With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

Stop buying them then.

So what? I bet there are errors in most printed materials.

Perhaps not buying such imperfect things should be a course you consider, since it seems to irk you so.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

Oh look. BCB’s rant returns. Video games do this too. In fact, most companies have to, to varying degrees. Get over it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

There are different errors in every book. It's not like they're constantly repeating the same exact error in every book.

Dude then quit the game and stop posting. Almost every product that is printed or released via digital media has errors. Video games have bugs, shows and movies have plot holes and continuity errors. Books have things printed wrong.

Send your resumee to GW as spellchecker.

This is among the most petty of threads.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

There are different errors in every book. It's not like they're constantly repeating the same exact error in every book.

Except the first few codexes where they forgot to limit the Relic stratagem to once per battle? Same error, different codexes. By your own logic, you agree with us.

Once again, You should totally stop buying such flawed books. Problem solved.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

There are different errors in every book. It's not like they're constantly repeating the same exact error in every book.

Except the first few codexes where they forgot to limit the Relic stratagem to once per battle? Same error, different codexes. By your own logic, you agree with us.

I don't agree because that limit was only introduced to deal with players who were abusing RAW to circumvent RAI. Which is what most erratta are created for: to bring the game we play more in line with the game they intend for us to play.

Have you even bothered to read the errata? If you have then you would realize the only errata is not because of an error with the book, but because the developers have decided to change Fly and Flip belts to work only in the movement phase. If you are going to complain, at least know what you are complaining about.

GW has never written a book they didn't make FAQ corrections to in any edition ever. In fact, I can't recall any miniatures or RPG game where that wasn't true.

I'm all for bashing GW when they deserve it, but this is a pretty common thing across games in general.

 Vaktathi wrote:
GW has never written a book they didn't make FAQ corrections to in any edition ever. In fact, I can't recall any miniatures or RPG game where that wasn't true.

I'm all for bashing GW when they deserve it, but this is a pretty common thing across games in general.

Has WotC released Errata for literally every single one of the books they've released for 5th Edition?

SG

I haven't played D&D 5E so I can't comment on that one

But thinking back to other RPGs ive played, previous editions of D&D or FFG's 40k games, damn near everything had errata.

 ServiceGames wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
GW has never written a book they didn't make FAQ corrections to in any edition ever. In fact, I can't recall any miniatures or RPG game where that wasn't true.

I'm all for bashing GW when they deserve it, but this is a pretty common thing across games in general.

Has WotC released Errata for literally every single one of the books they've released for 5th Edition?

SG

If they haven't it doesn't mean there aren't potential issues, but rather (and sadly more likely) they aren't addressing them unless they break the game in a fundamental way.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

Bit of a technicality, but that is false. Chaos renegade knight is a book and has no errata

 LunarSol wrote:
This is among the most petty of threads.

If you think that's bad, you should look up BCB's reddit profile under the same name. Yikes.

Spoletta wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

Bit of a technicality, but that is false. Chaos renegade knight is a book and has no errata

It's an index, that is true. But it also doesn't have a physical release. Can things really be books if they are just arbitrary 1's and 0's instead of being mulched tree carcass?

As much as I hate to stick up for our resident porcine cat, telling him to "just quit" isn't exactly productive. If your kids start doing dumbfethery, do you just kick them out the door as you're just moaning about it not being perfect? It's the very fact he cares that he whines so much.

How many of you would have chimed in with the same comment if it was not posted by our resident whiny pontificator whose reputation precedes him?

 Grimtuff wrote:
As much as I hate to stick up for our resident porcine cat, telling him to "just quit" isn't exactly productive. If your kids start doing dumbfethery, do you just kick them out the door as you're just moaning about it not being perfect? It's the very fact he cares that he whines so much.

How many of you would have chimed in with the same comment if it was not posted by our resident whiny pontificator whose reputation precedes him?

I would have. Namely because I've seen it too often. Humans err. It's basically a feature of being human at this point. It only gets worse when you go over your own stuff again and again knowing what you intend and only find out once it reaches the masses that it wasn't as clear to others as it was to you. Heck, people take courses on communication because of stuff like this.

Point is that it's a very petty thing to be mad about when the errata prove that GW is doing what they can to clear up that issue of communication instead of just leaving it alone and calling it good.

 Grimtuff wrote:
As much as I hate to stick up for our resident porcine cat, telling him to "just quit" isn't exactly productive. If your kids start doing dumbfethery, do you just kick them out the door as you're just moaning about it not being perfect? It's the very fact he cares that he whines so much.

How many of you would have chimed in with the same comment if it was not posted by our resident whiny pontificator whose reputation precedes him?

Whining? I am not whining. I am complaining.

THIIIIIIIIIS IS WHIIIIIIIIINING. Assault weapons don't woooooooork. Spore mines have iiiiiiiiiinfinite raaaaaaaange. Why can't I charge Wave Serpents!?!?

Mod Disclaimer: This was what is commonly known as a joke. It is intended to be a humorous post containing biting self-deprecating satire. It is not intended to be "rude" or "impolite".

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Point is that it's a very petty thing to be mad about when the errata prove that GW is doing what they can to clear up that issue of communication instead of just leaving it alone and calling it good.

Again it seems people have missed the point somewhat. I am not angry they are fixing the errors, or even that there are errors, but the fact that errors are in EVERY. SINGLE. BOOK.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
As much as I hate to stick up for our resident porcine cat, telling him to "just quit" isn't exactly productive. If your kids start doing dumbfethery, do you just kick them out the door as you're just moaning about it not being perfect? It's the very fact he cares that he whines so much.

How many of you would have chimed in with the same comment if it was not posted by our resident whiny pontificator whose reputation precedes him?

Whining? I am not whining. I am complaining.

THIIIIIIIIIS IS WHIIIIIIIIINING. Assault weapons don't woooooooork. Spore mines have iiiiiiiiiinfinite raaaaaaaange. Why can't I charge Wave Serpents!?!?

Mod Disclaimer: This was what is commonly known as a joke. It is intended to be a humorous post containing biting self-deprecating satire. It is not intended to be "rude" or "impolite".

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Point is that it's a very petty thing to be mad about when the errata prove that GW is doing what they can to clear up that issue of communication instead of just leaving it alone and calling it good.

Again it seems people have missed the point somewhat. I am not angry they are fixing the errors, or even that there are errors, but the fact that errors are in EVERY. SINGLE. BOOK.

You missed my point: when reviewing your own work it's easy to miss things as your brain will fill in any potholes automatically. This is a large part of why RAI and RAW don't always match and need tweaks to bring them in line with each other.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You missed my point: when reviewing your own work it's easy to miss things as your brain will fill in any potholes automatically. This is a large part of why RAI and RAW don't always match and need tweaks to bring them in line with each other.

Once, I can understand. Even three or four times. But not Twenty One times.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
As much as I hate to stick up for our resident porcine cat, telling him to "just quit" isn't exactly productive. If your kids start doing dumbfethery, do you just kick them out the door as you're just moaning about it not being perfect? It's the very fact he cares that he whines so much.

How many of you would have chimed in with the same comment if it was not posted by our resident whiny pontificator whose reputation precedes him?

Whining? I am not whining. I am complaining.

THIIIIIIIIIS IS WHIIIIIIIIINING. Assault weapons don't woooooooork. Spore mines have iiiiiiiiiinfinite raaaaaaaange. Why can't I charge Wave Serpents!?!?

Mod Disclaimer: This was what is commonly known as a joke. It is intended to be a humorous post containing biting self-deprecating satire. It is not intended to be "rude" or "impolite".

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Point is that it's a very petty thing to be mad about when the errata prove that GW is doing what they can to clear up that issue of communication instead of just leaving it alone and calling it good.

Again it seems people have missed the point somewhat. I am not angry they are fixing the errors, or even that there are errors, but the fact that errors are in EVERY. SINGLE. BOOK.

Again, please point out a video game that has no bugs or crashes. A novel with not a single grammar or spelling error. Almost everything released today has flaws. Unlike previous additions GW is trying to patch things in an active manor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
As much as I hate to stick up for our resident porcine cat, telling him to "just quit" isn't exactly productive. If your kids start doing dumbfethery, do you just kick them out the door as you're just moaning about it not being perfect? It's the very fact he cares that he whines so much.

How many of you would have chimed in with the same comment if it was not posted by our resident whiny pontificator whose reputation precedes him?

Whining? I am not whining. I am complaining.

THIIIIIIIIIS IS WHIIIIIIIIINING. Assault weapons don't woooooooork. Spore mines have iiiiiiiiiinfinite raaaaaaaange. Why can't I charge Wave Serpents!?!?

Mod Disclaimer: This was what is commonly known as a joke. It is intended to be a humorous post containing biting self-deprecating satire. It is not intended to be "rude" or "impolite".

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Point is that it's a very petty thing to be mad about when the errata prove that GW is doing what they can to clear up that issue of communication instead of just leaving it alone and calling it good.

Again it seems people have missed the point somewhat. I am not angry they are fixing the errors, or even that there are errors, but the fact that errors are in EVERY. SINGLE. BOOK.

Again, please point out a video game that has no bugs or crashes. A novel with not a single grammar or spelling error. Almost everything released today has flaws. Unlike previous editions GW is trying to patch things in an active manor.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You missed my point: when reviewing your own work it's easy to miss things as your brain will fill in any potholes automatically. This is a large part of why RAI and RAW don't always match and need tweaks to bring them in line with each other.

Once, I can understand. Even three or four times. But not Twenty One times.

If it was a constant repeating of the same issues I'd probably agree, but it's not. It's dozens of rules being written by a team at the same time and it's easy for people to all know how something is "supposed" to work only to find out later than the community who wasn't involved in the design process didn't read it the same way and now you need to go back and clarify it.

Communication is a messy thing and you're asking for it to be perfect the first time every time. We can't even communicate that clearly and consistently on forums (see you tagging your own post to point out that you were joking as an example of how clarification can be required on something you know but others might not) and you want it to be done via dead tree format? Sorry, but it's not that easy.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again, please point out a video game that has no bugs or crashes. A novel with not a single grammar or spelling error. Almost everything released today has flaws. Unlike previous additions GW is trying to patch things in an active manor.

Call me old fashioned but I remember when you bought a game you could reasonably expect it to work without Day 1 DLC and Fixes. GW treating their books like SaaS but charging you as if they are complete products is what I find most insulting. They don't even update the ePubs.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again, please point out a video game that has no bugs or crashes. A novel with not a single grammar or spelling error. Almost everything released today has flaws. Unlike previous additions GW is trying to patch things in an active manor.

Call me old fashioned but I remember when you bought a game you could reasonably expect it to work without Day 1 DLC and Fixes. GW treating their books like SaaS but charging you as if they are complete products is what I find most insulting. They don't even update the ePubs.

Your nostalgia is showing. There are plenty of games that were released that were blatant broken cash grabs. Anything published by "LJN" for example.

@BCB-

Question. has any book or game book written by humans ever had 0% errors?

just curious.

 Desubot wrote:
Question. has any book or game book written by humans ever had 0% errors?

just curious.

Nope. The only thing we've ever seen is books that never get those errors corrected.

I'd rather be concerned by all the huge cock ups GW makes. Not just mistakes in rulebooks.

I'd take a well playtested balanced game with spelling errors and before release FAQ/errata over a steaming pile of unbalanced garbage with spelling errors and before release FAQ/errata.

Priorities.

Creating a 100+ page book full of numbers, rules and statistics without errors is impossible, even if you have the best QA department in the world. Typo's will slip through and someone, somewhere will find a way to to something abusive and unintended with your so painstakingly worded rules. We are humans, not robots.

Pandabeer wrote:
Creating a 100+ page book full of numbers, rules and statistics without errors is impossible, even if you have the best QA department in the world. Typo's will slip through and someone, somewhere will find a way to to something abusive and unintended with your so painstakingly worded rules. We are humans, not robots.

And even robots aren't perfect.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:
Creating a 100+ page book full of numbers, rules and statistics without errors is impossible, even if you have the best QA department in the world. Typo's will slip through and someone, somewhere will find a way to to something abusive and unintended with your so painstakingly worded rules. We are humans, not robots.

And even robots aren't perfect.

Says you, meatbag.

I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

 Desubot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

So American rules-writers expect their players to be rules lawyers fishing for advantage and British rules-writers expect their players to be gentlemanly about the whole affair?

I don't have a huge sample size but it'd make an interesting subject to look into further.

I was reading Dune the other day and found errors. This book has been around since 1965. It has been published many times and, I presume, proofread each time. It has less errors than most books since it's been proofread to death, but it does still have an occasional misspelling or grammatical error. If you find a book that doesn't have any errors - it's most likely either a kids book and has maybe 10 sentences, or you don't have a high enough skill level to recognize those errors.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

So American rules-writers expect their players to be rules lawyers fishing for advantage and British rules-writers expect their players to be gentlemanly about the whole affair?

I don't have a huge sample size but it'd make an interesting subject to look into further.

It's a claim I can believe. I mean 40k is a more laid back beer and pretzels game while MtG is a highly technical game that requires a lot of player fishing for combos and the like.

Guess which one is the American game.

Nah, it’s more a case that GWs narrative/casual rule tone leaves gaps or confusion that would be absent from more technical style of writing. GW writes rules like it’s a friend talking to you, instead of a drill sergeant making sure you have hospital corners on your bunk.

Still, I think BCB doth overly protest too much. I hate errata and FAQs, but this level of complaint is absurd.

What are is the errata for? Isn't it a legitimate change they've made to the book, rather than a "mistake"?

It's a different thing to what your OP suggests, an improvement or balance tweak rather than a "fix our mistake" type scenario.

Yeah its not a British VS US thing its just two products from two countries with different standards and internal teams. MTG just has a different team and attitude toward rule writing than GW. That Rule Writing in GW also appears to be one of the more long term and static positions likely explains why it doesn't change a huge amount over time - ergo GW aren't replacing all their rules writing staff regularly so we get the same patterns.



That said GW is improving and is taking good steps and lets not forget this is the first itme they've ever updated their entire game in a year or so only. Go back even just 1 edition and it was a case of "if" you got a new edition codex not when; and it was months and months between releases.

A vastly sped up release cycle is going to potentially generate more errors in production until GW has done it a few times to iron things out.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again, please point out a video game that has no bugs or crashes. A novel with not a single grammar or spelling error. Almost everything released today has flaws. Unlike previous additions GW is trying to patch things in an active manor.

Call me old fashioned but I remember when you bought a game you could reasonably expect it to work without Day 1 DLC and Fixes. GW treating their books like SaaS but charging you as if they are complete products is what I find most insulting. They don't even update the ePubs.

Your nostalgia is showing. There are plenty of games that were released that were blatant broken cash grabs. Anything published by "LJN" for example.

Indeed.

Warcraft 1 patches:
http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Warcraft:_Orcs_%26_Humans_Patch_Information

A game released in 1994.

Pacman bugs:

https://tcrf.net/Bugsac-Man_(Arcade)

And Harry Potter:

Are all those wizards secretly rocking a second wand? In the very first edition of the very first Harry Potter book, the list of school supplies for Hogwarts lists "1 wand" twice. You'd think all those extra wands might enter into the plot at some point...

And ASOIF :

The entire Song of Ice and Fire series—the books that the HBO show A Game of Thrones is based on—is rife with typos and consistency errors, but Book Five arguably has the most. For instance, on page 854, where Queen Cersei descends a staircase and muses: "’I am beautiful,’ she reminded himself." The word “wroth” is consistently misused in this book as well—e.g., page 53: "Even in the north men fear the wroth of Tywin Lannister." (Wroth is an adjective, meaning angry—author George R. R. Martin should have used “wrath,” the noun form.)

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again, please point out a video game that has no bugs or crashes. A novel with not a single grammar or spelling error. Almost everything released today has flaws. Unlike previous additions GW is trying to patch things in an active manor.

Call me old fashioned but I remember when you bought a game you could reasonably expect it to work without Day 1 DLC and Fixes. GW treating their books like SaaS but charging you as if they are complete products is what I find most insulting. They don't even update the ePubs.

I remember waiting weeks and weeks for the new PC Gamer magazine with the patch CD/DVD on the front to get hold of patches for games back during the golden age of gaming. Also day one DLC wasn't really around then because, well, it wasn't a feasible product model to run for companies back then. Heck DLC itself wasn't possible until the internet was born

It’s hilarious to imply that older video games never had bugs and problems. The infamous nuke-happy Gandhi in the Civilization series originated from a bug in the 1991 game! Look at any old game, even critically acclaimed ones like Super Mario Bros (1985) and there are a host of bugs and glitches.

meleti wrote:
It’s hilarious to imply that older video games never had bugs and problems. The infamous nuke-happy Gandhi in the Civilization series originated from a bug in the 1991 game! Look at any old game, even critically acclaimed ones like Super Mario Bros (1985) and there are a host of bugs and glitches.

-1 world for example.

Try teaching Physics A-Level and dealing with the numbers of errors of science in those textbooks and resources, let alone mere typoes and formatting errors. It makes GW look as perfect as Fulgrim.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
As much as I hate to stick up for our resident porcine cat, telling him to "just quit" isn't exactly productive. If your kids start doing dumbfethery, do you just kick them out the door as you're just moaning about it not being perfect? It's the very fact he cares that he whines so much.

How many of you would have chimed in with the same comment if it was not posted by our resident whiny pontificator whose reputation precedes him?

Whining? I am not whining. I am complaining.

THIIIIIIIIIS IS WHIIIIIIIIINING. Assault weapons don't woooooooork. Spore mines have iiiiiiiiiinfinite raaaaaaaange. Why can't I charge Wave Serpents!?!?

Citation please.
whine
(h)wīn
noun
1. a long, high-pitched complaining cry.
Since we're dealing in text media and audio isn't available, I have to assume the vowels in your typed words could be interpretted as high pitched. Until a special snowflake FAQ is released I have to assume your complain is also a whine.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again, please point out a video game that has no bugs or crashes. A novel with not a single grammar or spelling error. Almost everything released today has flaws. Unlike previous additions GW is trying to patch things in an active manor.

Call me old fashioned but I remember when you bought a game you could reasonably expect it to work without Day 1 DLC and Fixes. GW treating their books like SaaS but charging you as if they are complete products is what I find most insulting. They don't even update the ePubs.

Yep, and barring games that were so simple you could read through the entire code over lunch, those games still had errors. Just usually not ones that completely broke the game. The fact that they couldn't easily fix problems or weren't willing/able to fix problems, didn't mean the problems didn't exist.

That's also discounting that changes can be made not only to fix errors, but to adjust balance, or make improvements to something that's not inherently broken to begin with.

Can we rename this thread to something more appropriate?
Like "BaconCat complaint thread #2,846"?

Other things we can complain about:
I wish that tax code didn't need so much errata.
I wish Infinity didn't have pages of Errata and FAQ for every edition.
I wish food didn't go bad.
I wish (insert political issue).
Why doesn't water taste like kool aid?
It's unfair when people use stuff to beat me in games! Why would someone make a game like that!
Why aren't people who make my games perfect in every way?

Zothos wrote:
So what? I bet there are errors in most printed materials.

Perhaps not buying such imperfect things should be a course you consider, since it seems to irk you so.

I wonder what CBC thinks of the re-write of a chapter of the Hobbit after the first printing run! OMG! JRRT IS AWEFUL

Ponders how to respond to OP without OP flagging him and getting a little site holiday. Reconsiders. Just decides to exalt a bunch of the wittiest responses instead. Top thread, peeps. Solid 5/7 would exalt again.

I've got news for you.

In 8 editions, GW hasn't produced ANY 40k rulebook PERIOD without errors. From RT onwards.

None of this "Johnny come lately" crap.

Take it from someone who works in publishing (me). Books without errors don't exist.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Again, please point out a video game that has no bugs or crashes. A novel with not a single grammar or spelling error. Almost everything released today has flaws. Unlike previous additions GW is trying to patch things in an active manor.

Call me old fashioned but I remember when you bought a game you could reasonably expect it to work without Day 1 DLC and Fixes. GW treating their books like SaaS but charging you as if they are complete products is what I find most insulting. They don't even update the ePubs.

It's not old fashioned until you have to mess with IRQs or make a boot disk for your game to work.

 chromedog wrote:
I've got news for you.

In 8 editions, GW hasn't produced ANY 40k rulebook PERIOD without errors. From RT onwards.

None of this "Johnny come lately" crap.

Yeah I remember back in the days of 2nd edition 40k White Dwarf had a dedicated section for rule queries and clarifications.

It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

They spend a lot of money into the hobby and expect a bargain for their money. They compare their investment into Games Workshop product to a night at a 5-star resort. And while the prices are similar, the result often betrays expectations.

At a 5-star resort, if there's a mistake, you complain and get it fixed immediately, with zero cost, and sometimes with a bonus for free for subjecting you to the horror of a mistake.

With GW, you get error-riddled literature that gets fixed months later, and sometimes those fixes don't even work as intended or fix the thing you wanted them to fix in the first place. And on top of that, you don't get an apology.

It comes down to expectations. I don't expect GW to be perfect. I expect them to put out gorgeous models and support them with some semblance of rules to make a more-or-less cohesive game. So far, they've been delivering that with aplomb and I'm happy to give them my money.

Let's all remember that GW is not Hollywood. They are not some monolithic corporation that pumps out billion dollar blockbusters every season. They're a game company, and despite everything, they're on the small end of game companies. The fact that they're still around today is, frankly, a miracle.

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

He wants attention and this is his chosen method.

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Because after over 40 years of writing rules they should not have a 100% failure rate when it comes to writing books.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Because after over 40 years of writing rules they should not have a 100% failure rate when it comes to writing books.

Which is an impossible standard, short of desiring for them to never release errata, but there's been plenty through the thread that's already mentioned such that you've pushed by.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Because after over 40 years of writing rules they should not have a 100% failure rate when it comes to writing books.

Which is an impossible standard, short of desiring for them to never release errata, but there's been plenty through the thread that's already mentioned such that you've pushed by.

Sorry, but how is wanting just one book out of twenty one to be written properly an "impossible" standard?

I've yet to find any other book that matches your standard.

By that note, it basically means they've written to industry standard given I've yet to find a book that has not been made without some sort of error.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Because after over 40 years of writing rules they should not have a 100% failure rate when it comes to writing books.

Which is an impossible standard, short of desiring for them to never release errata, but there's been plenty through the thread that's already mentioned such that you've pushed by.

Sorry, but how is wanting just one book out of twenty one to be written properly an "impossible" standard?

Because your definition of "written properly" is a moving, unreasonable, irrational target for them to hit. No matter what they do, you've proven yourself someone who will find *something* to complain about.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sorry, but how is wanting just one book out of twenty one to be written properly an "impossible" standard?

Because your expectation of a book being "written properly" is absurd. These books are tens of thousands of words and each word is a chance to make an error. No matter how small that chance is, when you repeat that chance THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF TIMES you are going to have an very high chance of making any number of mistakes. Having 0 mistakes is the outlier, not the norm

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sorry, but how is wanting just one book out of twenty one to be written properly an "impossible" standard?

Well I think that very much depends on your definition of "properly". If you mean properly formatted, spell checked and without contradictions within the book in question then yeah I agree that should always be their aim.

If on the other hand you're talking about a book that has no combination/conflicts of units/rules that can abused (in ways unforeseen by the writers) and that therefore never needs to be amended or rebalanced within the current ruleset. Then yeah I think you expect too much.

Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

 Togusa wrote:
Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

BCB isn't saying "As close to perfect as possible". He is saying it has to be literally perfect with 0 errors

 Togusa wrote:
Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

In short nope its not a matter of mindset. Its much easier to test a surgical device within its set limits than a set of rule interactions that span multiple books and that are themselves individually open to interpretation.

I noticed a error on the GW US website, I was looking up the retail pricing of pink horrors, and notice the spelling of Tzeentech instead of Tzeentch, omg the world is falling apart!

 Sasquatch wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

In short nope its not a matter of mindset. Its much easier to test a surgical device within its set limits than a set of rule interactions that span multiple books and that are themselves individually open to interpretation.

I assume OP is referring to grammar, is this not the case?

I guess the OP after reading the subject title - was not surprised

 Togusa wrote:

 Sasquatch wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

In short nope its not a matter of mindset. Its much easier to test a surgical device within its set limits than a set of rule interactions that span multiple books and that are themselves individually open to interpretation.

I assume OP is referring to grammar, is this not the case?

no BCB is refering to any and all eratta.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

I'm glad you spoke up - I was concerned that maybe you had run out of worthless things to whine about.

drbored wrote:
Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

They spend a lot of money into the hobby and expect a bargain for their money. They compare their investment into Games Workshop product to a night at a 5-star resort. And while the prices are similar, the result often betrays expectations.

At a 5-star resort, if there's a mistake, you complain and get it fixed immediately, with zero cost, and sometimes with a bonus for free for subjecting you to the horror of a mistake.

With GW, you get error-riddled literature that gets fixed months later, and sometimes those fixes don't even work as intended or fix the thing you wanted them to fix in the first place. And on top of that, you don't get an apology.

It comes down to expectations. I don't expect GW to be perfect. I expect them to put out gorgeous models and support them with some semblance of rules to make a more-or-less cohesive game. So far, they've been delivering that with aplomb and I'm happy to give them my money.

Let's all remember that GW is not Hollywood. They are not some monolithic corporation that pumps out billion dollar blockbusters every season. They're a game company, and despite everything, they're on the small end of game companies. The fact that they're still around today is, frankly, a miracle.

I never understood why GW gets some much sympathy. They very much ARE a monolithic corporation. Yeah, they're not Disney, but GW's yearly revenue is currently a bit over $200,000,000. They have an over $50,000,000 per year operating budget. By contrast, the average small business in the U.K. is valued a bit over $100,000, and the average manufacturing business is valued only at a bit above $500,000. GW's no minnow in a vast sea. They also certainly have the money on hand to make sure they're stuff gets properly vetted before publication. They just don't want to because, obviously, it doesn't seem to be hurting their sales so why bother?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

You're so tiresome. Almost every tabletop gaming book has errors in it somewhere,videogames have bugs, even the bible has typos. Please stop doing stuff like this, it makes your actual legitimate claims sound crazy by association.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

drbored wrote:
Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

They spend a lot of money into the hobby and expect a bargain for their money. They compare their investment into Games Workshop product to a night at a 5-star resort. And while the prices are similar, the result often betrays expectations.

At a 5-star resort, if there's a mistake, you complain and get it fixed immediately, with zero cost, and sometimes with a bonus for free for subjecting you to the horror of a mistake.

With GW, you get error-riddled literature that gets fixed months later, and sometimes those fixes don't even work as intended or fix the thing you wanted them to fix in the first place. And on top of that, you don't get an apology.

It comes down to expectations. I don't expect GW to be perfect. I expect them to put out gorgeous models and support them with some semblance of rules to make a more-or-less cohesive game. So far, they've been delivering that with aplomb and I'm happy to give them my money.

Let's all remember that GW is not Hollywood. They are not some monolithic corporation that pumps out billion dollar blockbusters every season. They're a game company, and despite everything, they're on the small end of game companies. The fact that they're still around today is, frankly, a miracle.

I never understood why GW gets some much sympathy. They very much ARE a monolithic corporation. Yeah, they're not Disney, but GW's yearly revenue is currently a bit over $200,000,000. They have an over $50,000,000 per year operating budget. By contrast, the average small business in the U.K. is valued a bit over $100,000, and the average manufacturing business is valued only at a bit above $500,000. GW's no minnow in a vast sea. They also certainly have the money on hand to make sure they're stuff gets properly vetted before publication. They just don't want to because, obviously, it doesn't seem to be hurting their sales so why bother?

It's not sympathy insomuch as it's...individuals...missing the forests for the trees. People whining about typos are tacitly accepting things like 'Why do we even still have codexes at all? Sigmar has a free app that I can get all the datasheets on (which are the part you actually really need to own) and can buy my faction's books for 20$ (which is the part that is so easily crowdsourced I honestly don't know why you'd buy codexes for allied factions anymore).That's where the con is bro, worrying about typos just means you fell for a textbook Kansas City Shuffle.

Basically people whine about things that don't matter, other people point out that they don't matter, whiners whine about people calling them whiners, and GW keeps making a mint off of all the stuff whiners missed while they were critiquing the type of ink they use or whatever.

Audustum wrote:

drbored wrote:
Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

They spend a lot of money into the hobby and expect a bargain for their money. They compare their investment into Games Workshop product to a night at a 5-star resort. And while the prices are similar, the result often betrays expectations.

At a 5-star resort, if there's a mistake, you complain and get it fixed immediately, with zero cost, and sometimes with a bonus for free for subjecting you to the horror of a mistake.

With GW, you get error-riddled literature that gets fixed months later, and sometimes those fixes don't even work as intended or fix the thing you wanted them to fix in the first place. And on top of that, you don't get an apology.

It comes down to expectations. I don't expect GW to be perfect. I expect them to put out gorgeous models and support them with some semblance of rules to make a more-or-less cohesive game. So far, they've been delivering that with aplomb and I'm happy to give them my money.

Let's all remember that GW is not Hollywood. They are not some monolithic corporation that pumps out billion dollar blockbusters every season. They're a game company, and despite everything, they're on the small end of game companies. The fact that they're still around today is, frankly, a miracle.

I never understood why GW gets some much sympathy. They very much ARE a monolithic corporation. Yeah, they're not Disney, but GW's yearly revenue is currently a bit over $200,000,000. They have an over $50,000,000 per year operating budget. By contrast, the average small business in the U.K. is valued a bit over $100,000, and the average manufacturing business is valued only at a bit above $500,000. GW's no minnow in a vast sea. They also certainly have the money on hand to make sure they're stuff gets properly vetted before publication. They just don't want to because, obviously, it doesn't seem to be hurting their sales so why bother?

it's not sympthy so much as an understanding of the realty of game design

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

So American rules-writers expect their players to be rules lawyers fishing for advantage and British rules-writers expect their players to be gentlemanly about the whole affair?

I don't have a huge sample size but it'd make an interesting subject to look into further.

To be fair that is how something like how black powder works.
It gives you a rules template and just says "the rest is up to you. We can't factor in everything...it's a game"

It would probably force American players to commit mass suicide

ValentineGames wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

So American rules-writers expect their players to be rules lawyers fishing for advantage and British rules-writers expect their players to be gentlemanly about the whole affair?

I don't have a huge sample size but it'd make an interesting subject to look into further.

To be fair that is how something like how black powder works.
It gives you a rules template and just says "the rest is up to you. We can't factor in everything...it's a game"

It would probably force American players to commit mass suicide

It's way more complicated than that.

I don't think you can divide consumer attitude by country that easily (case in point, BCB is British).

I think it comes down more to the specific culture of GW.

Also, as many others have pointed out, literally no publication of any real length releases without errors.

ValentineGames wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

So American rules-writers expect their players to be rules lawyers fishing for advantage and British rules-writers expect their players to be gentlemanly about the whole affair?

I don't have a huge sample size but it'd make an interesting subject to look into further.

To be fair that is how something like how black powder works.
It gives you a rules template and just says "the rest is up to you. We can't factor in everything...it's a game"

It would probably force American players to commit mass suicide

And UK ones too.

See the thing is making up your own rules is fine, anyone can do it. But at the same time its open to abuse, its open to spending the 5 hours of the gaming night half debating what the rules should be or could be rather than playing the game itself. In general most people prefer to have rules that let them just get on playing the game For them the fun isn't making a game its playing the game.

Online there is a higher concentration of people who are keen/skilled in writing rules so it comes across a little more accepting to have a more bare-bones rules system that people modify. There's a market for both and 40K, being mass market rather than niche, is going for the approach of actually having rules; however they've put two games modes in addition which present the idea of players coming up with their own ideas too, if they want.


And here's the thing, if you have a rules system written out you can CHOOSE to use or ignore it or part of it. If you don't have rules system written out then the choice is gone and you're forced down one path of having to build your own.

GW doesnt care about perfectly written, unambiguous rules. Because its nearly impossible to achieve with 40k. Thats one reason they created the most important rule. Should they do better at rule writing ? Yes, they should. But demanding a perfect codex with 0 errors is unrealistic.

 p5freak wrote:
GW doesnt care about perfectly written, unambiguous rules. Because its nearly impossible to achieve with 40k. Thats one reason they created the most important rule. Should they do better at rule writing ? Yes, they should. But demanding a perfect codex with 0 errors is unrealistic.

This is my position.

At least we do get errata, even if it doesn't cover everything we might like.

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
GW doesnt care about perfectly written, unambiguous rules. Because its nearly impossible to achieve with 40k. Thats one reason they created the most important rule. Should they do better at rule writing ? Yes, they should. But demanding a perfect codex with 0 errors is unrealistic.

This is my position.

At least we do get errata, even if it doesn't cover everything we might like.

Problem is when new errata creates new unclear situations, and we have to wait another six months for possible answers.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
GW doesnt care about perfectly written, unambiguous rules. Because its nearly impossible to achieve with 40k. Thats one reason they created the most important rule. Should they do better at rule writing ? Yes, they should. But demanding a perfect codex with 0 errors is unrealistic.

This is my position.

At least we do get errata, even if it doesn't cover everything we might like.

Problem is when new errata creates new unclear situations, and we have to wait another six months for possible answers.

Still better than waiting 2 to 3 years in hopes it's better in the next edition.

Or longer - People forget that before the current edition of 40K or AoS/fantasy it wasn't a question of "when" you got a codex it was a question of IF you got one for that edition. Your army might be lucky and get one near the start of the new edition; or you could be unlucky and get one right at the end or even miss it out entirely.

This is the first time GW will have all armies done within a 2 year period. Plus the nature of Chapter Approved means that we might well move to an age where new editions of the game are not whole re-writes of the rules but refinements. Seeing the game evolve toward a tighter rules system that improves over time and strengthens rather than chopping and changing itself. With chapter approved every year and updates there will be more than enough reason in 5 or so years to release new updated codex with updated lore and stats to reflect all the changes and also add in new units/things added over time.

Ultimately, for the most part the books as they are released work fine. However, given the level of complexity of a game like 40K, and the number of possible rules interactions, it’s inevitable there will be some outlying cases where loopholes exist, or things don’t work as intended.

Now, as I see it, in the modern era of 40K, two things exacerbate how bad this seems: 1. The attitude that 40K needs to be completely “fair” and “balanced” in order that it can be played at a high-end competitive level, therefor all such “flaws” in the ruleset need to be eradicated, rather than just discussing it with one’s opponent, dicing off and moving on (which is literally codified in the rules as the method for resolving any such situations); 2. With the prevalence of the internet these days, the moment a loophole or unintended interaction comes up, it can be immediately be disseminated to the entire player base (at least that portion of it that is interested in engaging with such things), which serves to amplify the issue and, in addition, allow it to be more widely abused/taken advantage of (depending on your point of view) than it might be otherwise.

Now, in light of this, GW has three potential options:
1. Ignore it, just put the rules out, and leave people to get on with it. Maybe the occasional erratum dealing with the most egregious problems. This is essentially the approach GW took until relatively recently.
2. Keep updating the rules as and when any problems and issues come to light, in an attempt to further refine them, thereby gradually improving the rules and tightening up the way in which they function. This is essentially the approach they’re currently taking.
3. Employ an actual army of proofreaders and playtesters, and/or massively increase the development time for all their rules. In this scenario, it’s still unlikely to ensure 100% perfect rules, but it is going to result in heftily reduced profit margins for GW, given that they’d need to significantly increase their staffing levels, and/or they’d be able to get less product out in the same time period. Alternatively, they could crank the prices right up to alleviate this, but I think we all know how people are likely to react to that.

For the most part, the rules are good enough to crack on with a game, and I’d argue that, with the current system, GW are doing the best they feasibly can to address the worst complications as and when they arise. There’s not *really* a practical alternative that allows them to remain a viable company and simultaneously pander to a vocal minority of the player base (or those who don’t actually play the game because they don't like it) who like to complain about things on the internet in the most hyperbolic and pedantic way possible as a means, as another poster pointed out, of garnering attention. Fundamentally, they’re never going to please all the people all the time, but there’s just no pleasing some people.

There are rules and rules though.

The occasional "woops, we forgot our game worked this way" is embarrassing. At the same time however some players engage in utterly ludicrous RAW/RAI arguments that are not due to sloppy word use, but deliberately twisting statements to suit their ends. These will always be there.

On balance I really think they would do better working to a spreadsheet and keep power levels roughly flat for the edition. Instead we see fairly sustainable creep - its not universal, but clearer understanding of what works and what doesn't, so they put out more powerful things (and occasionally some trash because they were feeling bad that way).

Thought: The only book without errors is the one that remains unwritten.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The entire Song of Ice and Fire series—the books that the HBO show A Game of Thrones is based on—is rife with typos and consistency errors, but Book Five arguably has the most. For instance, on page 854, where Queen Cersei descends a staircase and muses: "’I am beautiful,’ she reminded himself." The word “wroth” is consistently misused in this book as well—e.g., page 53: "Even in the north men fear the wroth of Tywin Lannister." (Wroth is an adjective, meaning angry—author George R. R. Martin should have used “wrath,” the noun form.)

I'd argue that the whole of the ASOIAF series is a typo, and that GRRM is a hack who discovered that "High Murder Fantasy" works for shock value, rather than a writer.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

meleti wrote:
It’s hilarious to imply that older video games never had bugs and problems. The infamous nuke-happy Gandhi in the Civilization series originated from a bug in the 1991 game! Look at any old game, even critically acclaimed ones like Super Mario Bros (1985) and there are a host of bugs and glitches.

-1 world for example.

Very true - I seem to recall that particular rabbit hole can go deeper too - -2 or -3 world, at least.

 Big Mac wrote:
I noticed a error on the GW US website, I was looking up the retail pricing of pink horrors, and notice the spelling of Tzeentech instead of Tzeentch, omg the world is falling apart!

Tzeentech is a recognised subsidiary of Dark Mechanicus Inc...

shrugs.

would prefer them to make "errors in editing" and correct them than the alternative, which is just them making the errors.

I'm not of the opinion they will ever write tight, well edited and proof read rules, GW are not that sort of people (Engineers, technical writers, coders, legal types etc).

... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

If Insurance Underwriters wrote what they actually mean all the time, I’d be out of a job!

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

True, however they tend to get the basics right, and write documents with proper cross referencing and a decent level of checking.

They make mistakes, they don't make quite so many

leopard wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

True, however they tend to get the basics right, and write documents with proper cross referencing and a decent level of checking.

They make mistakes, they don't make quite so many

You've got to remember though that a lot of errata result from a balance change or top level rule change, rather than being explicitly an error.

 Stux wrote:

leopard wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

True, however they tend to get the basics right, and write documents with proper cross referencing and a decent level of checking.

They make mistakes, they don't make quite so many

You've got to remember though that a lot of errata result from a balance change or top level rule change, rather than being explicitly an error.

Tend to class those as mistakes, just different to basic typos, its more down to a failure to test and comprehend their own game - perhaps just one of those things.

What is pretty obvious is they have no overall plan for an edition and just wing it, hence stuff not really gelling nicely.

I think it's about time they released a full rule pamphlet (no lore) with the most updated rulebook, chapter approved and faq content. One book to rule them all, at least for some time.
Now if a new player started I think the current rulebook purchase would be hard to justify, as almost all rule paragraphs have changed.

leopard wrote:

 Stux wrote:

leopard wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

True, however they tend to get the basics right, and write documents with proper cross referencing and a decent level of checking.

They make mistakes, they don't make quite so many

You've got to remember though that a lot of errata result from a balance change or top level rule change, rather than being explicitly an error.

Tend to class those as mistakes, just different to basic typos, its more down to a failure to test and comprehend their own game - perhaps just one of those things.

What is pretty obvious is they have no overall plan for an edition and just wing it, hence stuff not really gelling nicely.

It's debatable. Some of them definitely are mistakes. Some of them are just deciding on a different direction based on feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:
I think it's about time they released a full rule pamphlet (no lore) with the most updated rulebook, chapter approved and faq content. One book to rule them all, at least for some time.
Now if a new player started I think the current rulebook purchase would be hard to justify, as almost all rule paragraphs have changed.

That would be really good, unless we happen to only be like 9 months off 9e anyway

Gitdakka wrote:
I think it's about time they released a full rule pamphlet (no lore) with the most updated rulebook, chapter approved and faq content. One book to rule them all, at least for some time.
Now if a new player started I think the current rulebook purchase would be hard to justify, as almost all rule paragraphs have changed.

Would love for them to go to the idea of a modular rulebook, forget page numbers, number the rules - with sections getting letters, stick each "major" rule so it starts on its own sheet of paper, fill blank space with diagrams, artwork or whatever.

each year "CA" provides new content for various sections (scenarios, terrain etc) and can then replace specific pages.

do the codexes in the same way, CA having updated pages for them.

Plus a complete points index each year.


Its been done before and it works nicely.


As an aside, slightly irritated to see the CP cost of some strategems, and the wording of them changing.. will the cards be ammended to suit?

drbored wrote:
Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

Nah, it's because a lot of the players are young and inexperienced and really don't understand how complicated jobs (like publishing) work

Alcibiades wrote:

drbored wrote:
Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

Nah, it's because a lot of the players are young and inexperienced and really don't understand how complicated jobs (like publishing) work

And then some of us have written lengthy technically focussed documents for a living and actually do understand such a process, it generally needs a bit more planning than is apparent with GW - its also not cheap, I suspect you have someone somewhere who has worked out, largely correctly, what the lowest acceptable quality standard is - and thats what they work to - afterall the product still sells.

if they doubled the amount they spent writing it, would they sell more? probably not, the books are not bought for the quality of writing so why in a rational sense would GW care?

For my money I expect better, the days of trying to buy all the books are long gone, even though these days I could probably afford it, as long as Mrs L didn't find out.

GW have come on significantly with 8th in terms of concepts, the <KEYWORD> concept for example is very good, I wish they had expanded it to say weapons but thats something they may get around to, I also wish they had gone with the concept of a Defined Term being distinct from a defined term, so when they say x must be within 3", you have a definition of what within means clearly written somewhere - you gain a lot of clarity, at a cost of needing a much better planned and more focused writing effort.

As I noted early, I'm just glad they are actually taking the trouble to fix errors and not just wait for the next edition 'x' years down the line, where 'x' is measured in decades

Gitdakka wrote:
I think it's about time they released a full rule pamphlet (no lore) with the most updated rulebook, chapter approved and faq content. One book to rule them all, at least for some time.
Now if a new player started I think the current rulebook purchase would be hard to justify, as almost all rule paragraphs have changed.

Nothing's changed much if you're a Grey Knight!

Anyway, please carry on. Your main point still stands.

 Overread wrote:
But at the same time its open to abuse, its open to spending the 5 hours of the gaming night half debating what the rules should be or could be rather than playing the game itself.

Yet it never happens in these systems like Black Powder due to player mentality.
But go over to 40k and then you will never play a game.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Overread wrote:
But at the same time its open to abuse, its open to spending the 5 hours of the gaming night half debating what the rules should be or could be rather than playing the game itself.

Yet it never happens in these systems like Black Powder due to player mentality.
But go over to 40k and then you will never play a game.

Is it player mentality or convention within the clubs? Also are black powder gamers building lists or are they more re-using the same lists over and over or using proposed campaign lists etc... Ergo are they building or are they using what is already built and modifying it a little.

I'd also say that games like Black Powder might be more open to re-creation of famous events based on historical numbers and counts; something that Warhammer can't do at all because, well, there aren't any historical records nor accurate numbers of combatants at battles.


I think its easy to blame the attitude of players without realising that its not really them but the actual games structure and design as well as the background to it.

Historic players argue over other things - not having accurate colour schemes or authentic lists for example (2 reasons I stopped playing Bolt Action).

Regardless of the game, two players can agree to work through rules discrepancies, or they can argue/fight for advantage for their side/find unreasonable Reddit/BCB approaches and treat them as the only approach/etc. I.e. between you and your opponent you can decide to have fun, or decide you’re going to grind the other side into a paste via whatever means necessary for nerd bragging rights. Or somewhere in the middle. The social contract is up to you, and the rules aren’t so broken you can’t agree and move on... should you be so inclined. Screeching “we can never know intent this game is broken and cannot progress!” is hopefully only internet behaviour, luckily I’ve never come across it.

beast_gts wrote:
Historic players argue over other things - not having accurate colour schemes or authentic lists for example (2 reasons I stopped playing Bolt Action).

We call them "rivet counters"

And 40K has it's own version too - over the lore.

For me, not to long ago I realized that most game rules are a farce - they are just agreed-upon constructs for playing with your toy soldiers. For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules".

 Stormonu wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Historic players argue over other things - not having accurate colour schemes or authentic lists for example (2 reasons I stopped playing Bolt Action).

We call them "rivet counters"

And 40K has it's own version too - over the lore.

For me, not to long ago I realized that most game rules are a farce - they are just agreed-upon constructs for playing with your toy soldiers. For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules".

So are the 40k version "skull counters"?

And I await the person who gets mad that I'm doing my Primaris in the VII Legion's scheme (with one of my Gravis captains wearing the Aquila that shows he once fought on the same battlefield as the Emperor himself). Look, I get that lore is important and all since it puts our silly plastic dudesmen into context, but at the end of the day I had to go to FW for my decals and since I'm paying for a sheet of VII Legion decals I'm getting the full use of them, the lore be damned into the Warp.

My justification is based on the idea that GW has shown a desire to transfer characters into Primaris at events: that Captain was a VII Legionionare who "died" during the Iron Cage only to have the Ultramarines hand him (and others) over to Cawl (with a few of them surviving the testing of Cawl's furnace implant) allowing me to then start legion building with my Primaris as they are on a "crusade" to find Dorn. Of course if they do find Dorn the crusade will likely to be to unmuck the Imperium, but baby steps, right?

They won't notice, since most self described 40k fluff players aren't fluff players. Their knowledge is only as deep as the stereotypes and memes. It's simply a beard they wear to hide behind. You're more likely to anger them simply by using Primaris because it the cool thing to hate them.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
They won't notice, since most self described 40k fluff players aren't fluff players. Their knowledge is only as deep as the stereotypes and memes. It's simply a beard they wear to hide behind. You're more likely to anger them simply by using Primaris because it the cool thing to hate them.

You're probably right as long as none of them are also skull counters who play 30k. That seems to have caused some of the rivet counters from historical games to fall into the same trend in that game.

 Stormonu wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Historic players argue over other things - not having accurate colour schemes or authentic lists for example (2 reasons I stopped playing Bolt Action).

We call them "rivet counters"

And 40K has it's own version too - over the lore.

For me, not to long ago I realized that most game rules are a farce - they are just agreed-upon constructs for playing with your toy soldiers. For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules".

Hear, hear. Borrowing that for my sig.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

Yes but do you want 100 mistakes or 10 mistakes? Do you want game that can actually be legally played through or one that requires players to alter rules to their taste to even be possible to play game through without running into situation rules don't cover?

Who cares? If experienced technical writers and publishing houses vastly larger than GW can't get the errors out of books where it's important, why do we expect the relatively tiny GW to do better with something as unimportant as games rules?

I can't think of anything in a GW game that made us have to abandon the game, so they're good enough IMO.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Who cares? If experienced technical writers and publishing houses vastly larger than GW can't get the errors out of books where it's important, why do we expect the relatively tiny GW to do better with something as unimportant as games rules?

I can't think of anything in a GW game that made us have to abandon the game, so they're good enough IMO.

Nobody is expecting them to do 100% error free. But there's one thing about doing 10 errors and then doing 100 errors. Or doing game with errors but that can still be played without tons of house rules and game that requires house rules to be even possible to play it...

Just think about it: You MUST come up with house rules to play it through.

There's quite likely not 2 groups that play 100% identical 40k without even doing deliberate house rules to level of adjusting points or stats...

GW claims to be Apple of miniature games. Not too much to ask for them to do their rules like PROFESSIONALS rather than amateurs. As it is they are 100% amateurs who aren't even trying to do a good job. That's unacceptable.

You.. Really don't have to come up with house rules... Where did you get the idea you did?

tneva82 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Who cares? If experienced technical writers and publishing houses vastly larger than GW can't get the errors out of books where it's important, why do we expect the relatively tiny GW to do better with something as unimportant as games rules?

I can't think of anything in a GW game that made us have to abandon the game, so they're good enough IMO.

Just think about it: You MUST come up with house rules to play it through.

No more, in my experience, than any other game I've played.

And we're back to the first reply to BCB; why do you (in general) keep buying them I you think they're not to an acceptable standard?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
And we're back to the first reply to BCB; why do you (in general) keep buying them I you think they're not to an acceptable standard?

Because it's my hobby to answer rules questions on the internet. A noble goal, one of the most important in Human history to be sure. Also despite what other people might think I actually do enjoy playing 40k 8th edition, even if the rules aren't written properly most of the time.

tneva82 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Who cares? If experienced technical writers and publishing houses vastly larger than GW can't get the errors out of books where it's important, why do we expect the relatively tiny GW to do better with something as unimportant as games rules?

I can't think of anything in a GW game that made us have to abandon the game, so they're good enough IMO.

Nobody is expecting them to do 100% error free. But there's one thing about doing 10 errors and then doing 100 errors. Or doing game with errors but that can still be played without tons of house rules and game that requires house rules to be even possible to play it...

Just think about it: You MUST come up with house rules to play it through.

There's quite likely not 2 groups that play 100% identical 40k without even doing deliberate house rules to level of adjusting points or stats...

GW claims to be Apple of miniature games. Not too much to ask for them to do their rules like PROFESSIONALS rather than amateurs. As it is they are 100% amateurs who aren't even trying to do a good job. That's unacceptable.

The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
And we're back to the first reply to BCB; why do you (in general) keep buying them I you think they're not to an acceptable standard?

Because it's my hobby to answer rules questions on the internet. A noble goal, one of the most important in Human history to be sure. Also despite what other people might think I actually do enjoy playing 40k 8th edition, even if the rules aren't written properly most of the time.

If that's your hobby, why do you seem to complain about it so much?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

I did no such thing. I am asking them to not be 100% error full. That is very different. I would have been happy with even a single book without errors out of twenty one. As it is, we have twenty one out of twenty one rulebooks with errors. Some of which needed errata BEFORE THE BOOKS EVEN CAME OUT. We needed errata for a book of errata. How is that acceptable?

GW are able to get away with charging people extortionate prices for their books because they hold a monopoly over the 40k IP and generally don't have any competition in the same genre of tabletop game (any competition that hasn't self imploded anyway), when if they were charging what the books were worth they would have released them as free PDFs a long time ago.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

I did no such thing. I am asking them to not be 100% error full. That is very different. I would have been happy with even a single book without errors out of twenty one. As it is, we have twenty one out of twenty one rulebooks with errors. Some of which needed errata BEFORE THE BOOKS EVEN CAME OUT. We needed errata for a book of errata. How is that acceptable?

GW are able to get away with charging people extortionate prices for their books because they hold a monopoly over the 40k IP and generally don't have any competition in the same genre of tabletop game (any competition that hasn't self imploded anyway), when if they were charging what the books were worth they would have released them as free PDFs a long time ago.

I'm not sure you understand how IP works, and really do you have a set of war game books that didn't require errata? I don't. I have two or three kickstarted books that were 'nearly done' or 'ready for print' and turns out when you sick a few thousand different minds on the text they have wildly different understandings of the content, so they get errata'd.

I'm not sure the OP has indeed read all the 'errata' documents. Some of the so called errata, are not really correcting errors, but updating the rules to reflect feedback on how they work. There was no 'error' to correct, merely a rules mechanic that needed changing - it still worked before.

Possibly the fault is with GW for calling them Errata, a better title would have been Updates, or something to that effect.

And believing that there is a book, somewhere in the world, published without some kind of error or inaccuracy, is honestly living in a fantasy land.

The vast majority of people who buy GW rule books, and let's brace ourselves, don't nitpick the rules. I bet less than 1% go "Holy Terra! They said 'can' not 'may', we must stop the game dead in it's tracks."

It's important to harp on GW about rules until they embrace the digital age and create a free (or subscription based) living ruleset that is downloaded online. Especially now, since Stratagems, Datasheets, points, warlord traits, relics - all are potentially invalid in the codex.

If you buy a codex after chapter approved, will it have the correct points values? No. It won't. That's stupid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

I did no such thing. I am asking them to not be 100% error full. That is very different. I would have been happy with even a single book without errors out of twenty one. As it is, we have twenty one out of twenty one rulebooks with errors. Some of which needed errata BEFORE THE BOOKS EVEN CAME OUT. We needed errata for a book of errata. How is that acceptable?

GW are able to get away with charging people extortionate prices for their books because they hold a monopoly over the 40k IP and generally don't have any competition in the same genre of tabletop game (any competition that hasn't self imploded anyway), when if they were charging what the books were worth they would have released them as free PDFs a long time ago.

You want a book with 0 errors; i.e. one that's 100% error free. That's simply not going to happen, and I can't think of a single wargames publisher (quite possibly publisher in general) who manages that.

 Marmatag wrote:
It's important to harp on GW about rules until they embrace the digital age and create a free (or subscription based) living ruleset that is downloaded online. Especially now, since Stratagems, Datasheets, points, warlord traits, relics - all are potentially invalid in the codex.

If you buy a codex after chapter approved, will it have the correct points values? No. It won't. That's stupid.

If they started updating the books with the changed points values everytime CA came out they'd have to trash their left over stock and start marking the books with a version number to make it less confusing to people on which codex is the most current for rules and points.

And then the community would complain about needing new books everytime they change things.

They just need to put the update points on an updated points page set in every errata so we can make CA more of a purchase for the other stuff in it (like beta Sisters rules) than trying to keep your points current.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's important to harp on GW about rules until they embrace the digital age and create a free (or subscription based) living ruleset that is downloaded online. Especially now, since Stratagems, Datasheets, points, warlord traits, relics - all are potentially invalid in the codex.

If you buy a codex after chapter approved, will it have the correct points values? No. It won't. That's stupid.

If they started updating the books with the changed points values everytime CA came out they'd have to trash their left over stock and start marking the books with a version number to make it less confusing to people on which codex is the most current for rules and points.

And then the community would complain about needing new books everytime they change things.

They just need to put the update points on an updated points page set in every errata so we can make CA more of a purchase for the other stuff in it (like beta Sisters rules) than trying to keep your points current.

If its an online library that is updated when the FAQ/errata/CA is released then you wouldnt have to buy a new book.... If you bought a physical book your situation would be no different than it is now.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

I did no such thing. I am asking them to not be 100% error full. That is very different. I would have been happy with even a single book without errors out of twenty one. As it is, we have twenty one out of twenty one rulebooks with errors. Some of which needed errata BEFORE THE BOOKS EVEN CAME OUT. We needed errata for a book of errata. How is that acceptable?

GW are able to get away with charging people extortionate prices for their books because they hold a monopoly over the 40k IP and generally don't have any competition in the same genre of tabletop game (any competition that hasn't self imploded anyway), when if they were charging what the books were worth they would have released them as free PDFs a long time ago.

They own 40k. Of course they have a monopoly on a product they own. Do you think 40k is some sort of freeform IP that they just have access to?

And well.. Yes, you are indeed asking for 100% error free. You are asking for no Errata (good luck), no errors (also good luck)

TL;DR

This may have been said before, but I am going to forgive GW of having typos and printing errors. This is simply the FASTEST I can ever remember getting codices. We've had like 1-3 per MONTH since 8th edition started. Stuff is bound to fall through the cracks.

Now having said all that: I WISH Deathmarks and Lychguard were actually troop choices =(

BaconCatBug wrote:This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 02/10/2018 11:49:15

Faintly ironic!

And honestly, complaining that GW have a ‘monopoly over the 40K IP’ is pointless and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of IP. I mean yes, of course they do... it’s an IP they created and own.

 Billagio wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's important to harp on GW about rules until they embrace the digital age and create a free (or subscription based) living ruleset that is downloaded online. Especially now, since Stratagems, Datasheets, points, warlord traits, relics - all are potentially invalid in the codex.

If you buy a codex after chapter approved, will it have the correct points values? No. It won't. That's stupid.

If they started updating the books with the changed points values everytime CA came out they'd have to trash their left over stock and start marking the books with a version number to make it less confusing to people on which codex is the most current for rules and points.

And then the community would complain about needing new books everytime they change things.

They just need to put the update points on an updated points page set in every errata so we can make CA more of a purchase for the other stuff in it (like beta Sisters rules) than trying to keep your points current.

If its an online library that is updated when the FAQ/errata/CA is released then you wouldnt have to buy a new book.... If you bought a physical book your situation would be no different than it is now.

Quite honestly: feth digital books. I had to use one for Sisters in 6th and 7th and I never want to go back to that being the way to play my army.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Quite honestly: feth digital books. I had to use one for Sisters in 6th and 7th and I never want to go back to that being the way to play my army.

You do know there is a magical device called a "printer" you can use to print digital books if you need a dead-tree-carcass-simulacrum for day to day gaming? You don't even have to print ALL the pages!

Mod Disclaimer: This is a joke. It is not intended to be "rude", "impolite" or other synonym.

Now, if GW made their rules (at least) available digitally in a format that updated as soon as the errata was live, I'd happily pay for that. They can still print the old style codexes with the fancy pictures and fluff for those who want an outdated copy of the rules for some reason.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Quite honestly: feth digital books. I had to use one for Sisters in 6th and 7th and I never want to go back to that being the way to play my army.

You do know there is a magical device called a "printer" you can use to print digital books if you need a dead-tree-carcass-simulacrum for day to day gaming? You don't even have to print ALL the pages!

Mod Disclaimer: This is a joke. It is not intended to be "rude", "impolite" or other synonym.

Now, if GW made their rules (at least) available digitally in a format that updated as soon as the errata was live, I'd happily pay for that. They can still print the old style codexes with the fancy pictures and fluff for those who want an outdated copy of the rules for some reason.

The formatting that way is still worse than the actual book, plus now I'm paying for a book, toner and paper (and likely a binder to put them in, and either a hole punch or document protectors). Why add costs to my gaming that way when I can just buy an actual book?

I find paper copies better for quick reference, and they're more drop proof it knocked off a table when compared to a digital device. Plus no batteries required!

But that book is mostly paperweight because the rules and points are no longer valid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But that book is mostly paperweight because the rules and points are no longer valid.

Well if you don't like lore, art or pictures of well painted models it is less handy by that arguement. That said, Post it notes and a pen fix that just fine (or just the pen if you want to be sloppier about it). That is why I said the points pages should also be offered as a part of the erratas for codexes instead of being in a seperate book.

I don't believe there's been a FAQ for the Starstriders or Gellarpox yet

Why does everyone who is against ebook version of the codexs seem to think that print codexes would cease to exist?

 Billagio wrote:
Why does everyone who is against ebook version of the codexs seem to think that print codexes would cease to exist?

I don't think they'd cease to exist, I just don't like dealing with them.

That said, there are some who think the rules should go digital only (Kirioth on Youtube for example). And while he has decent arguements for it, I honestly have found digital rules too cumbersome in the end.

 deviantduck wrote:
The vast majority of people who buy GW rule books, and let's brace ourselves, don't nitpick the rules. I bet less than 1% go "Holy Terra! They said 'can' not 'may', we must stop the game dead in it's tracks."

I do in fact nitpick rules, but moreso to fix incorrect rules and interactions rather than to break the game for my own advantage. I want a fair and balanced game for my opponent and myself. Winning and losing doesent matter if the game was played correctly. But if I have to reconsider, research rules wording, and record errors due to bad calls, and misinterpretations after a game, I often wish I had brought more questions up during the game. I don't, because I care to move the game forward, and trust that my opponent actually knows how to play their own army.

If you intentionally go against RAI to one up your opponent, or purposely break the game by rules lawyering, I pass on playing you ever again.

Rules in codexes should be the way they did "Codex Titanicus" years back, hole punched for a binder - CA then the same, with replacement pages

It is a given that grammatical and spelling errors will creep into any large body of writing. That is sadly just down to human nature.

However, what is annoying is that GW can't seem to pin down what they want with the rules. We have seen 3 iterations of how deepstrike works in just over a year. Yes, they may miss things during playtesting, and may not have foreseen every eventually. That being said it does come across as a being a bit sloppy when the company in question has so many years experience of making games. The staff may change at an alarming speed, but they all have access to previous editions of work to learn from.

So, here are a few questions to consider.

How many GW staff are dedicated to FAQs, erratas and general questions?
How many hours go into writing, discussing and testing those answers?
How many hours go into testing each release?
How many hours go into Chapter Approved?
How many hours go into problem identification and resolution?
Etc etc.

The point is, all of the above, and all the other related aspects, cost money. A fair amount of money.

Now, let’s imagine you took the vast majority of the hours and money spent on the above and instead piled it into preventing the above being requirements.
In the long run, it makes the customers happy, GW itself happy, the rules writers less stressful, and everyone saves money.

Since 8th edition started there has been a total of
640 erratas
391 faqs
(THIS DOES NOT COUNT INSTANCES WHERE 1 ERRATA AFFECTS MORE THAN 1 DATASHEET – i.e.

Pages 160, 161 and 188 – Grenade harness Change the AP value to read ‘-1’.

)

Now, erratas, I’m ok with – generally.
However, 391 FAQ related answers, not including the hundreds more than I expect have been submitted, is somewhat of an eyebrow raiser. Yes, some of the FAQs are questionable in the first place and are cases of players just not reading things properly, or GW answering other non-questions, but, the fact that there are so many questions hints at an underlying issue somewhere with the documentation of rules and intentions.

Ideally, the amount of FAQs coming from each codex should be around 1-2 per codex. Not the current 11.17 per document.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
There will always be minor mistakes (key being minor, not Space Wolves levels of errors) and the potential of questionable interactions, but, there doesn’t seem to be a conscious decision to monitor and reduce these instances right now.
I would argue that the best codex written so far was the Blood Angels codex, with 4 erratas over time and only 1 required FAQ.

Not really, the vast majoraty of FAQ answers are either faceplm inducing stupidity to even ask, or obvious rule lawyer nitpicking to get around the very obvious intent of a rule that cased the need to write it down.
I think only about 5% of the actual FAQ questions are valid questions that needed to be asked-and in a game of this sacle of rule and layers of them, and the release speed, its very acceptable even if 20% of them were rational questions.

As for erratas, they are most improving upon the writing, fixing typos and/or other writing issues (copypasta mistakes and such), I find no issue with most of them either.


The FEW actual changes they made to the game are honestly not that many, and not that extreme. they tended to do it step-by-step and tried to make minor adjustments when possible and only going for bigger ones when stuff just didn't pan out.

Balance changes are done in a very small scale outside of CA and it's massive points sweep. just a CP here/there, and some supplement rules that are going through a few months of beta beforehand.

The number of REAL screwups is honestly lower than expected, and the fact they get fixed (and at times really quickly) is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

GW should sell sticky note versions of the erratas so you can place them over the page/section.

I'm surprised this has 5 pages. Every edition has had errors, the only difference now is that GW is willing to correct them and listen to their playerbase.

Unfortunately, there are always Players determined to make GW regret ever engaging with us.

 skchsan wrote:
GW should sell sticky note versions of the erratas so you can place them over the page/section.

certainly for the cards...

 skchsan wrote:
GW should sell sticky note versions of the erratas so you can place them over the page/section.

That just gives them incentive to intentionally write the rules wrong so they can nickle and dime you for errata.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
GW should sell sticky note versions of the erratas so you can place them over the page/section.

That just gives them incentive to intentionally write the rules wrong so they can nickle and dime you for errata.

Battlefront did stickies for one of their books, to be honest I much prefer that way, they also had the sheet as a free download for anyone who wanted to print it themselves (or just use as is)

My annoyance is the cards changing (both in text and CP) as they are harder to update - would be a good one for an issue of WD, have updated cards for those that change - and to stick "2018 update" on the boxes that have updated cards

 BoomWolf wrote:
Not really, the vast majoraty of FAQ answers are either faceplm inducing stupidity to even ask, or obvious rule lawyer nitpicking to get around the very obvious intent of a rule that cased the need to write it down.
I think only about 5% of the actual FAQ questions are valid questions that needed to be asked-and in a game of this sacle of rule and layers of them, and the release speed, its very acceptable even if 20% of them were rational questions.

As for erratas, they are most improving upon the writing, fixing typos and/or other writing issues (copypasta mistakes and such), I find no issue with most of them either.


The FEW actual changes they made to the game are honestly not that many, and not that extreme. they tended to do it step-by-step and tried to make minor adjustments when possible and only going for bigger ones when stuff just didn't pan out.

Balance changes are done in a very small scale outside of CA and it's massive points sweep. just a CP here/there, and some supplement rules that are going through a few months of beta beforehand.

The number of REAL screwups is honestly lower than expected, and the fact they get fixed (and at times really quickly) is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

Oh, i completely agree that 90% of the FAQs probably didn't need writing in the first place, but, due to the way they were written, and the fact that they didn't always take the "bigger picture" into account when writing the original rules, it has left openings for people to try certain things that would usually just be resolved with a pitying look and the word "really?".

However, in a fair amount of cases, you could argue that the "eye roll" interpretation has a valid case, because a lot of rules had/have a certain amount of ambiguity to them. So, my point still stands in a way - if GW did things with a bit more focus and thought initially, they'd save themselves so much time, money and stress with not having to deal with all the stupid questions like "can a unit that has more than 1 missile (that explicitly says can only fire 1 a turn) fire more than 1 a turn?"

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But that book is mostly paperweight because the rules and points are no longer valid.

Pull your head out of your arse, Codex Space Marines has 78 pages of rules (I've counted the rules pages so you don't have to) of that it has 2 pages of errata. even IF you conclude the entire points cost is invalide due t CA etc, and remove that you're still looking at a good 75 pages worth of rules, Paper weight my ass.,

What? You didn't know it was a shear job when you signed up?

Silly.

What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

Simple really – because GW expect the game to be played in a certain way, even if the rules are not clear, or even contradict that method of play. But, because of that expectation, they don’t always pick up on the instances of deviation until further down the line when it is played out in front of them.

I think of it as like a GW bubble that is a smaller bubble inside of a larger “casual play” bubble, which is itself, inside of an even larger “competitive play” bubble.

Almost like a, GW takes the core rules and their mindset, casual play takes the core rules, the sensible bits of the mindset and then includes their own (often) logical interpretations and required houserules, and then competitive, takes the core rules, logical interpretations, houserules and then throws in additional interactions not normally seen elsewhere and subsequent rules to address them due to it often being a RAW v RAI v Who Knows situation.

The problem however, is that we see the “casual play” bubble expand as the “competitive play” bubble expands, as there is often a link between the two (especially if you play in a very competitive meta/group), but, GWs bubble doesn’t seem to expand at the same rate, if it expands at all a lot of the time. This results in them being left behind, and is, in part, what drives a fair amount of the frustration at their supposed inability to keep a grasp on their game.

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an actual explanation of what the issue was exactly. Does anyone know? (Assuming the whole anecdote is not made up.)

 Crimson wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an actual explanation of what the issue was exactly. Does anyone know? (Assuming the whole anecdote is not made up.)

I think it was mostly around the whole "i have a jump pack and i'm 9" above you in terrain, so i have an automatic charge" thing.

That said, there were reports of him needing to clarify a LOT of things, but, i think that was more because they could use him as that resource, rather than it being needed.

 Crimson wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an actual explanation of what the issue was exactly. Does anyone know? (Assuming the whole anecdote is not made up.)

It wasn't made up, some of these interactions was captured on video streams.

The fly keyword charge was indeed one of them.

The targeting rules was another. The GW rules creator gave RAI which contradicted RAW and has now been fixed in FAQ2 (when declaring targets, you need to assign weapons with said targets).

Another was fighting through walls also captured on video stream.

DudleyGrim wrote:
TL;DR



Now having said all that: I WISH Deathmarks and Lychguard were actually troop choices =(

I don't. That mistake was dumb and I'm happy its corrected.
Now scarabs on the other hand, those should be troop choices, with a rule that says they don't get objective secured.

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

That's the most worrying thing for me. You can't have 100% error-free books with the amount of information and sheer number of rules involved in a Codex. It just won't happen. However, when GW are writing rules and not actually understanding the implications of those rules, that's a bigger problem, IMO. The Flying charge rule was very clear, not disputable according to the rules and not actually in dispute by anyone, AFAIK. The rules "worked", even if not in the way that was intended. To me, that's the biggest indicator that GW need to do a bit more outside playtesting and take the feedback seriously, even if they think it's just pedantic nitpicking.

Honestly my impression is that the GW rules writers are likely so in-tune with each other that there's a whole rafter of un-written rules and conventions that they play with which are just "common sense" to them which they never think to write down or define. You can see this very clearly with things like terrain and how casually it is detailed in the rules.

I think that this results in their internal testing being different and their writing not as comprehensive nor detailed as it could be; which results in things happening which they just don't foresee.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly my impression is that the GW rules writers are likely so in-tune with each other that there's a whole rafter of un-written rules and conventions that they play with which are just "common sense" to them which they never think to write down or define. You can see this very clearly with things like terrain and how casually it is detailed in the rules.

I think that this results in their internal testing being different and their writing not as comprehensive nor detailed as it could be; which results in things happening which they just don't foresee.

There's probably a little truth in that.

Reading the rules, I'm certain they are coming from a place of assuming some common sense on the part of the reader. That some things don't need explicit detailing, because that gets in the way of getting started and having fun playing a game with your friends.

Pretty much every boardgame I play has some rules interaction we find that can't be resolved purely from the rules. But that's never an issue, we agree on a way to handle it and carry on. I'm just used to tabletop games working that way.

Aye and that's how I feel GW is approaching their rules. The issue is that it relies heavily on the player scene and then players. Inexperienced players won't even know the conventions; experienced ones will know them, but it will vary a lot between different areas; whilst those in the middle will be left very unsure.

It's a situation ripe for abuse by accident or intention.

I'd welcome GW keeping the rules as is and then, in the same book, expanding upon them in more specific detail.

 Smirrors wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an actual explanation of what the issue was exactly. Does anyone know? (Assuming the whole anecdote is not made up.)

It wasn't made up, some of these interactions was captured on video streams.

The fly keyword charge was indeed one of them.

The targeting rules was another. The GW rules creator gave RAI which contradicted RAW and has now been fixed in FAQ2 (when declaring targets, you need to assign weapons with said targets).

Another was fighting through walls also captured on video stream.

How he could not know when the previous FAQ SPECIFICALLY told to do it so? Who wrote THAT entry then? Does the head rule designer not even go through FAQ then? Because if he had even read through that FAQ he should know that because the FAQ told to do it like that in the first place.

Would make sense if there hadn't been that previous FAQ. Then him being surprised makes sense. But when you have had one FAQ which specifically tells to do it like that how he can miss that one? Obviously he did not write that one then but not even checking completed FAQ? Wouldn't that much at least be part of head designers job describtion? At least go through if not write whole thing.

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But that book is mostly paperweight because the rules and points are no longer valid.

Pull your head out of your arse, Codex Space Marines has 78 pages of rules (I've counted the rules pages so you don't have to) of that it has 2 pages of errata. even IF you conclude the entire points cost is invalide due t CA etc, and remove that you're still looking at a good 75 pages worth of rules, Paper weight my ass.,

Well am sorry for your ass, because my GK codex is full of rules and it is a paper weight. Somehow when GW was making it, testing it and checking it rules, they decided it is an improvment on the index, which it was not, and a valid way to play the faction in 8th ed. And it wasn't like GK were breaking the game in 7th ed, at least from other people told me. So it can't be GW deciding to punish GK players for giving a NPE to all other w40k players.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Aye and that's how I feel GW is approaching their rules. The issue is that it relies heavily on the player scene and then players. Inexperienced players won't even know the conventions; experienced ones will know them, but it will vary a lot between different areas; whilst those in the middle will be left very unsure.

It's a situation ripe for abuse by accident or intention.

I'd welcome GW keeping the rules as is and then, in the same book, expanding upon them in more specific detail.

I read my codex a few times over last month, and I am a rather newish player, comparing to people that play w40k at my store since 2ed. And each time I read and compare my codex rules and costs, to what other books have, the whole thing seems to feel to me like a miss print. One can't build the validity of a game on the assumption, that if someothing is bad it is probablly and error and the players will fix it themselfs. How am I and my opponent suppose to fix the GK codex within the constrains of a 1 hour game? It is not possible. Ah and there is also the social part of it too. Two people who oppose each other have to ok something. People can't even accept the existance of opponents, much less given them even an inch of anything, and will go to great lenghts to make their opponents live as misserable as possible.

 Stux wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly my impression is that the GW rules writers are likely so in-tune with each other that there's a whole rafter of un-written rules and conventions that they play with which are just "common sense" to them which they never think to write down or define. You can see this very clearly with things like terrain and how casually it is detailed in the rules.

I think that this results in their internal testing being different and their writing not as comprehensive nor detailed as it could be; which results in things happening which they just don't foresee.

There's probably a little truth in that.

Reading the rules, I'm certain they are coming from a place of assuming some common sense on the part of the reader. That some things don't need explicit detailing, because that gets in the way of getting started and having fun playing a game with your friends.

Pretty much every boardgame I play has some rules interaction we find that can't be resolved purely from the rules. But that's never an issue, we agree on a way to handle it and carry on. I'm just used to tabletop games working that way.

Speaking as someone who spent nearly a decade working an offiice job: even if you assume that the person has no common sense and give them a paint by numbers way of dealing with things there will still be someone who won't get it or generally screw up something you spent hours making sure is as clear as humanly possible without standing in the room with them and holding their hand while they're doing it.

As soon as you believe something is idiot proof, an idiot will outsmart you.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
As soon as you believe something is idiot proof, an idiot will outsmart you.

Which is just further proof of the futility of wanting "error" free rules when any idiot with a keyboard can complain about how "confusing" the rules are because they don't understand things.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But that book is mostly paperweight because the rules and points are no longer valid.

Pull your head out of your arse, Codex Space Marines has 78 pages of rules (I've counted the rules pages so you don't have to) of that it has 2 pages of errata. even IF you conclude the entire points cost is invalide due t CA etc, and remove that you're still looking at a good 75 pages worth of rules, Paper weight my ass.,

Well am sorry for your ass, because my GK codex is full of rules and it is a paper weight. Somehow when GW was making it, testing it and checking it rules, they decided it is an improvment on the index, which it was not, and a valid way to play the faction in 8th ed. And it wasn't like GK were breaking the game in 7th ed, at least from other people told me. So it can't be GW deciding to punish GK players for giving a NPE to all other w40k players.

I think you misunderstood what was being said Karol. BCB was arguing that with FAQs and CA, a codex is largely a useless paperweight because everything in it is incorrect. I was pointing out that this isn't true because the errata/FAQ only covers a small fraction of the stuff in the codex. codex Grey Knights has even less errata having a grand total of 3 things errata'd. so if you go to a game with your Grey Knights, you're not going to be mostly relying on chapter approved and FAQs, like BCB seems to imply. you'll still need the codex. As someone with a grey knights army myself, I wish I was wrong here, GKs need some MAJOR Errata

 Crimson Devil wrote:
As soon as you believe something is idiot proof, an idiot will outsmart you.

100% truth.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
As soon as you believe something is idiot proof, an idiot will outsmart you.

I like how Douglas Adams put it:
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

Having a life? Maybe it's like a casual part time gig? Who knows.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

There are different errors in every book. It's not like they're constantly repeating the same exact error in every book.

Except the first few codexes where they forgot to limit the Relic stratagem to once per battle? Same error, different codexes. By your own logic, you agree with us.

I wouldn't call that a mistake as much as an errata as GW thought people would abuse it. For whatever reason of course as their thought process is insane.

I can't say I am overly shocked a rule designer saw the fact that his 'intent' of the rules was not playing out in a competitive setting as intended. People who participate in tourneys will most likely exploit any ambiguity they can in order to get an advantage.

I don't play in tourneys though so a degree of speculation on my part.

Bare in mind the rules writers are probably under strict delivery deadlines, much like my own job. You do as best you can in the time allotted.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

There are different errors in every book. It's not like they're constantly repeating the same exact error in every book.

Except the first few codexes where they forgot to limit the Relic stratagem to once per battle? Same error, different codexes. By your own logic, you agree with us.

I wouldn't call that a mistake as much as an errata as GW thought people would abuse it. For whatever reason of course as their thought process is insane.

I would not even call it an errata, its more of "ofcourse its like that moron!" statement.
It literally has a higher pricetag for using it to gain 2 relics, so using it multiple time is so painfully obvious not how its supposed to work that its like "the rules don't tell me I'm not allowed to fire ballistic missiles on the ball during a soccer match" level of avoiding the obvious.

I think people who are shocked about Cruddace being surprised at Nova forget that GW plays the game in a bubble where everyone already knows what is intended, while the rest of us are usually left guessing what is intended.

That said, I was watching Warp Charged Gaming's podcast thing last night and they had a screenshot from the Facebook team that saw RAW the Fly word was only supposed to work in the movement phase, so it's not like this is a new interpretation, just one that apparently got flipped in the last FAQ or the team felt it was worth allowing to play where you used it in every phase to see how it all susses out.

That said, I still feel like the problem would have been solved by making the fly unit charge every unit it passes over allowing for them to at least overwatch. I mean I get why they did this (to get at least 3 turns out of the game instead of 1-2), but I feel like making the characters make multiple charges instead of one would have been an effective way to solve it (allowing the unit you jump over to pile in on you if you're close enough and swing as well).

Kdash wrote:

The problem however, is that we see the “casual play” bubble expand as the “competitive play” bubble expands, as there is often a link between the two (especially if you play in a very competitive meta/group), but, GWs bubble doesn’t seem to expand at the same rate, if it expands at all a lot of the time. This results in them being left behind, and is, in part, what drives a fair amount of the frustration at their supposed inability to keep a grasp on their game.

I think you have the bubbles switched, out of the 100ish local players only 5 are what I would consider competitive and out of those only 1 really is. Gw does need to be a little more clear and concise with their rules. They really should have a 100% competition rules set and then have matched, narrative, & open. Matched doesnt always mean tournament level of "creative" and screw over the other guy lists.

Back on topic, GW is making great strides but still tripping over minutiae. All of the weird interactions, ridiculous combos, etc...are the unintended result of GW writing the rules like they play them(e.g. megacasual) and certain kinds of players exploiting loopholes.

BCB is just being themselves, outrage levied at anything to do with GW.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Kdash wrote:

The problem however, is that we see the “casual play” bubble expand as the “competitive play” bubble expands, as there is often a link between the two (especially if you play in a very competitive meta/group), but, GWs bubble doesn’t seem to expand at the same rate, if it expands at all a lot of the time. This results in them being left behind, and is, in part, what drives a fair amount of the frustration at their supposed inability to keep a grasp on their game.

I think you have the bubbles switched, out of the 100ish local players only 5 are what I would consider competitive and out of those only 1 really is. Gw does need to be a little more clear and concise with their rules. They really should have a 100% competition rules set and then have matched, narrative, & open. Matched doesnt always mean tournament level of "creative" and screw over the other guy lists.

Back on topic, GW is making great strides but still tripping over minutiae. All of the weird interactions, ridiculous combos, etc...are the unintended result of GW writing the rules like they play them(e.g. megacasual) and certain kinds of players exploiting loopholes.

BCB is just being themselves, outrage levied at anything to do with GW.

compeitive players are their own unique bubble that's for sure, and yeah BCB is mostly looking for excuses for drama. but at the same time, yeah there is some truth, that game designers can't catch all their errors because everyone around them useally develops an intuative understanding of how the game is to be played.

We also don't know how many problems GW caught before the books were published.

The Dakka bubble posits that after the rules designers wrote the rules on the back of a napkin, they finish their day counting huge stacks of money swindled from those poor exploited gamers.

Seriously, this place becomes more like Infowars every day.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
We also don't know how many problems GW caught before the books were published.

The Dakka bubble posits that after the rules designers wrote the rules on the back of a napkin, they finish their day counting huge stacks of money swindled from those poor exploited gamers.

Seriously, this place becomes more like Infowars every day.

The ad mech chemicals in the water are turning the rippers gay?

A rules designer not being 100% sure of every rule of the top of their head seems pretty normal to me tbh, even if it is a core rule and even if it was FAQ'd a few months prior. 40k has lots of rules and interactions.

Leading the team that writes the rules doesn't mean you can remember each and every rule word for word.

Plus of course what everyone has already said about the writers being so insync with each other that they have difficultly fathoming how a rule could be interpretted differently.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Kdash wrote:

The problem however, is that we see the “casual play” bubble expand as the “competitive play” bubble expands, as there is often a link between the two (especially if you play in a very competitive meta/group), but, GWs bubble doesn’t seem to expand at the same rate, if it expands at all a lot of the time. This results in them being left behind, and is, in part, what drives a fair amount of the frustration at their supposed inability to keep a grasp on their game.

I think you have the bubbles switched, out of the 100ish local players only 5 are what I would consider competitive and out of those only 1 really is. Gw does need to be a little more clear and concise with their rules. They really should have a 100% competition rules set and then have matched, narrative, & open. Matched doesnt always mean tournament level of "creative" and screw over the other guy lists.

Back on topic, GW is making great strides but still tripping over minutiae. All of the weird interactions, ridiculous combos, etc...are the unintended result of GW writing the rules like they play them(e.g. megacasual) and certain kinds of players exploiting loopholes.

BCB is just being themselves, outrage levied at anything to do with GW.

The bubble concept isn't about the amount of players, it's more about how the game is played.

For example, GW play a lot internally, they all understand the intent of the rules and play with (probably) the highest level of sportsmanship out of the 3 groups.
Casual players take the core rules, a chunk of the RAI, put more emphasis on RAW, but then also start introducing their own RAI interpretations and additional house rules. (so, in a way they are taking the GW "bubble" and expanding it with their own additions)
Competitive players (at events) take the common RAI interpretations set out by the casual bubble, mainly due to TOs making things simple and the more common an interpretation is, the more likely it is to be followed (not always correct though). Then, on top of that, they put even more emphasis on RAW, and further more, often use their own mission packs and rules (i.e. ETC restriction on FW and their own mission setups. ITC have a totally different mission set etc etc).

The reason why we have, sometimes, a massive discrepancy between GW and the competitive players is because of this expansion and general understanding. GW has a very fixed idea on how the game should be played and how interactions work - you can see this when they put so many points for their events into the "sportsmanship" bracket - with this determining the overall winner, as opposed to... well.. the overall winner game wise.

The issue is how to fix this.
A lot of it does sit with GW and their rules writing abilities. Noone is arguing that they don't make some really good rules and some absolutely shocking ones, but, until they close the loop on RAW and RAI and start to publish rules where all the RAI is clearly the exact same as RAW then the "bubbles" will always be there, and thus the disconnection. (besides, i don't know if everyone will agree with me... But... I've always thought that if you write something as a rule, then, you intend for the rule to be played that way? - in a perfect and logical world anyway. - otherwise, what is the point of writing the rule in the first place? If you write something and mean something else, why don't you just write what you mean to begin with?!?!!?!?)

you also have a big problem when its a small team writing and especially testing rules, they start to test what they wanted them to mean and perhaps not whats actually written.

bit like how its hard to get technicians to follow written instructions because after a while they go from memory, which is fine, except they forget bits and then the procedures change without them noticing

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
We also don't know how many problems GW caught before the books were published.

The Dakka bubble posits that after the rules designers wrote the rules on the back of a napkin, they finish their day counting huge stacks of money swindled from those poor exploited gamers.

Seriously, this place becomes more like Infowars every day.

The ad mech chemicals in the water are turning the rippers gay?

Legendary

They just need to hire people who understand proper templating i.e. WotC R&D / Development.

zerosignal wrote:
They just need to hire people who understand proper templating i.e. WotC R&D / Development.

To be fair, even WotC can't catch everything everytime and mistakes still occur. Not to mention occasionally something gets released that interacts with a card from nearly 20 years ago and breaks the game leading to them needing to ban parts of the combo to fix it.

GW doesn't ban things, but the same kind of thing happens here too: unintented things are unintended (and are being written/curated by a much smaller team on a smaller budget than what Hasbro gives WotC) and GW has to fix them, or clarify them to be better understood.

If anything GW needs to adopt WotC's judge system and create certified TOs who can get a stronger handle on what GW actually wants the game to be played as, and can directly feedback on things that are working in a way that breaks the game.

WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

Giving away whatever your business produces for free is, in fact, always the "consumer friendly thing".

Not much of a business left after you give your work away free, though. Good luck getting them to do this. ;-) Heck, even if they did you’d moan about the file format!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Oh look. BCB’s rant returns. Video games do this too. In fact, most companies have to, to varying degrees. Get over it.

Video games can roll out a patch that updates everything in a matter of seconds or minutes. I'm not aware of a similar system for a physical book. Considering these things cost $3 to print and sell for $50+, I would expect some degree of proof reading and balance testing beforehand. I shouldn't have to print errata for books that haven't even hit the shelf yet at my FLGS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

There are different errors in every book. It's not like they're constantly repeating the same exact error in every book.

Except the first few codexes where they forgot to limit the Relic stratagem to once per battle? Same error, different codexes. By your own logic, you agree with us.

I don't agree because that limit was only introduced to deal with players who were abusing RAW to circumvent RAI. Which is what most erratta are created for: to bring the game we play more in line with the game they intend for us to play.

If RAW and RAI are different things, the original RAW should have been written differently.

I can understand to some degree the RAW vs RAI difference. While I've never designed game rules, I have both academic and practical experience in legislative drafting and it can be harder than one assumes to write even a simple statute to cover something. You have to take into account almost every single word, how those words influence the others and then account that people are bias and are going to interpret it the way they would prefer to.

GW is sloppy a lot of the time, but a good bunch of RAW vs RAI are people being obtuse and actively trying to bent or break the rules.

The Bible has the same problem of RAW vs RAI.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The Bible has the same problem of RAW vs RAI.

RAW is RAI. It it was intended to be otherwise, there would be errata.

Maybe he's just slower than GW and still working on it.

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The Bible has the same problem of RAW vs RAI.

RAW is RAI. It it was intended to be otherwise, there would be errata.

Unless this is a sarcastic swipe at the OP, and I’ve missed the joke, I gotta point out that this blanket statement is incorrect.

RAW is very obviously intended to be RAI, but sometimes unintended rules interactions occur (eg stacking invulnerable saves) or someone could read and interpret a rule differently to its intent, possibly via omissions, loose wording or poor grammar choices in the original rule. Some of these mismatches to the writers’ intent have been patched by FAQs and Errata, some haven’t. This might be because they aren’t considered necessary, because they’ve been missed, because the interaction hasn’t made its way to the writers yet, because they missed a deadline, who knows... humans are human. Despite best efforts, RAW is not always RAI and FAQ and Errata are the proof of this. That not everything is patched as fast as some people like does not change that. Sorry to wellll ackshually you, but better to hash this out here than have this “RAW always = RAI” fallacy crop up in YMDC regularly. Not that it will stop one chap from getting more threads locked, but each to their own.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And it's worth noting that the games where WOTC DOES sell the rules as part of the busniess model they very much DO ask for 100 bucks before you can start playing. to play a game of D&D you need 3 books, the Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's guide, and Monster Manual (yes if you NEVER DM you can get away with JUST the PHB, but you can also get away with the free basic rules and the unit cards in your unit box when playing 40K, so let's not argue the "el cheapo" route) that comes out to 150 bucks.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The Bible has the same problem of RAW vs RAI.

In that book, I bet RAI there was no psychic phase.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

i could've sworn with CA rules with pts changes and Codices aswell as indices and ofcourse the rulebook they very much are a book selling company. It is also about their only reccuring Revenue they get, since f.e. A CSM player that allready has 50+ CSM is very unlikely to buy another bunch (except if the new ones look way better or finally get a proper upgrade sprue to also make Havocs out of them with all options in maximum quantity) . Same for Ork players really, why buy even more boyz when you allready have probably easily over 200 at home, (even i have 50 + boyz and i did run a Mek Warband) Basically they see they can milk and they will milk, except this time they pulled an EA and made a mandatory pts changing FAQ called CA and expected people to buy it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
The Bible has the same problem of RAW vs RAI.

RAW is RAI. It it was intended to be otherwise, there would be errata.

Unless this is a sarcastic swipe at the OP, and I’ve missed the joke, I gotta point out that this blanket statement is incorrect.

RAW is very obviously intended to be RAI, but sometimes unintended rules interactions occur (eg stacking invulnerable saves) or someone could read and interpret a rule differently to its intent, possibly via omissions, loose wording or poor grammar choices in the original rule. Some of these mismatches to the writers’ intent have been patched by FAQs and Errata, some haven’t. This might be because they aren’t considered necessary, because they’ve been missed, because the interaction hasn’t made its way to the writers yet, because they missed a deadline, who knows... humans are human. Despite best efforts, RAW is not always RAI and FAQ and Errata are the proof of this. That not everything is patched as fast as some people like does not change that. Sorry to wellll ackshually you, but better to hash this out here than have this “RAW always = RAI” fallacy crop up in YMDC regularly. Not that it will stop one chap from getting more threads locked, but each to their own.

It was meant to be a joke yes, sorry!

Making fun of the idea of the Bible and a rulebook for a miniatures game being held to the same standard :p

Ah phew! I was worried for a moment!

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

and as I said when you look at other companies that produce rule books to their standard, GW's actually not that bad,

Volo's guide to Monster's is D&D sourcebook, full colour, same grade of paper as codex space, Marines and with a roughly similer page count. Volo's guide to Monsters, costs about 65 dollars Canadian, Codex Space Marines about 60 bucks Canadian.

All told? that's pretty good considering I'd be willing to bet money that WOTC's runs of D&D books are considerably bigger then GW's codex runs.

If you want to see how much fun it would be reading an exact RAW rule book that was flaw less read a lengthy legal document. Among the reasons they read so badly is that they need Loop hole free. And any one who ever has read such a document will know it’s not easy to read or make sense of. Not only that the people who are writing them get a lot more than the GW staff per hour.

 Stux wrote:


Making fun of the idea of the Bible and a rulebook for a miniatures game being held to the same standard :p

I think the 8ed is in a better place. The Bible really does need an FAQ.

Andykp wrote:
If you want to see how much fun it would be reading an exact RAW rule book that was flaw less read a lengthy legal document. Among the reasons they read so badly is that they need Loop hole free. And any one who ever has read such a document will know it’s not easy to read or make sense of. Not only that the people who are writing them get a lot more than the GW staff per hour.

As an attorney, this so much. If the rule set was written like a contract was written, the game wouldn't work and the rule book would be even thicker than it was in 7th.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If you want to see how much fun it would be reading an exact RAW rule book that was flaw less read a lengthy legal document. Among the reasons they read so badly is that they need Loop hole free. And any one who ever has read such a document will know it’s not easy to read or make sense of. Not only that the people who are writing them get a lot more than the GW staff per hour.

As an attorney, this so much. If the rule set was written like a contract was written, the game wouldn't work and the rule book would be even thicker than it was in 7th.

Case in point: Magic: the Gathering.

Its comprehensive rulebook (Link) is written in a legalistic manner, intended to cover as much as possible. Even ignoring the glossary and the rules for different game types, multiplayer, specific keyword abilities and actions, and other oddities that should probably belong in faction-specific documents, the .docx file is 97 pages for the core rules. Before taking into account the official text of all the cards in the game and the various errata files and FAQs.

Now, MtG is a more technically complicated game than 40K, but I would be amazed if it was even possible to re-write the 8th edition ruleset in less than 40 pages in this style, before touching on game modes or faction-specific rules.

I pay for the books because they look nice, I enjoy reading them and having them... I like the lore, history, art work and the rules. I find them to be very good value...

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

Pretty much this. Unlike MtG, 40k can only sell veteran players a new set of rules and the occasional extra kit or two. Only new players really spend large amounts on models, once you start to plateau on those the only long term means of monetizing your participation is rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

Pretty much this. Unlike MtG, 40k can only sell veteran players a new set of rules and the occasional extra kit or two. Only new players really spend large amounts on models, once you start to plateau on those the only long term means of monetizing your participation is rules.

\
and as I said a better comparison once you reach that point is WOTC's D&D product, not MtG which is priced around the same price. (and yeah each D&D book ahs about a page or 2 of errata last I checked too)

Yeah Magic the Gathering's structure makes it a print-money type affair. Each new block is going to keep a large number of players in the game and require them to buy cards. This might be cards direct and thus direct sales; or they are buying specific cards off card resellers who are buying bulk boxes of cards so still generating Wizards money.

In addition they've got game formates like Booster Draft where you buy cards on the night and play a game with them.

The business model is totally different to what GW can even envision doing with their miniatures. GW can't have blister-draft; it can't re-release an entire army in such a way that all the old models are invalidated for game use*.

It's not just that the product type is different, the whole underlying mechanics and interaction are different. Furthermore 1 card for Wizards of the Coast is MUCH cheaper for them to develop than 1 model for GW. Wizards, art wise, only has to commission the artwork then run it through the standard printers - GW has to make an entire new metal mould (at a huge cost) ontop of paying staff to design a model, part it, design a sprue and all the rest.


*Well ok they could, but it would be the marketing disaster of the year likely to cause them not to bleed customers but rupture an artery and lost a flood of customers - not just those for that army but all the others who would expect it to become a new pattern and thus would jump ship

Well, GW *could* do a blister draft model, akin to the likes of Mage Knight or the various Wizkids game, but I don’t believe they’d ever go that route (the marine/terminator collection Japan thing are doing is somewhat similar, but it doesn’t have any rules/stats). It would also work more for a Kill Team sort of game, not 40K proper.

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, GW *could* do a blister draft model, akin to the likes of Mage Knight or the various Wizkids game, but I don’t believe they’d ever go that route (the marine/terminator collection Japan thing are doing is somewhat similar, but it doesn’t have any rules/stats). It would also work more for a Kill Team sort of game, not 40K proper.

they'd also need to dumb factioning down, because you know your average casual players army would consist of 2 tac marines, a dire avenger and A Tyranid Warrior.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, GW *could* do a blister draft model, akin to the likes of Mage Knight or the various Wizkids game, but I don’t believe they’d ever go that route (the marine/terminator collection Japan thing are doing is somewhat similar, but it doesn’t have any rules/stats). It would also work more for a Kill Team sort of game, not 40K proper.

they'd also need to dumb factioning down, because you know your average casual players army would consist of 2 tac marines, a dire avenger and A Tyranid Warrior.

That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (at least Tyranids would get allies that way ) and casuals can get away with that now anyways, but I have seen strong factioning rules in the likes of at least Wizkid’s Mechwarrior clix game (as best I remember, it was 10 years ago or so), so it can be done.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

Pretty much this. Unlike MtG, 40k can only sell veteran players a new set of rules and the occasional extra kit or two. Only new players really spend large amounts on models, once you start to plateau on those the only long term means of monetizing your participation is rules.

Wrong.
Any veteran player can start a new army and buy for hundreds of dollars of models and rules. I don't know anyone with all the factions of 40k collected. I have Imp Guard (two different armies) Space Marines, Inquisition... But still I went for the Elysian drop troops, hundreds of dollars. And I have many more armies of the Imperium to do. And that's only the Imperium. If GW released no model for the next 10 years, they would still earn money from me and from everyone else.
I would even say veteran players spend more, by buying FW, more stuff than they need (in order to do conversions, things like just collections, not just playing, sceneries (usually, new players are cheap on sceneries),...).

 Stormonu wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, GW *could* do a blister draft model, akin to the likes of Mage Knight or the various Wizkids game, but I don’t believe they’d ever go that route (the marine/terminator collection Japan thing are doing is somewhat similar, but it doesn’t have any rules/stats). It would also work more for a Kill Team sort of game, not 40K proper.

they'd also need to dumb factioning down, because you know your average casual players army would consist of 2 tac marines, a dire avenger and A Tyranid Warrior.

That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (at least Tyranids would get allies that way ) and casuals can get away with that now anyways, but I have seen strong factioning rules in the likes of at least Wizkid’s Mechwarrior clix game (as best I remember, it was 10 years ago or so), so it can be done.

the mechwarrior clix had rules for factions but IIRC it was more of a "if all your army is swordsworn you get X" but I dunno, Mechwarrior Dork Age wasn't something I was much intreasted in playing,

 godardc wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

Pretty much this. Unlike MtG, 40k can only sell veteran players a new set of rules and the occasional extra kit or two. Only new players really spend large amounts on models, once you start to plateau on those the only long term means of monetizing your participation is rules.

Wrong.
Any veteran player can start a new army and buy for hundreds of dollars of models and rules. I don't know anyone with all the factions of 40k collected. I have Imp Guard (two different armies) Space Marines, Inquisition... But still I went for the Elysian drop troops, hundreds of dollars. And I have many more armies of the Imperium to do. And that's only the Imperium. If GW released no model for the next 10 years, they would still earn money from me and from everyone else.
I would even say veteran players spend more, by buying FW, more stuff than they need (in order to do conversions, things like just collections, not just playing, sceneries (usually, new players are cheap on sceneries),...).

Define veteran. because i know people that have been in this hobby for an extremely long time and the most they do is double up on starter miniatures and maybe 1 hero type thing at most. but thats only one anecdote. really unless you do a significant economic study of all the sales for any game or even industry you wont really get a good picture.

in any case the reason mtg can continue to pump out sets like no ones business because they rotate out cards consistently. it keeps the meta freshish. its why many "veteran" mtg players end up jumping into modern vint or legacy to keep using their cards. and those have dumpster fire metas.

I've got several 40k armies, and I suspect it's a little more common now due to allies. it's easier to justify an army when it's "I think I'll snag some custodes to ally with my guard" followed by "hmm that was kinda fun, I think I'll snag some more... followed by a year later "........... CRIKEY! I've got 3000 points of custodes all by themselves!"

BrianDavion wrote:
I've got several 40k armies, and I suspect it's a little more common now due to allies. it's easier to justify an army when it's "I think I'll snag some custodes to ally with my guard" followed by "hmm that was kinda fun, I think I'll snag some more... followed by a year later "........... CRIKEY! I've got 3000 points of custodes all by themselves!"

You have a whole 2 models? I really wish the game would move to a D12 system. It makes no sense a Custodes hits the same amount of times as a Man In A Fancy Hat.

It makes perfect sense, if you understand that the game is an abstract way of showing how units may potentially act in relation to each other.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I've got several 40k armies, and I suspect it's a little more common now due to allies. it's easier to justify an army when it's "I think I'll snag some custodes to ally with my guard" followed by "hmm that was kinda fun, I think I'll snag some more... followed by a year later "........... CRIKEY! I've got 3000 points of custodes all by themselves!"

You have a whole 2 models? I really wish the game would move to a D12 system. It makes no sense a Custodes hits the same amount of times as a Man In A Fancy Hat.

now now custodes aren't quite THAT bad LOL.

and yeah it woulda been nice, if they where going to shift to a differant dice format 8th would have been the edition to do it. sadly D6 are really the only type of dice that are conveniant to throw enmasse. and 40K is all about throwing lots and lots and lots of dice