Most Clubs now do Physical Damage, too...

I assume that the SS mode of the Super Warhawk is more of a reference to its slow rate of fire than actually being SS.

Of course, pump-action shotguns were SA...

I didn't say it was logical!

Hmm, so I'll modify my super warhawk to be pump action too (however that would work) and make it SA It would then make kewl 'ka-chunk' noises as well.

I don't think you can add an additional "pucker factor" option under the gun design rules.

I could be wrong though.

-Siege

(About the Hacker in-game definition on the previous page)

But if it is a Zero Point Quality, what is to stop everybody from taking it, whenever they like?

That's the point -- there is absolutely no restriction on who could take it. The only thing it's there for is to determine if a character would get 5 BP or 10 BP for those negative qualities. Without defining what a hacker is in game terms, one cannot add those negative qualities to their character properly if one is playing a character that is "sort of" a hacker.

But then this is getting away from the point of the errata thread. The errata comment boils down to "SR4 has several negative qualities that function differently depending on defined character types including hackers, but while the rule book defines other character types by game terms, there is nothing in the rule book that defines a hacker in game terms."

Much simpler to just define it by each specific character's outlook, background, and knowledge skills.

This came up because the character's outlook, background, and knowledge skills could go either way.

Regardless, every character type that has some sort of special rule that affect only that character type can be defined by the game rules is defined by a positive quality -- except for the hacker. (The only special rules that this is a problem with is the BP per negative quality.) That is why I posted this in the Errata thread.

You don't need a hard definition of Hacker. Use some common sense. Or if you have none, find someone that does and ask them.

Calypso

Pg 236:

How about: "Must have at least three skills in the Computer or Cracking skill groups at 3 or better"? That way it costs you more points to pick up than you save, if you're never planning on touching a computer.

This doesn´t make sense. Hacker is not a class like mage or technomancer, it is just a description of a specialised human (like streetsam or drone rigger or face). Just change the point value of the quality for technomancer/non-technomancer.

SYL

Or just remove that last 'class-specific' part of negative qualities.

I don't see why that definition is a problem. Sure it's not as discrete as buying a specific Quality, but it's still a significant build point investment, particularly if you never plan on actually using those skills.

There is no rule allowing the upgrade or replacement of ware without paying the full Essence cost again.

That's not really errata though. That's an extra (though for sams it's be required) feature that you'll see in Augmentation, when it comes out.

Now for errata, maybe it should be considered that the whole concept of the Augmented Skill cap is violated in damn near every single place it's mentioned. Many many examples, for instance, show a guy with a skill of 3 and a xpecialization throwing 5+attribute dice at a test, when specializations are specifically mentioned to be capped, meaning they should only be throwing 4 dice before hitting the glass ceiling.

Known.

That makes the inability of upgrading very... ungood.

Wich one is Correct regarding Spurs.. The one on the weapon summary on 149 in the combat section, OR the listing in Cyberware section on pg 337 ?

Its regarding the reach.. combat says 0, Cyber says 1..

this may belong here:

Flechettes now increase armor by two, and increase damage by two.

If I put flechettes in a gun that normally has -1 AP, is the total modifier +1 AP? if so, why does the remmington roomsweeper have a damage code of 5P -1 / 7P(f) +2?

I could compile a long list of errata (as some of you have done). Sorting them out in a forum thread would be very tedious for players and designers. This is because people are going off on wild tangets and repeating the same things over and over.

I will instead give you the best help I can:

You need a Shadowrun 4E Errata Wiki! That way they will be concisely listed in order. The discussion page of the wiki would discuss rule clarifications and the merits of the things listed. With work, the book could be error-free in short order!

An update to the errata on the official website is planned for the near future and yes, the second printing of SR4 will integrate all that was available at the time it went to press.

The errata will definitely include a clarification on the Skill / Specialization issue. For those who can't wait though: the errata will likely say something to the effect that there was a mixup regarding the notation, and that when a Specialization comes into play the 2 dice are actually Pool Modifiers (rather than an Augmented Skill Rating) and hence do not count towards the Augmented Skill cap.

For the official version you'll have to wait a little while longer.

Damn - no healing 8 Boxes with FA (CW).

So, other than adept powers, what *does* count toward the augmented skill cap?

The answer is that any and all enhancements, abilities and powers (present and future) that modify the Skill Rating contribute to the Augmented Skill Rating.

However, currently that pretty much just means Improved Ability (I am away from my book and may be missing something minor). I checked through the list of potential Skill Rating modifiers posted by DireRadiant (which included Analyze Device, the Control Rig, Enhanced Articulation, Synthacardium, Tailored Pheromones and Reflex recorder) and all the others are clearly noted as being dice pool modifiers in the book.

I had hoped that combat sense didn't contribute towards your reaction limit... that how it seems to be stated... but I just don't know anymore...

Look what I found!


Errata - Wikibooks
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Errata

The Errata wikibook is a repository for listing perceived errors in printed works.

Since errors differ between editions, the Errata wikibook is organized according to ISBNs, which change with editions. To look up an errata list for a particular book when you have the ISBN, try searching for the article en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Errata/ISBN. Do not include any dashes in the ISBN, only numerals and the possible trailing capital X.

Every Errata article will include the title of the work, so that you can also just do an article search for a particular title to see which editions have an errata list available.

What do you think? Should I go ahead and fire this puppy up or should I let one of you do the honors?

I didn't see this anywhere on the errata thread, and didn't feel like searching through the California-related posts, so...

Page 42:

And before that Calfree had gone on a gigantic statewide bender and kicked LA out of the state, in order to deal with a small group of hackers within the city, so it's doubly incorrect. This act was not unlike the giant countrywide bender that, years before, prompted the US to eject California, which contributed about 1/3 of the nation's total GNP by that point, which then put it on a bad enough economic footing to conceivedly merge with Canada rather than just annexing the place.

Though I perfer to see this "typo" as a portent of things to come.

Considering that the entire population of the PCC with Los Angeles is less than the populaion of Los Angeles all by itself, I prefer to think that the typographical error is the Map rather than the location of Horizon.

-Frank

i dont have access to the book, but i would imagine that there is a difference between tactical movement, and "normal" movement. The first quote may be referring to "normal" movement, but when you have to be making tactical movement (in a combat turn) then you DO slow down... but are still moving incrediablly fast.

On p. 321, the software table in the gear section, Autosofts are tagged with a note that appears to limit them to ratings 1-4 though they're listed under the same split-pricing scheme of all the other softs that go up to six. All of the other softs that have maximum ratings lower than 6 have one pricing scheme. Which, admittedly, would make the parenthetical note necessary where it is. But nowhere else in the book does it make mention of a maximum rating for Autosofts, either on the original software cost table on p. 228 or in the text section on Autosofts starting at p. 239. Whether it's an omission from the earlier sections or a mistake in the gear section could probaby stand to be cleared up.

Additionally, on the hardware/software build table, there are no limits mentioned for the maximum rating for any of the projects listed. Which seems to mean that, though you can't buy hardware or software higher than rating 6 (however, the Signal table on p. 212 shows that, technically, you can get that up to r9), you could, for instance, build a Signal upgrade capable of broadcasting to Saturn in a month or three.