We're in December now and so by the end of the month we will have gone a year with out a single errata or answer to any questions on anything from Games Workshop.
Doesn't really give off a good impression does it?
Is it possible GW has stopped supporting the game in providing updates that way?
Maybe they think it would be better to release new rulebook with amendments and call it 7.1 edition?
GW has repeatedly stated over the past few years that they are a models company, not a games company (perhaps because they never bother to read their company's name?). As such, they have no vested interest in supporting Errata or FAQs. All we can do as a community is get over it and workout issues on our own. Thankfully, the interwebz exist!
jeffersonian000 wrote: GW has repeatedly stated over the past few years that they are a models company, not a games company (perhaps because they never bother to read their company's name?). As such, they have no vested interest in supporting Errata or FAQs. All we can do as a community is get over it and workout issues on our own. Thankfully, the interwebz exist!
SJ
Indeed, they replaced the button ''Gaming'' with ''Modeling and Painting'' at the main home page.
Don't bother with FAQs.
buddha wrote: GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.
That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.
Gotta forge that narrative, man. The rules are *intentionally* murky so you gotta forge that narrative as hard as you can!
I did notice they went through sometime in the last day or two and removed the outdated FAQs for codexs that had been updated. The DA was up on Wednesday as was the imperial knight one and they are both gone now on the US site.
I believe that once the current pace of getting all the rules and codices updated for 7th edition is done, we will see the codex pace slow down and GW will focus on updating the game with "slot in" formations and models (e.g. Kauyon/Mont'ka) without having to update the codices. When all are updated for 7th edition we might start seeing some FAQ's / Erratas where applicable.
But i could be totally wrong and 8th edition is due for release next year=)
I don't see a new edition any time soon. Several iterviews with GW staff have kinda said this is the edition to stay around for a while. Chances are we'll see more campaign books and splashing in new units. I kinda like that better.
People please stop buying their books. The rules are garbage and when you buy it you are telling them,"Hi i will continue to support your poor writing for this hard cover edition with many highquality pictures and well written fluff that distract from the confusing and often conflicting rules forcing me and my friend to forge the narrative."
I'm starting to think that is less and less likely. Though the numbers arn't official, AOS doesn't seem to be selling well. Any plans they might have had is probably going to be but on hold if the numbers are bad.
jeffersonian000 wrote: GW has repeatedly stated over the past few years that they are a models company, not a games company (perhaps because they never bother to read their company's name?). As such, they have no vested interest in supporting Errata or FAQs. All we can do as a community is get over it and workout issues on our own. Thankfully, the interwebz exist!
SJ
in fact to up front the only reason we have rules at all anymore is beyond me, i think that if they had their way 40k and sigmar would have no rules at all right now and it would be models and bedtime stories. and if people dont believe me look no further then sigmars release list. everything is models and storybooks. to date weve had 2 count them TWO releases of rules before the advent calendar that were in any way brought in with fanfare or celebration
A lot of people seem very confident 7th edition is going to be around for a while, but those who were around at the time might remember we were hearing that very same thing about 6th edition. I won't be surprised if we get a new rulebook next year, and frankly no amount of hearsay is going to convince me that it's impossible.
As to the FAQs and erratas, yeah it's incredibly sad. Such minimal effort required and they don't do it. Totally inexcusable.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Or rather, just fix it later down the road with a new codex, or campaign supplement that the customer has to shell out for.
Honestly I am not complaining, the last few campaign books have been excellent and coming from a Skaven player the 8th edition FAQ and Errata was bigger than my army book. I'd rather just live with the odd rules quibble than sort through 20+ pages of an FAQ.
Yes, that's an extreme example, but for the most part you can get your opponent to agree on an questionable rule one way or another, and for competitive play your TO should have their own FAQ and/or be able to make a decision on a ruling in advance of the tournament date.
Underling: "Sir, our models aren't selling well!"
Big Wig: "Increase the price of the models to compensate!"
Underling: "But sir..."
Big Wig: "Do you want to go in the box?"
Underling: "No! No box!"
Big Wig: "Good underling. Now, tell me what's this ruckus about "rules"? Do we sell "rules" for a "game"?"
Underling: "Yes sir, we do."
Big Wig: *points at box*
Underling: "I mean, uh, game, what game? What would a miniatures company be doing selling rules for a game? We make miniatures!"
Big Wig: "Correct. Now, go print some more of those book thingies, you know the sales catalogs."
Underling: "You mean codexes, sir?"
Big Wig: "You know, we still haven't let that guy who writes FAQ's out of his box. Perhaps he would like some company?"
Underling: "Right away, sir! Printing more sales catalogs!"
Big Wig: "Excellent." *tents fingers*
Cleatus wrote: Underling: "Sir, our models aren't selling well!"
Big Wig: "Increase the price of the models to compensate!"
Underling: "But sir..."
Big Wig: "Do you want to go in the box?"
Underling: "No! No box!"
Big Wig: "Good underling. Now, tell me what's this ruckus about "rules"? Do we sell "rules" for a "game"?"
Underling: "Yes sir, we do."
Big Wig: *points at box*
Underling: "I mean, uh, game, what game? What would a miniatures company be doing selling rules for a game? We make miniatures!"
Big Wig: "Correct. Now, go print some more of those book thingies, you know the sales catalogs."
Underling: "You mean codexes, sir?"
Big Wig: "You know, we still haven't let that guy who writes FAQ's out of his box. Perhaps he would like some company?"
Underling: "Right away, sir! Printing more sales catalogs!"
Big Wig: "Excellent." *tents fingers*
The sad thing is, I suspect this is pretty close to the mark.
I really just want them to come out and fix the Ravenwing Detachment with 3 HQ's and only one option to field. I can understand them wanting players to coin flip grey areas, but when you make a codex with a glaring rules flaw, it needs to be fixed.
buddha wrote: GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.
That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.
And thank goodness we have them. Now we can Nerf minority faction players of their good things while maintaining things like super friends on a simple majority mob vote. Who needs rule clarifications when you can just ask the mob if the new powerful rule set they don't use and would have to struggle against should be allowed!
Kilkrazy wrote: I think GW should be congratulated for not having made a single error of typo or clarity in all their rules published this year.
The spanish version of the Dark Angels codex is absolute king of the hill btw. Sentences, even entire paragraphs left in English. No quality control, not an ounce of care, still premium prices. And this is no crazy internet gossip, one of the guys in my gaming group bought it.
I have seen other companies (from several fields) treating their customers poorly, but GW is simply a step beyond.
buddha wrote: GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.
That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.
And thank goodness we have them. Now we can Nerf minority faction players of their good things while maintaining things like super friends on a simple majority mob vote. Who needs rule clarifications when you can just ask the mob if the new powerful rule set they don't use and would have to struggle against should be allowed!
Here's an option: Don't play in ITC events if you don't like their rules.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Other things perceived as OP have been put to votes and Tau are hardly destroyed because one piece of there formation was changed.
Put to vote? You mean you thought super friends had a hope in hell of being nerfed? You DO know how majority popular vote works right? Go ahead, put up the most non sensical IoM combinations, it won't matter. Not one Nerf will ever pass on mob popularity vote.
buddha wrote: GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.
That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.
And thank goodness we have them. Now we can Nerf minority faction players of their good things while maintaining things like super friends on a simple majority mob vote. Who needs rule clarifications when you can just ask the mob if the new powerful rule set they don't use and would have to struggle against should be allowed!
Here's an option: Don't play in ITC events if you don't like their rules.
I won't. And I will also go around and let others know their system of voting is off popular bias, and NOT rule interprutation. If you need further proof look at LVO tournament thread. Reece even said it had nothing to do with raw, simply how you would like to see it played. Of course people playing against it would vote in their own personal interest.
buddha wrote: GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.
That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.
Common sense and TO's work better than the ITC. The ITC is getting out of hand.
I've even noticed the red shirts have started saying "and what do you do with your collection?" As if saying you play the games they make is a niche response...
Bottle wrote: I've even noticed the red shirts have started saying "and what do you do with your collection?" As if saying you play the games they make is a niche response...
Well supposedly that is only 20% of their customer base. Cos, you know, that's totally accurate. GW know these things even though they don't do market research.
A lot of my figures spend a lot of time on the shelf, because I have a lot of armies accumulated over the decades and only limited time to use them for playing.
This is not to say they are a collection, though. I bought them to use, not to sit on a shelf.
It isn't all GW stuff by any means. In fact, GW must be well under 10% of the whole lot including boardgames and RPGs.
The weirdest part for me is that GW don't claim only 20% of models see the table, or that 20% of people are regular or competitive players, it is that only 20% of people play at all.
I don't play GW games these days, but I occasionally buy a model to paint. My roomate is even more of a painter who rarely games at all. But both of us have played GW games with our models, and so are part of that supposed 20%, not falling into the category of 'hobbyists' or anything.
Yeah, the LVO will be the largest 40k tournament ever this year, I think. They're running out of room at the hotel and I have no idea where they're getting all that terrain.
Yeah, the LVO will be the largest 40k tournament ever this year, I think. They're running out of room at the hotel and I have no idea where they're getting all that terrain.
Quite simple actually and my wife is so much happier. No FAQs just means GW doesn't support what they make so my purchases have become ALOT less now.
If GW can't show any initiative to support the customer, I can't be bothered to support them. Why buy Age of Sigmar for example if it will not be supported? That is a big investment to start something that GW will not bother with, so no purchases for me.
*edit*
Who knows, maybe 8th edition is coming out next year so why bother with FAQs now anyways.
Davor wrote: Quite simple actually and my wife is so much happier. No FAQs just means GW doesn't support what they make so my purchases have become ALOT less now.
If GW can't show any initiative to support the customer, I can't be bothered to support them. Why buy Age of Sigmar for example if it will not be supported? That is a big investment to start something that GW will not bother with, so no purchases for me.
*edit*
Who knows, maybe 8th edition is coming out next year so why bother with FAQs now anyways.
My wife is sadder. I've spent more this past year on gaming than I ever have. And none of it went to GW.
I have to admit that although I like 7th edition a lot, the lack of support other than "buy this new cool rulebook with OP formations" is making me seriously consider selling off all or most of my armies. I like 40K -- fluff, rules, and minis -- but Infinity, Frostgrave, and A Song of Blades and Heroes all seem to offer more bang for the buck right now.
in fact to up front the only reason we have rules at all anymore is beyond me
Because people will pay for them.
Money talks. If everyone pirated or just deigned to not own 40K rules, GW would have to either make better rules or stop selling rules.
People shell out top-dollar for Games Workshop's rules- that is a financial incentive.
I have only bought 3 codices in my 7 years of gaming. SM 5th Ed, AM 6th Ed and SM 7th Ed. Its not worth paying for all of them when I can get them for free. I am not sure why anyone would want to shell out so much for them anyway, considering how much complaining happens when each new one comes out.
in fact to up front the only reason we have rules at all anymore is beyond me
Because people will pay for them.
Money talks. If everyone pirated or just deigned to not own 40K rules, GW would have to either make better rules or stop selling rules.
People shell out top-dollar for Games Workshop's rules- that is a financial incentive.
I have only bought 3 codices in my 7 years of gaming. SM 5th Ed, AM 6th Ed and SM 7th Ed. Its not worth paying for all of them when I can get them for free. I am not sure why anyone would want to shell out so much for them anyway, considering how much complaining happens when each new one comes out.
I agree completely. I only buy the codices containing the fluff I want to read (Last codex bought was 6th ed Tau and 7th BA). That seems to be all the heck GW cares about anyways. As soon as they start caring about the rules, I'll start paying for them again.
During 5th, I gradually bought all the codices. Haven't bothered since they went hardcover -- I get the ones I might need for a tournament, and that's it.
Yeah, the LVO will be the largest 40k tournament ever this year, I think. They're running out of room at the hotel and I have no idea where they're getting all that terrain.
They started their own terrain line which is designed specifically for tournament organisers , so it's designed to look good but also to do things like have nesting parts so that it can be broken down and stored in a much smaller space. I think it's a cool concept and goes along with their playmats and the like.
buddha wrote: GW has abdicated, right or wrong, any and all responsibility for rules confusion or dispute beyond dice it off. Sucks, but the way it is for now.
That's part of the reason why the ITC rules are so popular and used because something has to fill the void.
And thank goodness we have them. Now we can Nerf minority faction players of their good things while maintaining things like super friends on a simple majority mob vote. Who needs rule clarifications when you can just ask the mob if the new powerful rule set they don't use and would have to struggle against should be allowed!
Jesus dude, give it a rest. The community that plays by ITC rules voted on how they wanted it to be. Yes, it is obvious to you that your interpretation is the only way to read the rules, but others who play tau and who play against tau either read it a different way than you or think it is totally not fun to play against things like CFP, 2+ rerolls, Invisibility, or Ranged D weapons.
Its a game, play it how both you and your opponent agree to play.
Bottle wrote: Part of me thinks GW set the target of 20% and are now working in their earnest to make sure that only 20% of their customers play their games.
Its a game, play it how both you and your opponent agree to play.
And absolutly no one is going to accept the buffing of an opponents army, unless it is a mirror match, and even then it is only a maybe. So you may as well be saying GTFO to everyone who can't force someone else to play the way they want. Not that is not possible. If it is your store or your the head of gaming group you will be able to do everything. Including making fake votes you know will end in your favor, and if they somehow don't you just change the rules in the middle of voting.
I think GW just expects people to make up there own rules, and sees nothing wrong with this.
From Aaron dembski-bowden on another forum.
Rule X for Faction Y is no good? Well, the clear, perfect solution to their complete lack of playtesting is definitely this homebrew rule; forgetting of course that almost every group will come up with their own opinion of how to fix it, if it even needs fixing at all. People pine for the informal days of the "golden era" Studio, ignoring the fact that there have always been rules people disagreed with and GW has always encouraged people to generate their own scenarios, rules, and so on. It's just as informal now in a lot of ways as it always was, but now - with mass-communication - rules people disagree with aren't seen as "I'll change this one for my group", they're seen as "This is underpowered/wrong/GW are incompetent/Andy Chambers would never have done this".
obsidianaura wrote: We're in December now and so by the end of the month we will have gone a year with out a single errata or answer to any questions on anything from Games Workshop.
Doesn't really give off a good impression does it?
Is it possible GW has stopped supporting the game in providing updates that way?
Maybe they think it would be better to release new rulebook with amendments and call it 7.1 edition?
That's slightly dishonest. GW is publishing new rules every month now for its two gaming system and that's not counting the board game they produce like Execution Force. Their gaming departement must be flooded with work and new schedules especially considering the cuts that were made in pretty much every single department in that company. This might also explain why some of the most recent release were rather mediocre in term of quality rule wise. That's the issue with their new sale strategy. Sure, they release an enormous amount of new material, but it doesn't give time to adjust their mistakes and clear out some of the rules. I would agree that they will move away from producing errata and FAQ in favor of campaign books, «Warscrolls» and codex updates like the recent Tau release. I wouldn't call it a good idea, but we are stuck with it.
obsidianaura wrote: We're in December now and so by the end of the month we will have gone a year with out a single errata or answer to any questions on anything from Games Workshop.
Doesn't really give off a good impression does it?
Is it possible GW has stopped supporting the game in providing updates that way?
Maybe they think it would be better to release new rulebook with amendments and call it 7.1 edition?
That's slightly dishonest. GW is publishing new rules every month now for its two gaming system and that's not counting the board game they produce like Execution Force. Their gaming departement must be flooded with work and new schedules especially considering the cuts that were made in pretty much every single department in that company. This might also explain why some of the most recent release were rather mediocre in term of quality rule wise. That's the issue with their new sale strategy. Sure, they release an enormous amount of new material, but it doesn't give time to adjust their mistakes and clear out some of the rules. I would agree that they will move away from producing errata and FAQ in favor of campaign books, «Warscrolls» and codex updates like the recent Tau release. I wouldn't call it a good idea, but we are stuck with it.
I have said nothing that is not true.
GW must get dozens of questions a day from its customers about rules.
Giving answers on most common questions regarding the core rulebook could be handled in an afternoon meeting with the writers in the design studio, in many cases they've replied with answers via email. I'm sure there's plenty of people here around who would do it for free if given the emails.
Churning out books gets them money but by abandoning this clearly required process of rules corrections shows they are less interested in supporting their product and more interested in generating revenue.
Don't they list as a reason for buying a digital codex that it will automatically update when new erratas are released?
I can't think of a good parallel with other businesses. Possibly it's similar behaviour to an app developer selling a new app rather than fixing the bugs in the old one with an update.
How could this even be just a "thinking about?" How much effort does it take to type "gargantuan creatures shoot [X] weapons," convert to PDF, and upload to the website? Hell, it could even be just one dude deciding if they really don't care about rules enough, and that would be even easier since he doesn't have to consult anyone about the answer.
How could this even be just a "thinking about?" How much effort does it take to type "gargantuan creatures shoot [X] weapons," convert to PDF, and upload to the website? Hell, it could even be just one dude deciding if they really don't care about rules enough, and that would be even easier since he doesn't have to consult anyone about the answer.
This! Exactly!
I'd do it for free for them, they even answer people by email when they've asked about this exact question, they've just for some reason not managed to release it on the main website.
Warhammer is a tabletop game that is supposed to be played amongst friends. It is not sanctioned nor is it a tournament format... at all. Any questions or issues with rules in the Codex should be discussed between players and an agreement reached before a game.
If a gaming shop wants to hold a tournament, then it's up to them to supply the necessary errata or specific rule changes.
I'm really not sure why people don't understand that Warhammer as a whole is not meant to be competitive.
ServiceGames wrote: Warhammer is a tabletop game that is supposed to be played amongst friends. It is not sanctioned nor is it a tournament format... at all. Any questions or issues with rules in the Codex should be discussed between players and an agreement reached before a game.
If a gaming shop wants to hold a tournament, then it's up to them to supply the necessary errata or specific rule changes.
I'm really not sure why people don't understand that Warhammer as a whole is not meant to be competitive.
SG
Maybe it is because when they started playing 40k two or three editions back GW held grand tournaments. Excluding competitive play is a recent attitude.
Having faq's for poorly written rules and just generally 'caring' would go a long way. But GW doesn't seem to realise this *cough market research cough*.
Warhammer is a tabletop game that is supposed to be played amongst friends. It is not sanctioned nor is it a tournament format... at all. Any questions or issues with rules in the Codex should be discussed between players and an agreement reached before a game.
But there were always tournaments and non tournament games use the same models and same lists as tournament ones. But even if that somehow true, and w40k realy was ment to be played that way,Then why isn't it in the rules? Why aren't the unfun combos limited or baned, by sole virtue of being illegal. And what of the places in the world where w40k and other GW games were always played as table top games and not collecable items to run around with going pew pew.
ServiceGames wrote: Warhammer is a tabletop game that is supposed to be played amongst friends. It is not sanctioned nor is it a tournament format... at all. Any questions or issues with rules in the Codex should be discussed between players and an agreement reached before a game.
The thing about this is that a lot of people can't agree between themselves how certain rules should be played. Just see any of the "how many weapons can GCs shoot?" threads or whatever the kerfuffle with Coordinated Firepower is. And besides, other games like Monopoly aren't supposed to be played in a tournament format either, and their rules are clearly written. GW wouldn't even need FAQs to begin with if they could actually write their rules clearly and properly to begin with.
ServiceGames wrote: Warhammer is a tabletop game that is supposed to be played amongst friends. It is not sanctioned nor is it a tournament format... at all. Any questions or issues with rules in the Codex should be discussed between players and an agreement reached before a game.
If a gaming shop wants to hold a tournament, then it's up to them to supply the necessary errata or specific rule changes.
I'm really not sure why people don't understand that Warhammer as a whole is not meant to be competitive.
SG
Oh joy, yet more drivel from the "anyone who wants clear rules must be a WAAC That Guy tournament player" crowd.
What happens if you have the discussion with your friend, but reach an impasse because you disagree on what the right answer is, and you both just want some sort of official clarification?
Or, hell, perhaps you simply don't want to have to discuss badly-written rules before each and every game, and would rather have some clear rules so that you could spend more time playing the damn game.
ServiceGames wrote: Warhammer is a tabletop game that is supposed to be played amongst friends. It is not sanctioned nor is it a tournament format... at all. Any questions or issues with rules in the Codex should be discussed between players and an agreement reached before a game.
If a gaming shop wants to hold a tournament, then it's up to them to supply the necessary errata or specific rule changes.
I'm really not sure why people don't understand that Warhammer as a whole is not meant to be competitive.
SG
Oh joy, yet more drivel from the "anyone who wants clear rules must be a WAAC That Guy tournament player" crowd.
What happens if you have the discussion with your friend, but reach an impasse because you disagree on what the right answer is, and you both just want some sort of official clarification?
Or, hell, perhaps you simply don't want to have to discuss badly-written rules before each and every game, and would rather have some clear rules so that you could spend more time playing the damn game.
Can't wait to see where this goes. No, I know where it will go. We've heard it all before....
vipoid wrote: What happens if you have the discussion with your friend, but reach an impasse because you disagree on what the right answer is, and you both just want some sort of official clarification?
I think the AoS rules offer up an excellent solution (and it's probably somewhere in the 40K rules as well). If two people simply cannot agree on how a rule should be interpreted or how to handle a certain situation, you simply flip a coin or roll a die. The rule may end up not being interpreted the way you specifically wanted it to be interpreted, but a very simple solution.
vipoid wrote: What happens if you have the discussion with your friend, but reach an impasse because you disagree on what the right answer is, and you both just want some sort of official clarification?
I think the AoS rules offer up an excellent solution (and it's probably somewhere in the 40K rules as well). If two people simply cannot agree on how a rule should be interpreted or how to handle a certain situation, you simply flip a coin or roll a die. The rule may end up not being interpreted the way you specifically wanted it to be interpreted, but a very simple solution.
SG
Thank you GW rep for clarifying. Good thing I haven't bought a single GW product in a year. Maybe you guys don't mind losing your customers and this is your way of downsizing?
ServiceGames wrote: If two people simply cannot agree on how a rule should be interpreted or how to handle a certain situation, you simply flip a coin or roll a die. The rule may end up not being interpreted the way you specifically wanted it to be interpreted, but a very simple solution.
Oh spectacular, a solution that literally randomly changes each game. Yeah, I can see why such detailed rules need to cost £50.
KharnsRightHand wrote: GW wouldn't even need FAQs to begin with if they could actually write their rules clearly and properly to begin with.
I never said they write good rules. There are just ways, mentioned specifically by GW, to solve issues where poorly written rules cause problems in games. If there was a tournament circuit, there would most certainly be more errata, FAQs, much tighter focus on how the game is played, judges (probably several levels of them as there are in MTG), etc.
Maybe we should simplify the rules further and just flip a coin for every action. Heads my unit kills your unit... tails your unit lives. Who needs clearly defined rules when you can just flip a coin?!
KharnsRightHand wrote: GW wouldn't even need FAQs to begin with if they could actually write their rules clearly and properly to begin with.
I never said they write good rules. There are just ways, mentioned specifically by GW, to solve issues where poorly written rules cause problems in games. If there was a tournament circuit, there would most certainly be more errata, FAQs, much tighter focus on how the game is played, judges (probably several levels of them as there are in MTG), etc.
SG
GW used to have tournaments... and now their focus is changing. It should be no surprise that they're losing customers because of it. Also, don't be surprised when people who have invested a lot of money in the company for tournament play suddenly find their way of gaming to be in limbo because a company called ' GAMESWorkshop' decided to change direction without any input from the players.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The only reason I linger on this forum and hold onto my models is because I have a small sliver of hope that maybe GW will come to their senses and realize that their customers WANT comprehensive rules and we WANT tournaments like they used to run. It's a dwindling dream at this point. Right now I'm holding out hope for Mantic's Warpath game coming next year. Once that hits the market, and if it is any good, then I may leave GW behind forever unless they change their direction.
vipoid wrote: Oh spectacular, a solution that literally randomly changes each game. Yeah, I can see why such detailed rules need to cost £50.
This discussion was never about the cost of the BRB or individual codices. It was always about how to fix a disagreement in how to interpret the rules.
vipoid wrote: Oh spectacular, a solution that literally randomly changes each game. Yeah, I can see why such detailed rules need to cost £50.
This discussion was never about the cost of the BRB or individual codices. It was always about how to fix a disagreement in how to interpret the rules.
SG
The discussion is about the fact that GW hasn't released rules clarifications in over a year. His point of the price is relevant because it illustrates how much we're paying for rules that don't work.
GW has never had rules that filled in all the holes but they did at least make an effort to listen to the community and release FAQs to fill some of the holes.
I see your sig and it's clear the lack of comprehensive rules or FAQs wouldn't bother you. You probably only play like-minded individuals. But there are people who like to play random pickup games or tournaments where rule discrepancies can be a huge headache and a simple coin flip isn't going to cut it when you have to do it repeatedly. I'm glad for you that GW hasn't changed so much that they aren't catering to your crowd. But it sucks for those of us who can only play pick-up games or tournaments because all our friends have left the hobby due to financial or other reasons.
GW have been up and down over the years in their service of producing errata.
During 5th edition they launched the Throne of Knowledge or some such named feature on their website. It was specifically proclaimed to be the definitive source for corrections and clarifications.
It vanished when the web site was replaced by the web store.
vipoid wrote: Oh spectacular, a solution that literally randomly changes each game. Yeah, I can see why such detailed rules need to cost £50.
This discussion was never about the cost of the BRB or individual codices. It was always about how to fix a disagreement in how to interpret the rules.
SG
And I'm bringing rulebook costs into the debate, because they are very relevant indeed. GW charges vastly more than other companies for its rules. And, if I'm expected to pay premium prices for rules, I expect clear, well-written rules.
But, even ignoring price, 'flip a coin' should be a temporary fix when you haven't got time to check a complicated rules issue. It most certainly shouldn't be the standard way in which rules debates are settled.
vipoid wrote: What happens if you have the discussion with your friend, but reach an impasse because you disagree on what the right answer is, and you both just want some sort of official clarification?
I think the AoS rules offer up an excellent solution (and it's probably somewhere in the 40K rules as well). If two people simply cannot agree on how a rule should be interpreted or how to handle a certain situation, you simply flip a coin or roll a die. The rule may end up not being interpreted the way you specifically wanted it to be interpreted, but a very simple solution.
ServiceGames wrote: Warhammer is a tabletop game that is supposed to be played amongst friends. It is not sanctioned nor is it a tournament format... at all. Any questions or issues with rules in the Codex should be discussed between players and an agreement reached before a game.
If a gaming shop wants to hold a tournament, then it's up to them to supply the necessary errata or specific rule changes.
I'm really not sure why people don't understand that Warhammer as a whole is not meant to be competitive.
SG
Oh joy, yet more drivel from the "anyone who wants clear rules must be a WAAC That Guy tournament player" crowd.
What happens if you have the discussion with your friend, but reach an impasse because you disagree on what the right answer is, and you both just want some sort of official clarification?
Or, hell, perhaps you simply don't want to have to discuss badly-written rules before each and every game, and would rather have some clear rules so that you could spend more time playing the damn game.
That's easy, it's even written in the rules. You dice off !
Edit - Ignore, that'll teach me to post without reading the final posts.
vipoid wrote: I'm not sure you understand what 'official clarification' means.
Coming off several years of Magic: The Gathering before taking up Warhammer, I definitely understand what "official clarification" means. And, in Warhammer, it's written in the rulebooks to roll off if two players can't come to an agreement. That's as official as it can get.
vipoid wrote: What happens if you have the discussion with your friend, but reach an impasse because you disagree on what the right answer is, and you both just want some sort of official clarification?
I think the AoS rules offer up an excellent solution (and it's probably somewhere in the 40K rules as well). If two people simply cannot agree on how a rule should be interpreted or how to handle a certain situation, you simply flip a coin or roll a die. The rule may end up not being interpreted the way you specifically wanted it to be interpreted, but a very simple solution.
SG
So on a 4+ I get to cheat? Awesome.
Ha I can imagine that.
"Right so I have 17 points you have 3, so that's a victory to me. Good game" *extends hand*
"Hang on how do you work that out?" *Looks puzzled*
"Well if you look here, and here, and here" *points out various rules and troop locations* "It means I have the most points"
"Sorry mate I'm going to have to disagree with you on those points"
vipoid wrote: I'm not sure you understand what 'official clarification' means.
Coming off several years of Magic: The Gathering before taking up Warhammer, I definitely understand what "official clarification" means. And, in Warhammer, it's written in the rulebooks to roll off if two players can't come to an agreement. That's as official as it can get.
SG
Apparently you don't.
"If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the game – on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides. Then you can get on with the fighting! Once the game is over, you can happily continue your discussion as to the finer points of the rules."
It is quite clearly intended as a temporary solution and is, by definition, not an official clarification. An official clarification wouldn't need you to roll off and would apply for all future games.
Rolling off is an awful solution that can effectively mean "Roll a D6, on a 4+, you win."
I recall some years back there was a big kerfuffle with the Ork Deff Rolla (an upgrade for wagons that inflicted D6 S10 hits when tank shocking), and about whether it applied to Ramming attacks, since Ramming was a type of Tank Shock. (Spoiler: it was much later ruled to work in the official GWFAQ)
Imagine for example, that you're an Ork player who has designed your army under the assumption that this does work (cunningly employing it as your main source of Anti-vehicle power), and everyone in your area plays that way. In fact, it never came up as a point of discussion, because everyone you know interpreted the rule the same way. So you have no idea that it's so controversial. Then you go to a different LGS (and don't bring it up before a game, because you don't know any better), and your opponent raises a stink because he thinks you're cheating. You disagree, but neither one of you will budge. Now, if you were to roll off and lose that roll, you might as well pack up the game since you suddenly have no more anti-tank ability. At the very least, any outcome is gonna feel like you had one hand tied behind your back. Bad solution, bad game.
However, you now know to discuss this issue with your opponents in the future, which is great, right? Not really, because now whenever you encounter someone who disagrees with your interpretation of how the game functions, you are forced to build a different list or decline the game - both of which mean less opportunity to have a good time. (Presumably, you brought the first list because you enjoy it more / its more fluffy than any of your secondary lists). Any ruleset which limits the people I can have a game with (i.e. because it's so poorly written that they think they're playing UNO while I'm playing MTG) is seriously flawed and really shouldn't be defended with "Eh just talk it out."
There's a LOT of issues with the rules. Considering what we pay, I expect a lot more from GW. However, sometimes I feel like rules issues mostly come up when people want to nerf something they view as OP, so they start examining the etymology of the rules looking for any possible justification to nerf it. The Ork example was a good one. GMC shooting is another good example. I made my friend look up the definition of "each" when he tried to say I couldn't shoot all 4 weapons on my WK. Psychic powers are another argument I've had. Where does the book say you can only cast as many powers as your mastery level? As far as I can see, you can attempt to cast each power you know 1 time per psychic phase as long as you have dice left.
This does not in any way excuse GW from failing to issue an official FAQ on that issue when they've gotten so many emails about it. You would think it would be more efficient to issue the ruling 1 time with a PDF on your website than to have a room full of interns replying to the same 8 rule questions via email all day long...
Toofast wrote: Psychic powers are another argument I've had. Where does the book say you can only cast as many powers as your mastery level? As far as I can see, you can attempt to cast each power you know 1 time per psychic phase as long as you have dice left.
I agree with the rest of your post, but on this particular example you might just be running into players that are mixing their editions. In previous editions (up to at least 5th, I think) before the new Psychic phase, this is how psychic powers were limited. You basically just took Ld tests to cast powers, and you could only cast 1 per "mastery level" (and that specific terminology didn't get introduced until very recently either). IIRC, most psykers could only cast 1 unless they had some special rule that allowed them to cast more (which of course created all sorts of confusing vagaries).
Xca|iber wrote: IIRC, most psykers could only cast 1 unless they had some special rule that allowed them to cast more (which of course created all sorts of confusing vagaries).
There was actually never a restriction on casting more powers than your mastery level in 6th edition. It's just that, in practice you were limited to your psyker level because of the way warp charges worked. That's something that kind of caught people off-guard when 7th edition came out - the wording on the rules didn't change, but suddenly psykers had access to a pool of warp charges, and so could feasibly cast more powers than their psyker level (e.g., a level 1 librarian casting Psychich Shriek and Force). So they assumed that the intent was that they were limited to casting just one of the librarian's two power, when really there never was an inherent limit to how many they cast (you would just eventually run out of unique powers to cast).
Xca|iber wrote: IIRC, most psykers could only cast 1 unless they had some special rule that allowed them to cast more (which of course created all sorts of confusing vagaries).
There was actually never a restriction on casting more powers than your mastery level in 6th edition. It's just that, in practice you were limited to your psyker level because of the way warp charges worked. That's something that kind of caught people off-guard when 7th edition came out - the wording on the rules didn't change, but suddenly psykers had access to a pool of warp charges, and so could feasibly cast more powers than their psyker level (e.g., a level 1 librarian casting Psychich Shriek and Force). So they assumed that the intent was that they were limited to casting just one of the librarian's two power, when really there never was an inherent limit to how many they cast (you would just eventually run out of unique powers to cast).
Ah, you're right. 6th was the introduction of Warp Charges, which dramatically changed how psychic powers worked.
Before that, it was all Ld Tests and 1 power per psyker (unless you had special rules) until the Grey Knights 5th edition codex, which introduced Mastery Levels (and 1 power per level at the time).
If a company like Konami can write clear, balanced rules for literally thousands of cards, why can't GW do it for 1500-ish bits of plastic? Best part about Konami is that YuGiOh has only had card types added to, the changes to the core rules are minimal-if-not-nonexistent (i.e Banishing was not in 1st Edition YGO) and 40k predates YuGiOh as a concept by 9 years.
rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote: If a company like Konami can write clear, balanced rules for literally thousands of cards, why can't GW do it for 1500-ish bits of plastic? Best part about Konami is that YuGiOh has only had card types added to, the changes to the core rules are minimal-if-not-nonexistent (i.e Banishing was not in 1st Edition YGO) and 40k predates YuGiOh as a concept by 9 years.
EDIT: And YuGiOh is still balanced!
Umm, most everything I've heard about YuGiOh (and from what I remember when playing it) is that many of the cards have poorly worded rules and many cards that effectively do the same or similar things don't even have consistent wording...
Yugioh isn't balanced. But if you're smart, you play online and don't buy three pieces of card for £100 each, only to see then drop in price when Konami decides to ban them so that to stay competitive you have to buy the newest op stuff.
Special summoning from hand -> special summoning from main deck -> special summon from extra deck -> replenish extra deck while still special summoning.
I stopped buying cards ages ago. I still play, but never to tournaments. The community is as toxic as 40ks. They'll allow you to do one thing, then call a judge over and say you cheated, giving you a game loss.
Allegedly there are updates in several digital editions. Like usual, not getting my hopes up. Though the Codex: Space Marines has changes to the Force Requisition. I wonder what that is supposed to entail.
EDIT: Errata for Astra Militarium. Perhaps something fixing it so you can run the Emperor's Shield without having to field 1500 models.
pm713 wrote: Is there any support for that? I find it.....difficult to believe.
Check out belloflostsouls and natfka. Both have articles about it.
Considering that they haven't shown any evidence of a genuine or significant change and the only other thing I've seen is a blog saying they haven't seen any change I am still unconvinced.
pm713 wrote: Is there any support for that? I find it.....difficult to believe.
Check out belloflostsouls and natfka. Both have articles about it.
Yeah, I've seen them. If you read them, you'll notice a lack of a certain something - i.e. news of even a single rule change.
All these codices have apparently been updated... and yet neither BoLS or natfka could find even a single changed rule to mention. Almost as if, say, the update hadn't actually changed anything.
Also, apparently the faqs will be updated any minute now.
There's a thread in N&R about these supposed "updates" but so far nobody has actually found anything that's changed. Not to mention that there isn't actually a new FAQ (which would be where you would list any changes).
pm713 wrote: Is there any support for that? I find it.....difficult to believe.
Check out belloflostsouls and natfka. Both have articles about it.
Yeah, I've seen them. If you read them, you'll notice a lack of a certain something - i.e. news of even a single rule change.
All these codices have apparently been updated... and yet neither BoLS or natfka could find even a single changed rule to mention. Almost as if, say, the update hadn't actually changed anything.
Also, apparently the faqs will be updated any minute now.
Any minute...
Should be...
Right about...
Any second...
...
The faqs will be updated any hour now...
Any hour...
Yeah, BOLS and naftka lie all the time. Gets them a ton of clicks. There are not FAQs coming out, GW is a model company (as they have clearly stated), they just want you to buy their models. And maybe the books every two years when they just shake things up without net improvement. Please and thank you drones.
No, I know where it will go. We've heard it all before....
