A mistake in Feruchemical Table

[Oversleep]

So there was a Feruchemical table released but only now I have taken a closer look...
(here for reference, spoilered for size)

Spoiler

And the thing is, it's wrong: aluminium chromium should be switched with duraluminium nicrosil. It breaks all the patterns.
(For those who don't want to check all the metals, it's just Allomancy table rotated 45 degrees to the right)

Edited September 20, 2016 by Oversleep

[Pagerunner]

Good catch, but are you sure it's not chromium/nicrosil that are switched? 'cause the tip of chromium should touch cadmium, and the same for nicrosil and steel?

[Oversleep]

5 minutes ago, Pagerunner said:

Good catch, but are you sure it's not chromium/nicrosil that are switched? 'cause the tip of chromium should touch cadmium, and the same for nicrosil and steel?

You're right, of course. I knew it's chromium/nicrosil that are wrong, but then when I was posting I made a mistake, dunno why.

[Pagerunner]

It's understandable - easy to make mistakes with these made-up, similar-looking symbols. When I was double-checking your work, I mixed up copper and zinc's Feruchemical symbols, and that totally blew apart all the patterns.

Since there's no pushing/pulling, I wonder if it even makes a difference about the arrangement they're in? It's just four powers, so the pattern might be carried over, but not necessarily be significant.

The foremost question in my mind (after, of course, wondering what on earth possessed you to do all the work to double-check Isaac's work in the first place) is whether or not the symbol:name relationship is in error, or symbol:placement relationship. (i.e., do the left two triangles need to be switched, or do the symbols next to the names need to be switched?) MAG agrees with the symbol:name, but it was probably drawing from the feruchemical table, so I don't necessarily think that means anything.

Either way, if it is is an important mistake, I'd hope they'd release a revised version at some point in the future. It would be a bit of a bummer for those who got the fine art version, though...

[Oversleep]

16 minutes ago, Pagerunner said:

after, of course, wondering what on earth possessed you to do all the work to double-check Isaac's work in the first place

I was trying to find if the patterns in the Feruchemical table could tell me something importand; I was obviously disappointed when it turned out to be the same as in the Allomantic table (except for the mistake which I realized then).

19 minutes ago, Pagerunner said:

The foremost question in my mind is whether or not the symbol:name relationship is in error, or symbol:placement relationship. (i.e., do the left two triangles need to be switched, or do the symbols next to the names need to be switched?)

Since both Feruchemical and Allomantic symbols could be tracked down to the same source (ancient Terris symbols), they're bound to share similarites. And nicrosil symbols fit each other as chromium symbols fit each other; it doesn't work when we compare Feruchemical nicrosil to Allomantic chromium and vice versa.

[Pagerunner]

The Feruchemical Table medallion came out, and it prompted me to ask Isaac about this topic. Turns out, the symbols are in the correct locations (so the medallion isn't inaccurate); they were merely put with the wrong metals in the power description boxes on the side.

He said this may be corrected in future print runs; aside from the Feruchemical Table poster, the chart appears in the WoA leatherbound, and the symbols are used in the Mistborn Adventure Game. We'll see which of those actually get revised, or if it's hard enough to notice that it's not really worth it.