So the latest CSM errata came out and they have literally wholesale replaced the Horrors datasheet.
So much for most playtested edition amirite?
26 FAQ/Errata documents, 62 Pages of Errata/FAQ (that's 7.75 pages of errata per page of the core rules) and the fact they had to RELEASE AN ERRATA for their yearly errata document conclusively proves that GW simply are not hiring enough or competent enough people.
Does no-one else feel we deserve to have rules written by a decent team, or at least make it so our digital editions are always up to date? I genuinely feel sorry for anyone who fell for the scam of the printed codexes, considering half the rules in them are now incorrect.
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
There is a difference between writing perfectly and not stopping to ask basic questions with rules
Example, the deep striking daemon strat. How is it that when they wrote that, in such a way that says any daemon may use it, did not one stop to say, "wait, mortarian is a daemon, we better clarify that." Which they did in the most recent faq. GW also fails to remember what was key words and what does not. On top of that, then entire edition has been filled with some of the most vague rules ever.
For example the greater unclean one with the flail, rules say it can still use this weapon even when it's one inch within an enemy, and has a 7 inch range. Does that mean it can fire over watch when it's in melee with another unit? Pistols don't get to but this one is not a pistol and has a bigger range, but you can't fire over watch in melee, but this weapon says you can use it if you are within an inch or an enemy. So which is it?
This whole edition has felt like we have been the play testers for it this whole time. Horrors are another example.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
There is a difference between writing perfectly and not stopping to ask basic questions with rules
Example, the deep striking daemon strat. How is it that when they wrote that, in such a way that says any daemon may use it, did not one stop to say, "wait, mortarian is a daemon, we better clarify that." Which they did in the most recent faq. GW also fails to remember what was key words and what does not. On top of that, then entire edition has been filled with some of the most vague rules ever.
For example the greater unclean one with the flail, rules say it can still use this weapon even when it's one inch within an enemy, and has a 7 inch range. Does that mean it can fire over watch?
This whole edition has felt like we have been the play testers for it this whole time. Horrors are another example.
As opposed to 7th, where it felt like there were no playtesters at all and GW refused to acknowledge the possibility that anything they did could have been in error?
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
To be fair, games like DOTA and League are patched all the time, and often minor patches follow major updates. The obvious difference is that DOTA 2 is free to play, as are the "errata", while Warhammer 40K is not. The meta shifts, unexpected interactions happen, and abuses pop up. I don't have a problem with "patches" to 40K in general, however when the content is paid for I'd expect them not to miss the mark so dramatically the first time.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Unless you count any game that frequently releases patches to fine tune and update its content. I'm with Anomander on this one though. I'd much rather they address problematic rules than pretend they're perfect the first time. Also, 40k is an expensive game to playtest unless they switch to a "here are the beta rules, tell us what you think," approach. At which point people may feel less inclined to try and own the rules. It takes multiple hours to play a "standard" game of 40k. If you have in-house employees taking the time to play a bunch of games of 40k to thoroughly test every single unit, you're spending a lot of money to have people not generate content. Testing is important, sure, but an 8 hour work day spent playing four 2 hour games of 40k means you paid 8 hours worth of wages to basically get 4 data points.
Testing is important, and having to overhaul things from time to time is a little embarrassing, but I won't hold it against them for not getting something perfect the first time. Especially if they're taking steps to actively improve the rules based on feedback. Remember that you started this thread the next time you feel tempted to complain about GW not releasing a rules update for whatever unit you're peeved about.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
To be fair, games like DOTA and League are patched all the time, and often minor patches follow major updates. The obvious difference is that DOTA 2 is free to play, as are the "errata", while Warhammer 40K is not. The meta shifts, unexpected interactions happen, and abuses pop up. I don't have a problem with "patches" to 40K in general, however when the content is paid for I'd expect them not to miss the mark so dramatically the first time.
This. I think it might be in everyone's best interests for GW to make the rules portion of Chapter Approved a free living document. Most people I know aren't all that opposed to remembering a rules change so long as they don't have to pay for it each time.
I don't feel like I "deserve" anything, because that's entitlement.
Well, okay, I "deserve" some things, but only because the rest of humanity collectively agreed in the Human Rights UN Charter.
Unfortunately, "well-written rules" is not a human right I deserve, but rather something that'd be nice to have. I'll accept the errata and whatnot, it's fine with me. *shrug*
"Ya pays ya money, ya makes your choices." as one of my favorite YouTubers parrots. If you don't like it, don't settle for it.
Paizo has errata listed for 11 of their products. I note that they're all "core" books, which means that it's likely that they just don't bother fixing splat books. If you play in their organized play, in addition to those erratas, there's a whole bunch of stuff that's just outright banned, because they realize that they themselves broke it hard. They still don't bother trying to fix it though.
I note that, of these 11 products they produced errata for, most of them appear to have multiple revisions. That's right, Paizo took six printings of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook to get it "right".
GW has issues. I totally agree, but let's not pretend this is singularly a GW issue.
I'm happy to see that GW is willing to address rules that aren't doing well in the meta. PP and otehr miniatures companies already replace entire 'cards' for figures as needed. PP as gone so far to focus on digital cards that can be updated at will.
They've been flexible, if it can be addressed via points it is. If it can be addressed via a FAQ tweak it is. If it requires an overhaul, they do it.
As for needing 26 separate documents that's largely because GW is the ultimate example of faction creep. It's why we have tools like Battlescribe. Short of burning down 3 out of every 4 SKUs you won't be able to get around that.
Can you name a miniature game this complex that was written well the first time out? Even the previous editions of Warhammer 40k attracted massive heaps of house rules in tournaments.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Add on top of that 40k has vastly more factions than any other games system outside of Twilight Emperium, I'd say it's pretty damn nice they are doing as much hard work as they are.
BaconCatBug wrote: So the latest CSM errata came out and they have literally wholesale replaced the Horrors datasheet.
So much for most playtested edition amirite?
26 FAQ/Errata documents, 62 Pages of Errata/FAQ (that's 7.75 pages of errata per page of the core rules) and the fact they had to RELEASE AN ERRATA for their yearly errata document conclusively proves that GW simply are not hiring enough or competent enough people.
Does no-one else feel we deserve to have rules written by a decent team, or at least make it so our digital editions are always up to date? I genuinely feel sorry for anyone who fell for the scam of the printed codexes, considering half the rules in them are now incorrect.
Difficult - Previously their wilful ignorance of the need for FAQs was terrible, at least they are doing stuff. I don't like the Codex approach but can see why they do it - £25 books every week or two.
Having played Dropzone where the printed books are also pretty worthless for pretty much the stats of any unit - kinda used to it.
Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.
You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during development.
So we have game where anybody trying to play raw is rather silly. Game just doesn't work without rai but that's never clear cut. So even witgout deliberate house rules there's tons of different 8th ed's being played
tneva82 wrote: Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.
You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during
This sums it up. The issue isn't them doing frequent errata; that's a good thing. It's that often, the errata is to fix/clarify wording on stuff that should have been done right the first time and should have been blatantly obvious. Deep striking primarchs is a perfect example. It's good that they clarified this. It's bad that it even got through the first printing because not one of the designers, nor anyone they got to playtest (do they still use FLG and co to playtest?) sat down and thought "Hey wait a minute, this says anything with Daemon. Mortarion and Magnus have the daemon keyword, so they can use that, and that would be bad". They let it slip, presumably because they never playtested anything where it would come up.
Which is, of course, the main problem to this day: GW's "playtesting" is like throwing some random junk together in a list and then testing it against someone else in the studio who does the same. There's no spam, there's no metagaming (e.g. daisy chaining, bubblewrapping, etc.), there's no comboing stratagems from a variety of factions together. So they never even SEE the potential problems, or if they do notice it it's "Nah, nobody would do this"
Be salty all you want. They've put out more codexes in 7 months than they previously would in 4 YEARS. I'm willing to give them slack especially since they've committed to addressing issues one week after release.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lolman1c wrote: Can someone actually make a comparison of what changed between the new data sheet and the old one?
All they did was update the CSM book (from months ago) with the profile from the Daemon book. It's not a big a deal as people are making it out to be.
tneva82 wrote: Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.
You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during
This sums it up. The issue isn't them doing frequent errata; that's a good thing. It's that often, the errata is to fix/clarify wording on stuff that should have been done right the first time and should have been blatantly obvious. Deep striking primarchs is a perfect example. It's good that they clarified this. It's bad that it even got through the first printing because not one of the designers, nor anyone they got to playtest (do they still use FLG and co to playtest?) sat down and thought "Hey wait a minute, this says anything with Daemon. Mortarion and Magnus have the daemon keyword, so they can use that, and that would be bad". They let it slip, presumably because they never playtested anything where it would come up.
You mean like playtesting a Death Guard primarch in a Daemons playtesting session?
Heres the thing, GW rules writers and playtesters likely don't play the game the same way people of a certain attitude do. Look at the FAQ. They had to answer the question of wether or not Miasma of Pestilence in the Daemon codex is the same Miasma of Pestilence in the Death Guard book.
Why the feth would that even be a question? Who thinks that two spells with the same name and rules are actually two different spells? Let alone try to argue that they weren't? Some things just don't occur to devs because that just isn't how their mind approaches the game.
tneva82 wrote: Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.
You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during
This sums it up. The issue isn't them doing frequent errata; that's a good thing. It's that often, the errata is to fix/clarify wording on stuff that should have been done right the first time and should have been blatantly obvious. Deep striking primarchs is a perfect example. It's good that they clarified this. It's bad that it even got through the first printing because not one of the designers, nor anyone they got to playtest (do they still use FLG and co to playtest?) sat down and thought "Hey wait a minute, this says anything with Daemon. Mortarion and Magnus have the daemon keyword, so they can use that, and that would be bad". They let it slip, presumably because they never playtested anything where it would come up.
You mean like playtesting a Death Guard primarch in a Daemons playtesting session?
Heres the thing, GW rules writers and playtesters likely don't play the game the same way people of a certain attitude do. Look at the FAQ. They had to answer the question of wether or not Miasma of Pestilence in the Daemon codex is the same Miasma of Pestilence in the Death Guard book.
Why the feth would that even be a question? Who thinks that two spells with the same name and rules are actually two different spells? Let alone try to argue that they weren't? Some things just don't occur to devs because that just isn't how their mind approaches the game.
Right, but the issue is that the players clearly do. And the players, at least a strong number, seem to be the type of fethers who will look for anything and everything to abuse to make a "killer combo", which is why you see crap like that question; the obvious reason is that IF they were different spells, they would then stack and/or not be affected by the rule of one. Something only a WAAC powergamer would even remotely consider doing because it's "optimal"
So yes, while GW never thinks like that, the issue is the players do. So it's this constant running around, GW fixing the meta which is always one step ahead because the people involved with the meta are always looking for the next loophole/poor wording/unintended combo to exploit.
Because occasionally 2 things have the same name in different books but have different effects. Then someone has to say that one version or the other is correct or change the name of one of the things.
Primark G wrote: I’m glad they quickly edit the rules now to address any problems. Expecting them to be perfect is silly IMO.
Given we are paying for these rules, more than we would for similar products from other companies it's entirely reasonable to expect a certain quality of writing.
tneva82 wrote: Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.
You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during
This sums it up. The issue isn't them doing frequent errata; that's a good thing. It's that often, the errata is to fix/clarify wording on stuff that should have been done right the first time and should have been blatantly obvious. Deep striking primarchs is a perfect example. It's good that they clarified this. It's bad that it even got through the first printing because not one of the designers, nor anyone they got to playtest (do they still use FLG and co to playtest?) sat down and thought "Hey wait a minute, this says anything with Daemon. Mortarion and Magnus have the daemon keyword, so they can use that, and that would be bad". They let it slip, presumably because they never playtested anything where it would come up.
You mean like playtesting a Death Guard primarch in a Daemons playtesting session?
Heres the thing, GW rules writers and playtesters likely don't play the game the same way people of a certain attitude do. Look at the FAQ. They had to answer the question of wether or not Miasma of Pestilence in the Daemon codex is the same Miasma of Pestilence in the Death Guard book.
Why the feth would that even be a question? Who thinks that two spells with the same name and rules are actually two different spells? Let alone try to argue that they weren't? Some things just don't occur to devs because that just isn't how their mind approaches the game.
I forget who..i think james? one of the game devs did an AMA revealing that they do and want to do more actual playtesting but the bean counters always stop them. because there is always a diminishing return with redoing and cleaning up the rules to a point. they cannot push the deadlines further and further back and a game released at 80% good enough vs 90% good enough is no where near as bad as 50% good enough.
often times the devs have to use their own free time unpaid to do playtesting.
If they had updated Horrors in the CSM book they would have done this same thing for the Index. Waiting for the Daemons book to drop before doing it only pushes the same exact update back to when the codex came out.
ClockworkZion wrote: If they had updated Horrors in the CSM book they would have done this same thing for the Index. Waiting for the Daemons book to drop before doing it only pushes the same exact update back to when the codex came out.
If I can point to something GW did "wrong" was bowing to the ridiculousness of the community and letting the indexes live beyond codexes. Indexes will become irrelevant through tournament action regardless.
ClockworkZion wrote: If they had updated Horrors in the CSM book they would have done this same thing for the Index. Waiting for the Daemons book to drop before doing it only pushes the same exact update back to when the codex came out.
If I can point to something GW did "wrong" was bowing to the ridiculousness of the community and letting the indexes live beyond codexes. Indexes will become irrelevant through tournament action regardless.
Not all the armies in the indexes have been given codexes, so for now they're still needed. The only reason beyond that to keep Indexes around is to let legacy build options back into the armies: stuff you have that doesn't have an option anymore but you want to field, or something that was legal so you made a model for and want to field. But those sort of things should really go to free PDF and drop the indexes in the end.
If you subtract the obvious salt from the original post, he actually makes a good point, one that I've been discussing locally:
How are we supposed to keep track of all of the different rules?
There are so many sources now: Codex Index Designers Commentary Multiple FAQ - not all on GW website! FW units rulesheets FWFAQ
Something we can all agree:
GW should keep the game as balanced as possible.
Something I would imagine we also all agree:
GW needs to provide a way for us to get comprehensive rulesets that feature the most recent updates.
Printed rulebooks and supplements are NOT the way to do this. I don't know anyone who purchased chapter approved. I played in a tournament where players were using the store copy of chapter approved because literally no one owns it. (Maybe because they gave primaris some love, and primaris still suck, and pretty much anyone who has multiple armies quit marines a while ago, who knows).
I've said this before, and i'll say it again.
GW needs to provide a yearly subscription to rules content. This would also allow them to make a list building application available for computers/phones, and would MASSIVELY help the whole "illegal list" problem that is rampant at tournaments. Additionally, it would allow me to actually read everyone's stratagems, so there's not this continual string of "gotchas!" after a book drops.
If everyone has the app, you don't need to ask to see your opponents rules, you just type in the rule name, and click search. Oh what's that stratagem called? Iron within, iron without? Got it; searching now... What's that psychic power called? Vortex of doom? Let me look it up one sec. Having total access to your opponents list and rules would make this game infinitely more playable.
ClockworkZion wrote: If they had updated Horrors in the CSM book they would have done this same thing for the Index. Waiting for the Daemons book to drop before doing it only pushes the same exact update back to when the codex came out.
If I can point to something GW did "wrong" was bowing to the ridiculousness of the community and letting the indexes live beyond codexes. Indexes will become irrelevant through tournament action regardless.
Not all the armies in the indexes have been given codexes, so for now they're still needed. The only reason beyond that to keep Indexes around is to let legacy build options back into the armies: stuff you have that doesn't have an option anymore but you want to field, or something that was legal so you made a model for and want to field. But those sort of things should really go to free PDF and drop the indexes in the end.
If everyone has the app, you don't need to ask to see your opponents rules, you just type in the rule name, and click search. Oh what's that stratagem called? Iron within, iron without? Got it; searching now... What's that psychic power called? Vortex of doom? Let me look it up one sec. Having total access to your opponents list and rules would make this game infinitely more playable.
Yeah really wish they would do a Azyr app so i can make lists and stuff while im in the pooper.
The problem with apps, sadly, is that not everyone likes dealing with them. And honestly I find it easier to deal with a physical book than an app (and I'm saying this as a Sisters player, I was basically forced to use a digital codex for a while there unless I took the time to print things) mostly because it was easier to reference without draining my battery or needing to scroll back and forth nearly as much.
The updates all over the place are definitely confusing, but I appreciate they're happening. And if they're automatically included in the digital copies, that's even better. But the desire for physical books by the customer base isn't going away anytime soon.
It is ironic that people will simultaneously complain about broken rules and the resulting fixes. That GW releases broken rules and then fixes them is an ENORMOUS improvement on their traditional approach of releasing broken rules and then completely ignoring them for a decade or so.
And yes, it would be preferable if GW would release unit rules and points freely in downloadable pdfs. Then we could avoid the mess of glossy printed codexes with errata scribbled all over with a pencil. But that is not going to happen, and we all know why.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Have you ever written anything and made a mistake?
It's not that "they didn't bother", it's that they made a mistake the first time. At least they've been bothered to fix it. It's roughly an errata per codex, not too bad all things considered.
This sounds to me like there's a lot of salt around horrors because of all those players that are disappointed they can no longer exploit their broken rules.
TwinPoleTheory wrote: The best part is that the new datasheet they released is wrong also.
So now, if you use the new datasheet, Horrors are the only CSM Daemon unit in the game with the Daemon faction keyword.
Proofreading, it's not just for company-wide emails.
Considering I've seen government regulations with errors, I'm not finding this a reason to get too upset over. I'd be more surprised if it didn't get fixed pretty quickly.
On a side note, did everyone notice from the Thousand Sons preview that they are finally marking whether or not a strategem costs reinforcement points in the text of the strategem? So much drama to be avoided now.
ClockworkZion wrote: The problem with apps, sadly, is that not everyone likes dealing with them. And honestly I find it easier to deal with a physical book than an app (and I'm saying this as a Sisters player, I was basically forced to use a digital codex for a while there unless I took the time to print things) mostly because it was easier to reference without draining my battery or needing to scroll back and forth nearly as much.
The updates all over the place are definitely confusing, but I appreciate they're happening. And if they're automatically included in the digital copies, that's even better. But the desire for physical books by the customer base isn't going away anytime soon.
A lot of this has to do with the design of the app itself. If you're just porting datasheets into the app PDF style its not accomplishing much. You need to make sure you have a playable UI. I wholeheartedly support the digital move. Books are a horrid relic at this point and while cards are better, managing them gets to be a mess rather quickly. I pretty much only play digital now, but WarRoom 2 and MayaNet are really the only ones that are a great experience in play. The original was clunky and Malifaux's app has severe issues with the way it presents rules to the player. Infinity's online builder is pretty good, but not as organized as MayaNet.
I'm not sure if GW could get a playable app going any time soon, but I could see them doing well with an online army builder that printed a rules PDF. Regardless, they need a digital solution badly. The Index system was a pretty big improvement, but the return of codexes have continually shown us why physical book releases are a clunky way to provide updates.
Considering their epubs are literally unusable, to the point where I had to learn how to convert xhtml into pdf to be able to read the bloody things I BLOODY WELL BOUGHT, I don't think the digital department at GW is well staffed either.
So, video games (especially online competitive ones) go through patches all the time, taking in new data and adjusting the game systems. Also, playtesting is never as good as data feedback from actual game play. You can playtest a video game all you want, but the moment it hits player console/PCs, issues are going to be found.
This is effectively what GW is doing. And this is what we want. The fact they are changing the rules and adjusting to the meta is a good sign. Why are you complaining?
Or, maybe, Horrors had to go through a round of playtesting because they were going to be included in the CSM codex (one of the first released), but since they are ALSO included in the Daemon codex, they got looked at again, given that they were broken (internally, and externally, for different reasons). And since the datasheet exists in the CSM codex, it has to be brought up to date with the current (Daemons) datasheet.
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand it's nice to see them trying to keep things balanced, on the other I can't be hooped with having to keep track of 2 dozen FAQs. I'm not going to be jumping into any tournaments or anything any time soon though, so it doesn't affect me too badly at the moment. I would prefer points increasing or decreasing as the primary way to balance things though. Start changing too much and it is basically replacing entire datasheets for units, which us a bit much.
Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.
Whats this written lenguage crap? If you want your rules you should pay 30 bucks to the GW store manager so he tells you all the rules of your codex. And you better memorize all of it instantly.
Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.
Whats this written lenguage crap? If you want your rules you should pay 30 bucks to the GW store manager so he tells you all the rules of your codex. And you better memorize all of it instantly.
You mean you don't study the crude wall paintings to learn an army because your GW hasn't mastered language yet?
Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.
I'm partial to stone tablet myself.
On a more serious note, why would anyone need to bring a copy of every erratum to a game? Why not just bring the stuff that applies to your army? Same with Forgeworld books and errata. If you're using a Forgeworld model, of course you're going to need a Forgeworld book. How is this different from any previous edition?
I usually choose to read the erratta, and I've been a kind of group bookkeeper in the past by keeping the most current ones on hand, but most people just bring the ones they need and nothing more.
Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.
I'm partial to stone tablet myself.
On a more serious note, why would anyone need to bring a copy of every erratum to a game? Why not just bring the stuff that applies to your army? Same with Forgeworld books and errata. If you're using a Forgeworld model, of course you're going to need a Forgeworld book. How is this different from any previous edition?
Not hard to stick specific notes in the margins of your army lists too.
Shadenuat wrote: What exactly changed for Horrors? On first glance I only noticed mortal wounds tied to number of models.
They released a new data sheet to reflect the changes from the Daemons codex, but they forgot to remove the Daemon faction keyword, so the new data sheet, presented to fix the old data sheet, is itself, a broken data sheet.
I dont mind 8th and I'm happy there willing to correct their errors, however, If the rules are going to change this much they should have the app available so are the rules are maintained in one place, OR have the rules available online for free so people arent spending $50 on a rule book that wont be good in a month or two
are people really complaining about getting quick updates to stats? I've been asking for years for them to simply release updated stats/values as the meta shifts or something is discovered to be costed wrong. What games are people playing that don't have patches to adjust power/ fix mechanics? Or would people on Dakka rather have years of a unit being over/under costed simply because it's annoying to have to print out a new FAQ every now and then?
9breaker wrote: So, video games (especially online competitive ones) go through patches all the time, taking in new data and adjusting the game systems. Also, playtesting is never as good as data feedback from actual game play. You can playtest a video game all you want, but the moment it hits player console/PCs, issues are going to be found.
This is effectively what GW is doing. And this is what we want. The fact they are changing the rules and adjusting to the meta is a good sign. Why are you complaining?
I was doing really well in Star Wars Battlefront 2 last night until someone showed me the new patch notes and I realised they nerfed my Wookiee. Oh, wait, no...because I don't need to remember if it takes 3 or just 2 shots with the bowcaster to kill someone, because that's not how video games work. I appreciate the intent but there really should be a better way to keep things updated.
Asmodios wrote: are people really complaining about getting quick updates to stats? I've been asking for years for them to simply release updated stats/values as the meta shifts or something is discovered to be costed wrong. What games are people playing that don't have patches to adjust power/ fix mechanics? Or would people on Dakka rather have years of a unit being over/under costed simply because it's annoying to have to print out a new FAQ every now and then?
I am very happy to see them regularly updating the rules to keep things clear.
I am very disappointed that the one thing they just took the time to scrub from the CSM codex re-appeared on the new data sheet they just asked us to use in place of the old one.
That's just sloppy and lazy.
I think all of the other rules make sense and honestly, I was expecting some variation of them regardless.
BaconCatBug wrote: 26 FAQ/Errata documents, 62 Pages of Errata/FAQ (that's 7.75 pages of errata per page of the core rules) and the fact they had to RELEASE AN ERRATA for their yearly errata document conclusively proves that GW simply are not hiring enough or competent enough people.
You just need to see the pay on offer for rules writers at GW to see why.
Asmodios wrote: are people really complaining about getting quick updates to stats? I've been asking for years for them to simply release updated stats/values as the meta shifts or something is discovered to be costed wrong. What games are people playing that don't have patches to adjust power/ fix mechanics? Or would people on Dakka rather have years of a unit being over/under costed simply because it's annoying to have to print out a new FAQ every now and then?
No, people seem to be complaining that their quick updates are to fix clear blunders that result from them not knowing how to write proper rules or properly balance things in the first place. Rules updates are good, but when they are to fix things that should have been blatantly obvious with even a modicum of proper playtesting...
9breaker wrote: So, video games (especially online competitive ones) go through patches all the time, taking in new data and adjusting the game systems. Also, playtesting is never as good as data feedback from actual game play. You can playtest a video game all you want, but the moment it hits player console/PCs, issues are going to be found.
This is effectively what GW is doing. And this is what we want. The fact they are changing the rules and adjusting to the meta is a good sign. Why are you complaining?
There's definitely been a need for more agile updating of tabletop games for a while. I think Hearthstone just really pressed the issue by being a pretty viable direct competitor.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
No other game? Do you play other tabletop games? Have you seen the errata for various editions of Dungeons and Dragons? Pathfinder? Star Fleet Battles? Advanced Squad Leader? Complex games with many books of rules and many factions? Avalon Hill published the first edition of ASL in a binder with hole-punched pages because they knew there would be errata and fixes and updates and wanted to make it easier to replace whole pages! It was a pretty innovative approach 30 years ago - maybe 40K should do the same thing.
Oh what a burden - you print your 1-2 page FAQ's for your core book and your codex/index/FW book, tuck them inside your rulebook and you have whole OUNCES extra to carry! 2-6 extra pages to keep up with amidst the hundreds of pages of your rulebook and codex and possibly index and possibly a second codex if you mix factions and possibly a forgeworld index because you want to use those models too! How dare they inflict this on us?!
I was doing really well in Star Wars Battlefront 2 last night until someone showed me the new patch notes and I realised they nerfed my Wookiee. Oh, wait, no...because I don't need to remember if it takes 3 or just 2 shots with the bowcaster to kill someone, because that's not how video games work. I appreciate the intent but there really should be a better way to keep things updated.
Battlefront 2 = competitive? lol.
Joking aside, there ARE actual instances of changes like what you described. Destiny PVP for example, have had balance changes exactly like this, where a certain weapon might need an extra shot to kill from range, and it makes a difference of whether a weapon is considered in meta or not. MOBA's often have little changes like this, that can have a big impact, and you really should be keeping an eye on patch notes if you want to stay competitive.
I'm not saying GW's method of delivery is perfect, but 8th is still in its 1st year and its really their first real stab at it with 40k. I'd rather they give us a copy of the rules for free in a pdf FAQ than them making us buy a new codex to do it. Hopefully if we can give them constructive suggestions, they will come out with a better way of delivering these updates (just look at the new Shadespire card library for example).
BaconCatBug wrote: Considering their epubs are literally unusable, to the point where I had to learn how to convert xhtml into pdf to be able to read the bloody things I BLOODY WELL BOUGHT, I don't think the digital department at GW is well staffed either.
They use the fixed layout implementation of ePub 3, which ibooks and Azardi (a Windows application) handle fine but many other readers don't bother with because the majority of epub3 format documents are free-flow implementation.
That's an application issue, not a GW issue. The warhammer digital site even tells you "use a fixed-layout compatible reader (we recommend Azardi)"
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
You *clearly* have never played anything written for 4th edition D&D or anything by White Wolf. 26 pages is nearly the size of the summary of their updates.
For a game with as much balance work as 40k has, this is damn nice for overall changes needed.
I'm personally willing to forgive the fixes as long as they are making an active attempt rather than just letting it be crap until the next edition.
If they had some sort of open community beta-testing, it may have fared better - but with the way the 40k online community is, the whole beta period would just be a big flame war. I've participated in a open beta for another game within a much less argumentative community and it was still a flame war half the time. People threatening to quit the game entirely - declarations that their lives have been ruined, and all manner of hyperbole about the hobby, company, and community. When people own 100s of dollars worth of your product, they feel entitled - which is just exacerbated when you ask them to help you with the rules.
Even if they played 100s of games in-house, there's no way that can find all of the kinks that will be found when 1000s of games are played by the actual players. All they can really do is hope to find the most obviously broken parts.
SirWeeble wrote: I'm personally willing to forgive the fixes as long as they are making an active attempt rather than just letting it be crap until the next edition.
All they can really do is hope to find the most obviously broken parts.
Given how much changed, I assume that GW did address the obviously broken stuff from playtesting.
One may expect the next edition to be a lot cleaner, building off the current, cleaner foundation.
I was doing really well in Star Wars Battlefront 2 last night until someone showed me the new patch notes and I realised they nerfed my Wookiee. Oh, wait, no...because I don't need to remember if it takes 3 or just 2 shots with the bowcaster to kill someone, because that's not how video games work. I appreciate the intent but there really should be a better way to keep things updated.
Battlefront 2 = competitive? lol.
Joking aside, there ARE actual instances of changes like what you described. Destiny PVP for example, have had balance changes exactly like this, where a certain weapon might need an extra shot to kill from range, and it makes a difference of whether a weapon is considered in meta or not. MOBA's often have little changes like this, that can have a big impact, and you really should be keeping an eye on patch notes if you want to stay competitive.
Eh, I'm competing against other players. Poorly. I preferred to give an example where I somewhat knew what I was talking about. Point is that it's a hell of a lot easier to manage balance in video games where the player has no choice in abiding by the newest rules. You need to take the time to download the update, but aren't required to know what it changes.
If GW puts out an FAQ making all Space Marines T3 all of a sudden, and you'd somehow managed to avoid all the whining online, you'd never know until you read the errata or someone pointed it out in a game.
Tight rules are important for us, not as important to GW. Time is money. If the rules are good enough to get us to buy the books and minis, they’ve done their job. Continuing to update them is a gesture of good will that will ideally make us happy and keep us spending money, but spending too much time isn’t worth it for them. That being said, I’m just not gonna pay for Chapter Approved, ever. If that discourages them from making any changes, so be it.
Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.
I'm partial to stone tablet myself.
On a more serious note, why would anyone need to bring a copy of every erratum to a game? Why not just bring the stuff that applies to your army? Same with Forgeworld books and errata. If you're using a Forgeworld model, of course you're going to need a Forgeworld book. How is this different from any previous edition?
Why does anyone bring any of that to the game? Do you just not own cellphones? You don't need the BRB, most of the forgeworld datasheets show up under an image search, all the faqs and errata are available to download, the only book you actually need to bring is your codex and if you have battlescribe and your tactical deck you don't even need that.
If you're bringing a bunch of books and printouts to a tournament it's because you wanted to, not because you had to.
Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.
I'm partial to stone tablet myself.
On a more serious note, why would anyone need to bring a copy of every erratum to a game? Why not just bring the stuff that applies to your army? Same with Forgeworld books and errata. If you're using a Forgeworld model, of course you're going to need a Forgeworld book. How is this different from any previous edition?
Why does anyone bring any of that to the game? Do you just not own cellphones? You don't need the BRB, most of the forgeworld datasheets show up under an image search, all the faqs and errata are available to download, the only book you actually need to bring is your codex and if you have battlescribe and your tactical deck you don't even need that.
If you're bringing a bunch of books and printouts to a tournament it's because you wanted to, not because you had to.
Shh, you're poking holes in the hyperbole.
Honestly I'm surprised they haven't gone all the way and complained about needing to bring every codex along to games as well.
Half of the documents people list as being required (CA, Designer Commentary, FAQs) are so small nearly everyone has them commited to memory. If you asked me what was in the Designer Commentary, CA or FAQs I probably couldn't tell you exactly because I follow the rules of them by habit.
supreme overlord wrote: I dont mind 8th and I'm happy there willing to correct their errors, however, If the rules are going to change this much they should have the app available so are the rules are maintained in one place, OR have the rules available online for free so people arent spending $50 on a rule book that wont be good in a month or two
This. They should have given up the on codexes and just sold more lore/campaign books. It would have been better for the game. People aren't upset about them updating the rules, they are upset about buying a book that seems to almost immediately be out of date having to read a ton of erratas and FAQs. At least make it a binder design and have free replacement of obsolete pages at GW stores if you really want to stick with this model. Your new book should never feel old. Again, rules changes make sense, but why are you still delivering the rules in a way where they can't be quickly updated?
Daedalus81 wrote: Be salty all you want. They've put out more codexes in 7 months than they previously would in 4 YEARS. I'm willing to give them slack especially since they've committed to addressing issues one week after release.
You know quantity is not be end and all...Quality would be good as well. Would help if they would have given workable quality index to begin with and then roll out quality codexes out at bit slower rate. Do index right and there wouldn't have even been as blatant power gap between index and codex armies but of course that was deliberate as well. GW doesn't care balance so they don't even try and they are definitely interested in cash grabs resulting in them deliberately making index weaker despite there not being any real reason they HAVE to be weaker.
If GW was interested in balance IG trooper from codex wouldn't have gotten such a power boost compared to points as they did.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Right, but the issue is that the players clearly do. And the players, at least a strong number, seem to be the type of fethers who will look for anything and everything to abuse to make a "killer combo", which is why you see crap like that question; the obvious reason is that IF they were different spells, they would then stack and/or not be affected by the rule of one. Something only a WAAC powergamer would even remotely consider doing because it's "optimal"
So yes, while GW never thinks like that, the issue is the players do. So it's this constant running around, GW fixing the meta which is always one step ahead because the people involved with the meta are always looking for the next loophole/poor wording/unintended combo to exploit.
Thing is you don't need to have players looking for killer kombo's to spot these. You need to just read rules through with SOME thought. I'm making about as watered down lists as possible without much thought is this some uber combo. Took me about few seconds to realize deep striking primarch issue.
One non-competive player reading through would spot majority of these issues by single read through. When this is compared to guys that are PAID supposedly to do that it's rather embarrassing for GW.
ClockworkZion wrote: If they had updated Horrors in the CSM book they would have done this same thing for the Index. Waiting for the Daemons book to drop before doing it only pushes the same exact update back to when the codex came out.
If I can point to something GW did "wrong" was bowing to the ridiculousness of the community and letting the indexes live beyond codexes. Indexes will become irrelevant through tournament action regardless.
That's wrong only if they would provide rules in codex. As long as GW insists on this "no models, no rules in codex" keeping indexes alive is required.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Have you ever written anything and made a mistake?
It's not that "they didn't bother", it's that they made a mistake the first time. At least they've been bothered to fix it. It's roughly an errata per codex, not too bad all things considered.
This sounds to me like there's a lot of salt around horrors because of all those players that are disappointed they can no longer exploit their broken rules.
Again it's not that there's fixes. Issue is there's too much of this because they can't be arsed to do even simple cursory reading. That or they are totally incompetent seeing like 99% of active forum users here were able to spot these issues right away. Those FAQ's and errata's should be lot smaller than they are. Only thing keeping is GW developers can't be bothered to do even basic reading with some thought.
We are talking about guys that managed to write assault weapons so that they STILL as per RAW don't actually do anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
9breaker wrote: So, video games (especially online competitive ones) go through patches all the time, taking in new data and adjusting the game systems. Also, playtesting is never as good as data feedback from actual game play. You can playtest a video game all you want, but the moment it hits player console/PCs, issues are going to be found.
This is effectively what GW is doing. And this is what we want. The fact they are changing the rules and adjusting to the meta is a good sign. Why are you complaining?
But here issues aren't even found by playing but by quick reading codex once...Which shows either how incompetent GW staff are(they can't spot stuff pretty much everybody here did) or how little effort they put that they can't be bothered to read through once.
Seriously they had nobody in staff that could have read codex through once before final commit? Duncan? SOMEBODY? As it is they just wrote bunch of rules, put it onto layout and that's it by the looks of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: are people really complaining about getting quick updates to stats? I've been asking for years for them to simply release updated stats/values as the meta shifts or something is discovered to be costed wrong. What games are people playing that don't have patches to adjust power/ fix mechanics? Or would people on Dakka rather have years of a unit being over/under costed simply because it's annoying to have to print out a new FAQ every now and then?
These aren't even balance fixes(then again GW doesn't do balance fixes but just bunch of random meta changes to shift things around. They don't care what's balanced and what's broken. Just that meta changes so that people buy new models). Issue is crapload of badly written rules anybody who reads through with half a thought would have caught up that should have been caught up BEFORE codex was sent to printers so now we have silly long faq's and errata's when after release faq/errata should be fairly small.
Book wasn't even RELEASED yet there was already glaring issues found. Any half-decent rule writer would have caught with deep striking primarch issue. Or that assault weapons(still) can't actually advance and fire. Or numerous other silly screw ups they have done.
They are releasing half-arsed books and let actual proof reading be outsourced to players. Guess that's one way to buff up profit margin. Make customers do their job for free...
SirWeeble wrote: I'm personally willing to forgive the fixes as long as they are making an active attempt rather than just letting it be crap until the next edition.
All they can really do is hope to find the most obviously broken parts.
Given how much changed, I assume that GW did address the obviously broken stuff from playtesting.
One may expect the next edition to be a lot cleaner, building off the current, cleaner foundation.
Or total change in style. GW doesn't do small tweaks in editions but has habit of changing rules and then new wave of codexes in new style which rather than small tweaks shift entire balance upside down. Hell getting all codexes in same style and power level within edition is rather rare as style changes often enough midway.
GW isn't interested about balance. Deliberate shuffling of balance(doesn't matter how as long as it's different to previous) yes.
supreme overlord wrote: I dont mind 8th and I'm happy there willing to correct their errors, however, If the rules are going to change this much they should have the app available so are the rules are maintained in one place, OR have the rules available online for free so people arent spending $50 on a rule book that wont be good in a month or two
This. They should have given up the on codexes and just sold more lore/campaign books
They essentially tried this with AoS with a beautiful series of (admittedly pricey) campaign books with scores of missions and fluff and while they did release codex, they were just background and the free unit rules, so entirely unnecessary. This did not go down well.and they changed their ways.
Anyway, I feel like many commenting have perhaps never been involved closely on a large project. It's incredibly easy to overlook things that might seem obvious to a pair of fresh eyes at times. They're listening to what those fresh eyes have to say these days, rejoice!
9breaker wrote: So, video games (especially online competitive ones) go through patches all the time, taking in new data and adjusting the game systems. Also, playtesting is never as good as data feedback from actual game play. You can playtest a video game all you want, but the moment it hits player console/PCs, issues are going to be found.
This is effectively what GW is doing. And this is what we want. The fact they are changing the rules and adjusting to the meta is a good sign. Why are you complaining?
But here issues aren't even found by playing but by quick reading codex once...Which shows either how incompetent GW staff are(they can't spot stuff pretty much everybody here did) or how little effort they put that they can't be bothered to read through once.
Seriously they had nobody in staff that could have read codex through once before final commit? Duncan? SOMEBODY? As it is they just wrote bunch of rules, put it onto layout and that's it by the looks of it.
So your complaint is the printed copy of the codex isn't perfect? If their greatest sin is that you have to wait 2 weeks for them to correct some game mechanics, then I would take that. Better than going entire editions with no one addressing balance issues. I would take this over their old way of game design 11 times out of 10.
Like I said, even video games, whose budget for playtesting alone is probably 10-20 times higher than the development cost for a single codex, will never be perfect out of box. We still have day 1 patches. Plus I would rather give them some creative design space to make an interesting book, and if that turns out to wreck a meta, then reign it back a bit after the fact if the competitive scene does not like it, in a quick and reasonable amount of time. With each new codexe released, the meta will shift, and I think it is unreasonable to assume they have a crystal ball that tells them how to design a codex that is competitive, fun and balanced for a meta that will emerge 6 months later.
This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players. I genuinely can't believe anyone is complaining about this. The fact that the complaint is specifically related to horrors makes me think that someone went and brought a ton, perhaps off ebay and is now disappointed that they can't be exploited. Sucks I guess.
Shadenuat wrote: What exactly changed for Horrors? On first glance I only noticed mortal wounds tied to number of models.
They released a new data sheet to reflect the changes from the Daemons codex, but they forgot to remove the Daemon faction keyword, so the new data sheet, presented to fix the old data sheet, is itself, a broken data sheet.
Aren't the Daemons in the CSM book supposed to have the Daemon faction keyword though? I thought the idea was they were the exact same unit as the Daemon codex Daemons, just presented in Codex:CSM for summoning purposes. You can't use them in a Heretic Astartes or <Legion> detachment anyway.
Still, there's hope for the general upwards trend to continue. Maybe on the back of their recent success they might start hiring decent staff instead of Orks.
26 FAQ/Errata documents, 62 Pages of Errata/FAQ (that's 7.75 pages of errata per page of the core rules) and the fact they had to RELEASE AN ERRATA for their yearly errata document conclusively proves that GW simply are not hiring enough or competent enough people.
That's really a pointless and intellectually dishonest metric.
Codex Daemons is 144 pages and has 1 page of errata. If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.
GW has produced 11 codexes over 5 months at 120 pages average, roughly 1,320 pages. Prior to that they had to put out 5 indexes for another ~750 pages. And a rulebook at 280 pages. And CA with 128.
So roughly 2,500 pages of content in just over half a year. And we're going to quibble about 62 pages of FAQ? Especially when the changes are considerably minor in nature (despite having larger consequences on power of lists)?
26 FAQ/Errata documents, 62 Pages of Errata/FAQ (that's 7.75 pages of errata per page of the core rules) and the fact they had to RELEASE AN ERRATA for their yearly errata document conclusively proves that GW simply are not hiring enough or competent enough people.
That's really a pointless and intellectually dishonest metric.
Codex Daemons is 144 pages and has 1 page of errata. If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.
GW has produced 11 codexes over 5 months at 120 pages average, roughly 1,320 pages. Prior to that they had to put out 5 indexes for another ~750 pages. And a rulebook at 280 pages. And CA with 128.
So roughly 2,500 pages of content in just over half a year. And we're going to quibble about 62 pages of FAQ? Especially when the changes are considerably minor in nature (despite having larger consequences on power of lists)?
I dunno, we as players have to take some responsibility too. GW write a lot of their rules wonky, but they work RAI.
I see two types of players exist. Those that try to use the rules correctly to create a fun FAIR gaming experience, and those that interpret rules to gain an edge over their opponent, usually incorrectly.
Alpha strikes is definitely an issue, but it has been clear since launch they wanted this 40k experience to be played faster.
GW write rules to sell models and have fun. It's the gamers that "break the game" intentionally. Every single new release is immediately followed by a thread on "How to break the_______ faction. Top 10 Broken units, etc.
Don't act like we don't get pleasure from their failures. We should recall the game Complaint Hammer.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.
One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.
One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.
I think that's because of where it fell, a lot of changes people wanted either are coming in a soon to be released codex (so they are still fine tuning things, and didn't want to change a point value that'll just be changed a month or two later) or inolved player feedback that came right before the book went to print. The double conscript nerf (sorta, it was a commissar nerf but still), one in FAQ one in CA, is the best example of wires getting crossed in that manner.
Nightlord1987 wrote: I dunno, we as players have to take some responsibility too. GW write a lot of their rules wonky, but they work RAI.
I see two types of players exist. Those that try to use the rules correctly to create a fun FAIR gaming experience, and those that interpret rules to gain an edge over their opponent, usually incorrectly.
Alpha strikes is definitely an issue, but it has been clear since launch they wanted this 40k experience to be played faster.
GW write rules to sell models and have fun. It's the gamers that "break the game" intentionally. Every single new release is immediately followed by a thread on "How to break the_______ faction. Top 10 Broken units, etc.
Don't act like we don't get pleasure from their failures. We should recall the game Complaint Hammer.
Poorly-written rules invite abuse. One only need glance at YMDC to confirm this.
Stux wrote: Aren't the Daemons in the CSM book supposed to have the Daemon faction keyword though? I thought the idea was they were the exact same unit as the Daemon codex Daemons, just presented in Codex:CSM for summoning purposes. You can't use them in a Heretic Astartes or <Legion> detachment anyway.
Not according to the codex, if they were meant to be the same GW probably wouldn't have gone through and removed the Daemon Faction keyword from everything in the book. It's relatively clear that their intention was that nothing in the CSM codex would share faction keyword Daemon with anything in the Daemon codex.
However, CSM Daemons have two keywords only, Chaos, <Allegiance>, that's it. There has never been any FAQ or errata indicating otherwise.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.
One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.
I think that's because of where it fell, a lot of changes people wanted either are coming in a soon to be released codex (so they are still fine tuning things, and didn't want to change a point value that'll just be changed a month or two later) or inolved player feedback that came right before the book went to print. The double conscript nerf (sorta, it was a commissar nerf but still), one in FAQ one in CA, is the best example of wires getting crossed in that manner.
It's easy to forget the timeframe GW are working in with these books as well. Codex: Space Marines through to AdMech was likely finished and being printed up when 8th was released. They have to write these books like a year in advance so CA was possibly very rushed or was expected to have last minute changes based on feedback. Even then they probably forewarned the printers that there would be last minute changes.
That's really a pointless and intellectually dishonest metric.
Codex Daemons is 144 pages and has 1 page of errata. If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.
GW has produced 11 codexes over 5 months at 120 pages average, roughly 1,320 pages. Prior to that they had to put out 5 indexes for another ~750 pages. And a rulebook at 280 pages. And CA with 128.
So roughly 2,500 pages of content in just over half a year. And we're going to quibble about 62 pages of FAQ? Especially when the changes are considerably minor in nature (despite having larger consequences on power of lists)?
Also a bit dishonest tbh.
The actual rules sections for the Daemon codex are 41 pages long. The Eldar are 44.
Taking say 42 as an average across all 11 codices thats 484 pages of rules.
No one cares if the fluff has typos or discrepencies, the errata and FAQs only cover rules. Hence it isnt anywhere near 2500 pages of rules. Its about a fifth of that.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
To be fair, games like DOTA and League are patched all the time, and often minor patches follow major updates. The obvious difference is that DOTA 2 is free to play, as are the "errata", while Warhammer 40K is not. The meta shifts, unexpected interactions happen, and abuses pop up. I don't have a problem with "patches" to 40K in general, however when the content is paid for I'd expect them not to miss the mark so dramatically the first time.
To also be fair, the concept of games like DOTA, DOTA 2 and LOL are micro transactions where you can end up spending just as much if not more then playing Warhammer if you get lost in it. They also tend to have beta servers. In every game I've played the dedicated, internal testing team can never foresee everything the player base will do. Thus patches are required to fix things that were out of the imagination of the testers, who are mainly there to make sure the game functions and is fun to play.
I personally like this approach. Maybe because i'm a big PC gamer and it reminds me of patches for games. You usually pay for a DLC in a game now anyway and that's basically new rules. Hell CA charges 2 bucks for blood spurts in Total War: Warhammer.
Stux wrote: Aren't the Daemons in the CSM book supposed to have the Daemon faction keyword though? I thought the idea was they were the exact same unit as the Daemon codex Daemons, just presented in Codex:CSM for summoning purposes. You can't use them in a Heretic Astartes or <Legion> detachment anyway.
Not according to the codex, if they were meant to be the same GW probably wouldn't have gone through and removed the Daemon Faction keyword from everything in the book. It's relatively clear that their intention was that nothing in the CSM codex would share faction keyword Daemon with anything in the Daemon codex.
However, CSM Daemons have two keywords only, Chaos, <Allegiance>, that's it. There has never been any FAQ or errata indicating otherwise.
Huh. I stand corrected.
I would think they're supposed to have the faction keyword. If you've unlocked the Daemon stratagems I feel you should be able to use them on summoned Daemons. I suppose that given the FAQ, you still can't use them even on Horrors who do have the faction keyword though.
At least make it a binder design and have free replacement of obsolete pages at GW stores if you really want to stick with this model. Your new book should never feel old. Again, rules changes make sense, but why are you still delivering the rules in a way where they can't be quickly updated?
THIS. Imagine if GW took the codice and went in the "build-your-own-codex" direction? They can make faction themed binders, faction themed holed sheet protectors, sell datasheets in "decks" of papers so you choose which ones to put in - kind of like trading card binder collection system? You can also make faction themed stickers and stuff!! This way, whenever new datasheet or major FAQs come out, it just tells you to replace the old sheet with the new one!
They can also make a limited edition binders on releases. Imagine the upsell scheme!
And then half year down the line, re-release them in mini sized versions with less illustrations per page.
They can also provide free B/W PDF's of the datasheets, then sell "booster packs" containing colored datasheets with a chance of getting a holographic ones!
That's really a pointless and intellectually dishonest metric.
Codex Daemons is 144 pages and has 1 page of errata. If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.
GW has produced 11 codexes over 5 months at 120 pages average, roughly 1,320 pages. Prior to that they had to put out 5 indexes for another ~750 pages. And a rulebook at 280 pages. And CA with 128.
So roughly 2,500 pages of content in just over half a year. And we're going to quibble about 62 pages of FAQ? Especially when the changes are considerably minor in nature (despite having larger consequences on power of lists)?
Also a bit dishonest tbh.
The actual rules sections for the Daemon codex are 41 pages long. The Eldar are 44.
Taking say 42 as an average across all 11 codices thats 484 pages of rules.
No one cares if the fluff has typos or discrepencies, the errata and FAQs only cover rules. Hence it isnt anywhere near 2500 pages of rules. Its about a fifth of that.
See this section of my comment:
If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.
If you really want to get granular -- 50 pages of datasheets, 1 page of FAQ of which 1/6 is the intro, 112 words devoted to datasheet changes, and 337 words for FAQ.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.
One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.
Chapter Approved was likely written before players were able to give much feedback. I suspect it was finished not long after 8th dropped and based off initial feedback.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.
One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.
I think that's because of where it fell, a lot of changes people wanted either are coming in a soon to be released codex (so they are still fine tuning things, and didn't want to change a point value that'll just be changed a month or two later) or inolved player feedback that came right before the book went to print. The double conscript nerf (sorta, it was a commissar nerf but still), one in FAQ one in CA, is the best example of wires getting crossed in that manner.
It's easy to forget the timeframe GW are working in with these books as well. Codex: Space Marines through to AdMech was likely finished and being printed up when 8th was released. They have to write these books like a year in advance so CA was possibly very rushed or was expected to have last minute changes based on feedback. Even then they probably forewarned the printers that there would be last minute changes.
Publishing lag is a big part of why PP dropped books altogether. Physical books leave you aiming so far in the future you have no idea how your last batch of changes will affect the game before you have to commit to the next.
At least make it a binder design and have free replacement of obsolete pages at GW stores if you really want to stick with this model. Your new book should never feel old. Again, rules changes make sense, but why are you still delivering the rules in a way where they can't be quickly updated?
THIS. Imagine if GW took the codice and went in the "build-your-own-codex" direction? They can make faction themed binders, faction themed holed sheet protectors, sell datasheets in "decks" of papers so you choose which ones to put in - kind of like trading card binder collection system? You can also make faction themed stickers and stuff!! This way, whenever new datasheet or major FAQs come out, it just tells you to replace the old sheet with the new one!
They can also make a limited edition binders on releases. Imagine the upsell scheme!
And then half year down the line, re-release them in mini sized versions with less illustrations per page.
They can also provide free B/W PDF's of the datasheets, then sell "booster packs" containing colored datasheets with a chance of getting a holographic ones!
Yea, especially for the digital codexes. Making the change to the digital copy would be easy enough, and then reposting it on BL so that those who already purchased it could just re-download the most recent and correct copy. I don't understand why they have not clued into this. Then the PDF documents would only be relevant to those who purchased physical copies.
9breaker wrote: Yea, especially for the digital codexes. Making the change to the digital copy would be easy enough, and then reposting it on BL so that those who already purchased it could just re-download the most recent and correct copy. I don't understand why they have not clued into this. Then the PDF documents would only be relevant to those who purchased physical copies.
I believe you have to buy the Enhanced Digital version to get this benefit. I know my enhanced digital copies update very regularly.
Never change BCB. Never change. I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.
Playerbase during 6th and 7th
WE WANT REGULAR FAQS!
WE WANT POINT UPDATES!
WE WANT META-CHEESE ADDRESSED ASIT RISES!
WE WANT REGULAR RULE UPDATES AND TWEAKS!
WE WANT UNIT CONSISTENCY!
GW in 8th
Okay then.
Regular FAQs.
Point updates in Chapter Approved.
Meta Cheese addressed in point updates and FAQs.
Rules updates to address concerns as they arise.
Unit consistency - did a daemon change in its Codex? We produce a FAQ giving the new profile to change it across the board in other books that it may have been published in!
8th edition is pretty much a Beta test, not a finished product. There are too many glaring things missed in the design of the rules. Best examples are FNP & Reserves. FNP is such a universal thing that I think it should have been somewhere in main phases, like after Saves another point "Make wound negating roll if able". Same for Reserves - they should have been standardised, say, 2 basic rules for Reserves - Infiltration & Reserves (tags). One is for units deploying before game begins, another after, etc.
They should also have structured the game completely in technical, programmers way - Deploy - Who goes First - GAME BEGINS - Turn (Round + Round) - Between turns (Discard objectives) - ENDGAME, something like that (akin to Magic the Gathering for example).
The more technical and to the point about the rules you are, the better. They kinda already went that way, just not entirely.
They are collecting the most needed clarifications to their super basic, naked rule kit to add them in 9th, to see what can they live with and what without.
You might think it's bad... but think again - we are actually shaping now 40K we want to play.
Just gonna chime in again, that 7th despite is MANY flaws did not have the amount of ambiguity that 8th does.
That's where my frustration comes in. The things being addressed in the FAQs are things that should have been caught right away and addressed. The biggest example is deep striking lords of war.
Getting FAQs for stuff like, how does this weapon work? That's fine.
Entire FAQs for factions to the point where I feel like I'm a sisters of battle player in 7th were I needed a rule book 3 FAQs and a white dwarf to play my army is getting nuts
Automatically Appended Next Post: What the guy above me said, we are pretty much beta testing this game.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Never change BCB. Never change. I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.
Playerbase during 6th and 7th
WE WANT REGULAR FAQS!
WE WANT POINT UPDATES!
WE WANT META-CHEESE ADDRESSED ASIT RISES!
WE WANT REGULAR RULE UPDATES AND TWEAKS!
WE WANT UNIT CONSISTENCY!
GW in 8th
Okay then.
Regular FAQs.
Point updates in Chapter Approved.
Meta Cheese addressed in point updates and FAQs.
Rules updates to address concerns as they arise.
Unit consistency - did a daemon change in its Codex? We produce a FAQ giving the new profile to change it across the board in other books that it may have been published in!
Dakka in a nutshell really. Very much the vocal minority to complain about receiving regular updates. How quick some people can forget that some codexes would have issues desperately calling for a FAQ for several years only being addressed in a new codex or entirely new rules addition.
More specifically with the latest Daemons FAQ. They caught an abusive loop hole early that allowed deep striking unintended units such as Primarchs and Lord of Skulls etc, and quickly patched that out - isn't that exactly what the community has been begging GW to do for decades?
Some people are never happy, GW are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I'm pretty sure people are complaining about step A not step C. Like Chris Rock says: You don't get credit for doing what you should do in the first place:
"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having #$%@@!
I'm not sure what modicum of QC these guys have in house but it is woefully inadequate for the price that they charge for the product.
10$ paperbook/digitial codex/rules. Sure have at it, I'll write all over the margins of that p.o.s. 200$ collectors edition golden codex, that thing better be perfect...
I'm pretty sure people are complaining about step A not step C. Like Chris Rock says: You don't get credit for doing what you should do in the first place:
"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having #$%@@!
I'm not sure what modicum of QC these guys have in house but it is woefully inadequate for the price that they charge for the product.
10$ paperbook/digitial codex/rules. Sure have at it, I'll write all over the margins of that p.o.s. 200$ collectors edition golden codex, that thing better be perfect...
Yes, THANK YOU. That is the exact reason people are annoyed.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain
I'm pretty sure people are complaining about step A not step C. Like Chris Rock says: You don't get credit for doing what you should do in the first place:
"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having #$%@@!
I'm not sure what modicum of QC these guys have in house but it is woefully inadequate for the price that they charge for the product.
10$ paperbook/digitial codex/rules. Sure have at it, I'll write all over the margins of that p.o.s. 200$ collectors edition golden codex, that thing better be perfect...
Yes, THANK YOU. That is the exact reason people are annoyed.
What other game has as many diverse armies? I am really enjoying this edition but I’m not a cheese ball either.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain
Do it perfect or don't do it at all from what I can see so far.
It requires an open free beta test so that all the players can break the codex before it goes to print. That way, we can complain when our favorite codex cheese doesn't make it into print that we had to pay for
A lot of people like to spit and gripe about terrible proofreading, but even large market publications with full-time proofreaders will have errors all over the place. It's just more evident in a rules book because you need to closely examine those rules at some point and their exact wording and grammatical structure can subtly change the meaning. So of course you'll find more problems when you're closely scrutinizing something.
Outside of writing the rules like a lawyer, there's going to be issues. However, I do think that they could have made them clearer by sticking to a slightly more formulaic writing style in the rules sections. Short sentences. No commas with ambiguous subject references, consistant and precise terminology and grammatical structure.
Quantity over quality, however, has lead them to a successful new edition. I mulled over getting into the game again every few years or so, but was put off by a lack of codexes for the army i wanted most times - or the threat of an incoming new edition that made starting right then a bad idea. This time around, I was interested in an army that had a codex - so I made the leap and started again.
Quantity IS quality when the choice for a player is "codex or no codex?". low quality > nothing. It's hard to get a new customer to take the leap and buy 200-300 dollars worth of stuff when there's no codex.
I still think chapter-approved is BS though. Seems like a bad way to treat old and new customers. The codex should be folded into their budget for product support. It's no different than a software company issuing patches - although I imagine software companies pay programmers a wee bit more than GW pays writers.
The way I look at it to make myself feel better is to think of the CA as 8.5th ed - just like how 6th ed was overhauled in about a year (how we used to joke that 7th is actually 6.5th ed)
7th Edition was a band aid solution for 6th Edition. Now they are rapid firing releasing codices and quickly releasing faqs and errata. 8th edition eliminates a lot of the problems proceeding it such as Death Stars and I prefer this approach a lot better.
skchsan wrote: The way I look at it to make myself feel better is to think of the CA as 8.5th ed - just like how 6th ed was overhauled in about a year (how we used to joke that 7th is actually 6.5th ed)
CA was exactly two rule changes and a few point tweaks. That's hardly 8.5
Except FLG was literally saying "Don't count on Deep Striking Magnus or Mortarion" BEFORE THE CODEX DROPPED, meaning GW knew about it.
In addition, they fixed it in the most borked way possible-not some "Add 'The unit deep struck cannot be a Lord of War'", but instead with some funky keyword shenanigans that goes against what they've said before.
Privateer Press does that. All of their models from now on are going under a process they call Community Integrated Design (or CID) wherein they will test a set of models for a few weeks, get community feedback and change aspects of the models and sometimes universal game rules based on the feedback and battle reports submitted by the community.
They did a community "open beta" for the shift from Mk1.5 to Mk2 as well but it was less structures and resulted in a lot of imbalances so they skipped it for the Mk2 to Mk3 shift and lo-and-behold Mk3 was a mess at launch.
Primark G wrote: 7th Edition was a band aid solution for 6th Edition. Now they are rapid firing releasing codices and quickly releasing faqs and errata. 8th edition eliminates a lot of the problems proceeding it such as Death Stars and I prefer this approach a lot better.
Funny...Vexillia Bullgryns must not be a Deathstar then.
DarkStarSabre wrote:I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.
I am, as a rule, never happy.
I don't think I have been happy since my mid teens. I distrust happy people, makes me think they are hiding something.
Also, more strawmen! We're not angry at them releasing errata, we're angry it was needed, in such huge amounts, in the first place.
except it's not that huge an amount. the Errata consists of about a half page per book. thats actually pretty good considering. especially when you consider how many "moving parts" 40K has
BrianDavion wrote: except it's not that huge an amount. the Errata consists of about a half page per book. thats actually pretty good considering. especially when you consider how many "moving parts" 40K has
It's also the fact it's things that should never have been missed were. A good example I can think of is the fact that originally you only had a "default" CCW if you didn't have any other CCW, meaning certain builds of carnifexes could only make a single attack.
And as you can see from my signature, and the MASSIVE list stickied in YMDC, they have barely scratched the surface.
*shrug*
My 2nd most favorite game (CBT) has 3 basic rulebooks, over 230 pages of errata (actual "cut this, paste that" errata) for those and zilch for the splatbooks. i.e. roughly a quarter of the books has been replaced over time. I love it anyway.
The thing is that during the writing process a lot of stuff seems to work that falls apart when it goes out into the wild. This is true for every complex game, in videogames you just don't notice it as much as you don't have to read the code or remember anything as the computer will apply all changes, you just live with them.
Also keep in mind that a low amount of errata for a game doesn't mean the writing is perfect. It might just be that there's no capacity to fix it.
That's a big strawman you made there. Make sure it doesn't fall over!
I could spend 2 minutes browsing your posting history and find all you have done is complain like GW kicked your puppy, spat in your milk and pushed you over in the sandbox.
You make snide remarks about a strawman while you fill the barn with your own.
Never change BCB. Never change. Without you the salt levels in the ocean would drop to such an extent it would destroy the coral reefs.
To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
Mind, sometimes the Terms are amusing. Like how "Java shall not be used in the operation of a nuclear power plant," and how I shudder at the prospect of an IT outsourcing firm considering doing exactly that.
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
Mind, sometimes the Terms are amusing. Like how "Java shall not be used in the operation of a nuclear power plant," and how I shudder at the prospect of an IT outsourcing firm considering doing exactly that.
Do you want that in your 40k rules? Do you want someone to have to write "Warhammer 40k should not be played inside a nuclear reactor, despite themes including radiation weapons."? Because hiring lawyers to write your rules gets you this!
Primark G wrote: 7th Edition was a band aid solution for 6th Edition. Now they are rapid firing releasing codices and quickly releasing faqs and errata. 8th edition eliminates a lot of the problems proceeding it such as Death Stars and I prefer this approach a lot better.
Funny...Vexillia Bullgryns must not be a Deathstar then.
Could you elaborate further on that list? It sounds like it'd be dead slow and it's not like Bullgryns were testing hard on morale before.
Primark G wrote: 7th Edition was a band aid solution for 6th Edition. Now they are rapid firing releasing codices and quickly releasing faqs and errata. 8th edition eliminates a lot of the problems proceeding it such as Death Stars and I prefer this approach a lot better.
Funny...Vexillia Bullgryns must not be a Deathstar then.
Could you elaborate further on that list? It sounds like it'd be dead slow and it's not like Bullgryns were testing hard on morale before.
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
We have
Warlord trait
Psychic power
ATSKNF Inner circle
Deathwing
Grim resolve
Special character (with said warlord trait)
A decent design team would have caught the redundancy there, death guard suffer from having a trait that does not really affect their army that much (heavy weapons on the move).
Then we have the removal of options or no options at all for no other reasons than marketing, several of you know how much I hate "no model, no rules"
Then we have the psychic phase which is just a boring shell (in all fairness they haven't got this right since it came back), dull characters, lack of universal rules, assault phase that is still a complicated mess, removed charts and then added more in....
This ed is as much a train wreck as 7th, but better than 6th, it has some really good things too though.
Modifiers.
Toughness for vehicles
Wounds for vehicles
Vehicles can move and fire all guns for the first time since 4th.
Degrading monstrous creatures
Playable nids! (Not a nid player but happy about this)
But for me the bad slightly outweighs the good at the moment, maybe in a year or two the bugs will have been ironed out though
Unit1126PLL wrote: So the death-star is a 6" moving blob of 3++ invuln saves.
Seems cheaper to get a max unit of Crusaders and give them the +1 save psy power.
2++ but yes. Crusaders are more straightforward but the combination is a little awkward. You can decouple the blob into a transport or few if you desire.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain
Do it perfect or don't do it at all from what I can see so far.
Yup, a standard that no product, ever, in the history of mankind, has ever managed to uphold.
Rather silly, isn't it?
Its like these people never played video games. bug, exploits, shenanigans and OPness can be found YEARS after release.
Expecting a perfectly-tested bug-free supurbly-banalced game is absurd, especially one producing an expansion about once a month.
You know why no amount of testing will ever make a flawless game?
Because even if you got a hundred testers who does nothing else but test for a full year-the playerbase will log more data in an day after release.
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Nice, but I wonder how many bullgryns you're fitting within 9" and what that Custodes detachment will cost you. I expect you'll see them get limited to a 3++ at the very least. And then wind up taking mortal wounds to the face.
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Nice, but I wonder how many bullgryns you're fitting within 9" and what that Custodes detachment will cost you. I expect you'll see them get limited to a 3++ at the very least. And then wind up taking mortal wounds to the face.
They /are/ limited to 3++, unless you also pay for a psyker, and then it's only one unit of bullgryns that gets a 2++.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So the death-star is a 6" moving blob of 3++ invuln saves.
Seems cheaper to get a max unit of Crusaders and give them the +1 save psy power.
2++ but yes. Crusaders are more straightforward but the combination is a little awkward. You can decouple the blob into a transport or few if you desire.
How is it 2++?
3++ is the 5++ plus the Slab Shield? Unless you're also buying a psyker?
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain
Do it perfect or don't do it at all from what I can see so far.
Yup, a standard that no product, ever, in the history of mankind, has ever managed to uphold.
Rather silly, isn't it?
Its like these people never played video games. bug, exploits, shenanigans and OPness can be found YEARS after release.
Expecting a perfectly-tested bug-free supurbly-banalced game is absurd, especially one producing an expansion about once a month.
You know why no amount of testing will ever make a flawless game?
Because even if you got a hundred testers who does nothing else but test for a full year-the playerbase will log more data in an day after release.
It's a difference of degrees. As a lazy example, compare Breath of the Wild to any Bethesda product and any bugs in the former are considerably eclipsed by the latter.
Arguably, the relative lack of bugs in Breath of the Wild is due to having a more unified set of moving parts, rather than a lot of discrete one-off bits.
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Nice, but I wonder how many bullgryns you're fitting within 9" and what that Custodes detachment will cost you. I expect you'll see them get limited to a 3++ at the very least. And then wind up taking mortal wounds to the face.
They /are/ limited to 3++, unless you also pay for a psyker, and then it's only one unit of bullgryns that gets a 2++.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So the death-star is a 6" moving blob of 3++ invuln saves.
Seems cheaper to get a max unit of Crusaders and give them the +1 save psy power.
2++ but yes. Crusaders are more straightforward but the combination is a little awkward. You can decouple the blob into a transport or few if you desire.
How is it 2++?
3++ is the 5++ plus the Slab Shield? Unless you're also buying a psyker?
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
A lot of the problem is you have rules lawyer/powergamers looking for an exploit. Most of these rules are things that most sane people are never going to bother with arguing. Like how technically if you want to argue it, RAW you can never advance and fire an assault weapon because the wording is something like "cannot be selected" and assault weapons say they can be fired after being selected (which never happens). Is that something that really needs to be clarified?
Most of the FAQ answers GW does amounts to "No, you stupid fether, you can't break the game with dubious rules interpretations". There's always some idiot asking some crap like can they field an army of only fortifications, or the ever-ongoing debate of if Typhus' destroyer hive uses his BS despite saying always hits on a 5+, that people STILL argue and demand an FAQ. This is not people wanting the rules to be solid, this is people trying to find loopholes to exploit because they can argue that it doesn't quite say they can't do that. BCB seems like one of those people who will do just that; try to find every loophole possible and then argue "but RAW!" as a reason why they should be able to do it despite it clearly not being the intention, and then expecting an FAQ to say "No jackass, of course it doesn't work that way. Why did you ever think it did?"
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
A lot of the problem is you have rules lawyer/powergamers looking for an exploit. Most of these rules are things that most sane people are never going to bother with arguing. Like how technically if you want to argue it, RAW you can never advance and fire an assault weapon because the wording is something like "cannot be selected" and assault weapons say they can be fired after being selected (which never happens). Is that something that really needs to be clarified?
Most of the FAQ answers GW does amounts to "No, you stupid fether, you can't break the game with dubious rules interpretations". There's always some idiot asking some crap like can they field an army of only fortifications, or the ever-ongoing debate of if Typhus' destroyer hive uses his BS despite saying always hits on a 5+, that people STILL argue and demand an FAQ. This is people trying to find loopholes, not caring for the betterment of the game. BCB seems like one of those people who will do just that; try to find every loophole possible and then argue "but RAW!" as a reason why they should be able to do it despite it clearly not being the intention, and then expecting an FAQ to say "No jackass, of course it doesn't work that way. Why did you ever think it did?"
Unit1126PLL wrote: To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.
The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.
Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.
A lot of the problem is you have rules lawyer/powergamers looking for an exploit. Most of these rules are things that most sane people are never going to bother with arguing. Like how technically if you want to argue it, RAW you can never advance and fire an assault weapon because the wording is something like "cannot be selected" and assault weapons say they can be fired after being selected (which never happens). Is that something that really needs to be clarified?
Most of the FAQ answers GW does amounts to "No, you stupid fether, you can't break the game with dubious rules interpretations". There's always some idiot asking some crap like can they field an army of only fortifications, or the ever-ongoing debate of if Typhus' destroyer hive uses his BS despite saying always hits on a 5+, that people STILL argue and demand an FAQ. This is people trying to find loopholes, not caring for the betterment of the game. BCB seems like one of those people who will do just that; try to find every loophole possible and then argue "but RAW!" as a reason why they should be able to do it despite it clearly not being the intention, and then expecting an FAQ to say "No jackass, of course it doesn't work that way. Why did you ever think it did?"
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Never change BCB. Never change. I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.
Playerbase during 6th and 7th
WE WANT REGULAR FAQS!
WE WANT POINT UPDATES!
WE WANT META-CHEESE ADDRESSED ASIT RISES!
WE WANT REGULAR RULE UPDATES AND TWEAKS!
WE WANT UNIT CONSISTENCY!
GW in 8th
Okay then.
Regular FAQs.
Point updates in Chapter Approved.
Meta Cheese addressed in point updates and FAQs.
Rules updates to address concerns as they arise.
Unit consistency - did a daemon change in its Codex? We produce a FAQ giving the new profile to change it across the board in other books that it may have been published in!
while in some ways this is true, a lot of it is more infuriation over the execution.
There's still stuff that comes out that is very clearly over or underpowered at a casual glance that has no excuse to get past any development and design team, and the effort put forth in CA was...extremely lacking (as an example, Leman Russ Vanquishers being both objectively and meaningfully worse at literally everything, including its supposed specialty of tank hunting, relative to not just the basic LRBT but to equivalents like Predators and Fire Prisms as well...and what do they get in CA? A 5ppm price cut from 147pts to 142pts....fixing nothing in the process). Rules for targeting characters are on, IIRC, their 3rd iteration, and allow for increasingly unintuitive results each time.
Essentially, people arent mad that GW is doing playtesting and FAQ and Errata, people are mad that their efforts are seemingly poorly planned, insufficiently researched, and hapazardly executed.
Being upset over the execution is understandable, but I'm not sure what there is to say about it.
"Could it be done better?"
"Yes."
"Why isn't it?"
"Dunno, I'm not in charge."
"Well, it's not worth our money."
"That's an opinion which I do not share."
"WHY WON'T YOU HATE THEM WITH ME?!?!?!?"
Well no one is ever perfect.. or even good the first time they try something.
if by the time the second or third CA comes out and its obvious that the "Majority" of the entries are just boned then you can say they just DGAF or some flavor of upper management pulling strings for the sake of sales.
There is also a chance that some armies still wont have their champion writers that can go through and fix things that are needed.
8th is transparently an order of magnitude more balanced (and hence presumably playtested) than its predecesso. Not noticeing this is just willfully perverse.r
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
I actually agree with this. With how 40k's fluff is written, morale doesn't make any kind of sense. 90% of the factions have a fluff in-built reason to ignore morale. This is not Fantasy where even Elfs and Dwarfs and Chaos Warriors could run with enough stress.
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
I actually agree with this. With how 40k's fluff is written, morale doesn't make any kind of sense. 90% of the factions have a fluff in-built reason to ignore morale. This is not Fantasy where even Elfs and Dwarfs and Chaos Warriors could run with enough stress.
Tbh I hate the current moral rule I wish it was just leadership like in 7th, you fail your squad falls back, not loose more models. It really punishes large units. Like my rubic is 20 man squads gets dicked from that bad.
The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.
Nice, but I wonder how many bullgryns you're fitting within 9" and what that Custodes detachment will cost you. I expect you'll see them get limited to a 3++ at the very least. And then wind up taking mortal wounds to the face.
The Velxilas are now a single character elites choice option. They'll cost you nothing beyond the cost of the model for the run of the mill soup lists. Failing that, a basic box of Custodes is a single patrol detachment. (1 shield captain, 1 Vexila and a minimum squad of 3 Custodes filling a HQ, elite and troops respectively).
Tbh I hate the current moral rule I wish it was just leadership like in 7th, you fail your squad falls back, not loose more models. It really punishes large units. Like my rubic is 20 man squads gets dicked from that bad.
Well, if you're running 20 rubrics then keep 2CP for auto-pass is a good idea. And now that you can deepstrike them all over the place - fun times.
The Velxilas are now a single character elites choice option. They'll cost you nothing beyond the cost of the model for the run of the mill soup lists. Failing that, a basic box of Custodes is a single patrol detachment. (1 shield captain, 1 Vexila and a minimum squad of 3 Custodes filling a HQ, elite and troops respectively).
Yea, but you're still looking at 400 to 500 points for 5 models and then you're precluded from using any IG relics. I guess you could do an AUX for -1 CP, but you'll be hurting for CP overall with that unless you can cram some cheap rubbish alongside the bullgryns, but those are 400 or so plus support characters themselves.
Tbh I hate the current moral rule I wish it was just leadership like in 7th, you fail your squad falls back, not loose more models. It really punishes large units. Like my rubic is 20 man squads gets dicked from that bad.
Well, if you're running 20 rubrics then keep 2CP for auto-pass is a good idea. And now that you can deepstrike them all over the place - fun times.
The Velxilas are now a single character elites choice option. They'll cost you nothing beyond the cost of the model for the run of the mill soup lists. Failing that, a basic box of Custodes is a single patrol detachment. (1 shield captain, 1 Vexila and a minimum squad of 3 Custodes filling a HQ, elite and troops respectively).
Yea, but you're still looking at 400 to 500 points for 5 models and then you're precluded from using any IG relics. I guess you could do an AUX for -1 CP, but you'll be hurting for CP overall with that unless you can cram some cheap rubbish alongside the bullgryns, but those are 400 or so plus support characters themselves.
Why wouldn't you just do IG Detachment, IG Detachment, Imperial Soup Detachment and not penalize yourself on strategems or relics? You could run an entire army of IG with 1 elite custodes unit.
BaconCatBug wrote: I just noticed they screwed up the Horror errata and gave them the Daemon faction keyword.
The other 3 gods units in CSM codex don't have them.
GW are so useless they can't even do their errata correctly.
I may be missing something here, but I just checked my copy of the Death Guard book - the Daemon units (Plaguebearers, Nurglings, Beasts of Nurgle, Possessed (which are an odd one) & Plague Drones) all have Daemon listed under Faction Keyword. Chaos Spawn not having the keyword is also odd.
Is it possible that the error here is that they haven't given the Daemon Faction Keyword to the other three Daemon units in the main CSM book?
Sim-Life wrote: Half of the documents people list as being required (CA, Designer Commentary, FAQs) are so small nearly everyone has them commited to memory. If you asked me what was in the Designer Commentary, CA or FAQs I probably couldn't tell you exactly because I follow the rules of them by habit.
I think the better question here is if changes from DC are making it into the FAQ/errata documents. They should be, to centralise changes, but are they?
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
Any particular reason, John? Morale issues are a thing in combat, after all.
Admittedly, they're a tricky thing to balance, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
deviantduck wrote: Why wouldn't you just do IG Detachment, IG Detachment, Imperial Soup Detachment and not penalize yourself on strategems or relics? You could run an entire army of IG with 1 elite custodes unit.
You'll lose doctrines, no? Not that it matters, I guess.
deviantduck wrote: Why wouldn't you just do IG Detachment, IG Detachment, Imperial Soup Detachment and not penalize yourself on strategems or relics? You could run an entire army of IG with 1 elite custodes unit.
You'll lose doctrines, no? Not that it matters, I guess.
Nope. So long as you have an entirely Guard detachment you've still got regimental doctrines, stratagems, and (as long as your Warlord is Guard) relics.
AnomanderRake wrote: ...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain
Do it perfect or don't do it at all from what I can see so far.
Yup, a standard that no product, ever, in the history of mankind, has ever managed to uphold.
Rather silly, isn't it?
Its like these people never played video games. bug, exploits, shenanigans and OPness can be found YEARS after release.
Expecting a perfectly-tested bug-free supurbly-banalced game is absurd, especially one producing an expansion about once a month.
You know why no amount of testing will ever make a flawless game?
Because even if you got a hundred testers who does nothing else but test for a full year-the playerbase will log more data in an day after release.
It's a difference of degrees. As a lazy example, compare Breath of the Wild to any Bethesda product and any bugs in the former are considerably eclipsed by the latter.
Arguably, the relative lack of bugs in Breath of the Wild is due to having a more unified set of moving parts, rather than a lot of discrete one-off bits.
Well i think ill chime in and say Nintendo has much higher standards than Bethesda. Not to say i didn't love fallout 3 at release but man it had some bugs, same concept here
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
I actually agree with this. With how 40k's fluff is written, morale doesn't make any kind of sense. 90% of the factions have a fluff in-built reason to ignore morale. This is not Fantasy where even Elfs and Dwarfs and Chaos Warriors could run with enough stress.
Tbh I hate the current moral rule I wish it was just leadership like in 7th, you fail your squad falls back, not loose more models. It really punishes large units. Like my rubic is 20 man squads gets dicked from that bad.
I've always thought morale should be like this too, not a fan of the "lose that many models over dice roll"
I would have liked to have seen if you fail your morale test (keep the same mechanic, roll a D6, add the number slain and compare to LD) then they fall back D6(or 2D6) inches towards your deployment zone, they automatically regroup next turn. If they are locked in assault when they fail their morale test and fall back, they take 1 mortal wound (or maybe even D3 mortal wounds)
deviantduck wrote: Why wouldn't you just do IG Detachment, IG Detachment, Imperial Soup Detachment and not penalize yourself on strategems or relics? You could run an entire army of IG with 1 elite custodes unit.
You'll lose doctrines, no? Not that it matters, I guess.
Nope. So long as you have an entirely Guard detachment you've still got regimental doctrines, stratagems, and (as long as your Warlord is Guard) relics.
I think with some adjustment you could get some good soup out of it. Call it the Slabstar or so.
If you could see the face I'm making right now...if only....
I don't think age is something you can use as a factor here. I mean, the US Government's had over 200 years to get things right and still managed to shut itself down earlier this year.
Especially when you consider that 8th is a completely different animal from Rogue Trader.
In fact, the most 'consistent' rule set we've had for 40k was probably from 3rd edition til 7th - but that ended up with a bloated corpse that was looking at us and saying 'Ed.....ward.....' and we just had to put it down.
Plenty of arguments exist in this thread - sheer number of factions, their interactions and the general size of the ruleset, especially compared with others. Now if 8th edition was 30 years old you'd have a point there...but it's not even a year old yet and we've already seen more tweaks and adjustments to it than any other ruleset GW has produced.
8th is 30 years old though, it has the same underlying issues and lack of clear design and scale philosophy, they changed WS and BS and re jiggered a few things, but it's the same game underneath a few consmetic changes.
As 8th goes on they really need to nail down what kind of game it is, if that means splitting it up again into apocalypse, skirmish and standard, personally I like how 3rd did the city fight book, it was a clear break from a lot of 3rds rules and felt like a separate game at times, it made you play very differently, as opposed to cities of death which was just a normal game in a city.
Yes it would cost me more money but if I had
500-1250 skirmish rules
1250-2000 battle rules
2000+apocalypse rules
Each with its own coherent but distinct rules (kind of like how 30k is now) I would be happier
Right now we have 40k trying to be all of these very different game types and not really succeeding at any of them.
Formosa wrote: 8th is 30 years old though, it has the same underlying issues and lack of clear design and scale philosophy, they changed WS and BS and re jiggered a few things, but it's the same game underneath a few consmetic changes.
As 8th goes on they really need to nail down what kind of game it is, if that means splitting it up again into apocalypse, skirmish and standard, personally I like how 3rd did the city fight book, it was a clear break from a lot of 3rds rules and felt like a separate game at times, it made you play very differently, as opposed to cities of death which was just a normal game in a city.
Yes it would cost me more money but if I had
500-1250 skirmish rules
1250-2000 battle rules
2000+apocalypse rules
Each with its own coherent but distinct rules (kind of like how 30k is now) I would be happier
Right now we have 40k trying to be all of these very different game types and not really succeeding at any of them.
Just my 2pence
This is absolutely right. 40k is trying to be every type of game, and as a result failing at any of them. There's a reason games often do not allow for doing skirmish AND company AND brigade level rules at the same time, because they want different things. A skirmish game cares about individual models equipment. A brigade/regiment level game (as well as often being much smaller scale, think Epic size) doesn't care about the model; it doesn't matter if your squad has a plasma gun and a lascannon or a flamer and a heavy bolter, just that it has a special weapon. 40k is still, size-wise, a company/battalion level game (i.e. mainly elements from one force, not many thrown together) that is trying harder and harder to be a brigade level 28mm game, and failing spectacularly as a result.
Bolt Action/Gates of Antares has the 40k size done correct, but GW knows that will not sell the huge models they want, so they try to make the game scalable to larger sizes when larger size games want more abstracted rules.
Formosa wrote: Just going through the dark angels codex you can clearly see the issues of the past cropping up, is there any reason I need 6/7 separate rules that allow me to either negate morale or outright ignore it?
No, of course not. GW should simply and completely do away with morale as a game concept.
Any particular reason, John? Morale issues are a thing in combat, after all.
Admittedly, they're a tricky thing to balance, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
In 40k, morale exists only to punish various non-SM/CSM armies, such as IG & Orks. As implemented, it's an un-fun mechanic. As a result, players either don't play those armies, or they spend a lot of effort to work around morale. In what little competitive play exists, morale doesn't even exist. If it's not fun, and it's not balanced, as a designer, I suggest to do away with it entirely.
Alternatelly, remove ATKSNF and Fearless entirely and force SMs to test morale exactly like IG, and CSM to test morale exactly like Orks. Then it would be fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus wrote: I feel like it's a 28mm game obviously intended to be fought at the scale of the music video to Michael Jackson's "Bad".
I don't think age is something you can use as a factor here. I mean, the US Government's had over 200 years to get things right and still managed to shut itself down earlier this year.
Ha. Actually, if you knew a thing or two about the BS that American politics is, government shutdown is actually a strategy that's been being utilized to thwart BS policies from being passed and enacted. Many times policy writers would present a very controversal policies right before the recess, in hopes to make the congress pass the bill in short notice, without putting the necessary amount of considerations for it.
Shutdown happens when proactive congressmen tell the others "eff you. over my dead body."
BaconCatBug wrote:To crush your Rules-As-Interpreted types, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their common sense!
I approve this message.
BrotherTri wrote: My Question does GW update the digital Codex's and 40K Rules?
As far as I know, only the "enhanced" editions for ipad are. If you bought the epub you're SOL, and that's if you can even read it. I've complained to GW several times about them making errors with their font setup in their epubs and it's fallen on deaf ears.
If you google image search for 'black templars what the feth is wheat' (obviously use the correct f word there ) you'll come across another humorous edited panel. I won't link it due to naughty words.
To claim 8th is the same as other editions is like claiming that apples are the same as pears just because they're fruits with edible skins and a core with seeds.
Yes, 8th has things in common with past editions, but 2nd had things in common with RT and 3rd had things in common with 2nd. Yet they were very different in how they played from each other.
The game is still rolling out and a lot of things we wouldn't notice in development are going to be found as stuff comes out. Combos that wouldn't be noticed, stuff that is overlooked because they've looked at it a thousand times and mentally correct, RAW not following RAI because they know what the RAI so didn't make it clear enough in how it was written...
Basically the more eyes you have on something the more likely it is that problems are going to be found. Even community rumor reactions (the deep strike shenanigans people were planning based on being told that the Daemons Codex was bringing back deep striking daemons) have gotten changes made to the game to reign in unintended combos, something we wouldn't have seen in years.
tl;dr: nothing is perfect, and only through mass feedback can the problems with things be found and corrected. And frankly fixing problems is far better than GW's old stance of pretending there wasn't a problem no matter how many times they got asked about something.
Yes, we do want things to be "perfect" when they come out, but nothing is perfect. Not every loophole can be predicted and closed ahead of time and this is only compounded by a new edition that changes the core of how the game is played.
Basically all this griping about how things should never need fixing is just complaining for the sake of complaining.
Don’t make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!
Don’t make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life’s manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!
Exactly.
More on topic, I had a thought as I was starting at this thread through the magic of modern technology: my several hundred dollar computer that has an OS on it made by a company that likely put millions into it still required a day one update. Heck, it requires CONSTANT updates.
So why would a game that has a development budget in the thousands be exempt from needing refinement?
Yeah, their shaped just right for a comfortable throwing object!
Better than an old metal dreadnought thrown at you
I built one of the metal CSM dreads. Still stayed together better than a Penitent Engine (and less dangerous too, those gangly limbs could put out an eye!).
I preferred to give an example where I somewhat knew what I was talking about. Point is that it's a hell of a lot easier to manage balance in video games where the player has no choice in abiding by the newest rules. You need to take the time to download the update, but aren't required to know what it changes.
