The "Master in Gravis Armour" apparently didn't get the memo and now has one less wound than Captains and Wolf Lords.
"Reiver Squad, Terror Troops" errata does not apply to Space Wolves, who do not have a "Reiver Squad" unit.
"Aggressors, Firestorm" errata doesn't apply to anything. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Deathwatch and Grey Knights do not have a "Aggressors" unit. Space Wolves, while having an "Aggressors" unit, do not have the ability "Firestorm" on the datasheet of said unit.
And those are just the technical errors. Immediate questions from taking 3 seconds to read the errata:
Does "Shock Assault" apply to Ragnar Blackmane or not? His datasheet has the "BEAST" keyword, but he himself does not, but the errata explicitly states "datasheets (excluding SERVITORS and BEASTS)" thus the entire datasheet doesn't get the Shock Assault rule.
What exactly does "exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule" mean? Already tons of arguments about it.
And the issues in the codex itself:
Ironclads STILL get the melee bonus after swapping one arm for a gun.
Codex: Space Marine stratagems can now be used on non-Codex: Space Marine units
Why does the Captain on Bike get brought in from the Index but none of the other Bike characters?
While I applaud GW in taking two steps forward (Fixing Smoke Launchers on the opponents turn, Fixing Stormraven+Centurion Sergeant issue, Fixing Chapter Tactics on Successors) they seem to have taken 3 steps back in their half-arsed and shoddy errata.
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Still a shoddy Job and especially when we regard mirror traits and ruleswritters coordination and communication.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.
Look if your really going to pendatic about things, then pretty much any gaming system other than chess is going to have issues. It's clear what GW intended with that entry and your essentially looking for things to complain about.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.
I'm sorry but yes it is, unless the person is a fething idiot or being deliberatly obtuse they know what it means.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.
I'm sorry but yes it is, unless the person is a fething idiot or being deliberatly obtuse they know what it means.
I disagree, and so do GW. Otherwise, why go though the trouble of all the extra wording in the Shadowspear book for SW units?
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.
I'm sorry but yes it is, unless the person is a fething idiot or being deliberatly obtuse they know what it means.
Regardless though, the amount of RAI shouldn't be as high as it is, especially as it wouldn't have taken them much more time to add that sentence, wouldn't you agree?
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.
I'm sorry but yes it is, unless the person is a fething idiot or being deliberatly obtuse they know what it means.
Regardless though, the amount of RAI shouldn't be as high as it is, especially as it wouldn't have taken them much more time to add that sentence, wouldn't you agree?
maybe, but the FAQ was pretty obviously a quick job put out as a tide over until the inevitable codex update. at the end of the day it boils down to "add this errata from codex space marines, and you have these new Primaris units"
ClockworkZion wrote: @BaconCatBug have you ever applied to be an editor at GW. Since you love nitpicking so much?
I'm of the opinion he applied to GW and was rejected. and ever since has been obsessive about pointing out every single error. "IF ONLY THEY HIRED ME THEN THEY WOULD HAVE AVOIDED IT"
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.
Yeah, because there is zillion things that they could have meant by "Reivers" and not, in fact, only one very specific unit, eh?
Just like turret guns are not turret guns, being within specified range is not being within specific range, ability being usable once per battle actually means once in your lifetime, etc etc etc
Codex: Space Marine stratagems can now be used on non-Codex: Space Marine units
That's not an error, that's comedy gold. I will now forever enjoy the thought of the Imperial Fists taking a Deathwatch allied Det, and using the stratagem to turn the Watch Captain into a Chapter Master with an ability that can't be chosen for Deathwatch (thus himself) but can for Imperial Fists.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.
Yeah, because there is zillion things that they could have meant by "Reivers" and not, in fact, only one very specific unit, eh?
Just like turret guns are not turret guns, being within specified range is not being within specific range, ability being usable once per battle actually means once in your lifetime, etc etc etc
wait, your telling me that everyone else has been reading it wrong? All this time...man GW sure needs to work on their stuff and hire BCB pronto.
The "Master in Gravis Armour" apparently didn't get the memo and now has one less wound than Captains and Wolf Lords.
"Reiver Squad, Terror Troops" errata does not apply to Space Wolves, who do not have a "Reiver Squad" unit.
"Aggressors, Firestorm" errata doesn't apply to anything. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Deathwatch and Grey Knights do not have a "Aggressors" unit. Space Wolves, while having an "Aggressors" unit, do not have the ability "Firestorm" on the datasheet of said unit.
And those are just the technical errors.
Immediate questions from taking 3 seconds to read the errata:
Does "Shock Assault" apply to Ragnar Blackmane or not? His datasheet has the "BEAST" keyword, but he himself does not, but the errata explicitly states "datasheets (excluding SERVITORS and BEASTS)" thus the entire datasheet doesn't get the Shock Assault rule.
What exactly does "exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule" mean? Already tons of arguments about it.
And the issues in the codex itself:
Ironclads STILL get the melee bonus after swapping one arm for a gun.
Codex: Space Marine stratagems can now be used on non-Codex: Space Marine units
Why does the Captain on Bike get brought in from the Index but none of the other Bike characters?
While I applaud GW in taking two steps forward (Fixing Smoke Launchers on the opponents turn, Fixing Stormraven+Centurion Sergeant issue, Fixing Chapter Tactics on Successors) they seem to have taken 3 steps back in their half-arsed and shoddy errata.
Yup. If said editors worked in most other fields their employment would have been terminated very quickly.
All of the Chapter Masters in the update PDF have the wrong Chapter Master ability. They need to be updated to have the ability as given by the Chapter Master Stratagem, not have the old ability from the old Codex.
GW would never hire BCB, because they recruit for attitude/enthusiasm, not skill/ability/competence. Basically, if you're not a slavering fanboy, dont even bother applying.
This, as they say, works out about as well as you would imagine.
To drop the snark for a moment, that hiring policy obviously does work out OK on the retail side of the business, and on the purely creative side (art, miniature design, etc.). It falls down on the rules writing and editing side, because those are roles that really would benefit from a greater emphasis on competence over enthusiasm. It continues to astonish me that GW don't employ a single trained technical writer in their rules team. But that's apparently what they 'want'. They're a miniatures company that vomits out rulesets occasionally to give people an excuse/incentive to buy more miniatures. They're not primarily a game/ruleset producing company. As a company, they don't really 'care' about the quality of the rules. Obviously the people actually writing the rules care, but they're not competent enough to do any better at it because they're mostly ascended fanboys, not really professional designers/writers. Any who turn out to actually be good at it (Priestley, Chambers, etc.) tend to eventually go off and work for more 'professional' game design companies, where the game design is the focus, not miniatures sales.
In fairness it's easier to teach skill sets then additude. doesn't mean GW'd not benifit from a better writer team (that said I've not once seen a table top game without some errata) but wanting folks with a positive additude first and foremost is something I can understand. Someone with no passion who considers writing for the game "just another job" would be a problem as well
BrianDavion wrote: In fairness it's easier to teach skill sets then additude. doesn't mean GW'd not benifit from a better writer team (that said I've not once seen a table top game without some errata) but wanting folks with a positive additude first and foremost is something I can understand. Someone with no passion who considers writing for the game "just another job" would be a problem as well
Its not just tabletops. Look at all the games with online versus play that get updates. A software patch is just an errata in code. And its frequently used because people take a rule that was written to be used one way and used it in another way that "breaks" the game.
To be fair, while BCB may have a penchant for picking on the most minuscule of irregularities, I don't think it would be a bad thing if Games-Workshop had someone with the same mindset. I mean, attention to detail can only result in good quality, right? Now while I don't fall on the side of "Games-Workshop's rules are an unmitigated disaster," I also don't agree that, "there're a couple of issues, but they're otherwise fine." For me, something more like, "there seem to be a lot of recurring and sometimes obvious issues, that Games-Workshop really ought to be able to correct, pre-publication, by investing in a solid quality assurance team," describes the issue as I see it. I mean, so long as Games-Workshop are charging the premium that they are, it's only fair to expect a premium product in return, and I don't think anyone can say that these books are of a premium quality and mean it.
The one that really turned my thinking on this was when Codex: Chaos Space Marines was published with the same issues that had been addressed in earlier FAQs. This highlights to me, that there was literally no quality assurance on that book, and for the prices they charge, that's unforgivable. Of course, since then, rather than getting worked up on a forum - and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular - I just made the conscious decision not to buy them. That's not to say I don't have the books I need, I just pay what I think they're worth, and right now, I feel like the money I've paid over the past two years has me covered for the next half a dozen or so of the books I'll be needing, at least until there's either a dramatic drop in cost, or a dramatic rise in quality.
And I'd actually like to encourage everyone to do the same. I mean, if you can take a moment to internalize, and ask yourself, "Is the quality of this book really worth the money it cost me?" and and truly answer yes, then there's no issue. But if you don't feel the quality is up to scratch, then you really shouldn't keep spending that money, as surely this is the one way to guarantee that nothing will change.
BrianDavion wrote:In fairness it's easier to teach skill sets then additude.
Yeah, and on the retail side of the business this works great. Because effective salesmanship is ~90% having a contagiously enthusiastic attitude towards the product. It doesn't work for the rules writing side, because writing a clear and concise ruleset is mostly a combination of technical skill, natural aptitude and experience. It's no place for enthusiastic amateurs.
Breton wrote:A software patch is just an errata in code. And its frequently used because people take a rule that was written to be used one way and used it in another way that "breaks" the game.
I don't think many people have a problem with GW issuing patches for balance purposes or to fix corner cases that couldn't reasonably be foreseen. This thread isn't about those sorts of things. A more appropriate software analogy would be glaring coding mistakes that make the software glitch or crash. Rules that just plain don't work as written and have to be creatively reinterpreted. All the issues in BCB's OP should have been caught by even a cursory proofreading / QC process.
Ginjitzu wrote:For me, something more like, "there seem to be a lot of recurring and sometimes obvious issues, that Games-Workshop really ought to be able to correct, pre-publication, by investing in a solid quality assurance team," describes the issue as I see it.
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
in an age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game you NEED to pick hairs.
yes WE know what it means and can apply common sense.
but we all know there are allot of players out there who are complete and utter...Anchors.
Duskweaver wrote: GW would never hire BCB, because they recruit for attitude/enthusiasm, not skill/ability/competence. Basically, if you're not a slavering fanboy, dont even bother applying.
This, as they say, works out about as well as you would imagine.
To drop the snark for a moment, that hiring policy obviously does work out OK on the retail side of the business, and on the purely creative side (art, miniature design, etc.). It falls down on the rules writing and editing side, because those are roles that really would benefit from a greater emphasis on competence over enthusiasm. It continues to astonish me that GW don't employ a single trained technical writer in their rules team. But that's apparently what they 'want'. They're a miniatures company that vomits out rulesets occasionally to give people an excuse/incentive to buy more miniatures. They're not primarily a game/ruleset producing company. As a company, they don't really 'care' about the quality of the rules. Obviously the people actually writing the rules care, but they're not competent enough to do any better at it because they're mostly ascended fanboys, not really professional designers/writers. Any who turn out to actually be good at it (Priestley, Chambers, etc.) tend to eventually go off and work for more 'professional' game design companies, where the game design is the focus, not miniatures sales.
(Full disclosure: I used to work for GW.)
Is it really that bad? There's bound to be some sort of professional standard, right? You'd think there would be a bit of discussion over design elements and whatever.
Duskweaver wrote: GW would never hire BCB, because they recruit for attitude/enthusiasm, not skill/ability/competence. Basically, if you're not a slavering fanboy, dont even bother applying.
This, as they say, works out about as well as you would imagine.
To drop the snark for a moment, that hiring policy obviously does work out OK on the retail side of the business, and on the purely creative side (art, miniature design, etc.). It falls down on the rules writing and editing side, because those are roles that really would benefit from a greater emphasis on competence over enthusiasm. It continues to astonish me that GW don't employ a single trained technical writer in their rules team. But that's apparently what they 'want'. They're a miniatures company that vomits out rulesets occasionally to give people an excuse/incentive to buy more miniatures. They're not primarily a game/ruleset producing company. As a company, they don't really 'care' about the quality of the rules. Obviously the people actually writing the rules care, but they're not competent enough to do any better at it because they're mostly ascended fanboys, not really professional designers/writers. Any who turn out to actually be good at it (Priestley, Chambers, etc.) tend to eventually go off and work for more 'professional' game design companies, where the game design is the focus, not miniatures sales.
(Full disclosure: I used to work for GW.)
I mean, hiring someone who is just a technically-minded person and isn't a slavering fanboy is one thing, but hiring someone who is an extremely vocal critic of the corporation online is another, and I would never blame a company who viewed hiring a person like that as a ticking PR time bomb.
You never want to envision a situation where someone says something mean about a bit of rules editing online and someone not PR-facing logs on to go full keyboard warrior on them.
You seem surprised. Every single fething thing they print has glaring errors and even the errata needs errata. It's beyond ridiculous at this point and yet most people don't care.
My favorite intended feature of the errata was not even allowing the much weaker one-parter chapter tactics of the successors to apply to vehicles.
Oh noooo, a blood angel tank might get +1 to wound when it charges! A thousand sons land raider might get +6" range to its psychic powers! That would be OP!
Wayniac wrote: You seem surprised. Every single fething thing they print has glaring errors and even the errata needs errata. It's beyond ridiculous at this point and yet most people don't care.
He's not surprised, having GW make errors is what gives BCB life. He thrives based on their mistakes.
Wayniac wrote: You seem surprised. Every single fething thing they print has glaring errors and even the errata needs errata. It's beyond ridiculous at this point and yet most people don't care.
He's not surprised, having GW make errors is what gives BCB life. He thrives based on their mistakes.
He takes it extreme but he's not wrong. It continually amzes me how peole are willing to put up with grossly inferior proofreading and book quality from GW. Any other company would be raked over the coals for it and told to get their gak in order, but it's somehow okay for GW to do it and nobody cares because "muh pretty models".
Duskweaver wrote: GW would never hire BCB, because they recruit for attitude/enthusiasm, not skill/ability/competence. Basically, if you're not a slavering fanboy, dont even bother applying.
This, as they say, works out about as well as you would imagine.
To drop the snark for a moment, that hiring policy obviously does work out OK on the retail side of the business, and on the purely creative side (art, miniature design, etc.). It falls down on the rules writing and editing side, because those are roles that really would benefit from a greater emphasis on competence over enthusiasm. It continues to astonish me that GW don't employ a single trained technical writer in their rules team. But that's apparently what they 'want'. They're a miniatures company that vomits out rulesets occasionally to give people an excuse/incentive to buy more miniatures. They're not primarily a game/ruleset producing company. As a company, they don't really 'care' about the quality of the rules. Obviously the people actually writing the rules care, but they're not competent enough to do any better at it because they're mostly ascended fanboys, not really professional designers/writers. Any who turn out to actually be good at it (Priestley, Chambers, etc.) tend to eventually go off and work for more 'professional' game design companies, where the game design is the focus, not miniatures sales.
(Full disclosure: I used to work for GW.)
Makes sense. Who are some examples of ascended fanboys that work for GW? The only one I'm familiar with is Laurie Goulding but he's Black Library. But I assume this hiring practice extends to all GW divisions?
Nothing new really, i think GW will try to unify most of the chapters, but having to buy 2 super expensive books to play your army is not good design.
I guess they were to busy to make SMOP without breaking the game and did not work on the small details. I hope i`m wrong but it looks that SM will be worst than Ynnari.
Congrats to our cat, again finding mistakes in GW documents.
the_scotsman wrote: My favorite intended feature of the errata was not even allowing the much weaker one-parter chapter tactics of the successors to apply to vehicles.
Oh noooo, a blood angel tank might get +1 to wound when it charges! A thousand sons land raider might get +6" range to its psychic powers! That would be OP!
The problem isn't that weak tactics wouldn't do much. It's that the stronger ones would become the only ones people play (e.g. probably Scourged or Alpha Legion).
the_scotsman wrote: My favorite intended feature of the errata was not even allowing the much weaker one-parter chapter tactics of the successors to apply to vehicles.
Oh noooo, a blood angel tank might get +1 to wound when it charges! A thousand sons land raider might get +6" range to its psychic powers! That would be OP!
An unedited version of Alpha Legion Tactics on vehicles would be pretty harsh. So it could be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Reemule wrote: Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:
Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.
You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.
Let's say I go to the restaurant with my friend. That friend orders a steak rare and many times it comes medium rare. He complains and sends the food back. I think he should just eat the steak or just not order it any more.
The comments you see are poorly vented frustration with someone who complains about everything. We get it. gak happens. Everyone else can make do. Until people stop buying the books the process at GW won't change and people won't stop buying books, because at the end of the day it's still usable and not that big of a deal.
People saying that RAI is obvious should remember that "UNIT" and "unit" are two completely different things. The Killshot stratagem only works with the normal predators and not with baal predators. Same with the whirlwind one. If I remember correctly any Landspeeder works for the spotting but only the normal Whirlwind works. Not obvious the first time you read it that it only affects certain units even if there are other units that have mostly the same name. Small details like that matters in this edition so GW shouldn't be forgiven for such mistakes.
I find these threads quite useful, they're not something you should try to do yourself, but if you play someone who tries to RAW things out it's quite important to know the rules in depth like this.
GW's rules team need to be more careful. They can't catch everything, but they need some sort of consistency, especially in errata.
Do changes to 'Drop Pod Assault' affect FW drop pods, if so, do they affect CSM drop pods? The errata specifically addresses the Codex drop pod and arguably only the Codex drop pod. Nothing like a tactical wargame to bring people to the pedantry exercise.
Reemule wrote: Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:
Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.
You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.
Let's say I go to the restaurant with my friend. That friend orders a steak rare and many times it comes medium rare. He complains and sends the food back. I think he should just eat the steak or just not order it any more.
The comments you see are poorly vented frustration with someone who complains about everything. We get it. gak happens. Everyone else can make do. Until people stop buying the books the process at GW won't change and people won't stop buying books, because at the end of the day it's still usable and not that big of a deal.
He complained in a thread clearly labeled. No one came to this thread by mistake. Its not the restaurant analogy. If it was, it wouldn't be you just happened to eat at a place and he whined about the Steak, it would be you went to that place, and eagerly waited for him to get a steak he didn't order, and then gleefully said, HA, don't come here anymore, you dumbass!
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If you can't make out which unit is meant with Reiver Squad or Aggressors I'm not sure the incompetence is on GWs side.
Kind of agree. This is a game meant for nerds to have fun with toy soldiers. GW is a models company and put that first.
The rules are more like Saturday morning cartoons like Transformers and TMNT: basically 22min commercials for the toys. They did not have the best plots of most coherent story lines AT ALL, but they did their job at selling toys to kids. Treat the rules like this, use "common sense", roll some dice or move on
Reemule wrote: Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:
Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.
You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.
Let's say I go to the restaurant with my friend. That friend orders a steak rare and many times it comes medium rare. He complains and sends the food back. I think he should just eat the steak or just not order it any more.
The comments you see are poorly vented frustration with someone who complains about everything. We get it. gak happens. Everyone else can make do. Until people stop buying the books the process at GW won't change and people won't stop buying books, because at the end of the day it's still usable and not that big of a deal.
He complained in a thread clearly labeled. No one came to this thread by mistake. Its not the restaurant analogy. If it was, it wouldn't be you just happened to eat at a place and he whined about the Steak, it would be you went to that place, and eagerly waited for him to get a steak he didn't order, and then gleefully said, HA, don't come here anymore, you dumbass!
These threads make me roll my eyes, but I don't care to legislate what BCB does with his time. People are entitled to their opinions and they must accept the criticisms that might follow - provided nothing breaks forum rules.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If you can't make out which unit is meant with Reiver Squad or Aggressors I'm not sure the incompetence is on GWs side.
Kind of agree. This is a game meant for nerds to have fun with toy soldiers. GW is a models company and put that first.
The rules are more like Saturday morning cartoons like Transformers and TMNT: basically 22min commercials for the toys. They did not have the best plots of most coherent story lines AT ALL, but they did their job at selling toys to kids.
Treat the rules like this, use "common sense", roll some dice or move on
-
This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.
GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better
There's a difference between being lazy and being overworked with crazy project timelines and poor management and resources. GW COULD throw money at the problem, but WHY would they? They're already dedicating resources to FAQ and errata as needed.
and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing!
You are missing the point. GW is not being lazy. They just have different priorities than what you think they SHOULD have. They could absolutely make a tight coherent ruleset with little to no errors.
How could they not? It's easy if that was the goal, but it's clearly not their goal. So why get upset about it and call them incompetent?
The rules function well enough with even the slightest bit on common sense applied and GWs sales have never been higher. That's a win for everyone.
Despite the fast paced release schedule I think we can safely say the current 40k rules are the tightest they've been in a very long time and the only way they could get tighter is slowing the release schedule way back down (and act no one sees happening since GW is making money hand over fist with this model) or by hiring a larger design team (which could lead to some serious bloat issues within the development team).
I do believe 40k needs to steal the idea of having a single standardization document on rules verbage from their AoS team, but that's a minor thing in the grand scheme of things and could be implemented whenever we end up in the next edition (where they hopefully nick the way initiative and command points work too).
Galef wrote: You are missing the point. GW is not being lazy. They just have different priorities than what you think they SHOULD have. They could absolutely make a tight coherent ruleset with little to no errors.
How could they not? It's easy if that was the goal, but it's clearly not their goal. So why get upset about it and call them incompetent?
The rules function well enough with even the slightest bit on common sense applied and GWs sales have never been higher. That's a win for everyone.
-
Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.
Reemule wrote: Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:
Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.
You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.
BCB will probably reply with "you're"
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the man in question does not know the difference between less and fewer; as evidenced by the very first sentence ITT.
I'm not trying to, I fully acknowledge that the "product" isn't perfect, but it's hardly as bad or "inexcusable" as you're making it out to be. I'm just trying to get some people to stop taking that so seriously, use common sense to "fix" the error yourself and get back to having fun.
Reemule wrote: Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:
Ask them to leave. Make a personal attack.
You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.
BCB will probably reply with "you're"
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the man in question does not know the difference between less and fewer; as evidenced by the very first sentence ITT.
Guess what, I am not paid to write forum posts, and I don't charge you for them. Once I start charging you £50 per post, then you get to complain.
A typo in a internet forum post made at 10pm after 5 seconds of work is not comparable to a professionally made book.
Reemule wrote: Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:
Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.
You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.
Let's say I go to the restaurant with my friend. That friend orders a steak rare and many times it comes medium rare. He complains and sends the food back. I think he should just eat the steak or just not order it any more.
The comments you see are poorly vented frustration with someone who complains about everything. We get it. gak happens. Everyone else can make do. Until people stop buying the books the process at GW won't change and people won't stop buying books, because at the end of the day it's still usable and not that big of a deal.
You missed a bit; in this example, the friend would have to actually be a vegetarian (or some other equivalent that abstains from eating meat), yet still order the steak like this. That would be a more accurate analogy. Because BCB doesn’t play. He only cries about how bad GW are. Some of us are into GW for painting, some for lore, some for the game. BCB is in it to complain.
And no, that isn’t a personal attack; that is factual evidence, provided in [almost] every thread he starts/responds to. I had other words I WANTED to use, but the nature of said words would fall under “personal attack”. So I toned them down.
Reemule wrote: Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:
Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.
You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.
BCB will probably reply with "you're"
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the man in question does not know the difference between less and fewer; as evidenced by the very first sentence ITT.
Guess what, I am not paid to write forum posts, and I don't charge you for them. Once I start charging you £50 per post, then you get to complain.
A typo in a internet forum post made at 10pm after 5 seconds of work is not comparable to a professionally made book.
Reemule wrote: Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:
Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.
You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.
BCB will probably reply with "you're"
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the man in question does not know the difference between less and fewer; as evidenced by the very first sentence ITT.
Guess what, I am not paid to write forum posts, and I don't charge you for them. Once I start charging you £50 per post, then you get to complain.
A typo in a internet forum post made at 10pm after 5 seconds of work is not comparable to a professionally made book.
True, but by the same token any book of reasonable length contains typos. Even ones published by people who have copy checkers on staff.
When I was taking college courses my $300+USD textbooks had typos and grammatical errors. When I was in the US Army, the official DoD and DA documents/regulations we dealt with had errors as well (the old APFT manual said the uniform included knee high socks to prevent shin splints while running. Not compression socks, regular tube socks. Yeah.).
Basically no document is ever perfect, and this nonconstructive criticism is almost never helpful.
Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.
Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!
Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.
Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!
The difference is those companies fix the issues. It's been over 2 years and the Assault weapons issue hasn't been fixed.
Stux wrote: True, but by the same token any book of reasonable length contains typos. Even ones published by people who have copy checkers on staff.
Do they? I have plenty of books on my self which I've never noticed either typos or glaring errors in.
Sure there might be a typo hidden away in them somewhere, but to suggest that that is comparable to the rules sections of GW's books (which are actually reasonably short) having multiple obvious errors is disingenuous at best.
GW's publications - be it Codexes, White Dwarf, or Black Library have a grossly disproportionate number of errors and simple typos compared to just about anything else I read; perhaps only beaten by Amazon print-on-demand books.
ClockworkZion wrote: When I was taking college courses my $300+USD textbooks had typos and grammatical errors. When I was in the US Army, the official DoD and DA documents/regulations we dealt with had errors as well (the old APFT manual said the uniform included knee high socks to prevent shin splints while running. Not compression socks, regular tube socks. Yeah.).
Basically no document is ever perfect, and this nonconstructive criticism is almost never helpful.
Of course, errors happen, that is inevitable. But errors in 100% of the books you produce?
Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.
Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!
The difference is those companies fix the issues. It's been over 2 years and the Assault weapons issue hasn't been fixed.
It doesn't really need to be though. It's clear to anyone how that rule is supposed to work. It's only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue. Which means there is no issue.
Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.
Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!
The difference is those companies fix the issues. It's been over 2 years and the Assault weapons issue hasn't been fixed.
ClockworkZion wrote: When I was taking college courses my $300+USD textbooks had typos and grammatical errors. When I was in the US Army, the official DoD and DA documents/regulations we dealt with had errors as well (the old APFT manual said the uniform included knee high socks to prevent shin splints while running. Not compression socks, regular tube socks. Yeah.).
Basically no document is ever perfect, and this nonconstructive criticism is almost never helpful.
Of course, errors happen, that is inevitable. But errors in 100% of the books you produce?
100% of the books I've seen have had some kind of errors in them, regardless if GW made them or not and I read a fair bit. To err is human. So unless you're some kind of perfect AI from the future of a filthy xenos who has transcended language errors then you're only calling the kettle black.
Stux wrote: It doesn't really need to be though. It's clear to anyone how that rule is supposed to work. It's only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue. Which means there is no issue.
So why fix the "Must fire single use weapons the first time you fire" issue? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."
Why fix the Aerial Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."
Stux wrote: It doesn't really need to be though. It's clear to anyone how that rule is supposed to work. It's only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue. Which means there is no issue.
So why fix the "Must fire single use weapons the first time you fire" issue? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."
Why fix the Ariel Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."
Yeah, you're right. They didn't need to bother with those either, good catch.
ClockworkZion wrote: 100% of the books I've seen have had some kind of errors in them, regardless if GW made them or not and I read a fair bit. To err is human. So unless you're some kind of perfect AI from the future of a filthy xenos who has transcended language errors then you're only calling the kettle black.
I've played wargames with much more complex rules than 40K, written by much smaller teams (or one person), without nearly the degree of typos, misprints, and general ambiguity that 40K endemically seems to have.
Some errors are to be expected and I don't think anyone realistically expects a 100% perfect book. But when GW can't even put out a short errata without these kinds of issues, that's beyond 'typos are inevitable'.
ClockworkZion wrote: 100% of the books I've seen have had some kind of errors in them, regardless if GW made them or not and I read a fair bit. To err is human. So unless you're some kind of perfect AI from the future of a filthy xenos who has transcended language errors then you're only calling the kettle black.
I've played wargames with much more complex rules than 40K, written by much smaller teams (or one person), without nearly the degree of typos, misprints, and general ambiguity that 40K endemically seems to have.
Some errors are to be expected and I don't think anyone realistically expects a 100% perfect book. But when GW can't even put out a short errata without these kinds of issues, that's beyond 'typos are inevitable'.
Indeed. GW are the only games company I know that need to issue errata for their errata. Emergency errata no less.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If you can't make out which unit is meant with Reiver Squad or Aggressors I'm not sure the incompetence is on GWs side.
Kind of agree. This is a game meant for nerds to have fun with toy soldiers. GW is a models company and put that first.
The rules are more like Saturday morning cartoons like Transformers and TMNT: basically 22min commercials for the toys. They did not have the best plots of most coherent story lines AT ALL, but they did their job at selling toys to kids.
Treat the rules like this, use "common sense", roll some dice or move on
Not so common, unfortunately.
-
This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
BCB not playing the game they are so vehemently attacking is one of the weirdest situations. I'd be willing to bet that if all of the "problems"(theirs or GW) were fixed their(BCB) head would explode.
This really seems to be a problem with how people approach the game. GW does not play the game to screw over the other player or to wipe the floor with them. GW seems to play to have fun(subjective), if their idea of fun doesn't line up with how you(BCB doesn't) play then the only rational solution is to stop.
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
huh, thats strange, i follow the rules and the game never broke for me, guess i've been lucky. Let me ask people at my LGS if they had issues.... nope, none of them had a game break because of the ruleset. Its almost as if the rules were easily understandable for normal people. Maybe for a robot parsing them like assembly they would break, good things us humans have critical thinking.
Also, lets not forget that GW considers itself a hobby/miniature maker before a game maker. Clearly they chose willignly to allocate more resources to modeling than to the rules for a reason.
Could the rules be written better? no doubt about it. Do they need to to have a functionnal game? absolutely not. Posting how Gw is a bunch of lazy/incompetent people like you do everytime they release something is completely useless. you could easily just point out that x,y,z are poorly written without the need to attack GW and come out as a dick.
I mean, theres a reason most of your posts get locked....
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?
-
Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
huh, thats strange, i follow the rules and the game never broke for me, guess i've been lucky. Let me ask people at my LGS if they had issues.... nope, none of them had a game break because of the ruleset. Its almost as if the rules were easily understandable for normal people. Maybe for a robot parsing them like assembly they would break, good things us humans have critical thinking.
Also, lets not forget that GW considers itself a hobby/miniature maker before a game maker. Clearly they chose willignly to allocate more resources to modeling than to the rules for a reason.
Could the rules be written better? no doubt about it. Do they need to to have a functionnal game? absolutely not. Posting how Gw is a bunch of lazy/incompetent people like you do everytime they release something is completely useless. you could easily just point out that x,y,z are poorly written without the need to attack GW and come out as a dick.
I mean, theres a reason most of your posts get locked....
It sounds to me like you've house ruled a lot of things.
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?
-
Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?
Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.
Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.
Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!
This just really is a bad analogy. Really bad. As somebody's pointed out in another thread like this (we do go around in circles, don't we?), a lot of the errors BCB points to are the equivalent of compiler errors -- that is, fundamentally, you have conflicting rules from GW that require a 4+ if you have 2 people who really can't agree (and I think, as we've seen on YMDC, that really can happen in the real world, not just in the dakkasphere). I think that if one of those companies sold millions of dollars of software to another business and the code didn't compile, there'd be litigation. That division of the business probably wouldn't buy from Microsoft for at least 5 years. Yes, there are bugs in the code. But yes, those companies actually hire technical writers and editors to evaluate the documentation; ya'know, the very thing others in this thread are asking GW to do. I'm sure that people like Cruddace operate under crazy deadlines. But a company with a 27% net profit margin can pay some technical writing guy 30k quid to fix this problem, and shut us over here at Dakka up. That's not anything but cheapness on GW's part.
Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.
Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!
This just really is a bad analogy. Really bad. As somebody's pointed out in another thread like this (we do go around in circles, don't we?), a lot of the errors BCB points to are the equivalent of compiler errors -- that is, fundamentally, you have conflicting rules from GW that require a 4+ if you have 2 people who really can't agree (and I think, as we've seen on YMDC, that really can happen in the real world, not just in the dakkasphere). I think that if one of those companies sold millions of dollars of software to another business and the code didn't compile, there'd be litigation. That division of the business probably wouldn't buy from Microsoft for at least 5 years. Yes, there are bugs in the code. But yes, those companies actually hire technical writers and editors to evaluate the documentation; ya'know, the very thing others in this thread are asking GW to do. I'm sure that people like Cruddace operate under crazy deadlines. But a company with a 27% net profit margin can pay some technical writing guy 30k quid to fix this problem, and shut us over here at Dakka up. That's not anything but cheapness on GW's part.
on the contrary, its a suberb analogy. Isnt the game playable? So it does compile, only when you start digging in specific operation you find some calculation errors, thats closer to what happens in 40k's ruleset.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If you can't make out which unit is meant with Reiver Squad or Aggressors I'm not sure the incompetence is on GWs side.
Kind of agree. This is a game meant for nerds to have fun with toy soldiers. GW is a models company and put that first.
The rules are more like Saturday morning cartoons like Transformers and TMNT: basically 22min commercials for the toys. They did not have the best plots of most coherent story lines AT ALL, but they did their job at selling toys to kids.
Treat the rules like this, use "common sense", roll some dice or move on
Not so common, unfortunately.
-
This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
BCB not playing the game they are so vehemently attacking is one of the weirdest situations. I'd be willing to bet that if all of the "problems"(theirs or GW) were fixed their(BCB) head would explode.
This really seems to be a problem with how people approach the game. GW does not play the game to screw over the other player or to wipe the floor with them. GW seems to play to have fun(subjective), if their idea of fun doesn't line up with how you(BCB doesn't) play then the only rational solution is to stop.
Calm down, you don`t have any rights to attack someone on personal level, just because you don`t like the person and don`t agree of what he/she is saying.
It`s true that mistakes can be found everywhere, but especially big and obvious could have been avoided, especially when they are cough by the community hours after the release.
We had the the stratagem problem in the daemon codex already, so why is it repeating again ?
After the great job they did with the Ynnari, removing all chances of exploits of keywords, i`m starting to thing its intentional.
BaconCatBug wrote: Why fix the Ariel Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."
There's a stratagem to spot the Little Mermaid? That's some ultra-niche rules-writing there...
BaconCatBug wrote: Why fix the Ariel Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."
There's a stratagem to spot the Little Mermaid? That's some ultra-niche rules-writing there...
BaconCatBug wrote: Why fix the Ariel Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."
There's a stratagem to spot the Little Mermaid? That's some ultra-niche rules-writing there...
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?
-
Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?
Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.
Exactly my point, thank you Stux. There is even a RULE in the Core rules for this very thing: The Most Important rule. The rules are not supposed to be this end-all, be-all tight ruleset requiring 0 interaction or thought from the players. If you can't have a conversation with your opponent and come to a reasonable conclusion between, than one of you is missing the point of this game.
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?
-
Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?
Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.
Exactly my point, thank you Stux. There is even a RULE in the Core rules for this very thing: The Most Important rule.
The rules are not supposed to be this end-all, be-all tight ruleset requiring 0 interaction or thought from the players. If you can't have a conversation with your opponent and come to a reasonable conclusion between, than one of you is missing the point of this game.
-
It`s in human nature to try to win or get benefits for abusing the system.
Just recently one American abused the wording and bough practically the some item twice and that allowed his tzangors to be +2 on charge.
Everyone agreed it was dumb, but that was allowed by the current GW rules, so the organizer allowed it.
Marin wrote: Everyone agreed it was dumb, but that was allowed by the current GW rules, so the organizer allowed it.
And that's a risk you take when you participate in organized events. It's a given you should be aware of when you give away control of the game to a TO.
But in normal games, 2 players can discuss the solution together and if a reasonable consensus cannot be reached, both roll off.
The rules allow this and thus can never be broken.
People will try to abuse the system, I agree, but those are generally rare individuals (at least in my experience) that apply that to a game with plastic toys. If you encounter those people often enough to ruin your games, it's not GW's fault, nor is it their responsibility to curb that kind of behavior. Just avoid those people (and maybe even organized events) and you'll be fine
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?
-
Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?
Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.
Exactly my point, thank you Stux. There is even a RULE in the Core rules for this very thing: The Most Important rule.
The rules are not supposed to be this end-all, be-all tight ruleset requiring 0 interaction or thought from the players. If you can't have a conversation with your opponent and come to a reasonable conclusion between, than one of you is missing the point of this game.
Back up a step. The OP's point is that the game is poorly-edited. You're now saying it's okay that the game is poorly-edited because it isn't supposed to be well-edited?
I'm going to go afield a bit for an analogy here, so bear with me. The most important determining factors in how good a tabletop RPG is are how good the GM is and how cooperative the players are. If everyone is on board with the experience, well-prepared, understands the setting and their characters, and the GM is prepared to take the players' actions and roll with them, you will have a good time. It doesn't matter what the game system is. So the question then becomes: what is the game system for? I posit that the game system exists to make everyones' lives easier; if anyone wants to do something specific, dramatic, and risky the rules provide a mechanism for doing that other than the GM arbitrarily deciding "it works" or "it doesn't". This makes life easier for the players because they have a sense of what their characters can and can't do that would be a lot harder to communicate in a rules-less improv theatre exercise, and it makes life easier for the GM because it allows them to be "fair" to the players when figuring out whether the things they're doing work or not. A good system is therefore comprehensive enough to give the players freedom, balanced enough that success/failure rates feel "fair" to all involved, and straightforward enough to allow the GM and the players to figure out the results of an action quickly. A good GM might not need rules to make everyone have a good time but the rules are there to make it easier.
Now take us back to Warhammer. The function of the game is to allow us to play a game of make-believe toy soldiers while giving us answers to questions about what happens when our toy soldiers shoot each other. The entire purpose of the game is to be clear, precise, and easy to use so we can answer our questions quickly and get back to the business of playing toy soldiers. I put it to you that by being poorly-edited and requiring out-of-game consensus/editing on the players' part/a roll-off to see whose interpretation of the rules stands Warhammer is worse at being a wargame than it would be if it were a tight ruleset requiring no subjective interpretation, because it takes us out of the business of playing the game to try and figure out how it works.
Racerguy180 wrote: The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.
Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?
-
Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?
Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.
Exactly my point, thank you Stux. There is even a RULE in the Core rules for this very thing: The Most Important rule.
The rules are not supposed to be this end-all, be-all tight ruleset requiring 0 interaction or thought from the players. If you can't have a conversation with your opponent and come to a reasonable conclusion between, than one of you is missing the point of this game.
-
Is`t this kind of thinking the reason 7 edition was a failure ?
People can make their own rules with consensus and don`t give GW any money for books.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: If you can't make out which unit is meant with Reiver Squad or Aggressors I'm not sure the incompetence is on GWs side.
Kind of agree. This is a game meant for nerds to have fun with toy soldiers. GW is a models company and put that first.
The rules are more like Saturday morning cartoons like Transformers and TMNT: basically 22min commercials for the toys. They did not have the best plots of most coherent story lines AT ALL, but they did their job at selling toys to kids.
Treat the rules like this, use "common sense", roll some dice or move on
Not so common, unfortunately.
-
This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.
BCB not playing the game they are so vehemently attacking is one of the weirdest situations. I'd be willing to bet that if all of the "problems"(theirs or GW) were fixed their(BCB) head would explode.
This really seems to be a problem with how people approach the game. GW does not play the game to screw over the other player or to wipe the floor with them. GW seems to play to have fun(subjective), if their idea of fun doesn't line up with how you(BCB doesn't) play then the only rational solution is to stop.
Calm down, you don`t have any rights to attack someone on personal level, just because you don`t like the person and don`t agree of what he/she is saying.
It`s true that mistakes can be found everywhere, but especially big and obvious could have been avoided, especially when they are cough by the community hours after the release.
We had the the stratagem problem in the daemon codex already, so why is it repeating again ?
After the great job they did with the Ynnari, removing all chances of exploits of keywords, i`m starting to thing its intentional.
wait, what? I'm pretty confident that there are zero personal attacks. If you feel that way...sucks to be you.
I just pointed out a couple of things. Forgive me for making observations about the pattern being revealed by their own posts.
Fact: BCB doesnt play. been stated numerous times by them.
There's a way to discuss errors and inconsistencies in the rules without inciting a riot. If there was an attempt to gain clarity on the verbiage it should have gone in YMDC but it was posted here for the explicit purpose of "a discussion on GWs continued incompetence".
Yay troll post. Congrats getting people arguing. Internet playing to it's strengths today.
Reemule wrote: Even clearly written rules have debate about them. Poorly written rules just cause arguments. Arguments at the game table are no fun.
I 100% agree with this. But what I am trying to say is that the examples on rules editing presented by the OP are hardly poor enough to caused arguments (or at least they should not cause arguments). We can all see the intent. It's pedantic to argue over the difference between "Reivers" and "Reiver Squad". We all know what is meant, or at the VERY LEAST can come to an agreement about the intent. 99% of us would agree those 2 are the same, so where is the argument?
In most cases, and again this is just in my personal experience, any discrepancies in the rules writing can be easily cleared up in 2 seconds by either talking it out with your opponent, or asking the TO and accepting their ruling. The claim that seems to be presented is that due to the "poor writing/editing" 40K is a garbage heap of a game that is unplayable. I vehemently disagree with that claim
Reemule wrote: Even clearly written rules have debate about them. Poorly written rules just cause arguments. Arguments at the game table are no fun.
I 100% agree with this. But what I am trying to say is that the examples on rules editing presented by the OP are hardly poor enough to caused arguments (or at least they should not cause arguments). We can all see the intent. It's pedantic to argue over the difference between "Reivers" and "Reiver Squad". We all know what is meant, or at the VERY LEAST can come to an agreement about the intent. 99% of us would agree those 2 are the same, so where is the argument?
In most cases, and again this is just in my personal experience, any discrepancies in the rules writing can be easily cleared up in 2 seconds by either talking it out with your opponent, or asking the TO and accepting their ruling.
The claim that seems to be presented is that due to the "poor writing/editing" 40K is a garbage heap of a game that is unplayable. I vehemently disagree with that claim
-
Except "Reivers" and "Reiver Squad" are not the same, and even GW say they aren't the same (see the Vigilus Defiant book).
HoundsofDemos wrote: While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.
in an age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game you NEED to pick hairs.
no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.
Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.
A properly written game does not need the players to "decide on a ruling." If you just want to push miniatures around on a table, why do you care what people think about the rules? Why have rules at all?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.
Why do you think shunning people who play by the rules is ever acceptable?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.
A properly written game does not need the players to "decide on a ruling." If you just want to push miniatures around on a table, why do you care what people think about the rules? Why have rules at all?
I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?
BrianDavion wrote: no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.
Why do you think shunning people who play by the rules is ever acceptable?
I say again like I've said before- put up or shut up. Put these "interpretations" you have into practice in the real world. Not on Discord, not in whatever scrambled thing you have between your ears that you call a mind. In real life. On the tabletop and see how well you fare.
You seem to be under the delusion that you will think literally the entire wargaming community is playing the game incorrectly and in fact you are the one true person who is correct and they will bow to your wisdom. This will not happen. You will be labelled TFG and never get a game. You cannot be truly this delusional to think all of a sudden everyone is going to snap out of it. They won't. You'll be seen as a cancer to the community and they will rightly shun you.
You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down. BCB fixates on the ones that are mostly minutiae and comes off as pretty prickly sometimes, but can you not admit that he has a point? Like, the issue with the Master in Gravis. That is a problem, full stop -- you play with your buddy and you probably let them have that extra wound. Your buddy plays in a tournament and they probably don't get that extra wound. That sucks! We, as a community, should demand the billion pound market cap company to do better, because we have purchasing power.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.
A properly written game does not need the players to "decide on a ruling." If you just want to push miniatures around on a table, why do you care what people think about the rules? Why have rules at all?
I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?
Is it not? Yes, fundamentally, that should be how people play... but should it patch up things like Masters in Gravis with fewer wounds?
BrianDavion wrote: no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.
Why do you think shunning people who play by the rules is ever acceptable?
I say again like I've said before- put up or shut up. Put these "interpretations" you have into practice in the real world. Not on Discord, not in whatever scrambled thing you have between your ears that you call a mind. In real life. On the tabletop and see how well you fare.
You seem to be under the delusion that you will think literally the entire wargaming community is playing the game incorrectly and in fact you are the one true person who is correct and they will bow to your wisdom. This will not happen. You will be labelled TFG and never get a game. You cannot be truly this delusional to think all of a sudden everyone is going to snap out of it. They won't. You'll be seen as a cancer to the community and they will rightly shun you.
In fact BCB has outright ADMITTED that in spite of his harping about the assault weapon rule technicly not working... he doesn't actually play by those rules on table top. so for all his "look how smart I am at nitpicking details" he doesn't actually do that with his gaming group.
I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?
Is it not? Yes, fundamentally, that should be how people play... but should it patch up things like Masters in Gravis with fewer wounds?
Yes, I think a little bit of common sense should patch that one up nicely. I've said this many times before but GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not all fething idiots incapable of independant thought. and the only way you'd be unable to figure out that a captain in gravis in this case ALSO refered to a wolf lord in gravis and a Master in Gravis was if you where a fething idiot incapable of independant thought.
BrianDavion wrote: no in the age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game the community needs to shun and ostricize RAW rules lawyers.
Why do you think shunning people who play by the rules is ever acceptable?
I say again like I've said before- put up or shut up. Put these "interpretations" you have into practice in the real world. Not on Discord, not in whatever scrambled thing you have between your ears that you call a mind. In real life. On the tabletop and see how well you fare.
You seem to be under the delusion that you will think literally the entire wargaming community is playing the game incorrectly and in fact you are the one true person who is correct and they will bow to your wisdom. This will not happen. You will be labelled TFG and never get a game. You cannot be truly this delusional to think all of a sudden everyone is going to snap out of it. They won't. You'll be seen as a cancer to the community and they will rightly shun you.
In fact BCB has outright ADMITTED that in spite of his harping about the assault weapon rule technicly not working... he doesn't actually play by those rules on table top. so for all his "look how smart I am at nitpicking details" he doesn't actually do that with his gaming group.
However whilest bcb is extreme we should also consider that Gw by no means is a small or unprofitable company.
And they have the audacity to demand money for what is in essence a balance Patch.
So gw in this case is far from not beeing at fault here.
Infact it is their shoddy work that even allows such RAW laweyring in the first place.
And I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised that if GW would finally implement quality standards in regards to rules then this phenomenon would stop quite rapidly.
Yes, I think a little bit of common sense should patch that one up nicely. I've said this many times before but GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not all fething idiots incapable of independant thought. and the only way you'd be unable to figure out that a captain in gravis in this case ALSO refered to a wolf lord in gravis and a Master in Gravis was if you where a fething idiot incapable of independant thought.
Do you think a tournament organizer is going to concur, or are they idiots incapable of independent thought too? Cool it with the strawman.
BrianDavion wrote: In fact BCB has outright ADMITTED that in spite of his harping about the assault weapon rule technicly not working... he doesn't actually play by those rules on table top. so for all his "look how smart I am at nitpicking details" he doesn't actually do that with his gaming group.
Actually, if you had been keeping track, I did indeed used to allow house rules in my games. However, before I stopped playing 40k, I took a hard-line approach and stopped using house rules. Yes, that included not allowing advancing and using Assault weapons. I then decided that the poor rules writing and Knights destroying any semblance of balance wasn't worth carrying on with.
I have had more fun with Kill Team and more recently Apocalypse. I still keep appraised of normal 40k in the event of some sort of miracle and GW decides to clean up their act. Suffice to say I have been disappointed.
I also think it's important to acknowledge that TOs can make rulings one way or the other for things that were otherwise clear. I.E. they can make their own house rules whether they are needed or not. So the assumption that if GW had better rules editing than you'd get consistent organized events is just wrong. Those events can change the rules to suit their opinion of them.
And that's fine. But when GW releases the "canon" rules with "errors", we only have 2 choices: Stop buying the product (and preferably stop complaining about it) or drink the Kool-Aid and try to make the best of what we paid for in a positive way. I prefer the Kool-Aid, especially the Tropical Punch flavor
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down.
Yes*. But BCB is the boy who cried wolf. He is constantly harping on some completely trivial and noncontroversial stuff, and that has destroyed any credibility he might have had.
* (Though those are actually super rare in practice. The eight edition is literally the tightest ruleset 40K has ever had.)
Yes, I think a little bit of common sense should patch that one up nicely. I've said this many times before but GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not all fething idiots incapable of independant thought. and the only way you'd be unable to figure out that a captain in gravis in this case ALSO refered to a wolf lord in gravis and a Master in Gravis was if you where a fething idiot incapable of independant thought.
Do you think a tournament organizer is going to concur, or are they idiots incapable of independent thought too? Cool it with the strawman.
Actually I do think most TOs are likely to concur,
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down.
Yes*. But BCB is the boy who cried wolf. He is constantly harping on some completely trivial and noncontroversial stuff, and that has destroyed any credibility he might have had.
* (Though those are actually super rare in practice. The eight edition is literally the tightest ruleset 40K has ever had.)
*2 considering gw always just sucked at rules writing it is no achievement though.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down.
Yes*. But BCB is the boy who cried wolf. He is constantly harping on some completely trivial and noncontroversial stuff, and that has destroyed any credibility he might have had.
* (Though those are actually super rare in practice. The eight edition is literally the tightest ruleset 40K has ever had.)
On your first point, that's fair. On the second point -- I agree that 8th is as tight as it's ever been without calling the breakdowns rare. For instance, the tourney list that uses a strat multiple times at the end of the turn because "at the end of the turn" is not a phase. Really!? That was based off of a TO interpretation I believe, but that's a pretty important aspect of the game that needs to be codified by GW.
BrianDavion wrote: Yes, I think a little bit of common sense should patch that one up nicely. I've said this many times before but GW writes the rules with the assumption we're not all fething idiots incapable of independant thought. and the only way you'd be unable to figure out that a captain in gravis in this case ALSO refered to a wolf lord in gravis and a Master in Gravis was if you where a fething idiot incapable of independant thought.
Why is that so obvious? There are all kinds of cases where special snowflake marine chapters have units that are slightly different. Why should a wolf lord and a captain be assumed to be interchangeable units?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?
That depends on the use. As an absolute last resort for incredibly obscure edge-case interactions that maybe come up once every few years rule zero is fine. The problem with rule zero and lazy rule authors is that GW doesn't use it that way. They use it as an excuse to not bother to write clearer rules and clean up their mistakes, and we should not excuse that failure or refrain from calling GW's rule authors lazy and incompetent.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?
That depends on the use. As an absolute last resort for incredibly obscure edge-case interactions that maybe come up once every few years rule zero is fine. The problem with rule zero and lazy rule authors is that GW doesn't use it that way. They use it as an excuse to not bother to write clearer rules and clean up their mistakes, and we should not excuse that failure or refrain from calling GW's rule authors lazy and incompetent.
Not to switch "sides" on this issue, but I did once see a real @$$-hat use the roll-off rule to force a ruling in his favor on an issue that was 100% covered in the rules. I can't remember what the issue was, but it was 7E and he didn't like the rule, tried to refute it and when his opponent refused to relent, he "envoked" the roll off.
This "person", however, was later asked never to come back to the store.
BrianDavion wrote: I'm guessing you also think Rule Zero is a cop out by lazy designers?
That depends on the use. As an absolute last resort for incredibly obscure edge-case interactions that maybe come up once every few years rule zero is fine. The problem with rule zero and lazy rule authors is that GW doesn't use it that way. They use it as an excuse to not bother to write clearer rules and clean up their mistakes, and we should not excuse that failure or refrain from calling GW's rule authors lazy and incompetent.
Not to switch "sides" on this issue, but I did once see a real @$$-hat use the roll-off rule to force a ruling in his favor on an issue that was 100% covered in the rules. I can't remember what the issue was, but it was 7E and he didn't like the rule, tried to refute it and when his opponent refused to relent, he "envoked" the roll off.
This "person", however, was later asked never to come back to the store.
-
That's not Rule Zero being at fault - other than existing - it's one player being a pile of squig excrement, while the other lacked the backbone to point out that (last time I checked - rulebook isn't to had) Rule Zero is specifically for situations not covered by the rules, and therefore wasn't applicable if the scenario was as described above.
Dysartes wrote: That's not Rule Zero being at fault - other than existing - it's one player being a pile of squig excrement, while the other lacked the backbone to point out that (last time I checked - rulebook isn't to had) Rule Zero is specifically for situations not covered by the rules, and therefore wasn't applicable if the scenario was as described above.
That's my point. The rules are GOOD ENOUGH that when things get that out of hand, it's one of the player's fault for being squig excrement, not the provocation of any rules inadequacy.
Klickor wrote: People saying that RAI is obvious should remember that "UNIT" and "unit" are two completely different things. The Killshot stratagem only works with the normal predators and not with baal predators. Same with the whirlwind one. If I remember correctly any Landspeeder works for the spotting but only the normal Whirlwind works. Not obvious the first time you read it that it only affects certain units even if there are other units that have mostly the same name. Small details like that matters in this edition so GW shouldn't be forgiven for such mistakes.
You'd maybe have a point if it was something confusable, like say repulsor variants, but anyone who can't guess what unit might be meant as 'aggressors' or 'reivers' should go get refund for faulty common sense, then never touch anything more complicated than checkers. But they would probably confuse the various kinds of pieces even then
Peregrine wrote: This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.
Up your reading comprehension maybe (both in this thread, and in the rules we're discussing) - no one presents this a good thing, people just say it's such a non-issue the nitpicked problem literally doesn't exist. And if anyone needs daddy, it's people incapable of picking reivers from a set of literally a single unit, not whoever you're projecting your weird fantasies onto
Gene St. Ealer wrote: You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down.
Yes*. But BCB is the boy who cried wolf. He is constantly harping on some completely trivial and noncontroversial stuff, and that has destroyed any credibility he might have had.
* (Though those are actually super rare in practice. The eight edition is literally the tightest ruleset 40K has ever had.)
On your first point, that's fair. On the second point -- I agree that 8th is as tight as it's ever been without calling the breakdowns rare. For instance, the tourney list that uses a strat multiple times at the end of the turn because "at the end of the turn" is not a phase. Really!? That was based off of a TO interpretation I believe, but that's a pretty important aspect of the game that needs to be codified by GW.
Fortunately TO judgements aren't like court proceedings. There is no precedent. That TO needs to grow a pair and not let a pedant walk all over them with clearly bs interpretations.
Gene St. Ealer wrote:You guys act like there aren't legitimate areas where the game is unclear and breaks down. BCB fixates on the ones that are mostly minutiae and comes off as pretty prickly sometimes, but can you not admit that he has a point? Like, the issue with the Master in Gravis. That is a problem, full stop -- you play with your buddy and you probably let them have that extra wound. Your buddy plays in a tournament and they probably don't get that extra wound. That sucks! We, as a community, should demand the billion pound market cap company to do better, because we have purchasing power. So with all the record stuff that this billion pound company has been doing lately, it seems to me that the community(by voting w $€£¥) is telling them that they're on the right track.
Sounds like there needs to be a dedicated tournament ruleset.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Yep, totally with Galef here. So far I haven't come across a situation in 8th where we couldn't decide on a ruling. Yes, there might have been instances where one player wasn't up to date with all rules but that just happens in a casual setting. The game is a framework to put plastic miniatures on the table and to create a story with them. For that it works fine. And much better than prior versions I might add, as I'm not wasting time searching for niché rules that come up only every ten games(tank shock...) , I can just play the game.
A properly written game does not need the players to "decide on a ruling." If you just want to push miniatures around on a table, why do you care what people think about the rules? Why have rules at all?
true, why have rules? Why have a game, actually why do anything?
Daedalus81 wrote: Fortunately TO judgements aren't like court proceedings. There is no precedent. That TO needs to grow a pair and not let a pedant walk all over them with clearly bs interpretations.
Except the ruling wasn't "clearly bs". In fact, it was obviously correct. There is no way to have a "once per phase limit" apply to events happening outside of a phase. I mean, how would that even work? How do you finish the "once per ..." sentence without inventing a completely new concept of a phase-like time period that is not found in any official rules.
The actual problematic thing here is that not only are you defending GW's inability to publish clear rules, you're blaming the customers for not following your personal "how it should be played" opinions and assigning all kinds of negative labels to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irbis wrote: You'd maybe have a point if it was something confusable, like say repulsor variants, but anyone who can't guess what unit might be meant as 'aggressors' or 'reivers' should go get refund for faulty common sense, then never touch anything more complicated than checkers. But they would probably confuse the various kinds of pieces even then
The point is not that this one particular case is hard to deal with, it's that it's one more instance of a trend of GW being too lazy and/or incompetent to get the rules right. And some of these cases of using unit names and keywords interchangeably do involve ambiguity about how the rule is supposed to function. Stop excusing GW's failures just because you are capable of fixing the mistake this time.
Up your reading comprehension maybe (both in this thread, and in the rules we're discussing) - no one presents this a good thing, people just say it's such a non-issue the nitpicked problem literally doesn't exist. And if anyone needs daddy, it's people incapable of picking reivers from a set of literally a single unit, not whoever you're projecting your weird fantasies onto
Then you and I are clearly not reading the same thread, because I see lots of posts talking about how the rules are just fine and "make a 22 minute toy commercial cartoon" is legitimate game design.
BrianDavion wrote: no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much
Without people criticising the rules writing we get a terrible macaroni and cheese game.
But alas, Peregrine and BCB are the devils and filthy WAAC players. I'm afraid we have to lynch them both with our pitchforks.
Oh hang on, our pitchforks can only be wielded if we have the <FORUM POSTER> tag, and we only have <FORUM CHATTER> tag.
Oh no.
What do we do now.
ARGGGH
BrianDavion wrote: no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much
ditto.
I hate to break it to you Peregrine, the entire game has always been a 22min toy commercial & the rules were just something cool you could do with your models.
BrianDavion wrote: no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much
Without people criticising the rules writing we get a terrible macaroni and cheese game.
But alas, Peregrine and BCB are the devils and filthy WAAC players. I'm afraid we have to lynch them both with our pitchforks.
Oh hang on, our pitchforks can only be wielded if we have the <FORUM POSTER> tag, and we only have <FORUM CHATTER> tag.
Oh no.
What do we do now.
ARGGGH
thats not an attack on Peregrine it's just that our priorities are clearly VERY VERY differant
Racerguy180 wrote: I hate to break it to you Peregrine, the entire game has always been a 22min toy commercial & the rules were just something cool you could do with your models.
Why do you have such low standards for a product that you are (presumably) paying a lot of money for? And why do you defend abusive business practices?
BrianDavion wrote: no offense Peregrine but I hope I never have the chance to play you. I suspect neither of us would enjoy the game very much
ditto.
I hate to break it to you Peregrine, the entire game has always been a 22min toy commercial & the rules were just something cool you could do with your models.
You like a unit due to its rules, then they the change rules, you buy different stuff cuz this stuff is better, then they change those again, you buy different stuff..ad infinitum.
It only works due to people wanting to do something different. I have never purchased a model due to how badass or not it is on the table and I'm not gonna start anytime soon. So the constant changing of rules(over time)doesnt effect my enjoyment of the game.
Scene zooms into a table in the middle of the room, one person is playing with a small grey miniature, the other his juggling a stinky brown lump.
Lump man: You're playing with them WRONG!
Lump man squeezes the lump in anger
Lump man: YOU. ARE. MEANT. TO. ENJOY. THE. LORE!
Lump man throws the lump at Minature man, hitting his black shirt and messing up the table.
Lumpless man: WHY DONT YOU ENJOY THE GAME THE SAME AS I DO?
I wouldn't want to play a game with Peregrine for my own reasons, but they are not these ones. Peregrine and BCB are 100% correct. GW publishes a product you frankly overpay for and it's gak quality.
The rules shouldn't need as many FAQs as there are publications and every other game manages to do that. GW is exceptionally bad about it. The worst professional game publishers I have ever seen in the entire world. Not a exaggeration. LITERALLY no other game publisher has ever done such a consistently poor job in all my experience playing games.
Racerguy180 wrote: I hate to break it to you Peregrine, the entire game has always been a 22min toy commercial & the rules were just something cool you could do with your models.
Why do you have such low standards for a product that you are (presumably) paying a lot of money for? And why do you defend abusive business practices?
I think the more relevant question is, why are you paying a lot of money for a product you don't enjoy?
Lance845 wrote: The rules shouldn't need as many FAQs as there are publications and every other game manages to do that. GW is exceptionally bad about it. The worst professional game publishers I have ever seen in the entire world. Not a exaggeration. LITERALLY no other game publisher has ever done such a consistently poor job in all my experience playing games.
WARMACHINE/Hordes second edition may only have had one FAQ/errata document, but (certainly towards the end of the edition) that document covered every book that was produced. And let's not even touch the 1st edition FAQ/errata doc - that thing was crazy big.
If the only difference is one document vs. one document per book, then that's a choice regarding presentation, not a commentary on how many books had errors.
If anyone really wants to continue this, I recommend scrolling to the post you disagree with, screaming 'You're wrong!' at the screen for three minutes, and then moving on with your day.
idiots incapable of independent thought too? Cool it with the strawman.
