It's been a month, and we already have a ton of errata for Space Wolves ALONE, let alone the rest of the armies. At this point half the entries in the Space Wolf portion of the index are already invalidated by Errata. Should GW just give up trying to print out rulebooks and update an online version instead? They can still print the pretty pictures for whoever wants it, but they should give us an updating digital version as well.

Eh, the indices were a big undertaking, trying to fit everything into a few books. I'm hoping the codices will have more care taken with them.

Speaking only for myself, the value of their books has been gone for a while now. No idea of the shelf life a book will have before its invalidated (looking at you chaos legions, deathwatch and genestealer cults). There also seems to be precious little time put into ensuring the books don't require revision and correction and cynical geedubs seem to know their market well enough and the fact that the majority of players have just come to expect faq/errata's as facts of life and somehow see them as an elective good will measure entirely at the discretion of the capricious corporate god that is gw and not a regrettable phenomenon that should be few and far between. If gw was a car manufacturer any news of a recall would never discuss say class action lawsuits or private settlements out of court and would only be met by universal praise and comments like "With this new recall, gw shows they really get us consumers. They know deep down that every one of us has strong feelings about being incinerated alive by faulty fuel injectors. They really get that, now."

The final problem is, although there is always a tonne of fantastic photography and artwork, the artwork itself, the style and design, has become less consistent in tone and style over the years and the photography though technically quite brilliant and often making creative use of deep focus still too often isn't allowed to show more contrast and grim dark (or composite work like fw) and instead still has a high key commercial vibe and if we're lucky some colored gel kickers in the back. They replaced artwork of units in their respective books with photography, which again is often great work and highlights a unified theme but feels wrong, feels like white dwarf is invading a codex. The older books compartmentalized better without feeling the need to show as many shiny toys you can buy on every page possible. Finally, the new index's absurd contempt for pts over power levels is just insulting. It's passive agressive jervis crap that I can't help but feel may not have manifested if Cruddace alone was heading up the new edition. But that's pure speculation, for all we know the marketing department has its claws fully into all aspects of "game design".

What I also find funny is I can't help but remember all the bien passant's going on about codex's being a thing of the past and rambling on about living rule sets and free rules. And here I am looking at a $60 codex space marines with mary sue marine on the front. (models look fine, fluff is a war crime, the hague should get involved). So as a marine player, looking at a rulebook with a sycophantic replacement on the front I am thinking they should give up printing rulebooks and stick to catalogs and magazines. Especially with the marketing team cutting swathes through the fluff.

I was really hoping they'd do that with this edition and realize that the majority of their profits come from miniature sales (the books are expensive, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the miniature sales). Good rules will sell models.

However it's at least good that they're attempting to fix stuff via faqs and whatnot. However I am not against Codexes as a Premium product (with lore, artwork, showcases and tips in them) as long as the hard crunch rules are free. Even now I'm buying ancient codexes and armybooks solely for the hobby and lore aspects.

Considering they cost of one is $84 for me, they already are as far as my group is concerned.

I had been under the impression that they were going to take a page from AoS and have all the unit rules and whatnot available on an app that could be updated whenever necessary.
Going back to hard copy feels like a step backwards and is incredibly messy to fix when the inevitable faqs for them come out.
I dont understand why theyve gone this way. I feel AoS has it right on this one. I like having a hard copy as much as the next guy. Love the smell and feel of pages; but theyre too expensive.

Lets not kid ourselves, those toting the line that the codeci have goid fluff and pictures have got to be dazzled by some imaginary bright light coming from geedubs signs. Fluff is either straight up bad or rehashed. Pictures you can find a plenty on a google search.

at the end of the day people like hard copy books, going purely digital would proably drive some people away. but.. digital is already avaliable if you like it

I just wish GW would update their digital versions to reflect the errata.

Personally I want printed books but I don't want Codex's - I wanted campaign books and supplements.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Personally I want printed books but I don't want Codex's - I wanted campaign books and supplements.

Campaign books timed to release with new terrain/fortifications would be nice to see, especially more xenos love and more stuff like the objective box released along side new books would be cool.

Pretty much. The rulebooks are trash, and no sane person would ever buy them. Not only is the quality of the books going downhill, favoring more catalog pictures over the older fluff and art, the rules aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. 8th edition keeps dropping FAQs that immediately invalidate the printed version of the rules, and now with stuff like the flyer nerf they're not even pretending that the printed rules have any value. I'm not going to break forum rules and advocate pirating the rulebooks, but I can certainly see why people do it.

In the age of digital media this makes a ton of sense I mean you can release digital update to automatically faq stuff

No. GW should continue doing what they do: Publish rules, and then fix them as their shortcomings are discovered. GW is doing a great job at the moment.

It wouldn't hurt for them to actually hire a few technical editors. I will say that the quality from a grammatical standpoint has plummeted. There's very much a "rush this out the door" feel to the majority of the printed material I've seen from GW.

I got an insane amount of value out of my 5th ed book, none were perfect, but it goes from a book feeling almost like an institution or school of thought to some pamphlet ideology to sell essential oils. Shiny but hollow. I don't think we can get that back, too many faction keywords..

pismakron wrote:
No. GW should continue doing what they do: Publish rules, and then fix them as their shortcomings are discovered. GW is doing a great job at the moment.

But why should I buy something that is going to immediately be invalidated by FAQs/errata? Buying a printed book makes sense if the rules have been thoroughly playtested and I'm confident that I am buying the finished version. It has a lot less appeal when the book I'm buying is just a beta test, nowhere near enough playtesting has been done, and who knows what the actual rules might be in the future.

pismakron wrote:
GW is doing a great job at the moment.

Not measuring performance and rewarding incompetence with a participation trophy, a better factory for mediocrity I know not of. First attempt in learning shouldn't have a price tag.

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
No. GW should continue doing what they do: Publish rules, and then fix them as their shortcomings are discovered. GW is doing a great job at the moment.

But why should I buy something that is going to immediately be invalidated by FAQs/errata? Buying a printed book makes sense if the rules have been thoroughly playtested and I'm confident that I am buying the finished version. It has a lot less appeal when the book I'm buying is just a beta test, nowhere near enough playtesting has been done, and who knows what the actual rules might be in the future.

What gamebooks do you buy that never have a FAQ or Errata?

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
No. GW should continue doing what they do: Publish rules, and then fix them as their shortcomings are discovered. GW is doing a great job at the moment.

But why should I buy something that is going to immediately be invalidated by FAQs/errata? Buying a printed book makes sense if the rules have been thoroughly playtested and I'm confident that I am buying the finished version. It has a lot less appeal when the book I'm buying is just a beta test, nowhere near enough playtesting has been done, and who knows what the actual rules might be in the future.

I don't know. It is up to you if you want to buy the books or not. Personally I prefer rules that are fixed and fixed again. A good rulebook is worn, full of notes and glued in errata.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
No. GW should continue doing what they do: Publish rules, and then fix them as their shortcomings are discovered. GW is doing a great job at the moment.

But why should I buy something that is going to immediately be invalidated by FAQs/errata? Buying a printed book makes sense if the rules have been thoroughly playtested and I'm confident that I am buying the finished version. It has a lot less appeal when the book I'm buying is just a beta test, nowhere near enough playtesting has been done, and who knows what the actual rules might be in the future.

What gamebooks do you buy that never have a FAQ or Errata?

I'd like to know about this perfectly published game book with no FAQ or Errata too.

 Crablezworth wrote:

pismakron wrote:
GW is doing a great job at the moment.

Not measuring performance and rewarding incompetence with a participation trophy, a better factory for mediocrity I know not of. First attempt in learning shouldn't have a price tag.

Wut x 100?

pismakron wrote:
A good rulebook is worn, full of notes and glued in errata.

No, a good rulebook is one that has been thoroughly playtested before release and doesn't require errata.

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A good rulebook is worn, full of notes and glued in errata.

No, a good rulebook is one that has been thoroughly playtested before release and doesn't require errata.

so what you're saying is a good rule book does not exist?

 Crablezworth wrote:

The final problem is, although there is always a tonne of fantastic photography and artwork, the artwork itself, the style and design, has become less consistent in tone and style over the years and the photography though technically quite brilliant and often making creative use of deep focus still too often isn't allowed to show more contrast and grim dark (or composite work like fw) and instead still has a high key commercial vibe and if we're lucky some colored gel kickers in the back. They replaced artwork of units in their respective books with photography, which again is often great work and highlights a unified theme but feels wrong, feels like white dwarf is invading a codex. The older books compartmentalized better without feeling the need to show as many shiny toys you can buy on every page possible.

Other than GW's attempt to destroy any good parts of the fluff, this is one of my major gripes atm. They've decided that we're all too simple to understand the nuances of original 40k, and have decided to give us watered down mainstream rubbish that has little to no artistic value and only represents the simplest of narratives.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Codex-Space-Marines-hb-2017-ltd-ENG

"Look at us! We're the heroes of the universe!"

What happened to Space Nazis who come in at the last moment to save you from your own failure, and then start purging the weak, impure, heretical, and xenos-aligned?

Also. That last image. Wtf is that last image? Dual-weilding heavy weapons while hovering above the ground with grav-repulsors strapped to their feet? WHY!?

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A good rulebook is worn, full of notes and glued in errata.

No, a good rulebook is one that has been thoroughly playtested before release and doesn't require errata.

Such a rulebook does not exist and never will, especially not for a byzantine game like w40k.

It is like software: It is never bugfree on launchdate.

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A good rulebook is worn, full of notes and glued in errata.

No, a good rulebook is one that has been thoroughly playtested before release and doesn't require errata.

I want to live in your magical fantasy land.

pismakron wrote:
Such a rulebook does not exist and never will, especially not for a byzantine game like w40k.

It is like software: It is never bugfree on launchdate.

Only because we, as customers, have accepted the fact that we buy unfinished garbage. If people refused to buy anything that was sold in this state we would get bug-free rulebooks.

I assume they would except people keep buying them, presumably in sufficiently large amounts.

What if their thought is this:

1) Print a new rule book (but not TOO many of them)
2) Print indices with rules for all the armies.
3) Get massive feedback from the player base
4) Based on he feedback, print all the Codices in a short time span
5) Print an X.5 version of the rules

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Such a rulebook does not exist and never will, especially not for a byzantine game like w40k.

It is like software: It is never bugfree on launchdate.

Only because we, as customers, have accepted the fact that we buy unfinished garbage. If people refused to buy anything that was sold in this state we would get bug-free rulebooks.

So you're admitting to being the problem? Well that's a start.

What they should've done was to release the indexes for free and then update then until the community feels the FAQs finally fixed most of the problems - because, as we can see from now, the playtesting wasn't really well done. Of course, the indexes would've been updated with each FAQ.
The process should've started last year.

AFTER the indexes reached the optimal balance, they would release the hardback codexes.

Again, hard fast rules should be free, but lore, art, hobby articles and showcases (along with the current version of the rules) could be put into a "Premium" codex for those that want it.

I remember buying the old codexes not just for the rules, but also for the conversion tips, painting guides and other assorted hobby articles contained within. Anyone remember the bunker templates that GW included with the 4th edition rulebook? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

Correcting a rulebook is fine, or even vital. But releasing tons of FAQs just 40 days after the edition was released is criminal. Not to mention that 20+ codexes are still on the way.

I agree with Peregrine on this matter, why should someone waste money into something that will be completely invalidated in a few months?

Some corrections are fine but I've read tons of corrections, which means no playtesting. Basically the customers do the GW playtesting by playing the game in the first 1-2 months after the release of the new edition. And this is totally unacceptable IMHO. I don't buy GW books since ages to be honest, I'm tired of that.

OP: Shut up! Stop Trolling!

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
Such a rulebook does not exist and never will, especially not for a byzantine game like w40k.

It is like software: It is never bugfree on launchdate.

Only because we, as customers, have accepted the fact that we buy unfinished garbage. If people refused to buy anything that was sold in this state we would get bug-free rulebooks.

So you're admitting to being the problem? Well that's a start.

The next step would be to hire a team of lawyers to look over every sentence and discover every possible interpretation of the language and grammer.

I mean, is there a certain amount of times a dice has to turn on its side before it's considered a roll? What if it turns once and then slides because your game mat is smooth vinyl, is that not a roll? Can it contact other surfaces or does that invalidate the roll because then it could be considered a bounce or ricochet?

Oh look it's another hyperbole thread on dakka

 Selym wrote:


"Look at us! We're the heroes of the universe!"

What happened to Space Nazis who come in at the last moment to save you from your own failure, and then start purging the weak, impure, heretical, and xenos-aligned?

I read these quotes from the new codex and thought of you:

-The Black Templars are called upon to put down a rebellion on a planet. As they fight they discover that the enemy is managing to put more soldiers on the field faster than they can kill them. Realizing the planet was damned as most of its population was turning against them, the BT are forced to exterminate the entire population to put an end to the threat.

-The Great Rift that engulfed most of the Space around them now receded, leaving behind planets tainted by Chaos. The Iron Hands launched a brutal "Scorched Earth Crusade" that cleanses these heavily populated worlds from the taint but leaves them in ruins.

Fans of genocide rejoice!

Iron Hands are like that - if you read the excellent Wrath of Iron it shows how horrific their campaigns are - they are not the usual "Angry Marines" - but rather cold, uncaring, focussed and extremely brutal.

Eh, personally I think people who start a solid thread per day whining about essentially nothing are a bigger issue overall.

Hmmm...

If it were up to me, I would change their rules to have nothing but the rules and all be online for free. Their website would then be updated to have much of the current high level background for each army. This way users can use the website to help them choose the army that they most like. GW could install kiosks in their stores so users can read about the background for armies and units in stores if they want. So effectively the rulebooks and everything we consider a codex would be free online.

I would then focus my book sales on campaign books. I would try to have a new campaign every 6 months. I would fill those books with a lot of different stories and artwork and the only rules would be related to campaign missions. Then to really stick it to the customer in typical GW fashion, I would release 3 different campaign books for each semiannual campaign each from the perspective of imperial/chaos/xenos. Still the same missions and rules, but the background would have a slant to paint that faction in a better light. Chaos may still lose, but it was all part of their master plan from the beginning. Eldar may lose a craftworld, but that craftworld loss saved a dozen exodite worlds. etc.

Are we seriously complaining about GW fixing the rules to address balance issues?

Also, the core rules are free to download online from GW. No lore or Matched Play missions, but the rules themselves can be had for literally nothing.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Are we seriously complaining about GW fixing the rules to address balance issues?

Also, the core rules are free to download online from GW. No lore or Matched Play missions, but the rules themselves can be had for literally nothing.

You can't play the game with JUST the core rules. Releasing Indexes then needing a forests worth of errata printed out is not a good start to what was meant to be a clear slate. The Codexes won't be any better and we're going to be in the same situation in 3rd where those with Codexes beat those without.

GW can never win can they?

If they don't bother releasing Erratas/FAQ's people complain about having to face OP units for X years and complain about GW not bothering to clarify or fix rule-issues.

If they do release Erratas/FAQs and better yet, quickly change rules for stuff that needs it (either by buffign or nerfing), people complain that their rulebooks/codeci get "invaildated".

Jeeez, you people ever heard of a pencil and rubber? Nothing prevents you from writing down the Errata-changes in your own Indexes you know...

 MinscS2 wrote:
GW can never win can they?

If they don't bother releasing Erratas/FAQ's people complain about having to face OP units for X years and complain about GW not bothering to clarify or fix rule-issues.

If they do release Erratas/FAQs and better yet, quickly change rules for stuff that needs it (either by buffign or nerfing), people complain that their rulebooks/codeci get "invaildated".

Jeeez, you people ever heard of a pencil and rubber? Nothing prevents you from writing down the Errata-changes in your own Indexes you know...

I am not complaining they are fixing their rules. I am complaining they are printing rulebooks that have half the entries invalidated, for obscene amounts of money. At the very least they should update the digital versions for those who bought them (like me).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
.
I am not complaining they are fixing their rules. I am complaining they are printing rulebooks that have half the entries invalidated, for obscene amounts of money. At the very least they should update the digital versions for those who bought them (like me).

This is a perfect example of hyperbole.
You say that "half" (50%) the entries are invalidated, when it is (with the exception of SW apparently) more like 1% of the entries being "invalidated".
Besides, most of theese "invalidations" are small changes that you could easily correct with a pencil in like 5 seconds.
Razorwing Swarms "invalidated" because their pointcost changed? Draw a line over that 7 in the index and write down 14.

I agree that they should update the digital versions, but that's not what your threadtitle says nor your only suggestion in the OP.

Alot of us actually dont give a feth about the digital rules. If GW went digital only, they'd loose *alot* of customers.

 Crablezworth wrote:
There also seems to be precious little time put into ensuring the books don't require revision and correction

As someone who works in publishing, I do not believe that this is true. They are perfectly within the norm.

Editing is very hard work and difficult. I can guarantee you that any book on your shelf contains mistakes, unless it is a 10th edition reprint or something of that nature.

 44Ronin wrote:
Oh look it's another hyperbole thread on dakka

I feel like its gotten worse recently...

Stop being so precious! Its a complex game with so many moving parts and rules...FAQs are needed.

Not to mention its great they are getting onto it so quickly, so we can enjoy a more balanced experience. If that means I have to make a few notes and adjust some points values in my rulebook or Codex that is fine with me.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Oh look it's another hyperbole thread on dakka

I feel like its gotten worse recently...

There's a handful of players that really don't like 8th. They are very opinionated on this matter and like to let people know they really don't like 8th.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
Oh look it's another hyperbole thread on dakka

I feel like its gotten worse recently...

Mostly the same few people....

Empty can rattles the most

To be fair the new GW is creating a terrible precedent with which people will judge them. The rules and indexes should have been free. The game is SUPPOSED to be stream lined and simple but now you have a rulebook, then several pages of FAQ and errata, THEN an index with dozens of additional pages of faq of errata, which also changes every few weeks. It voids the whole purpose of simplifying the game. I suspect after the last few codexes drop, then they will consider the feedback and by then have most of the bugs worked out but this is an increasingly frustrating game to get into, much less get someone else into.

macluvin wrote:
To be fair the new GW is creating a terrible precedent with which people will judge them. .

You must be new

I'm torn, seeing GW embracing FAQ culture is a step forward, but the sheer tsunami of errata does suggest a lack of playtesting (or playtesting feedback being ignored) and/or very sloppy proofreading / editing

Currently I'm going to be very wary of buying any print material on release date, I'll either wait a few months or find a PDF epsewhere

The flyer thing is the only one that really stands out as a deliberate change, the rest seem to be at worst attempts to make the written rules better fit the intent.

I like the printed rulebooks myself. I like being able to flip through the pages & they have that crisp codex smell haha. I recognize the advantages of having digital products, but they are only good until they aren't. Can't tell you the number of times I used a resource that was online, only to have it vanish & then you are f*cked. In my opinion having physical copies is also a great way of referencing the past. Example:

Why is (x) unit so expensive point wise? Look back at past rules, note changes & see if it adds up. Often times the changes are logical, other times...not so much.

Gibs55 wrote:
Stop being so precious! Its a complex game with so many moving parts and rules...FAQs are needed.

No FAQs are absolutely not needed. Stop repeating this myth. GW is publishing FAQs/errata, especially this soon after release, because they don't playtest sufficiently to catch even blatant errors and balance issues. There is absolutely nothing preventing GW from investing more effort and publishing rules that only rarely, if ever, need FAQs/errata. Stop making excuses for GW, they are an incompetent company that continues to get away with selling half-finished garbage because people refuse to believe that it can be better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:
GW can never win can they?

If they don't bother releasing Erratas/FAQ's people complain about having to face OP units for X years and complain about GW not bothering to clarify or fix rule-issues.

If they do release Erratas/FAQs and better yet, quickly change rules for stuff that needs it (either by buffign or nerfing), people complain that their rulebooks/codeci get "invaildated".

Jeeez, you people ever heard of a pencil and rubber? Nothing prevents you from writing down the Errata-changes in your own Indexes you know...

GW absolutely can win. They can win by playtesting sufficiently, catching these problems before the books are released, and not having to FAQ/errata them later. If GW was doing their job, the job we as customers pay them to do, they would not have to make these changes. Expecting GW to show an acceptable level of competence in game design is not creating a no-win scenario for them, it's simply holding them accountable and refusing to accept a defective product.

No FAQs are absolutely not needed. Stop repeating this myth

Still waiting on this mythical product that has never needed an update or change to it in the later years. Because otherwise you're just yelling "No! GW must make this product 100% Perfect". Without any sort of actual argument except that "GW bad, they the only ones that do this"

I'm even looking at several science books that have needed updates over the years, history books that have changed as new facts come to light, computer textbooks that have had several FAQ's because of issues within.

There's never been a gamebook I owned for board games that haven't been given errata or faq, even the old chess book I have has been given errata.

What mythical unicorn of a book have you seen that doesn't do this?

Monopoly is a game that is always getting revised, renewed and still brings in the big bucks for Hasbro. The rules have never changed. Do we really need to continue this conversation?

 MinscS2 wrote:
GW can never win can they?

If they don't bother releasing Erratas/FAQ's people complain about having to face OP units for X years and complain about GW not bothering to clarify or fix rule-issues.

If they do release Erratas/FAQs and better yet, quickly change rules for stuff that needs it (either by buffign or nerfing), people complain that their rulebooks/codeci get "invaildated".

Jeeez, you people ever heard of a pencil and rubber? Nothing prevents you from writing down the Errata-changes in your own Indexes you know...

GW could win by having their rules be free online and updating/errata-ing them as and when necessary.

1 errata per year is fine.
2 of them whitin 2 months is just pure BS and is proof that the rules was NOT playtested outside their limited basment prior to beeing printed.

I dont play 40k yet but when i do, i will go pirate all the way for the codex aslong as GW refuse to make the rules pure digital whit constant updates reflecting the erratas.

teknoskan wrote:
Monopoly is a game that is always getting revised, renewed and still brings in the big bucks for Hasbro. The rules have never changed. Do we really need to continue this conversation?

Actually they tend to add rules to the "Extra" portion, which tends to let you add new rules to the game.

Not to mention the rules have been revised slightly over the years, not to mention sometimes new rules are added to a sidebar that one can add in as options to the game itself. Monopoly did have FAQ's for it on the site but they tend to update the rules so it's clarified in the next reprinted edition.

Certainly know the Monopoly Deal Card Game they tried to make required a FAQ...

I think they just need to try and get the digital app out ASAP. When I played Warmahordes, War Room was probably the best thing you could buy because you could purchase all the updates and cards for everything, now and future, for the life of an edition for like $90 ($60 in Mk2 IIRC). Any updates got pushed to it, any new model released was included. It was an amazing resource, and it did mean that you only had to buy the books if you wanted the fluff, which is what the books should be for Warhammer anyways.

The issue will be, GW probably won't do that. You see junk like Azyr for AOS where you have to buy books inside the app, and need to "unlock" things for microtransactions, but at least you can get the unit stats for free even if you don't pay for the army builder.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Still waiting on this mythical product that has never needed an update or change to it in the later years.

We aren't talking about updates in later years here, we're talking about updates within days or weeks of releasing new books. And these are updates to fix things that the community spotted (and exploited) the moment the books were out, not subtle and unforeseeable problems that weren't discovered until years later. It's simply inexcusable that GW missed this stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
GW could win by having their rules be free online and updating/errata-ing them as and when necessary.

Or this. It would still be inexcusable that they missed things like this, but at least we wouldn't have paid for the books.

Gdubs can only win for some peaple if they can use their entire army that they would get free models for each time the army gets updated sadly enough this is reality not fiction so gdubs is a company with employees. As I could understand by reecious and (forgot the midgets name) they have been playtesting over atleast 6 months so the time for playtesting has to be atleast 8 months+ (unless they realy are slowed). So either they didnt take to mutch advice from the "playtesters" or the "playtesters" didnt give good enough feedback. As for the spacewolves i gues its more of te latter then the former

Helpful tips:

1. Ignore anyone who says anything in print is perfect upon first printing. They haven't done any serious editing or writing. Even if they say they have, they are lying, or at best haven't done anything on the scale of complexity as a rule book.
2. Ignore anyone who says the fault is on either GW or us--it's on human nature, which is impossible to change
3. Move on

While that is true, it doesn't actually address... Anything. The model they have chosen is repeated updates (two already) and fast obsolescence, and that just doesn't work with print volumes.

Parts of this were just a mess, and going by purestrain genestealers, it's going to continue to be a mess. Ambush is apparently worth 6, -2 or 3 points, and that isn't even vaguely sane.

Especially given that xenos 2 will probably stick around the longest, while imperium 1 will quickly be unnecessary except for weird speciality stuff that isn't sold globally.

I was under the impression the ebooks and such were updated? Is this not true?

pismakron wrote:
No. GW should continue doing what they do: Publish rules, and then fix them as their shortcomings are discovered. GW is doing a great job at the moment.

publish rules in form of 20-50 $ books, then invalidating them after a few months. What was the life span of 6th again

The rulebooks are great. Best thing in a long while. If a rule is unclear they erata it so it is clear. If a unit is far to good, they nerf it so exploiting the game is not so easy.

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A good rulebook is worn, full of notes and glued in errata.

No, a good rulebook is one that has been thoroughly playtested before release and doesn't require errata.

When you're done living in a fantasy land, feel free to come back to reality and join the rest of us.

Because you all are gullible enough to pay for their god awful books. GW knows they can make a profit off you loyal customers.

And there's the problem. Not only are people willing to buy the defective product, they jump to GW's defense and insist that getting a finished product is "fantasy land". Stop making excuses for GW's failures.

People actually use the FAQ's? As in, they think GW can fix the rules better than they can for their home games?

Ok, so I'm being slightly sarcastic. As a long time roleplayer, the idea of using FAQs instead of my own judgement is new to me, and I tend to play without them - since I don't do tournaments, house rules are generally good enough to fix any problems we detect, and we tend to like our solutions better than GW's often nonsensical arbitration.

As for the printing of rulebooks, I wish GW would do data cards so you could play without having to purchase a codex, if that was the route you want to go.

From a business perspective no, why would they? GW isn't hurt on any level by selling you a book which is invalidated a week later. They made their and they've made their money.

The people who should give up on printed rulebooks are the customers. You're enabling their business practices.

 Peregrine wrote:
And there's the problem. Not only are people willing to buy the defective product, they jump to GW's defense and insist that getting a finished product is "fantasy land". Stop making excuses for GW's failures.

you of course can name a SINGLE PRODUCT that doesn't have a FAQ/Errata? go on, I'll even expand it into gaming in general and take an RPG. find me one that didn't require Errata

I'm surprised at how many people think that writing a rules system to cover every possible eventuality and interaction between several hundred different units is so simple.

GW probably has easily 500+ models that need rules written for them. They aren't an all knowing entity who can interpret every possible interaction and interpretation its player base might make.

Have we forgotten the fact that these are really obvious problems we're talking about? This isn't some obscure interaction between things that hardly anyone uses, GW is FAQing and making balance changes to stuff that the community found within hours of the books being released. I don't think it's asking too much to expect that if something like flyer spam is so overpowered that the community immediately finds and exploits it then maybe GW, with their supposed months of playtesting, should have caught it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Have we forgotten the fact that these are really obvious problems we're talking about? This isn't some obscure interaction between things that hardly anyone uses, GW is FAQing and making balance changes to stuff that the community found within hours of the books being released. I don't think it's asking too much to expect that if something like flyer spam is so overpowered that the community immediately finds and exploits it then maybe GW, with their supposed months of playtesting, should have caught it.

Do you think GW sat down every day chose a different unit and said:
"Today we're going to test lists comprised of nothing but ripper swarms."

Internal playtesting basically never tests spam lists. Even Privateer Press, whose entire reputation is built on tight rules and competitive play never did it until they actually hired a high level competitive player onto their design team. They also had a FAQ for their new edition early into it's life incidentally.

Sim-Life wrote:
Internal playtesting basically never tests spam lists.

Then GW's playtesters and rule authors are spectacularly incompetent. No, you obviously don't need to playtest spam lists that are clearly not effective, but it's not like flyer spam too much effort to find.

How long did it take before Flyer's became found to be a problem? Most of the early issue was with Conscripts until a Flyer Spam list was at a tournament.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
How long did it take before Flyer's became found to be a problem? Most of the early issue was with Conscripts until a Flyer Spam list was at a tournament.

8th is still early. I mean, we've had the rules for a month. Anything that has been so overpowered that it needs a balance fix this early in the game's life is an inexcusable miss by GW.

I often compare gs to wizards of the coast. In 1997 they both had a good market pressence in roughly the same demongraphic. Wizards made sure they had the best damn game possible, with a strong local pressence by supporting stores. GW Started making a badly balanced games. Later on not commenting on ambigius rules.

With the recent change to gw they are much closer to wizards mtg.

Magic has a 240 pages of rules, not counting the oracle database of updated wording on all 12 000+ cards, and documents conserning tournament organisation and judging. Games workshop little 12 page faq is not a big pill to swallow if it leatds to a better game.

The lack of basic editing and simple simple mistakes is pretty atrocious. Charging money for that is rediculous. If they were freee, the indices and core rules, and they let us work everything out, and implement it in the finished product then this would be excusable. It would be like a beta version. Instead it was a rip off.

Sim-Life wrote:
I'm surprised at how many people think that writing a rules system to cover every possible eventuality and interaction between several hundred different units is so simple.

GW probably has easily 500+ models that need rules written for them. They aren't an all knowing entity who can interpret every possible interaction and interpretation its player base might make.

If only there was some way to standardize how assorted units were distinct from one another without having to reinvent the wheel each and every time. You know, they could call them Universal Special Rules or something like that...

...who am I kidding, it will never catch on.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:
I'm surprised at how many people think that writing a rules system to cover every possible eventuality and interaction between several hundred different units is so simple.

GW probably has easily 500+ models that need rules written for them. They aren't an all knowing entity who can interpret every possible interaction and interpretation its player base might make.

If only there was some way to standardize how assorted units were distinct from one another without having to reinvent the wheel each and every time. You know, they could call them Universal Special Rules or something like that...

...who am I kidding, it will never catch on.

Whoever pitches that idea to Jervis will be "bespoken" to.

You people should really look up the definition of "obsolete". I think the term "outdated" may be more appropriate, but even that isn't really what's happening. "Updated" would be the word you're looking for. Or at least that would be the word you were looking for if you weren't so focused on grinding that axe.

I knew it was another BCB thread just from the title.

And I'm perfectly fine with GW's existing model provided the level of quality remains consistent with what we've seen in Age of Sigmar. The Index books were quick (and cheap) collections of unit data assembled across the entire model range in one go, problems were a given, and if I recall correctly the hope was that they'd correct them promptly with FAQs and errata, which is what they're doing.

That brings the Index books in line with the Grand Alliance books in AoS. If, in turn, the new codex books are on the same level of the AoS Battletomes (I use Battletome: Sylvaneth as my gold standard) in terms of lore and art, I don't have a problem with that.

That said, the first Battletomes in AoS weren't that great.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

I think the OP and some others are onto what could be a very good model. Given that this is a digital age, GW should just release the rules and all of the indexes or codexes digitally first with a version control. As faq's, errata, whatever comes out, they roll the revision and everyone can update their digital copies to the latest version. Then, when an edition has been out long enough to be thoroughly playtested, then they should release the physical books once no more changes are needed (or only minimal changes remain) for anyone who wants a hard copy. Basically, beta test as completely as possible, then go to print well after the bugs get worked out.
Personally, I can't justify shelling out as much cash as GW charges for books if I have to scratch out and rewrite half the text.

"Give up" no. Evolve with the times and use technology for what it's good for. Digital books only makes so much sense, especially if the don't charge for the rules and update them. In a living rule system this just makes sense, and I imagine very little of their profit even comes from the codecies.

 Gulgog TufToof wrote:
I think the OP and some others are onto what could be a very good model. Given that this is a digital age, GW should just release the rules and all of the indexes or codexes digitally first with a version control. As faq's, errata, whatever comes out, they roll the revision and everyone can update their digital copies to the latest version. Then, when an edition has been out long enough to be thoroughly playtested, then they should release the physical books once no more changes are needed (or only minimal changes remain) for anyone who wants a hard copy. Basically, beta test as completely as possible, then go to print well after the bugs get worked out.
Personally, I can't justify shelling out as much cash as GW charges for books if I have to scratch out and rewrite half the text.

you know what would happen with GW did this? They'd be, justly, criticized for forcing anyone who likes physical copies to buy the rule books twice, or creating a second class of customer whose not able to get the books for prolonged periods of time.

That's why the digital versions should be free like the core rules are now. Then anyone who doesn't have a data capable device could go to their local library, download what they need to play and print it for 10 cents a page and use a binder until the hardcopy comes out.

10 cents a page! That's outrageous! I demand the library supply those copies free as well!

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A good rulebook is worn, full of notes and glued in errata.

No, a good rulebook is one that has been thoroughly playtested before release and doesn't require errata.

I want to live in your magical fantasy land.

It doesn't seem to me to be a unreasonable contention that a company which has been writing rules for a game for 25 years has a basic grasp of the game and playtesting it such that they don't need to release major revisions and corrections almost immediately after printing. After all, it's not like the rulebooks are free: it's a book we pay money for.

My contention is the same as it has been since 5th edition: Games Workshop sucks at writing rules, they will not improve, and should exit the rules business. Give FFG a license to write the rules, and every single party involved will be better off.

I really feel they should release all the data sheets, points costs and rules online for free as well as in a book. That way they can change them monthly with no expense to anyone and it wouldn't invalidate your expensive codex purchase a couple months later when a new FAQ drops and everything changes.
They can still release a codex, but it should be a fluff book / painting guide / artwork showcase first and foremost while everything that's subject to change is online for free.
But this is probably too forward thinking for a company that started in the 80's.

Yes.

 Ouze wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

pismakron wrote:
A good rulebook is worn, full of notes and glued in errata.

No, a good rulebook is one that has been thoroughly playtested before release and doesn't require errata.

I want to live in your magical fantasy land.

It doesn't seem to me to be a unreasonable contention that a company which has been writing rules for a game for 25 years has a basic grasp of the game and playtesting it such that they don't need to release major revisions and corrections almost immediately after printing. After all, it's not like the rulebooks are free: it's a book we pay money for.

My contention is the same as it has been since 5th edition: Games Workshop sucks at writing rules, they will not improve, and should exit the rules business. Give FFG a license to write the rules, and every single party involved will be better off.

..You've never played FFG's roleplaying books have you? Because I can tell you right now I can tell you have never seen some of their awful issues going on in the books at times.

Their miniatures have some major issues with balance as well if you believe that they'll fix things on that front either. X-Wing tends to have some massive disparities.

FFG tends to go for power creep to keep selling things. They ramped up Game of Thrones so quickly that it was unplayable after a mere five years. Sooner really but that's how long it took to sink that final nail in its coffin. LCG my arse.

Second edition will meet the same fate eventually.

As far as their X-wing lineup, they drop ships that are effectively useless just to get you to buy them for a single upgrade card. The worst offender being the extremely good and virtually mandatory upgrade for TIE Advanced hidden in the Imperial Raider expansion, a massive capital ship that wasn't usable in normal games and cost over $100. People were buying the Raider just to get the upgrade cards to use with their regular tournament builds.

 Peregrine wrote:
And there's the problem. Not only are people willing to buy the defective product, they jump to GW's defense and insist that getting a finished product is "fantasy land". Stop making excuses for GW's failures.

Dude, I work in publishing. You're expecting the impossible. What you are demanding does not exist anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FFG on the other hand has produced by far one of the worst cases of defective published product that I have ever seen. (Their whole 40K line after DH1)

Alcibiades wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And there's the problem. Not only are people willing to buy the defective product, they jump to GW's defense and insist that getting a finished product is "fantasy land". Stop making excuses for GW's failures.

Dude, I work in publishing. You're expecting the impossible. What you are demanding does not exist anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FFG on the other hand has produced by far one of the worst cases of defective published product that I have ever seen. (Their whole 40K line after DH1)

I dunno about going that far, but the weapons Errata for Death watch was pretty... impressive. I can just imagine what Peregrine would say if GW ever errata'd the stats for every weapon in warhammer 40k.

Have you ever actually read some of the questions in the faqs for any gw game? IIRC the first 8th ed faq had to actually answer someone trying to give both a homebrew imperial guard regiment and homebrew sm legion the same bonuses simply by calling both groups the same name..with a fanbase as dumb as 40ks is sometimes it would be impossible for anyone to make a rulebook that wouldnt immediately have to be "fixed" on launch.

Just look at the forums here, posts crying about it taking too long for codex/rulebook releases or updates and now this thread with some crying about them doing it too quickly