Ok, this might be a bit of a "grr" post, and I'll accept the flak.

But what's the deal about calling the Anniversary Edition 4.5? I've seen it used almost as an insult from some people, like somehow it's a new version of the game that's infecting our world and causing fires and World War Z to break out.

Obviously this is semantics, something gamers are great at arguing, but I only ask because I've seen several instances where someone calls it "in 4A" and then there is a reply that "in 4.5" with a specific italic on the 5 as if to say "you should call it this, not 4A, so there!" I guess that's what's bugging me the most, is that sort of implication that people should follow other's styles just because they might not like what's going on. I wouldn't care about the whole 4.5 thing if this attitude wasn't being seen.

I mean, if we want to actually get down to it, doesn't CGL refer it to 4A? That's what the number is on the book, 25000A. Wouldn't the A just stand for "Anniversary Edition" since I assume they'll be going back to the regular 4th Edition printing now that we've passed the 20th Anniversary year?

I'm glad you got that off your chest.

I use SR4A, and I rarely see 4.5; either is fine, but honestly it'd be handy if we'd just agree on one, hehe. A poll?

There were some significant rule changes and corrections for 4A, so even printing forward, I'm assuming they'll probably use the 4a rules.

Personally, I like pretty much everything I've seen in 4A compared to 4. But, I'm new to SR, so 4 and 4a is all I gots.

Walp, I think what I mean is I guess I interpreted the 24000A as being just that Anniversary book itself and they'd just carry the changes forward into a reprinting of the regular 4e book, a new edition (heck the 3e ended up with what, 7-9 editions in the end?)

Huh? I lost you here as 4 and 4A/.5 (whatever) is a significant revision. Though 2e had a similar revision across multiple books but they never changed the core book, if they had the rules for VR2.0 and Rigger 2 would have replaced the rules in the 2e core book rather than just being additional "optional" rules. I don't think they will be printing 4e without the revision again.



Ahhh I think I get it now. My understanding is 4eA IS the new core book. And how did 3e end up with 7-9 editions? I only know of the one, they had reprinting but that is not the same as revisions.

Usually, new printings contain the collected errata of previous printings.

SR4A is that, but also more with the new layout and rewritten matrix chapter.

Iirc, only one person is consistently using 4.5 to refer to 4A, and that is a resident forum troll (very much a imo). This i suspect as a dig towards it being on par with d&d 3.5, where wotc never provided a comprehensive errata; but rather a collection of pdfs describing in vague terms what had changed. Thing is, SR4A has such a errata published. Sure, there are some missing changes (biggest may be the changes to the scatter table). But the very existence of the errata document shows that there was no intent from CGL to use 4A as a way to launch a new edition in content if not in name.

Problem is that with the chaos of the misappropriated funds, any kind of completion of said errata have most likely gotten pushed to the side in favor of getting the cash flow going again with new releases.

I only bother to put the "A" after "SR4" so that when I quote a page there isn't any confusion as to where I'm getting my quote from.

That said, there are a nice number of changes that aren't on the errata, so highlighting the difference can be important.

I never even thought about 4A as a 4.5 until I came here.

The changes just did not seem significant enough to warrant that.

I'd love to see an itemized list of changes between editions.

I never even thought about 4A as a 4.5 until I came here.

The changes just did not seem significant enough to warrant that.

I'd love to see an itemized list of changes between editions.

What bothers me about calling it 4.5 is that it is often used in posts that come across as being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Here ya go.

Yeah in my experience the people who call it 4.5 tend to be rather vocal about thier dislike of some of the changes or are pissed because the things they don't like about SR4 weren't revised to thier liking. I think SR4A is the widely accepted abbreviation.

Now having said that, I am going to give a friendly moderator warning that if this thread degenerates into yet another debate about whether the Anniversery edition is an altogether new edition of the game or some such we will have to lock it down. <--(that's the friendly part)

And what about the other 2/3rds of the changes and errata?

I do think that there is a thread here which lists all of the changes other than those in the errata.
Still, SR4a is worth the buy.

SR4A did not just have errata, but some outright rules changes, some of them fairly major ones. It actually is important to differentiate between the two, although most people just call is SR4A. The rule changes in question were not well received by everyone - the outcry against the direct spell Drain rule was so much that it got changed to an optional rule. It also left the Karmagen character generation system from Runner's Companion in limbo for awhile.

The changes list, while not completely comprehensive, still hits enough of the major changes that you don't need to pick up a new book just for the new rules (much unlike D&D 3.0 to 3.5). Although if it were not for those new rules, I probably would have picked up a copy anyways.

SR4 (pre Anniversary) and 4A (Anniversary Issue) is Official
I only know 2 Poster that call it 4.5 and both hold a Grudge against the new Edition
(I would've understood a Grudge against CGL but not against the Rules )
And since I've had this discussion more than once (with an unpleasant interrupt from a Moderator) I
would'nt like to start a New one

Hough!
Medicineman

I use 4.5, simply because it is a more accurate way of describing the changes between editions. They're not as big as the changes between D&D 3.x, but it is equally profound. Characters with earned karma, for example, can be downright impossible to change over between editions.

I don't endorse forcing my view onto other people, but I will stand by the statement that calling it SR4.5 is a more accurate depiction of what changed. It's also more explanatory to non-SR gamers.

Characters with earned karma, for example, can be downright impossible to change over between editions.
I think that Cain exaggerates a wee bit.
I've never had any trouble converting all my Chars and in the Forums I'm in there hasn't been any trouble either
GMs may even add some Karma to balance old SR4 Chars with newer SR4A Chars.
Proclaiming that these Chars are "inconvertible" is....Narrowminded

Hough!
Medicineman

Yeah, Cain, I've even played in a game where the GM was using 4 and I had my 4A book as my main and we didn't have problems answering most people's questions.

I'd also like to disagree with your statement about "not forcing your view". But I'll just leave it at that.

All in all, I was getting something off my chest, so if this thread gets locked, I think it's fine, I've already had some discussion. Not saying I encourage pissing off the mods, though.

Oh, it depends heavily on the build. But a SR4 character who spent a lot of earned karma on raising attributes is going to cause problems. Under Sr4.5, you'd either have to give them more karma to compensate, or leave them alone and give everyone else more karma to compensate. Neither is fair. About the only fair thing to do is rebuild the characters from scratch, and then add karma, which still leaves you with characters that may or may not match up with what you wanted.

Basically, it's the same as the D&D 3.x conversion, just less melodramatic and with better documentation.

Wanna really drive the point home?
Call it $R4.5A.
In the beginning, i mainly did it because i don't like any of the 4th ed versions.
Then i did it for a bit because it irked and still irks some people.
Then i more or less stopped because i got asked to stop it by someone i like.

Agree with Stahlseele. I only called it 4.5 or SR$A because it riled up some people I hated here. After the Russell Hantz fiasco on the Survivor boards I am not averse to ignoring people anymore. Now I call it SR4A because there is no one to rile up.

This is what really annoys me about SR4.5.

There's a ton of rules changes that aren't in the listed changes. There's even two versions of 4a itself - the PDF and Print versions are different. Yes, really - Ultrasound vision enhancement capacity and Bow rules(yes, these were changed -twice-)

No, what really ticks me off about it is that there are 3 versions of the game, reprints with up to date rules, an you have to buy a new fucking book just to get the errata.

Catalyst writes some shitty rules, puts errata out internally, and the devs have to leak it on dumpshock, because CGL is too lazy to do it themselves.

(Yes, those are really SR devs)

So we have out devoted fanbase, who loves the game and debating the rules.... all using different versions of it. Because catalyst is too lazy to put errata files out on the internet so everyone can be on the same page.

So yeah, for me at least, SR4.5 is apt. Yes, its insulting. Yes, its annoying. And yes, I think its earned it, because while SR4 in its entirety might be a new, nice, shiny system that works rather excellently.... when you peel back the finish, dig into the mechanics, and try to keep track of all the frustrating, unlisted changes...

Yeah, $R4.5. Thank you stahl, I think I'm going to be using that in the future.

One of the many points to criticise CGL as a company
but its not the fault of the rules.
Last Edition it was better to have the original English Rules ( Fanpro did a lot of damage to the system by adding their on (imbalanced) stuff
Now its better to have the German Rules because CGL works so sloppy (thats the right expression for doing a bad job lazily ?)

with a German Dance
Medicineman

I thought errata was rules changes. Not in all cases, but generally speaking.

Nope. Generally speaking, errata are errors. Words left out, 'typos', missing page numbers…

A proofreader is not a Developer; the word Developer has specific meaning in the context of Shadowrun credits.

If a proofreader says something is wrong, and the Developer says it's correct, the Developer wins. Is the Developer always correct? No. But trust me, I've gone over pages and pages of proofreader notes, and they aren't always correct either.

A proofreader portraying something as "errata" -- as game fans understand errata to be, which is "corrections" -- is disingenuous if the developer does not agree.




Errata, from FASA through to Catalyst, can and has included rule changes.

Errata is the 'oops, we fucked up file'. Typos, imbalanced or innacurate rules, page numbers referencing to wrong pages, missing information. Errata is basically a patch program for a book.

I didn't say they didn't, Adam. Neraph said that 'errata, generally speaking, is rules changes'. If we look the errata documents, we see mostly errors being corrected.

Oh yes, because the devs of Shadowrun are a shadowy cabal, plotting to intentionally screw up books so you have to go out and buy new ones, using that money to fuel their machines to rule the world.

Hehe. There is never a good reason to use a dollar sign for an S. Not Microsoft, not even Kesha.

That's great. Simply fucking great.

Hmm, well at least some of the honest truth is coming out.. I had hoped that there would be honest reason but doing it for lulz...

I think this thread has exceeded its usefulness.

Locking.