syntax: "kill everyone in that crowd, the one where the other five spirits I summoned before you are still wailing away. Me, I'll just sit here behind my polarized window overlooking the scene and have a beer."
Good times.
Serbitar
Aug 15 2006, 10:35 PM
- influence needs a text that it can not be resisted every (force) combat turns (otherwise the spell is useless) but only when confronted with the wrongsness (like written in the text)
- stench should be LOS(A) instead of LOS
@ Synner: Sorry, Im gathering all the magic related inconsistencies here. I see no reason why to restrict that to street magic only if the whole field should be covered (as at least it looks like nobody is going to do a "real" errata/faq for the BBB anytime soon).
Synner
Aug 15 2006, 10:46 PM
QUOTE |
@ Synner: Sorry, Im gathering all the magic related inconsistencies here. I see no reason why to restrict that to street magic only if the whole field should be covered (as at least it looks like nobody is going to do a "real" errata/faq for the BBB anytime soon). |
Not sure where you got that idea. I've repeatedly stated an official FAQ is in the works and the official website says as much.
As I've mentioned above, errata is one thing (mistakes that need correcting and fixes that should be introduced in future printings of the rules), FAQ issues are another, since those do not represent tweaks to the actual book.
Serbitar
Aug 15 2006, 11:16 PM
Hm, ok, got the point. Two quick questions:
Where exactly is the offical website saying that much? I couldnt find that in the news.
Is there any way to post issues to be included in this future FAQ?
James McMurray
Aug 16 2006, 12:43 AM
Go to the Shadowrun website (the English one) and click on FAQ at the top.
Serbitar
Aug 16 2006, 08:26 AM
You mean the red box? Hasnt this box been there since a couple of month now (almost a year)?
Adam
Aug 16 2006, 08:34 AM
QUOTE (Serbitar) |
Is there any way to post issues to be included in this future FAQ? |
James McMurray
Aug 16 2006, 01:26 PM
I don't know how long it's there, but it clearly shows that an SR4 FAQ is in the works.
Elve
Aug 16 2006, 07:23 PM
Page 29: as noted on the Sympathetic Link Modifiers table (p. 2729).
Page 29: by the Symbolic Link Creation table (p. 2729)
RunnerPaul
Aug 16 2006, 09:07 PM
QUOTE (James McMurray) |
I don't know how long it's there, but it clearly shows that an SR4 FAQ is in the works. |
It's been there since the first FAQ update since SR4 was released, so about a year now.
James McMurray
Aug 16 2006, 09:15 PM
There you go then. We've known for over a year that a FAQ is on it's way.
RunnerPaul
Aug 16 2006, 10:23 PM
Yeah, but that far out, you might as well say that we've know for a year, that barring a catastrophic loss of sales, that SR5 is on its way sooner or later.
James McMurray
Aug 17 2006, 02:51 AM
Nope. There's been no official promises of SR5.
Eyeless Blond
Aug 17 2006, 04:46 AM
It's inevitable, though, unless Fanpro tanks and FASA, after its disasterous foray into videogaming, decides to discontinue the SR franchise entirely. I doubt *both* of those will happen--at least the first one is fairly unlikely--so it's inevitable. Besides, in about five years or so they'll have to reset the continuity, due to certain very obvious things like Goblinization not happenning on schedule.
In the same way an FAQ is inevitable. I do hope this time it actually is an FAQ instead of a series of unintended semiofficial rules changes. This time around the FAQ writers were actually part of the team that wrote the book, I'm assuming, so it's a lot more likely that they won't contradict themselves, but you never know.
LilithTaveril
Aug 17 2006, 05:06 AM
Eyeless, they've not reset the continuity despite certain very important events not happening in real life. I honestly doubt they're going to do so just because reality doesn't decide to make some game writers correct and suddenly bring magic into the world.
Eyeless Blond
Aug 17 2006, 05:40 AM
Well, to date most of the discrepencies have been relatively minor, one person getting elected to a position instead of another, that sort of thing. By 2010-15 current events will have been so different from SR events that there will be problems reconciling the two without a reset. Without one SR will be switching from sci-fi to alternate history, which could throw off new players if not addressed.
Unless elves actually *are* being born by then.
LilithTaveril
Aug 17 2006, 05:48 AM
Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea!
A little disclaimer saying "SR is not reality. SR follows its own, established timeline. We will not be changing this in order to preserve internal consistancy."
Which would be logical, coherent, and wouldn't force them to rewrite years of novels to reflect the changes.
Elve
Aug 17 2006, 01:23 PM
Page 57 - Under Invoking it is nowhere stated, if a great form spirit gets the effects of e.g. 2 and 3 hits if you achieve 4 hits...
Slithery D
Aug 27 2006, 04:54 AM
SM pg. 81:
QUOTE |
Conjuring materials, ritual sorcery materials, and some magical lodge materials are all examples of ritual materials. |
But there are no ritual sorcery materials in SR4. None that I've been able to find in the ritual sorcery rules, and none listed in the magical equipment list in the gear section.
Also on SM pg. 81:
QUOTE |
Fetishes are not attuned to any particular spell when created. |
But the SR4 magical equipment price list, found at SR4 pg. 340, gives different prices and availability for fetishes by their spell category. If a fetish is created as a "blank" that is only imprinted with a spell category by the user, how can the price/availability differ when you're buying one? I think the SM rules make more sense here, and are consistent with the rules for foci, where the spirit/spell category is chosen by the bonder of the focus, not the creator. It's also not obvious why different category fetishes should cost different prices if the (minimal) effort in creating them is all the same.
JTNLANGE
Aug 30 2006, 05:57 PM
On page 127 of the print copy the FABIII came out with funny symbols on it. Alos the variant of the guardian vines came with funny symbols what is the name of that.
Trevor
Adam
Aug 30 2006, 08:50 PM
Black Guardian Vines.
BookWyrm
Oct 20 2006, 04:32 AM
Noticed that too, with my print. Also started my own
SM Errata thread.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.