Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 18:54:08


Post by: Gnarlly


Any word/update on an official errata for Chapter Approved 2019? Still "any day now?"
If you are unfamilar with the issues in CA2019, see this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/783252.page


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 20:12:13


Post by: fraser1191


I don't know the exact release date but they say 2 weeks after. But given the holidays I think it's safe to assume it might be another week or 2


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 20:30:26


Post by: Sterling191


 fraser1191 wrote:
I don't know the exact release date but they say 2 weeks after. But given the holidays I think it's safe to assume it might be another week or 2


It's been nearly a month since CA2019 released. We're well past the usual FAQ window.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 20:43:18


Post by: BrianDavion


Sterling191 wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
I don't know the exact release date but they say 2 weeks after. But given the holidays I think it's safe to assume it might be another week or 2


It's been nearly a month since CA2019 released. We're well past the usual FAQ window.

You realize they've likely spent the last 2 weeks with most of their staff off on holiday for Christmas and New Years right?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 20:52:16


Post by: Sterling191


BrianDavion wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
 fraser1191 wrote:
I don't know the exact release date but they say 2 weeks after. But given the holidays I think it's safe to assume it might be another week or 2


It's been nearly a month since CA2019 released. We're well past the usual FAQ window.

You realize they've likely spent the last 2 weeks with most of their staff off on holiday for Christmas and New Years right?


You do realize that I explicitly quote replied to a statement to that effect, and was clarifying where in regards to the release cycle we sit?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 20:52:40


Post by: p5freak


The FAQ for Faith&Fury isnt out yet either, it was released before CA2019. This was long before christmas.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 21:08:27


Post by: Ishagu


Nothing needs urgent fixing.

The missions in CA function well.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 21:12:02


Post by: Dysartes


 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing needs urgent fixing.

The content in CA2019 may not need fixing - I don't know, I haven't bought it yet - but I believe there are multiple issues with the MFM that accompanies CA2019 that do. DW biker numbers, for example.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 22:03:40


Post by: NoiseMarine with Tinnitus


How did we get into a situation where it is expected that GW will issue erratas so soon after the release of a full price product?

Is it just a given they release broken shat that hasn't been proof read or do they now outsource the rules writing to their Chinese sweatshop printers as well?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 22:06:32


Post by: Daedalus81


 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
How did we get into a situation where it is expected that GW will issue erratas so soon after the release of a full price product?

Is it just a given they release broken shat that hasn't been proof read or do they now outsource the rules writing to their Chinese sweatshop printers as well?


Well, it is something they themselves committed to doing. Ideally it would have been just FAQs without the need for Errata, but such is life.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 22:13:11


Post by: JohnnyHell


Damn them for not working through Christmas and New Year...

(Actually, yes, damn them, I had too!!!)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
How did we get into a situation where it is expected that GW will issue erratas so soon after the release of a full price product?


They quite literally committed to the FAQ schedule themselves.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/03 22:35:29


Post by: Amishprn86


 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
How did we get into a situation where it is expected that GW will issue erratas so soon after the release of a full price product?

Is it just a given they release broken shat that hasn't been proof read or do they now outsource the rules writing to their Chinese sweatshop printers as well?


They made a post saying they will
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/40kFAQFuture-Dec15-Infographic4fqn.jpg


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/04 03:15:34


Post by: Ghaz


 Amishprn86 wrote:
 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
How did we get into a situation where it is expected that GW will issue erratas so soon after the release of a full price product?

Is it just a given they release broken shat that hasn't been proof read or do they now outsource the rules writing to their Chinese sweatshop printers as well?


They made a post saying they will
https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/40kFAQFuture-Dec15-Infographic4fqn.jpg

And here is the updated picture with the current April date for the Spring update ...

Spoiler:

Note that it says two weeks after a codex is released they'll release an errata shortly thereafter, and they've been pretty good on the codices (and battletomes for Age of Sigmar) so far. The Psychic Awakening books have been taking a little longer. Right now (if I'm not missing anything) we're awaiting FAQs for Chapter Approved 2019, Faith and Fury, Blood of Baal and the Slaves to Darkness battletome.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/04 04:38:02


Post by: MrMoustaffa


To be fair if you're salty, just remember you're not a sisters player. That book won't be getting a FAQ till probably late February, so it could always be worse


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/04 04:43:01


Post by: ccs


You'll get your FAQ/errata right after sales #s confirm they've sold enough SM bikers.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/04 08:00:11


Post by: nekooni


ccs wrote:
You'll get your FAQ/errata right after sales #s confirm they've sold enough SM bikers.


Better not let the illuminati see you leaking their master plan, dude.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/04 09:40:22


Post by: Jidmah


At my office, there are currently 5/60 people there. I'd be surprised if it's any different at GW.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/04 11:24:52


Post by: tneva82


 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing needs urgent fixing.

The missions in CA function well.


The GSC players who have to play with 50 pts basic guys in tournamnets disagree likely


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/04 11:26:43


Post by: Dysartes


I wonder if there are any Dakkaites at the Open Day who can ask pointed questions re FAQ delays...


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 13:26:46


Post by: Wayniac


 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
How did we get into a situation where it is expected that GW will issue erratas so soon after the release of a full price product?

Is it just a given they release broken shat that hasn't been proof read or do they now outsource the rules writing to their Chinese sweatshop printers as well?
basically. While they said there will be FAQs shortly after a book, the fact literally every single fething book has had glaring, easily spotted and sometimes game-breaking errors proves nothing is being proofread or checked for accuracy


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 19:16:02


Post by: Ghaz


From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 19:42:52


Post by: nareik


Wayniac wrote:
 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
How did we get into a situation where it is expected that GW will issue erratas so soon after the release of a full price product?

Is it just a given they release broken shat that hasn't been proof read or do they now outsource the rules writing to their Chinese sweatshop printers as well?
basically. While they said there will be FAQs shortly after a book, the fact literally every single fething book has had glaring, easily spotted and sometimes game-breaking errors proves nothing is being proofread or checked for accuracy
in fairness we don't see the errors that did get caught.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 20:04:19


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!
So, crazy idea: Physical Codexes become collectors item with revision 1 of the rules. You get a voucher in the codex for a rules-only, printable PDF version of the rules. The rules only PDFs get updated two weeks after release and on the first of each even month with errata, FAQs and points adjustments. Congrats, you've now crowdsourced all your playtesting and editing and pretty much ended piracy via the Gabe Newel method.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 20:41:48


Post by: p5freak


 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!


Not this nonsense again If they play as many games as they claim, they played thousands of games already. Every veteran player can spot broken combos, or broken rules, pretty much after a few hours reading. A week before normal players get their hands on a new book you see new youtube videos about broken combos, broken rules from previewers.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 20:59:25


Post by: ERJAK


 p5freak wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!


Not this nonsense again If they play as many games as they claim, they played thousands of games already. Every veteran player can spot broken combos, or broken rules, pretty much after a few hours reading. A week before normal players get their hands on a new book you see new youtube videos about broken combos, broken rules from previewers.


And a week after that you see that 25% of those broken combos don't actually work the way people thought they did, 60% of those 'broken' combos are either impractical or nowhere near as good as people thought they were, 5% of those 'broken' combos are actually very good but not so good that they can't be dealt with by competent players, and 10% actually are above the power curve. For those of you keeping score, that's players being 90% full of gak,

Outside of the Ironhands book(which admittedly was a huge faux pas on their part) The community has been just as full of crap about what's going to be 'broken' as GW is, just over rather than under.


I mean, there are still people on this very website that think PRIMARIS are why marines are good when it's basically only intercessors and eliminators that see significant use.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 20:59:36


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 p5freak wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!


Not this nonsense again If they play as many games as they claim, they played thousands of games already. Every veteran player can spot broken combos, or broken rules, pretty much after a few hours reading. A week before normal players get their hands on a new book you see new youtube videos about broken combos, broken rules from previewers.

Exactly. People theory craft from just rumors alone. It's a bunch of crap they even do three games a week.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 21:34:07


Post by: Wayniac


Even if they did do as many games as they say, how fething terrible are they that things slip by that get found almost instantly when things are released, if not from content creators reviews or even rumors. I mean we aren't talking about in-depth things that require a bunch of things together to work that most people are going to miss; that would be understandable to miss. But we're talking about things that even the most casual person can look at the book and say "yeah that's REALLY good, better than the rest" immediately.

There's no excuse for THAT level of missing things.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 21:41:56


Post by: tneva82




Poor excuse when the books are filled with errors you can literally spot with first reading. You know how easy it would be for to negate need for majority of FAQ questions? It's real simple.

Before locking rule texts have one person who plays the game and hasn't been involved with read them through once.

That's it. Assuming every suitable candinate inside GW isn't mentally more stupid than about 99% of GW's customer that will catch up most of the issues. But either they have such a bunch of idiot filled company(which I find doubtful) or they don't bother to do that. Which isn't surprising seeing they don't have professional level people doing this so likely hasn't even come up in their brain to do it so instead you have rule writer double checking for mistakes. Which is not the way to do it.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 23:42:33


Post by: Karhedron


 Dysartes wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing needs urgent fixing.

The content in CA2019 may not need fixing - I don't know, I haven't bought it yet - but I believe there are multiple issues with the MFM that accompanies CA2019 that do. DW biker numbers, for example.

Agreed. The entire Space Wolf FA sections is wrong too as they have reverted to codex values which makes SW stuff more expensive than pretty much all the codex equivalents.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/05 23:55:46


Post by: Dakka Wolf


 Karhedron wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
Nothing needs urgent fixing.

The content in CA2019 may not need fixing - I don't know, I haven't bought it yet - but I believe there are multiple issues with the MFM that accompanies CA2019 that do. DW biker numbers, for example.

Agreed. The entire Space Wolf FA sections is wrong too as they have reverted to codex values which makes SW stuff more expensive than pretty much all the codex equivalents.


Considering their codex was out of date before it even dropped I could be generous and believe their proof reader is busy playtesting...but somehow that just doesn't fly.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 00:14:37


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Considering their codex was out of date before it even dropped I could be generous and believe their proof reader is busy playtesting...but somehow that just doesn't fly.
That was by far a new low for GW, errata before the book was even on sale.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 01:22:13


Post by: BrianDavion


 p5freak wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!


Not this nonsense again If they play as many games as they claim, they played thousands of games already. Every veteran player can spot broken combos, or broken rules, pretty much after a few hours reading. A week before normal players get their hands on a new book you see new youtube videos about broken combos, broken rules from previewers.


Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 04:21:42


Post by: Ginjitzu


BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 04:33:45


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

And as you've noticed, people continue to give GW excuses.

People really need to stop buying their printed products.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 04:36:38


Post by: BrianDavion


 Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

ohh I agree, there are times when GW missing something is forgivable, such as something interacting with obscure rules we didn't expect. I'll happily forgive typos because they're easy to slip in even after editing, but yeah when they just reprint something that was errata'd.. that's annoying


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 05:37:25


Post by: Gadzilla666


BrianDavion wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

ohh I agree, there are times when GW missing something is forgivable, such as something interacting with obscure rules we didn't expect. I'll happily forgive typos because they're easy to slip in even after editing, but yeah when they just reprint something that was errata'd.. that's annoying

They obviously don't have enough people, with enough knowledge of all the various rules/units in the game, working on each book and without enough communication between the teams working on the various books. Especially for something as all inclusive as ca.

But back on topic maybe the delay is due to gw actually paying attention to some of the units they ignored/forgot about. Not likely but I can dream.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 08:02:52


Post by: Dysartes


 Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

Which errors did they reprint in Codex: CSM 2.0?

I can think of the Great Obliterator Mix-Up, but that was a new issue, rather than one from the first version of the Codex.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 11:13:41


Post by: BrianDavion


 Dysartes wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

Which errors did they reprint in Codex: CSM 2.0?

I can think of the Great Obliterator Mix-Up, but that was a new issue, rather than one from the first version of the Codex.


IIRC they published the original text of the alpha legion tactic as opposed the the errata'd version of it


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 13:00:53


Post by: Wayniac


I mean "customers" finding bugs is a common thing and that will happen. But the level of GW's broken combos or just bad editing is roughly equivalent to shipping a software product that compiles and shows correctly on the first screen, and then points to the wrong record when you view the details for an item on the first screen.

The errors/mistakes/OP combos are so basic that's what casts shade on them saying how they playest. Even the most basic tests should reveal that something is off or is probably too good, yet every book has something like that slip through. The proofing errors may or may not be on their shoulders since it's probably someone else who is doing the editing into the finished book but there's still no excuse for fixing something in one place and then reverting it back in a new book because presumably, nobody could bother to check or remember it was fixed before.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 14:14:35


Post by: MrMoustaffa


BrianDavion wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

Which errors did they reprint in Codex: CSM 2.0?

I can think of the Great Obliterator Mix-Up, but that was a new issue, rather than one from the first version of the Codex.


IIRC they published the original text of the alpha legion tactic as opposed the the errata'd version of it

Close, it's the alpha legion strategem, it's word for word same as v1, even though it had been faqd for well months at this point. Unless the v2 codex was printed a year in advance or something there really wasn't any excuse


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 15:15:10


Post by: Dysartes


 MrMoustaffa wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

Which errors did they reprint in Codex: CSM 2.0?

I can think of the Great Obliterator Mix-Up, but that was a new issue, rather than one from the first version of the Codex.


IIRC they published the original text of the alpha legion tactic as opposed the the errata'd version of it

Close, it's the alpha legion strategem, it's word for word same as v1, even though it had been faqd for well months at this point. Unless the v2 codex was printed a year in advance or something there really wasn't any excuse

Yeah, that's weird - it's like there's no central reference point for these things which gets amended where there's an update.

I picked up my copy of CA19 on Saturday, and was discussing the MFM with the staff member who sold it to me - he wasn't amused with how the errors within it reflect on the company, due to how unprofessional it is. Can't say I blame him, really.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 15:48:30


Post by: Gadzilla666


Guess they should invest in some of those new fangled cogitators.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 15:52:28


Post by: Slipspace


The Blood of Baal errata is out now, so they were likely working on them between release and Christmas. Hopefully that means the CA errata and FAQ aren't too far away.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 16:02:13


Post by: Sterling191


Faith and Fury just dropped as well. Making progress.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/06 16:30:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


No answer on how the "flay them alive " strategem and atsknf interact I see.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 14:55:12


Post by: zerosignal


I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 14:57:43


Post by: Not Online!!!


Wrote them yesterday about the points issues that are within it?
As in, 55 pts acolyths and some other choice things.
Spoiler:

33pts Chaos spawn for R&H
5 pts cultists for R&H (even though worse.)
80 pts malefic.


have yet to recive an answer for that.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 14:58:58


Post by: Nazrak


zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 17:09:46


Post by: Wayniac


 Nazrak wrote:
zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.
it just appeared more like they cared more about the game in the past, even if it wasn't true.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 17:54:24


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
Wrote them yesterday about the points issues that are within it?
As in, 55 pts acolyths and some other choice things.
Spoiler:

33pts Chaos spawn for R&H
5 pts cultists for R&H (even though worse.)
80 pts malefic.


have yet to recive an answer for that.

I'll add those to my regular "pestering gw into submission " emails. Enough squeaking wheels may get them to take notice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.
it just appeared more like they cared more about the game in the past, even if it wasn't true.

That was when they were a smaller company run by actual players. Now? STOCKHOLDERS.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 19:38:14


Post by: Jidmah


It's also relevant to note that many armies are not played regularly by the people working at the studios. Remember the call to send boyz to GW so they could actually field a 2k point army of orks?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 19:54:16


Post by: Voss


BrianDavion wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!


Not this nonsense again If they play as many games as they claim, they played thousands of games already. Every veteran player can spot broken combos, or broken rules, pretty much after a few hours reading. A week before normal players get their hands on a new book you see new youtube videos about broken combos, broken rules from previewers.


Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"

That's factually true... but if the internal rules team and committed playtesters are only playing 3 games a week each in the crunch period before the codex is finalized and sent off, they're doing far, far too little.
They can't match the entire player base in terms of games played, but that's just statistics, not a reason to do so little. Before the final version of the codex gets approved, the team and playtesters should be playing 1-2 games per day each, not 3 per week each.

And some of them should be doing fact, math and error checking. Comparing stratagems to similar stratagems (and the cost) and grinding out the analytics on various units. At this point they've done hundreds of codexes over the decades, there should be pre-populated databases with formulas to simplify comparing the rough ballpark stuff. And there should be a whiteboard titled 'These rules are problem areas, check and make sure we didn't do it again!'



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 23:02:11


Post by: BrianDavion


Wayniac wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.
it just appeared more like they cared more about the game in the past, even if it wasn't true.


you mean when we'd sometimes go decades between codices with narry an errata or FAQ for it in sight?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 23:18:45


Post by: ccs


BrianDavion wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.
it just appeared more like they cared more about the game in the past, even if it wasn't true.


you mean when we'd sometimes go decades between codices with narry an errata or FAQ for it in sight?


well it beat the hell out of this constant churn where you have to recheck the rules every few weeks.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/08 23:58:29


Post by: Jidmah


It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 00:36:49


Post by: Daedalus81


 Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.


Yea I don't know what the hell people are smoking. Utter disdain for GW? Plain ignorance? Over-baked nostalgia? We may never know.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 01:22:45


Post by: ccs


 Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.


Eh, so we disagree.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 01:52:40


Post by: BrianDavion


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.


Yea I don't know what the hell people are smoking. Utter disdain for GW? Plain ignorance? Over-baked nostalgia? We may never know.


some people hate change, any thing that means more change is thus bad


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 02:55:41


Post by: Larks


 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, crazy idea: Physical Codexes become collectors item with revision 1 of the rules. You get a voucher in the codex for a rules-only, printable PDF version of the rules. The rules only PDFs get updated two weeks after release and on the first of each even month with errata, FAQs and points adjustments. Congrats, you've now crowdsourced all your playtesting and editing and pretty much ended piracy via the Gabe Newel method.


You know, you often get (sometimes deserved) flak for being unreasonable on these boards, but I agree with you here 100%. A digital "Player's Edition" copy of rules (and only rules) that is regularly updated is sorely needed.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 03:44:15


Post by: BrianDavion


I know some RPG manafacturers do this. If you buy a Morphedius product (such as the Star Trek RPG) you're able to get a code for the PDF, if you order it from them you're even given the code the minute you order it.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 03:56:05


Post by: Gadzilla666


BrianDavion wrote:
I know some RPG manafacturers do this. If you buy a Morphedius product (such as the Star Trek RPG) you're able to get a code for the PDF, if you order it from them you're even given the code the minute you order it.

Like certain record labels that give you the mp3 version of an album if you buy the physical copy? That would be great if it would automatically update with faqs.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 04:09:45


Post by: BrianDavion


Gadzilla666 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I know some RPG manafacturers do this. If you buy a Morphedius product (such as the Star Trek RPG) you're able to get a code for the PDF, if you order it from them you're even given the code the minute you order it.

Like certain record labels that give you the mp3 version of an album if you buy the physical copy? That would be great if it would automatically update with faqs.


I'd support this, course knowing GW they'd give us the digital extended edition that requires and apple product to read.

this is another reason to oppose a primarily digital source, GW's digital books are eaither apple only or crap


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 05:10:19


Post by: Gadzilla666


BrianDavion wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I know some RPG manafacturers do this. If you buy a Morphedius product (such as the Star Trek RPG) you're able to get a code for the PDF, if you order it from them you're even given the code the minute you order it.

Like certain record labels that give you the mp3 version of an album if you buy the physical copy? That would be great if it would automatically update with faqs.


I'd support this, course knowing GW they'd give us the digital extended edition that requires and apple product to read.

this is another reason to oppose a primarily digital source, GW's digital books are eaither apple only or crap

So the digital versions only work on iwhatevers? Bleeacckk!
Guess I'm sticking to lugging around my stack of miss printed books and faqs. Fething Steve Jobs still rules from the grave I see.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 05:12:14


Post by: Daedalus81


No - android has a PDF version essentially. Only Apple has the interactive whatever.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 05:34:04


Post by: BrianDavion


and the PDFs are pretty bad


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 07:30:33


Post by: Not Online!!!


BrianDavion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.


Yea I don't know what the hell people are smoking. Utter disdain for GW? Plain ignorance? Over-baked nostalgia? We may never know.


some people hate change, any thing that means more change is thus bad


Change for monetizations sake as is ca and then also having seemingly Zero Standards in place does tend to make people angry though.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 07:45:30


Post by: AngryAngel80


Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.


Yea I don't know what the hell people are smoking. Utter disdain for GW? Plain ignorance? Over-baked nostalgia? We may never know.


some people hate change, any thing that means more change is thus bad


Change for monetizations sake as is ca and then also having seemingly Zero Standards in place does tend to make people angry though.


Yes, my comrade here has it. It's absolutely silly so much they put out needs fixing weeks after release that we have come to expect it to be always broken on release however little or large, that is just sad. Sad quality is so low, sadder still we just accept they can't ever just release something right the first time. Lowered expectations indeed. As well lets not even talk about how awful poor it is they need to errata/FAQ a release that is basically charging you for some new missions and Erratas and FAQs that are themselves in need of fixing.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 09:11:48


Post by: Gadzilla666


AngryAngel80 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.


Yea I don't know what the hell people are smoking. Utter disdain for GW? Plain ignorance? Over-baked nostalgia? We may never know.


some people hate change, any thing that means more change is thus bad


Change for monetizations sake as is ca and then also having seemingly Zero Standards in place does tend to make people angry though.


Yes, my comrade here has it. It's absolutely silly so much they put out needs fixing weeks after release that we have come to expect it to be always broken on release however little or large, that is just sad. Sad quality is so low, sadder still we just accept they can't ever just release something right the first time. Lowered expectations indeed. As well lets not even talk about how awful poor it is they need to errata/FAQ a release that is basically charging you for some new missions and Erratas and FAQs that are themselves in need of fixing.

What do you want them to do? Hire editors? Proofreaders? PLAYTESTERS?

Madness.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 09:19:14


Post by: AngryAngel80


Gadzilla666 wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.


Yea I don't know what the hell people are smoking. Utter disdain for GW? Plain ignorance? Over-baked nostalgia? We may never know.


some people hate change, any thing that means more change is thus bad


Change for monetizations sake as is ca and then also having seemingly Zero Standards in place does tend to make people angry though.


Yes, my comrade here has it. It's absolutely silly so much they put out needs fixing weeks after release that we have come to expect it to be always broken on release however little or large, that is just sad. Sad quality is so low, sadder still we just accept they can't ever just release something right the first time. Lowered expectations indeed. As well lets not even talk about how awful poor it is they need to errata/FAQ a release that is basically charging you for some new missions and Erratas and FAQs that are themselves in need of fixing.

What do you want them to do? Hire editors? Proofreaders? PLAYTESTERS?

Madness.


Can I say yes to all of the above ?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:03:40


Post by: Nazrak


I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:04:43


Post by: Insectum7


I'm just irritated that I'm supposed to not only buy CA for army updates, but PA books as well. Since I can't play with any regularity currently, they lost me on those purchases. Had it just been CA, I would have gone for the updates. Spread out over 2-3 books and I'll pass on buying all of it and instead just use my phone camera if I need to.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:05:57


Post by: Jidmah


AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, my comrade here has it. It's absolutely silly so much they put out needs fixing weeks after release that we have come to expect it to be always broken on release however little or large, that is just sad. Sad quality is so low, sadder still we just accept they can't ever just release something right the first time. Lowered expectations indeed. As well lets not even talk about how awful poor it is they need to errata/FAQ a release that is basically charging you for some new missions and Erratas and FAQs that are themselves in need of fixing.


I still prefer them releasing a document fixing errors after each book over them making the same amount of errors and not fixing them like they did in 6th and through most of 7th.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:07:12


Post by: Nazrak


As evinced by their skyrocketing share price, the majority of GW's customers seem to think the products as they're currently offering are good enough – not perfect, but good *enough* to still part with their money for. No company with its head screwed on straight would say "ah, well what we're doing already is clearly working, so our next move as a business should be to vastly increase our financial outlay simply to appease a vocal minority of hard-core pedants and internet complainers"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm just irritated that I'm supposed to not only buy CA for army updates, but PA books as well. Since I can't play with any regularity currently, they lost me on those purchases. Had it just been CA, I would have gone for the updates. Spread out over 2-3 books and I'll pass on buying all of it and instead just use my phone camera if I need to.

Oh I totally agree. I'm not really fussed about any of the PA stuff and I think it's silly to parcel the rules out like that. So I've not bought any of them – I'm quite happy to get by with the rules I have in my Codices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:

I still prefer them releasing a document fixing errors after each book over them making the same amount of errors and not fixing them like they did in 6th and through most of 7th.

Yep. I think this is absolutely it – most people's proposed "fixes" ignore the fact that what they're doing right now is, at least, practically feasible.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:14:14


Post by: Ginjitzu


 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.
I don't think anyone's failing to realize that that stuff costs money, but ultimately, the costs end with us, the consumers, and these ideas are merely suggestions on how Games Workshop could provide better value to us consumers for that money. Of course, you're reasoning is a fair assessment of why they won't make these improvements, at least not until we as consumers begin to affect Games Workshop's bottom line by collectively refusing to pay any more money until those demands are met. Yet, considering how strong Games Workshop's returns are right now, there's no reason at all to suggest that the consumer base is going to take that stance any time soon. The truth is that most people seem pretty happy with how things are at the moment.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:18:36


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Jidmah wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, my comrade here has it. It's absolutely silly so much they put out needs fixing weeks after release that we have come to expect it to be always broken on release however little or large, that is just sad. Sad quality is so low, sadder still we just accept they can't ever just release something right the first time. Lowered expectations indeed. As well lets not even talk about how awful poor it is they need to errata/FAQ a release that is basically charging you for some new missions and Erratas and FAQs that are themselves in need of fixing.


I still prefer them releasing a document fixing errors after each book over them making the same amount of errors and not fixing them like they did in 6th and through most of 7th.


I prefer them not releasing it all crap in the first place, then they have no need to have the same amount of errors or fix them after.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:22:26


Post by: Nazrak


AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, my comrade here has it. It's absolutely silly so much they put out needs fixing weeks after release that we have come to expect it to be always broken on release however little or large, that is just sad. Sad quality is so low, sadder still we just accept they can't ever just release something right the first time. Lowered expectations indeed. As well lets not even talk about how awful poor it is they need to errata/FAQ a release that is basically charging you for some new missions and Erratas and FAQs that are themselves in need of fixing.


I still prefer them releasing a document fixing errors after each book over them making the same amount of errors and not fixing them like they did in 6th and through most of 7th.


I prefer them not releasing it all crap in the first place, then they have no need to have the same amount of errors or fix them after.

The problem with taking this position is that "crap" is subjective; in particular, if you're using it to mean "anything less than 100% perfect", then good luck with waiting for that to ever happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ginjitzu wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.
I don't think anyone's failing to realize that that stuff costs money, but ultimately, the costs end with us, the consumers, and these ideas are merely suggestions on how Games Workshop could provide better value to us consumers for that money. Of course, you're reasoning is a fair assessment of why they won't make these improvements, at least not until we as consumers begin to affect Games Workshop's bottom line by collectively refusing to pay any more money until those demands are met. Yet, considering how strong Games Workshop's returns are right now, there's no reason at all to suggest that the consumer base is going to take that stance any time soon. The truth is that most people seem pretty happy with how things are at the moment.

Oh yeah, I think we're largely in agreement here. I mean, sure, I think everyone would prefer that no errors ever crept into these books, but realistically, I don't think anyone should be holding their breath for GW to suddenly expend a lot more resources for relatively little return.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:31:10


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


I'm completely at a loss here. So expecting a company, a large one to actually do the job right the first time and maybe hire more staff as opposed to run their current employees as if they struggle in a sweat shop, is too much to ask ? I really don't think it is. I don't think expecting something done right the first time is more than anyone should be able to expect from a company that sets their own release schedule, as you point out is doing so well, so they aren't hurting for the money. I don't care how insanely huge their greed is, doing the job right the first time is the ideal solution. No I don't feel sorry for them if it costs them more, hire more staff, or slow the release process down to do it proper with who they have. Maybe, just maybe that would make them more money, as people might feel, ya know the ones who pirate their material, to actually purchase their books as they'd be quality right from the start. They'd feel it wasn't just a lazy attempt at burn and churn or incompetence that the customer, us , has learned so much to accept we just don't bat an eye and literally expect a messed up product every time as opposed to mistakes being a once in a while kind of event.

Why do people accept and in fact cherish lazy, half done work that comes out messed up where even the fixes are broken on release sometimes ( CA ) ? I swear some people look at GW as their own beloved child that is slowly growing, and learning and needs patience because they are trying their best. At some point, you should want better for them, you should want them to improve and not just find a nice agreeable level of fouled up everything will be, without exception. It's madness.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:36:12


Post by: p5freak


 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Wrong. Reducing the number of books will reduce the number of errors. An error free product will make them more money, because more people will buy it. I wouldnt mind paying 5 more euros for an error free codex.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 10:44:00


Post by: Nazrak


AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


I'm completely at a loss here. So expecting a company, a large one to actually do the job right the first time and maybe hire more staff as opposed to run their current employees as if they struggle in a sweat shop, is too much to ask ? I really don't think it is. I don't think expecting something done right the first time is more than anyone should be able to expect from a company that sets their own release schedule, as you point out is doing so well, so they aren't hurting for the money. I don't care how insanely huge their greed is, doing the job right the first time is the ideal solution. No I don't feel sorry for them if it costs them more, hire more staff, or slow the release process down to do it proper with who they have. Maybe, just maybe that would make them more money, as people might feel, ya know the ones who pirate their material, to actually purchase their books as they'd be quality right from the start. They'd feel it wasn't just a lazy attempt at burn and churn or incompetence that the customer, us , has learned so much to accept we just don't bat an eye and literally expect a messed up product every time as opposed to mistakes being a once in a while kind of event.

Why do people accept and in fact cherish lazy, half done work that comes out messed up where even the fixes are broken on release sometimes ( CA ) ? I swear some people look at GW as their own beloved child that is slowly growing, and learning and needs patience because they are trying their best. At some point, you should want better for them, you should want them to improve and not just find a nice agreeable level of fouled up everything will be, without exception. It's madness.

I think you're missing the point here, which is that enough people think the product GW is offering, as it currently is, is of sufficient quality to be willing to pay money for it. If you disagree, then *don't* pay money for it, and that is absolutely your prerogative. But what I'm saying is that incessantly going on about what GW "should" do, and/or actually expecting that to happen, when that would entail them harming themselves *as a business*, is a completely futile exercise.

Would it be nice if no errors whatsoever crept into the books? Absolutely. Is that realistically something that's going to happen? No. Are people happy with this state of affaris? Well that is a matter for them, and they're perfectly entitled to make their future purchasing decisions accordingly.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 12:04:32


Post by: Jidmah


AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes, my comrade here has it. It's absolutely silly so much they put out needs fixing weeks after release that we have come to expect it to be always broken on release however little or large, that is just sad. Sad quality is so low, sadder still we just accept they can't ever just release something right the first time. Lowered expectations indeed. As well lets not even talk about how awful poor it is they need to errata/FAQ a release that is basically charging you for some new missions and Erratas and FAQs that are themselves in need of fixing.


I still prefer them releasing a document fixing errors after each book over them making the same amount of errors and not fixing them like they did in 6th and through most of 7th.


I prefer them not releasing it all crap in the first place, then they have no need to have the same amount of errors or fix them after.


Yeah me too, but IIRC we were both part of a ten page thread about how GW where you're stance was that GW will never manage to do proper releases. This is just the next best thing.

Not fixing errors < fixing errors < not releasing errors


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 12:17:13


Post by: Spoletta


 p5freak wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Wrong. Reducing the number of books will reduce the number of errors. An error free product will make them more money, because more people will buy it. I wouldnt mind paying 5 more euros for an error free codex.


That's subjective, i wouldn't.
And i don't think that the presence or not of errors in the books changes significantly the number of books sold.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 12:25:00


Post by: Nazrak


Spoletta wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Wrong. Reducing the number of books will reduce the number of errors. An error free product will make them more money, because more people will buy it. I wouldnt mind paying 5 more euros for an error free codex.


That's subjective, i wouldn't.
And i don't think that the presence or not of errors in the books changes significantly the number of books sold.

Exactly. They release fewer books in the same amount of time, they make less money. Also, what is an acceptable number of mistakes? Because as the number of mistakes approaches zero, the amount of time required to produce that book vastly increases. If you're saying any amount of mistakes renders the book not worth buying, you're not a potential customer that it makes any amount of business sense pursuing.

Also, I think people on this forum vastly overetimate how many people out there are saying "I'd play 40K, and happily pay a lot more for the books, if only they were completely error-free." As evinced by how well GW's doing at the moment, a pretty significant chunk of people out there are willing to overlook the errors and buy the books.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 12:35:44


Post by: Wayniac


 Nazrak wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Wrong. Reducing the number of books will reduce the number of errors. An error free product will make them more money, because more people will buy it. I wouldnt mind paying 5 more euros for an error free codex.


That's subjective, i wouldn't.
And i don't think that the presence or not of errors in the books changes significantly the number of books sold.

Exactly. They release fewer books in the same amount of time, they make less money. Also, what is an acceptable number of mistakes? Because as the number of mistakes approaches zero, the amount of time required to produce that book vastly increases. If you're saying any amount of mistakes renders the book not worth buying, you're not a potential customer that it makes any amount of business sense pursuing.

Also, I think people on this forum vastly overetimate how many people out there are saying "I'd play 40K, and happily pay a lot more for the books, if only they were completely error-free." As evinced by how well GW's doing at the moment, a pretty significant chunk of people out there are willing to overlook the errors and buy the books.


That last part is the big problem: Enough people, for whatever reason (ignorance, GW fanboys, who knows) don't care about quality in rules/materials other than miniatures. That's the root of the issue: These people continue to buy and make GW profitable DESPITE the huge issues that any other company would get raked over the coals with, so what reason do they have to do anything better? 8th edition showed how gullible the majority of players were in that they ate up all the smoke & mirrors bullgak GW spewed on their community site, lauded them for pulling their heads out of their asses and using social media like everyone else has the last decade, and in general doing the bare minimum with the game to be able to say "Hey look we changed, see?" like a politician who lies through their teeth to be elected and then goes back and says well I didn't "actually" say I'd do X, I said I'd do Y which sounded very close to doing X; not my fault you misunderstood.

We lost our window for actual change, because that was the leadup to 8th and all it showed GW is that they can still do garbage and be rewarded massively for it.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 12:40:41


Post by: Nazrak


Wayniac wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Wrong. Reducing the number of books will reduce the number of errors. An error free product will make them more money, because more people will buy it. I wouldnt mind paying 5 more euros for an error free codex.


That's subjective, i wouldn't.
And i don't think that the presence or not of errors in the books changes significantly the number of books sold.

Exactly. They release fewer books in the same amount of time, they make less money. Also, what is an acceptable number of mistakes? Because as the number of mistakes approaches zero, the amount of time required to produce that book vastly increases. If you're saying any amount of mistakes renders the book not worth buying, you're not a potential customer that it makes any amount of business sense pursuing.

Also, I think people on this forum vastly overetimate how many people out there are saying "I'd play 40K, and happily pay a lot more for the books, if only they were completely error-free." As evinced by how well GW's doing at the moment, a pretty significant chunk of people out there are willing to overlook the errors and buy the books.


That last part is the big problem: Enough people, for whatever reason (ignorance, GW fanboys, who knows) don't care about quality in rules/materials other than miniatures. That's the root of the issue: These people continue to buy and make GW profitable DESPITE the huge issues that any other company would get raked over the coals with, so what reason do they have to do anything better? 8th edition showed how gullible the majority of players were in that they ate up all the smoke & mirrors bullgak GW spewed on their community site, lauded them for pulling their heads out of their asses and using social media like everyone else has the last decade, and in general doing the bare minimum with the game to be able to say "Hey look we changed, see?" like a politician who lies through their teeth to be elected and then goes back and says well I didn't "actually" say I'd do X, I said I'd do Y which sounded very close to doing X; not my fault you misunderstood.

We lost our window for actual change, because that was the leadup to 8th and all it showed GW is that they can still do garbage and be rewarded massively for it.

Ah, so it's "everyone else is stupid and enjoying the Hobby wrong and I'm mad about it"? Ok, good luck getting that fixed then.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 13:02:24


Post by: Lemondish


Wayniac wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Wrong. Reducing the number of books will reduce the number of errors. An error free product will make them more money, because more people will buy it. I wouldnt mind paying 5 more euros for an error free codex.


That's subjective, i wouldn't.
And i don't think that the presence or not of errors in the books changes significantly the number of books sold.

Exactly. They release fewer books in the same amount of time, they make less money. Also, what is an acceptable number of mistakes? Because as the number of mistakes approaches zero, the amount of time required to produce that book vastly increases. If you're saying any amount of mistakes renders the book not worth buying, you're not a potential customer that it makes any amount of business sense pursuing.

Also, I think people on this forum vastly overetimate how many people out there are saying "I'd play 40K, and happily pay a lot more for the books, if only they were completely error-free." As evinced by how well GW's doing at the moment, a pretty significant chunk of people out there are willing to overlook the errors and buy the books.


That last part is the big problem: Enough people, for whatever reason (ignorance, GW fanboys, who knows) don't care about quality in rules/materials other than miniatures. That's the root of the issue: These people continue to buy and make GW profitable DESPITE the huge issues that any other company would get raked over the coals with, so what reason do they have to do anything better? 8th edition showed how gullible the majority of players were in that they ate up all the smoke & mirrors bullgak GW spewed on their community site, lauded them for pulling their heads out of their asses and using social media like everyone else has the last decade, and in general doing the bare minimum with the game to be able to say "Hey look we changed, see?" like a politician who lies through their teeth to be elected and then goes back and says well I didn't "actually" say I'd do X, I said I'd do Y which sounded very close to doing X; not my fault you misunderstood.

We lost our window for actual change, because that was the leadup to 8th and all it showed GW is that they can still do garbage and be rewarded massively for it.


I got a big whiff of a "STOP HAVING FUN" vibe from this rant.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 13:07:23


Post by: Nazrak


Lemondish wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Wrong. Reducing the number of books will reduce the number of errors. An error free product will make them more money, because more people will buy it. I wouldnt mind paying 5 more euros for an error free codex.


That's subjective, i wouldn't.
And i don't think that the presence or not of errors in the books changes significantly the number of books sold.

Exactly. They release fewer books in the same amount of time, they make less money. Also, what is an acceptable number of mistakes? Because as the number of mistakes approaches zero, the amount of time required to produce that book vastly increases. If you're saying any amount of mistakes renders the book not worth buying, you're not a potential customer that it makes any amount of business sense pursuing.

Also, I think people on this forum vastly overetimate how many people out there are saying "I'd play 40K, and happily pay a lot more for the books, if only they were completely error-free." As evinced by how well GW's doing at the moment, a pretty significant chunk of people out there are willing to overlook the errors and buy the books.


That last part is the big problem: Enough people, for whatever reason (ignorance, GW fanboys, who knows) don't care about quality in rules/materials other than miniatures. That's the root of the issue: These people continue to buy and make GW profitable DESPITE the huge issues that any other company would get raked over the coals with, so what reason do they have to do anything better? 8th edition showed how gullible the majority of players were in that they ate up all the smoke & mirrors bullgak GW spewed on their community site, lauded them for pulling their heads out of their asses and using social media like everyone else has the last decade, and in general doing the bare minimum with the game to be able to say "Hey look we changed, see?" like a politician who lies through their teeth to be elected and then goes back and says well I didn't "actually" say I'd do X, I said I'd do Y which sounded very close to doing X; not my fault you misunderstood.

We lost our window for actual change, because that was the leadup to 8th and all it showed GW is that they can still do garbage and be rewarded massively for it.


I got a big whiff of a "STOP HAVING FUN" vibe from this rant.

Indeed. Anyone willing to overlook the issues with some of the rulebooks (by whatever means) and just crack on with having fun *playing a game* is, apparently, in the wrong. Toy spacemen: extremely serious and important business.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 13:25:48


Post by: Wayniac


It is when it constantly excuses a poor product because ooh shiny miniatures. Say what you want but the fact so many people continue to make excuses for GW passing off a shoddy product as an expensive "luxury" one is the real issue here.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 13:30:13


Post by: Nazrak


Wayniac wrote:
It is when it constantly excuses a poor product because ooh shiny miniatures. Say what you want but the fact so many people continue to make excuses for GW passing off a shoddy product as an expensive "luxury" one is the real issue here.

Ok, sure, have fun being mad about it.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 13:48:26


Post by: BaconCatBug


Considering GW is swimming in money I am sure they can afford two minimum wage salarys to maintain FAQs and PDFs


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 13:49:12


Post by: Not Online!!!


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Considering GW is swimming in money I am sure they can afford two minimum wage salarys to maintain FAQs and PDFs


I'd be happy with one


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 14:01:54


Post by: the_scotsman


Also considering that much, MUUUUUCH smaller miniature companies with objectively more complex games and similar numbers of units with distinct rules (See: Infinity) are able to maintain a much higher, more consistent level of balance with free electronic rules, I think this is do-able for the single most profitable UK company.

People talk about GW like they're three dudes in a backyard. They have 289 million dollars in yearly revenue (2018 numbers) to work with.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 14:13:08


Post by: Wayniac


the_scotsman wrote:
Also considering that much, MUUUUUCH smaller miniature companies with objectively more complex games and similar numbers of units with distinct rules (See: Infinity) are able to maintain a much higher, more consistent level of balance with free electronic rules, I think this is do-able for the single most profitable UK company.

People talk about GW like they're three dudes in a backyard. They have 289 million dollars in yearly revenue (2018 numbers) to work with.
Which is the reason for such frustration. Smaller companies can do a much better job than a multi-million-pound company that purports to sell luxury products of the highest quality (they think they're Apple) and it's riddled with mistakes that even a cursory proofreading/QA before sending to the printers would discover.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 14:14:52


Post by: Nazrak


the_scotsman wrote:
Also considering that much, MUUUUUCH smaller miniature companies with objectively more complex games and similar numbers of units with distinct rules (See: Infinity) are able to maintain a much higher, more consistent level of balance with free electronic rules, I think this is do-able for the single most profitable UK company.

People talk about GW like they're three dudes in a backyard. They have 289 million dollars in yearly revenue (2018 numbers) to work with.

AGAIN, they *could*, purely theoretically, but what incentive to do that is there when they are *already the single most profitable UK company*? We can argue til the cows come home about whether they *should*; I think we'd all agree that we might *like* it to be the case, but I just don't see that it's going to happen and, as such, it seems like the options open to people in terms of response are: 1. get over whatever quibbles we have with the way GW is doing things and focus on enjoying the game; 2. bin the game off until GW start doing things differently (which may never happen). Of course, there's option 3 – raging on the internet about it and coming up with pie-in-the-sky solutions, while telling anyone who isn't as concerned about it (i.e. Option 1) that the problem is how stupid they are, but what does that actually *achieve*? Literally bugger all.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 14:15:42


Post by: Slipspace


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Considering GW is swimming in money I am sure they can afford two minimum wage salarys to maintain FAQs and PDFs


Hell no. GW's biggest problem is it doesn't pay anywhere near enough to attract and retain talented and competent individuals. They don't need more minimum wage drones, they need an experienced, professional technical editor and game leads who will implement industry standard practices like proper document and versioning management, language guidelines and reference databases of existing rules. GW still seem to operate like they did in the 90s as a group of enthusiastic, passionate amateurs getting paid for their hobby. That was fine when their prices were pretty low and their output slow. It's not fine any more.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 14:35:27


Post by: Wayniac


Hence the whole vitriol at people who accept it. Okay, I get the rules being good/fun is subjective. But seriously? People are okay paying premium-quality money for a product riddled with basic proofing errors? Even if the errors themselves aren't a big deal, you're okay with paying money for a product and getting subpar quality?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 14:44:14


Post by: Nazrak


Wayniac wrote:
Hence the whole vitriol at people who accept it. Okay, I get the rules being good/fun is subjective. But seriously? People are okay paying premium-quality money for a product riddled with basic proofing errors? Even if the errors themselves aren't a big deal, you're okay with paying money for a product and getting subpar quality?

This is entirely my point. A lot of people clearly don't perceive them as being sub-par to the point of not being worth paying for. Few, if any, things one might be able to purchase are completely flawless; it's really just a matter of deciding whether something is good *enough* that you're willing to pay for it. All that's happening here is that *your* view of how good it needs to be – to which you are perfectly entitled – is out of alignment with that of a lot of other people. And there's enough of the latter to have sent GW's share price skyrocketing of late, and as such there's no commercial incentive for them to pivot to pandering to your view instead.

As for the "vitriol", it seems to be a bit unreasonable to get enraged at people simply for enjoying something.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 14:49:55


Post by: VladimirHerzog


the_scotsman wrote:
Also considering that much, MUUUUUCH smaller miniature companies with objectively more complex games and similar numbers of units with distinct rules (See: Infinity) are able to maintain a much higher, more consistent level of balance with free electronic rules, I think this is do-able for the single most profitable UK company.

People talk about GW like they're three dudes in a backyard. They have 289 million dollars in yearly revenue (2018 numbers) to work with.


I actually started playing infinity over the xmas vacation and oh my god are the rules much better and in-depth than 40k. 40k was my only experience with tabletop wargaming before but now im probably only going to play it exclusively against opponents i know are fun to paly agaisnt in super relaxed games. And GW is 100% not getting my money for a while, at least until they hopefully fix the core issues with their game.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 14:52:50


Post by: Daedalus81


the_scotsman wrote:
Also considering that much, MUUUUUCH smaller miniature companies with objectively more complex games and similar numbers of units with distinct rules (See: Infinity) are able to maintain a much higher, more consistent level of balance with free electronic rules, I think this is do-able for the single most profitable UK company.

People talk about GW like they're three dudes in a backyard. They have 289 million dollars in yearly revenue (2018 numbers) to work with.


2018 was 229M (incl royalties) with 154M in costs. That remainder takes a 20% hit on taxes. 50M more of that went to dividends. So, 10M or 4% of the revenue remains.

The prior year they spent 9M expanding the studio and 3M for new tooling. In 2018 they started building another factory. I guarantee that eats up a ton of money.

So, no, there really isn't a large pile of cash floating around doing nothing unless you want them to ignore their fiduciary duty to shareholders. We may not like the dividends, but it is just a fact of life at this point.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 15:01:00


Post by: Jidmah


It's also not like they are so poor that they couldn't hire two people to create processes to ensure content quality.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 15:04:14


Post by: Daedalus81


 Jidmah wrote:
It's also not like they are so poor that they couldn't hire two people to create processes to ensure content quality.


It isn't always about throwing money at the problem. If they're not listening to the playtesters then more people who are min wage aren't going to get through the roadblock.

The other point being there is a LOT more things GW has to tackle as a business apart from some guys writing rules and making models. Including now tv shows, a new ERP system, a new factory, etc. Production staff went from 143 to 198. Almost two hundred people just to run the factory.

At that level of business is requires really good leaders to keep teams on point.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 15:07:58


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's also not like they are so poor that they couldn't hire two people to create processes to ensure content quality.


It isn't always about throwing money at the problem. If they're not listening to the playtesters then more people who are min wage aren't going to get through the roadblock.


which is the next issue, communication. Especially in the rulesteam. They might don't list the main author anymore but it seems still very much the one dude writes the one book, and is not concerned what the other 12 dudes are doing.


then the playtesting themselves. With prebuilt armies and lists, is hardly, playtesting.

And the playtesters themselves maybee also an issue due to potential format bias. Depending on who get's a say in it.


Really overall put there is a lot wierd going on in the rules department.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 15:15:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


Better communication between the people working on the various books alone would help with balancing factions. That doesn't cost anything.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 16:36:52


Post by: Wayniac


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's also not like they are so poor that they couldn't hire two people to create processes to ensure content quality.


It isn't always about throwing money at the problem. If they're not listening to the playtesters then more people who are min wage aren't going to get through the roadblock.


which is the next issue, communication. Especially in the rulesteam. They might don't list the main author anymore but it seems still very much the one dude writes the one book, and is not concerned what the other 12 dudes are doing.


then the playtesting themselves. With prebuilt armies and lists, is hardly, playtesting.

And the playtesters themselves maybee also an issue due to potential format bias. Depending on who get's a say in it.


Really overall put there is a lot wierd going on in the rules department.
A big thing too is it's so opaque that we have no idea how it actually works, because all they say its bits and pieces. But it sounds like:

1) The miniature design team comes up with models independently of the rules, without knowing/caring what the rules might be or what the game needs, and then it gets handed to the rules team to fit it into the game. This is all but confirmed, although to what level we don't know. If the models are designed with zero input from the rules team then this is the biggest issue of all because there's no communication between teams about what might be good for the game and it seems to be the models are designed without consideration and would explain why we get new things when old things need updating if the model team needs to decide to rework something first without the rules team saying hey this might be worth remaking.

2) The designers work in isolation on different books, with little or no communication between them about what they've done in the past or what's been changed or what may or may not fit. This could indicate why books that follow each other are often wildly different; because it's different people almost 100% writing the book with different ideas about how the army should work. Also would explain why certain books seem to ignore or forget errata that has been done previously to similar books.

3) Playtesting, from what little has been gathered since playtesting is kept under NDA, is mostly "use this premade list and see if everything 'feels' good" and not "See what is broken/can be abused so we can fix it" so there's no chance to actually show what is broken when you combine multiple factions or whatnot, just if it "feels" like it works On this note we don't know if the playtesters are using ITC rules or other house rules which might skew their tests.

4) At least some time in the past, even if the designers wanted to adjust something sales might dictate otherwise. See the Wraithknight story about how it was made stronger and the team wanted to increase its points but some suit said to keep it undercosted so it would sell more. That was from the Kirby era, however, so there's no telling if it still happens or not.

5) There doesn't see to be a core area for rules updates/errata since something changed previously may or may not be remembered in a new book.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 18:45:21


Post by: Jidmah


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's also not like they are so poor that they couldn't hire two people to create processes to ensure content quality.


It isn't always about throwing money at the problem. If they're not listening to the playtesters then more people who are min wage aren't going to get through the roadblock.

The other point being there is a LOT more things GW has to tackle as a business apart from some guys writing rules and making models. Including now tv shows, a new ERP system, a new factory, etc. Production staff went from 143 to 198. Almost two hundred people just to run the factory.

At that level of business is requires really good leaders to keep teams on point.



People creating processes aren't minimum wage people, quite the opposite. Proper processes could also fix communication problems.

When you read DEV blogs from MtG, they have design and development processes defined with fixed steps in them which you can't just forgo - like checking for mistakes they have done in the past. And they have software in place to help with those processes. I wouldn't be surprised if GW's design process is based on excel, email and maybe a wiki which is hopelessly out of date.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 19:46:18


Post by: Daedalus81


 Jidmah wrote:

People creating processes aren't minimum wage people, quite the opposite. Proper processes could also fix communication problems.

When you read DEV blogs from MtG, they have design and development processes defined with fixed steps in them which you can't just forgo - like checking for mistakes they have done in the past. And they have software in place to help with those processes. I wouldn't be surprised if GW's design process is based on excel, email and maybe a wiki which is hopelessly out of date.


Very much this. Good software eliminates these issues. Someone made the foundation of CA19 with copy pastes from older sources and there was no change history to compare to. And there very likely is no database housing values to make it easy to run the numbers.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 20:13:44


Post by: Karol


That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 22:19:53


Post by: Wayniac


Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.
I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/09 22:22:59


Post by: Not Online!!!


Wayniac wrote:
Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.
I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.


And maybee just look what unit is x and it's role and Model.

Because 55pts acolyths is hillarious, Same as 5pts cultists and 33 pts Chaos spawn.
...


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 00:14:54


Post by: Daedalus81


Not Online!!! wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.
I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.


And maybee just look what unit is x and it's role and Model.

Because 55pts acolyths is hillarious, Same as 5pts cultists and 33 pts Chaos spawn.
...


It iis Neos who went to 55. Acos are still 7 (thankfully). That just means someone typing it in hit the key twice, because they're 5 points. And it tells me they're massively overworked if they didn't catch that sort of blunder.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 02:11:11


Post by: Karol


Well maybe, question is what are they doing if most of the rules end up copy paste or are created with a clear patern for everyone.

And then there is stuff like reprinting an old core rule book, without any changes or even a warrning that there is 2 years of change stuff in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:
Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.
I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.

They would have to have people playing or at least knowing the rules for the armies they check in depth. If the person checking doesn't know the army it is kind of a hard to pick up errors, or even less stuff that clearly won't work aka won't be bought.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 02:40:39


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Nazrak wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
I think what everyone's failing to realise in terms of their proposed "solutions" to this ("Pull 18-hour workdays playtesting before release!" "Every Codex comes with a voucher for a free, updated-monthly PDF of the rules!" "Hire a small army of editors and proofreaders!") is that they all cost GW more money, in terms of the resources required to implement them, and don't *make* them any more money.


Wrong. Reducing the number of books will reduce the number of errors. An error free product will make them more money, because more people will buy it. I wouldnt mind paying 5 more euros for an error free codex.


That's subjective, i wouldn't.
And i don't think that the presence or not of errors in the books changes significantly the number of books sold.

Exactly. They release fewer books in the same amount of time, they make less money. Also, what is an acceptable number of mistakes? Because as the number of mistakes approaches zero, the amount of time required to produce that book vastly increases. If you're saying any amount of mistakes renders the book not worth buying, you're not a potential customer that it makes any amount of business sense pursuing.

Also, I think people on this forum vastly overetimate how many people out there are saying "I'd play 40K, and happily pay a lot more for the books, if only they were completely error-free." As evinced by how well GW's doing at the moment, a pretty significant chunk of people out there are willing to overlook the errors and buy the books.


That last part is the big problem: Enough people, for whatever reason (ignorance, GW fanboys, who knows) don't care about quality in rules/materials other than miniatures. That's the root of the issue: These people continue to buy and make GW profitable DESPITE the huge issues that any other company would get raked over the coals with, so what reason do they have to do anything better? 8th edition showed how gullible the majority of players were in that they ate up all the smoke & mirrors bullgak GW spewed on their community site, lauded them for pulling their heads out of their asses and using social media like everyone else has the last decade, and in general doing the bare minimum with the game to be able to say "Hey look we changed, see?" like a politician who lies through their teeth to be elected and then goes back and says well I didn't "actually" say I'd do X, I said I'd do Y which sounded very close to doing X; not my fault you misunderstood.

We lost our window for actual change, because that was the leadup to 8th and all it showed GW is that they can still do garbage and be rewarded massively for it.


I got a big whiff of a "STOP HAVING FUN" vibe from this rant.

Indeed. Anyone willing to overlook the issues with some of the rulebooks (by whatever means) and just crack on with having fun *playing a game* is, apparently, in the wrong. Toy spacemen: extremely serious and important business.


Ok, I'd like to see the numbers of people who might actually buy more, if they pumped out less. I, for one, would. First off, it would feel a hell of a lot less like burn and churn as it does now. Now, it feels more like you should wait two weeks, minimum, before you even touch a book release as it could end up changed a lot from initial release to how it'll look in a couple weeks, or it could make absolutely no sense in some areas, until they fix issues. That will cost them sales. Claiming none of this matters because profit, yet again I'd love to know how many of these sales are new customers, and how many of these are just the whales that buy everything by the bucket load regardless of cost just because GW, of which I've known a few. It's easy to make huge profits when you over cost everything you put out and some don't care one iota and buy more than any normal customer might. Those things can give an idea of great consumer trust when really its bloated prices floating the ship under a small percentage of players that buy 10 players worth of product alone.

To be fair neither of us can really prove this one way or the other and I doubt GW themselves have these numbers or care so long as they are selling. It is however, something to think about.

I do as well have to say, no one is expecting entirely error free releases from now till forever. However, there is a huge difference between accepting zero errors or mistakes, which can happen, to accepting that every release will have issues day 1 and then we will need a fix 2 weeks down the road each and every time. That isn't demanding the world to want quality on release with the errors being few and far between as opposed to errors and faulty product being part of each and every book drop, which is where we are at currently. When a whole army can cost around half a thousand dollars US, it isn't a game of toy soldiers and saying you shouldn't expect more from a product of that cost is not a small nothing concern.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 05:34:50


Post by: Klickor


I speak regularly with people who used to buy all the books GW released when they were cheaper and released with more time between them but now dont buy a single extra book. Some like me buy 0 books and some only the books that affect them directly, no one buys everything anymore though. Too many books with too many rules spread out that its more of a hassle to use physical copies rather than have them all in pdf format on their phone. Especially since you still need a pdf FAQ or errata anyway for that book most likely so why not just go all pdf? You will be using battlescribe to list build anyway and carrying 5pound/2kg worth of books with you is such a chore even those who bought the books dont carry them around with them if there isnt a tournament.

They are definetly losing some players due to this rapid release schedule and it might harm them in the future. At least hurt 40k since in my club and another club in town people are now more and more interested in AoS, HH and Kings of War and maybe other games I dont know of.

There are other companies and franchises who have managed to grow new markets and reach new audiences that increase their sales for a few years despite shortcomings in the main product but the new people make up for that in the short run but when more and more people see the wrongs the profits will just start decreasing despite the company not doing anything differently. Just because things sell well doesnt mean they are doing the right thing in the long run. Just having a few extra staff members checking books and rules for errrors and imbalance might seem like a waste of money since stuff sell already but maybe they could sell more if they had better quality. Maybe not in the short run it would be a noticeable difference but if they keep people in the game for longer and build up a better reputation for their products it could lead to higher profit.

I have probably met enough people disgrunted with GW books the last year alone that if they bought more books the profit from just these people alone could almost afford a well payed staff member to fix some of the problems in this thread.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 07:41:55


Post by: AngryAngel80


Klickor wrote:
I speak regularly with people who used to buy all the books GW released when they were cheaper and released with more time between them but now dont buy a single extra book. Some like me buy 0 books and some only the books that affect them directly, no one buys everything anymore though. Too many books with too many rules spread out that its more of a hassle to use physical copies rather than have them all in pdf format on their phone. Especially since you still need a pdf FAQ or errata anyway for that book most likely so why not just go all pdf? You will be using battlescribe to list build anyway and carrying 5pound/2kg worth of books with you is such a chore even those who bought the books dont carry them around with them if there isnt a tournament.

They are definetly losing some players due to this rapid release schedule and it might harm them in the future. At least hurt 40k since in my club and another club in town people are now more and more interested in AoS, HH and Kings of War and maybe other games I dont know of.

There are other companies and franchises who have managed to grow new markets and reach new audiences that increase their sales for a few years despite shortcomings in the main product but the new people make up for that in the short run but when more and more people see the wrongs the profits will just start decreasing despite the company not doing anything differently. Just because things sell well doesnt mean they are doing the right thing in the long run. Just having a few extra staff members checking books and rules for errrors and imbalance might seem like a waste of money since stuff sell already but maybe they could sell more if they had better quality. Maybe not in the short run it would be a noticeable difference but if they keep people in the game for longer and build up a better reputation for their products it could lead to higher profit.

I have probably met enough people disgrunted with GW books the last year alone that if they bought more books the profit from just these people alone could almost afford a well payed staff member to fix some of the problems in this thread.


I was sure I wasn't the only one who saw this and heard of the discontent.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 07:58:43


Post by: BrianDavion


Wayniac wrote:
Hence the whole vitriol at people who accept it. Okay, I get the rules being good/fun is subjective. But seriously? People are okay paying premium-quality money for a product riddled with basic proofing errors? Even if the errors themselves aren't a big deal, you're okay with paying money for a product and getting subpar quality?


you could go play games from a differant company and just have fun with that? this is a fething hobby not a social movement.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 08:25:58


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.
I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.

They would have to have people playing or at least knowing the rules for the armies they check in depth. If the person checking doesn't know the army it is kind of a hard to pick up errors, or even less stuff that clearly won't work aka won't be bought.

Agree - personally, I wouldn't have caught the Space Wolf or GSC errors, simply because I don't know those armies at all, nor do any of my regular opponents play them.
Then again, it's not my job to know those things.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 09:12:45


Post by: JohnnyHell


BrianDavion wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Hence the whole vitriol at people who accept it. Okay, I get the rules being good/fun is subjective. But seriously? People are okay paying premium-quality money for a product riddled with basic proofing errors? Even if the errors themselves aren't a big deal, you're okay with paying money for a product and getting subpar quality?


you could go play games from a differant company and just have fun with that? this is a fething hobby not a social movement.


Some people’s hobby is complaining online, don’t forget.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 09:21:04


Post by: AngryAngel80


I do point out, we are on a forum, which involves debate and voicing of opinion and/or facts in various degrees. Trying to downsize or otherwise diminish the fact some don't appreciate a broken product released over and over with no change in sight is hardly baseless complaining.

If someone doesn't want to read it, then don't. I'd go so far as to say some peoples hobby is complaining about people complaining. Which is more odd to me, especially when they don't say the complaints are unfounded, simply they don't care about getting faulty product.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 09:27:05


Post by: JohnnyHell


Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 09:35:53


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
Karol wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.
I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.

They would have to have people playing or at least knowing the rules for the armies they check in depth. If the person checking doesn't know the army it is kind of a hard to pick up errors, or even less stuff that clearly won't work aka won't be bought.

Agree - personally, I wouldn't have caught the Space Wolf or GSC errors, simply because I don't know those armies at all, nor do any of my regular opponents play them.
Then again, it's not my job to know those things.

I think that's a big factor in ca. You'd expect that whoever was working on a codex would have an interest in that particular faction. Ca however covers everything and I doubt everyone working on it plays or cares about every faction.

I still think the reason almost every non knight super heavy in the game got a points cut except the hellforged/relic super heavys was because they literally just forgot about them and just copy pasted their prices from the last ca. No way anyone actually thinks their worth that.

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 09:43:21


Post by: AngryAngel80


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.


You know what I find toxic ? The vast amount of world spanning leeway given to a large by any measure company that can do better. I find that kinda toxic, but to each their own right ? I mean people toss the word toxic around so much it really doesn't have any meaning anymore, though I do approve of it being trotted out as a standard argument killing I win button always delightfully toxic.

There is nothing hyperbolic on wanting something working one day 1 without need of FAQ or Errata in 2 weeks every time.

You know what I find tedious ? Nothing being correct on release, that is kinda tedious. As well as having discussion on rules intent when it could be written clearly for at least two weeks. Wondering if strange points changes like say 5 to 55 pts was an actual change or just foul up ?

I mean, it could be made more fun, could be a mini game. Pick up the book hot on day 1, see how many mistakes and changes you get in two weeks, take bets, whoever is closest without going over gets a free Strat point in the next game, oh how exciting.

All you are ever going to read here is anecdotal as much of the raw facts probably no one has access to, even the company in question.

It's all a debate, and sometimes they don't come with facts but opinions and everyone, including your own post is quite rich in this sea of hyperbolic " Everyone does " " Everything is ".

I do actually play, and have for quite a long time, enough to be really tired of the status quo of how they run. I can both play the game and real dislike how they choose to do things and voice it honestly. Now if that is toxic, then call me a true avenger of that variety because I'll say it how it is.

Here though, let me add some sunshine, the new sisters I think look really good. So don't worry, be happy.

I would ask though, do people give smaller companies this level of understanding for such poor work ? I somehow doubt it, that would be the kiss of death.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 09:52:45


Post by: Not Online!!!


Friendly reminder that the r&h Index rules, 12 pages core, had 10 faulty pages in it.
Of which at this state only 2 pages have been cleaned up. After 2 years. Off which i regularly pointed them out to gw.

That makes on release a fault quota of 83,3% /page. Not even considering the point changes that just got overlooked.

Excuse me for wanting a non more then half faulty product.
Also since now come the reeeers that say i have unreasonable entitlement, i'd tolerate a 10-15 % fault/ page quota. Still high but workable.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 09:53:30


Post by: Nazrak


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 09:55:51


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Jidmah wrote:
Karol wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.
I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.

They would have to have people playing or at least knowing the rules for the armies they check in depth. If the person checking doesn't know the army it is kind of a hard to pick up errors, or even less stuff that clearly won't work aka won't be bought.

Agree - personally, I wouldn't have caught the Space Wolf or GSC errors, simply because I don't know those armies at all, nor do any of my regular opponents play them.
Then again, it's not my job to know those things.


Well, at the very least you would have compared the points in the 2019 book with the 2018 book and the codices. And that should have immediately highlighted the 5pt to 55pt error as any unit having a 1000% increase in cost is pretty drastic.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 10:01:57


Post by: Nazrak


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Karol wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.
I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.

They would have to have people playing or at least knowing the rules for the armies they check in depth. If the person checking doesn't know the army it is kind of a hard to pick up errors, or even less stuff that clearly won't work aka won't be bought.

Agree - personally, I wouldn't have caught the Space Wolf or GSC errors, simply because I don't know those armies at all, nor do any of my regular opponents play them.
Then again, it's not my job to know those things.


Well, at the very least you would have compared the points in the 2019 book with the 2018 book and the codices. And that should have immediately highlighted the 5pt to 55pt error as any unit having a 1000% increase in cost is pretty drastic.

As someone who works in print production, I'd say yes, ideally someone should have done this, and it should have been picked up. But it's very rare that things run exactly on schedule, and sometimes they get rushed, and that's when things get overlooked. Unfortunately, (and as much as I'd like it to be the case, both professionally and as an end user/consumer) "how long do you need to make sure everything's done meticulously and comprehensively?" is very rarely the sole consideration in scheduling these things.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 10:05:26


Post by: AngryAngel80


 Nazrak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.


Nothing hyperbolic in this at all, I see.

It's easy to downplay all the very real complaints and reasonable desires people have from a very large company. Don't worry about that though, far be it from me to derail someone riding hyperbole train on a straight course to pretentious town.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 10:30:22


Post by: Jidmah


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, at the very least you would have compared the points in the 2019 book with the 2018 book and the codices. And that should have immediately highlighted the 5pt to 55pt error as any unit having a 1000% increase in cost is pretty drastic.


Maybe. Assuming it was my job to do that, there is actually a CA 2018 available, I'm not buried in work, there is time left to do that and there aren't more interesting things to do.

The correct way to do it would be putting "compare all values against those from the previous releases" as a quality gate in the release process, have a person which is responsible for doing that and then provide that person with the time and means to perform that task.
And that's assuming that all the changes are documented in a central place and not just edited into the layout pdf stored on a thumbdrive.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 11:20:51


Post by: JohnnyHell


AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.


Nothing hyperbolic in this at all, I see.

It's easy to downplay all the very real complaints and reasonable desires people have from a very large company. Don't worry about that though, far be it from me to derail someone riding hyperbole train on a straight course to pretentious town.


Awww cute, but no. Valid complaints are valid. The volume and delivery method are the issue. As well as the intractable bickering. If you believe a certain poster you need one hundred and twelvety-seven documents just to be able to play any given game, which is untrue.

Expending energy writing politely to GW with concerns is appropriate. Discussing politely is great. Spending all day telling people they’re wrong to enjoy a ‘broken product’, blah blah you’re a white knight if you play GW etc. (yawn) is the issue. I’ll blow your mind for a second... it’s possible to be upset, express that constructively, listen to others’ views and not try to make everything into sides/camps/being right and wrong.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 11:23:25


Post by: nareik


Gadzilla666 wrote:

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.
Phil Kelly is a stronger gamer than the rest of the team and he regularly uses the Stompa so stompa pays a tax for Phil’s gaming competence.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 11:23:48


Post by: Not Online!!!


And where in this thread was impolitness?
I expressed the numbers in my case.
So you think that that is an acceptable ammount of faults?
Is pointing that out now also impolite?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 11:33:28


Post by: Jidmah


nareik wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.
Phil Kelly is a stronger gamer than the rest of the team and he regularly uses the Stompa so stompa pays a tax for Phil’s gaming competence.

According to the studio, Phil Kelly doesn't own any orks anymore. According to Phil Kelly, he has lost interest in them a long time ago - 7th edition codex orks was allegedly written by Mat Ward, who hates orks.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 11:45:25


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
nareik wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.
Phil Kelly is a stronger gamer than the rest of the team and he regularly uses the Stompa so stompa pays a tax for Phil’s gaming competence.

According to the studio, Phil Kelly doesn't own any orks anymore. According to Phil Kelly, he has lost interest in them a long time ago - 7th edition codex orks was allegedly written by Mat Ward, who hates orks.

That's one theory down I guess.

They let somebody who hates orks write their codex? That's ridiculous.

Who wrote the Grey Knight's codex? Tzeentch?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 11:54:48


Post by: Jidmah


GK wasn't written to be bad. Many of their problems are related to general rule changes.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 12:55:52


Post by: nareik


 Jidmah wrote:
nareik wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.
Phil Kelly is a stronger gamer than the rest of the team and he regularly uses the Stompa so stompa pays a tax for Phil’s gaming competence.

According to the studio, Phil Kelly doesn't own any orks anymore. According to Phil Kelly, he has lost interest in them a long time ago - 7th edition codex orks was allegedly written by Mat Ward, who hates orks.
Things have turned around. Freebooter Stompa is seen periodically on the warhammer world tables.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/10 13:01:41


Post by: Dysartes


AngryAngel80 wrote:
There is nothing hyperbolic on wanting something working one day 1 without need of FAQ or Errata in 2 weeks every time.

I don't think it is hyperbolic to not want errata to be necessary within 2 weeks.

However, FAQ should be in response to questions raised by the community, normally in relation to interpretation. If you're writing rules in English - even technically-written English - there are always going to be differences in interpretation, which in turn lead to questions, and an early FAQ to clear up these makes perfect sense.

Admittedly, it'd be good if the FAQ documents issues after 2 weeks did achieve that, but I'm not sure on the track record there...


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 03:42:13


Post by: Seabass


Wow, this game really is better if you just stay away from the internet.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 04:51:28


Post by: BrianDavion


Seabass wrote:
Wow, this game really is better if you just stay away from the internet.


it's like they say, "those who are happy are playing, those who aren't are complaining on the forums"


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 06:23:53


Post by: AnomanderRake


Seabass wrote:
Wow, this game really is better if you just stay away from the internet.


Yes and no. There isn't one universal definition of how well Warhammer functions simply because the variance of play environment and house rules is so great, so if you have a great local play environment the Internet may only make things worse, but if you have a crap local play environment sometimes you find suggestions on the Internet that make it better.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 09:15:44


Post by: AngryAngel80


 JohnnyHell wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.


Nothing hyperbolic in this at all, I see.

It's easy to downplay all the very real complaints and reasonable desires people have from a very large company. Don't worry about that though, far be it from me to derail someone riding hyperbole train on a straight course to pretentious town.


Awww cute, but no. Valid complaints are valid. The volume and delivery method are the issue. As well as the intractable bickering. If you believe a certain poster you need one hundred and twelvety-seven documents just to be able to play any given game, which is untrue.

Expending energy writing politely to GW with concerns is appropriate. Discussing politely is great. Spending all day telling people they’re wrong to enjoy a ‘broken product’, blah blah you’re a white knight if you play GW etc. (yawn) is the issue. I’ll blow your mind for a second... it’s possible to be upset, express that constructively, listen to others’ views and not try to make everything into sides/camps/being right and wrong.


Well, unless your eyes are surgically implanted into this thread and others like it, I don't see any reason at all why you need to ever bother with the delivery of valid complaints or their frequency of popping up.

I'd go ahead and turn your jolly trolly around as I never said people were wrong for enjoying whatever they want to, I said I don't enjoy it, and we deserve better and such consideration wouldn't be given a lesser company for their kings weight of errors and that they can do better. All of which I consider to be true. Now, I'll consider my time well spent bringing it up in whatever reasonably polite fashion I can. You can feel free to ignore it all if it is so unpleasant to thine eyes, otherwise all you're doing is complaining about complaining which while quaint would also be a bit pointless, from a certain point of view.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 10:19:14


Post by: Karol


 Jidmah wrote:
GK wasn't written to be bad. Many of their problems are related to general rule changes.


True. If you write a codex with turn 1 deep strike in mind, no rule of 3 etc. And then remove those options from matched play, the codex kind of stops working as intended. One can of course play with points, and if termintors were suddenly running around costing 15pts, GK would be an OP army, as long as other marines didn't get point drops too. They require either a drastic rule adjustment, the way pods and stratagems allow other marines drop stuff turn one 9" away from opponents. Or they have the rewrite the codex from ground up, throw out the old rules. no more copy paste codex.

The chance of that happening without someone really liking GK at the studio is probably close to zero %.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JohnnyHell wrote:


Awww cute, but no. Valid complaints are valid. The volume and delivery method are the issue. As well as the intractable bickering. If you believe a certain poster you need one hundred and twelvety-seven documents just to be able to play any given game, which is untrue.

Expending energy writing politely to GW with concerns is appropriate. Discussing politely is great. Spending all day telling people they’re wrong to enjoy a ‘broken product’, blah blah you’re a white knight if you play GW etc. (yawn) is the issue. I’ll blow your mind for a second... it’s possible to be upset, express that constructively, listen to others’ views and not try to make everything into sides/camps/being right and wrong.


How long does one have to wait for good rule updates, to be allowed to post ones dissatisfaction with an armies rules? Is 2-3 editions enough, or does not have to wait longer?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 10:32:16


Post by: Not Online!!!


Honestly , there shouldn't even be any edition long issues in regards to rules for any faction.
GW has the tools to update their balance in the fly. GW just continously ignores them in order to make money by clinging to the old method of just releasing more books.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 11:13:25


Post by: AngryAngel80


Honestly, I think we're in part feeding some trolling here gentlemen, as even the people who " Don't like to read " the complaints don't say they are wrong. So it's cool to complain without waiting countless editions.

Like for instance I made this online handle way back when the Dark Angels got their 4th edition codex. I was pretty pissed off as that book was total poo poo. The same kinda people told me to relax and love it, and it took many many years for that awful codex to be fixed.

On the bright side, it also came with errors, which after like 2 years they fixed, then copy pasted the same wrong unit entry into the next codex that needed a day 1 errata. Kinda gives an idea of how long they have put out books that are very poorly proof read, if they even do it at all. Then however they couldn't blame fast pace as they released things so slow that even a drugged up sloth would have seen the errors just left to slide through.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 11:57:24


Post by: Gadzilla666


I can understand small miss prints and poorly worded rules needed to be faqed but no codex should be released without good internal balance and the ability to at least put up a good fight against any other armies in the game without jumping the faction in question leagues ahead of the competition.

Gw could also cut down on a lot of complaining if they'd just explain some of their design decisions. Just give me a good reason my fellblade costs more than two baneblades and I'll shut up about it.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 12:02:20


Post by: Karol


It is right to point out one thing though, for some armies GW does make fixs. For example marines were not that good most edition. And suddenly normal marines are good, IH/IF are really good. Even stuff like RG are workable. And with trait mixing do it yourself chapters can be great too. From what people say about AoS, armies there are made great 50% of time too.

So it is not like they always make bad books. They just don't seem to have any ideas for some armies.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 13:07:42


Post by: Lemondish


 Nazrak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.


The solution (easier said than done) is to not engage with these posters. There's no value in asking them to explain, with reasonable arguments, a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 13:14:37


Post by: Nazrak


Lemondish wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.


The solution (easier said than done) is to not engage with these posters. There's no value in asking them to explain, with reasonable arguments, a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place.

Haha, mate you should see my Ignore list. It just keeps getting bigger.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 14:17:56


Post by: The Newman


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Considering their codex was out of date before it even dropped I could be generous and believe their proof reader is busy playtesting...but somehow that just doesn't fly.
That was by far a new low for GW, errata before the book was even on sale.


I know this is from way back in the thread, but that does not set the bar for GW poor release quality.

When they released that new rules reference book and we all though "$40 is a bit steep for something that should have been a free .pdf, but it will be nice to have all the updated core rules in one place instead of having to dig through two years of errata" only to find that the new book was a copy-paste of the original core rules with none of the errata at all, that set the bar.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 16:22:50


Post by: Wayniac


The Newman wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Considering their codex was out of date before it even dropped I could be generous and believe their proof reader is busy playtesting...but somehow that just doesn't fly.
That was by far a new low for GW, errata before the book was even on sale.


I know this is from way back in the thread, but that does not set the bar for GW poor release quality.

When they released that new rules reference book and we all though "$40 is a bit steep for something that should have been a free .pdf, but it will be nice to have all the updated core rules in one place instead of having to dig through two years of errata" only to find that the new book was a copy-paste of the original core rules with none of the errata at all, that set the bar.
I missed that debacle. That's top fething kek right there.

So yeah, the people who think it's no big deal and continually give GW a pass for it are the biggest part of the problem.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 17:47:24


Post by: Slipspace


Gadzilla666 wrote:


Gw could also cut down on a lot of complaining if they'd just explain some of their design decisions. Just give me a good reason my fellblade costs more than two baneblades and I'll shut up about it.


Interestingly, FFG just released their semi-annual points update on Thursday and the approach they take is night and day compared to GW. They had a livestream where two of the game designers went over the changes, providing reasoning for them in broad terms and also talking about some specifics. As a bonus, this approach also gives people a bit more confidence that the designers know what they're talking about because you get some insight into the thought processes.

There was also one small mistake in the updated points list. An upgrade slot was missed from one ship but because the update was released as a free PDF it was quickly fixed once the problem was identified. GW could vastly improve their rules just by taking a leaf out of FFG's book when it comes to updating points and rules.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 18:06:35


Post by: Wayniac


I mean even if people disagreed with the reason, having SOME explanation for why would at least give some credence to thinking about it. Which goes back to a big part of the issue being lack of transparency into the actual design process, so for all intents and purposes it looks like a bunch of trained monkeys flinging poo at the wall and seeing what sticks because their decisions often make no sense and they aren't giving any insight into why they opted for it.

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 18:34:25


Post by: BroodSpawn


Wayniac wrote:

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.


To be fair to them on that, how often do members of this forum call them incompetent, unprofessional, demand they lose there jobs, proclaim them to not know what they're writing, question the intelligence of the various writers, etc. We can't expect them to give the kind of information or have the level of discussion that FFG/PP have with there community when such a vocal element of ours is that negativity and sheer hatred at times.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 19:22:20


Post by: BaconCatBug


 BroodSpawn wrote:
Wayniac wrote:

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.


To be fair to them on that, how often do members of this forum call them incompetent, unprofessional, demand they lose there jobs, proclaim them to not know what they're writing, question the intelligence of the various writers, etc. We can't expect them to give the kind of information or have the level of discussion that FFG/PP have with there community when such a vocal element of ours is that negativity and sheer hatred at times.
It's almost like they know they are incompetent, unprofessional, etc and know they won't last under scrutiny. Maybe if they did live streams with competent, professional writers who knew what they were doing and didn't have the gall to charge people for points updates we'd not call them incompetent, unprofessional, and demand they lose their jobs.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 19:27:10


Post by: catbarf


 BroodSpawn wrote:
Wayniac wrote:

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.


To be fair to them on that, how often do members of this forum call them incompetent, unprofessional, demand they lose there jobs, proclaim them to not know what they're writing, question the intelligence of the various writers, etc. We can't expect them to give the kind of information or have the level of discussion that FFG/PP have with there community when such a vocal element of ours is that negativity and sheer hatred at times.


Well, when they release broken products and make no effort to explain, then yeah, that contributes to a perception that they're incompetent and don't know what they're writing. That's kind of the point.

If they actually engaged with the community in a visible way then maybe the perception would be different. You see this happen in videogames all the time. It's the faceless teams releasing incomprehensible surprise updates that get the nasty labels, not the ones that have Q&A sessions with their players, discuss vision and roadmaps, and directly and publicly respond to criticism.

The way they approach rules writing and new releases is still very much the 'Old GW' way of doing things. There's no transparency at all.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 19:45:42


Post by: Wayniac


 BroodSpawn wrote:
Wayniac wrote:

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.


To be fair to them on that, how often do members of this forum call them incompetent, unprofessional, demand they lose there jobs, proclaim them to not know what they're writing, question the intelligence of the various writers, etc. We can't expect them to give the kind of information or have the level of discussion that FFG/PP have with there community when such a vocal element of ours is that negativity and sheer hatred at times.
I mean yeah, but they are showing that they are incompetent, unprofessional, et all with the quality. It might at least help to alleviate the vitriol if they were more upfront about the process, or what goes through their minds with some of it, even if it's like well we only had 4 weeks to do this book, so we didn't have much time to give it a lot of thought and had to think the best we could.

Lack of transparency is part of what makes them seem like buffoons because without any context it's the only logical conclusion given the quality of the work most of the time. Even if people didn't like the answer, having some idea of the process beyond the seemingly random, out of touch with how people actually play the game type of thing might give some leniency.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 19:47:31


Post by: JohnnyHell


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 BroodSpawn wrote:
Wayniac wrote:

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.


To be fair to them on that, how often do members of this forum call them incompetent, unprofessional, demand they lose there jobs, proclaim them to not know what they're writing, question the intelligence of the various writers, etc. We can't expect them to give the kind of information or have the level of discussion that FFG/PP have with there community when such a vocal element of ours is that negativity and sheer hatred at times.
It's almost like they know they are incompetent, unprofessional, etc and know they won't last under scrutiny. Maybe if they did live streams with competent, professional writers who knew what they were doing and didn't have the gall to charge people for points updates we'd not call them incompetent, unprofessional, and demand they lose their jobs.


You don’t even play 40K so have absolutely zero right to try and ruin someone’s livelihood. Source: yourself. Just can it.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 20:02:37


Post by: Gadzilla666


Explaining their methodology would go a long way to dispelling ideas like "they make rules to sell models " or "they don't understand how their own game works ". Otherwise people will just assume everything comes from either greed or incompetence. If the simplest answer is to assume stupidity then you should assume stupidity.

Explaining their design decisions would cut down on such assumptions. Not with everyone, true, but you can't let the trolls frighten you into hiding.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 20:02:49


Post by: nareik


Many design decisions get explained in Voxcast/White Dwarf, don’t they?

Honestly opening up any further just seems like an avenue to ‘call out’ not ‘transparency’ and would just add an extra layer for unhelpful criticism.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 20:03:42


Post by: Daedalus81


No.

Dont you people white wash the gakky and demeaning posts just because someone did a bad job. Own your bs.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 20:48:32


Post by: Gadzilla666


White washing? I referred to them as trolls. That's the nastiest word I can use on this forum.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 21:26:57


Post by: Slipspace


nareik wrote:
Many design decisions get explained in Voxcast/White Dwarf, don’t they?

Honestly opening up any further just seems like an avenue to ‘call out’ not ‘transparency’ and would just add an extra layer for unhelpful criticism.


No. They don't discuss the design process from a balance point of view, or really do much discussion about mechanics at all. The official line from GW is always that their products are great and there are no problems. Back when WHFB was a thing, Dark Elves had a horrifically weak book in 6th edition that required a mid-edition update it was so bad. That didn't really fix things, but it was only when they eventually got around to giving them a new book, only then did they admit in the designer's commentary in WD that they'd messed up previously (this was the only time I can remember where those designer's commentaries shed any real light on the process from a rules point of view).

My experience is that companies that do engage with their audience get way less flak than GW. This may be because those companies have better designers who are more capable of balancing the game, or it might be a direct result of the engagement. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 21:43:45


Post by: catbarf


Slipspace wrote:
but it was only when they eventually got around to giving them a new book, only then did they admit in the designer's commentary in WD that they'd messed up previously (this was the only time I can remember where those designer's commentaries shed any real light on the process from a rules point of view).


I have two particular old copies of White Dwarf that I find funny in combination.

The first is from when they introduced Cityfight, and talks up how cool all the new rules for it are.

The second is from when they introduced Cities of Death, and it specifically calls out some of the old Cityfight rules as problematic, including the literal phrase 'What were we thinking?'.

So yeah, you'll only see reflection and self-criticism coming from GW when it's in the interest of selling you the new product.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 21:51:37


Post by: Wayniac


I think the only major thing they've stated, for AOS, is that the models come first and the rules team uses the model for a guide on what it should have. E.g. if it's normal size or bigger, if it has a big axe then it needs a big axe in the game, etc.

Everything sems to indicate that they are thrown a model and told to make it fit, without any input on what they feel might be needed, and there hasn't been anything on how the design process actually works.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 21:52:41


Post by: AngryAngel80


 BroodSpawn wrote:
Wayniac wrote:

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.


To be fair to them on that, how often do members of this forum call them incompetent, unprofessional, demand they lose there jobs, proclaim them to not know what they're writing, question the intelligence of the various writers, etc. We can't expect them to give the kind of information or have the level of discussion that FFG/PP have with there community when such a vocal element of ours is that negativity and sheer hatred at times.


To be equally fair, I'd love to stop calling them unprofessional and inept just as soon as they stop releasing each and every book with need for erratas on day 1, when they actually do a good job at balancing at least internal if not external choices in a codex, the list could go on and on. This isn't just innocent blame throwing going on, this isn't just a once in awhile type of situation this is an every release expectation. The real problem is, if you want to stop being called on screwing up, just stop doing it. I don't think I've called for them to lose their jobs, but if they can't handle it without a string of failure left in their wake maybe that is a sign. Unless you are saying every job just puts up with mistake after mistake forever, if so I'd love to be a part of it, sounds relaxing. Some are actually held accountable to do things correctly the first time.

If you mess up, you accept the blame and work to do better, that's how it works. Can't handle being called up, they should retreat into the eye of safety deep in the comfort warp.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 22:00:41


Post by: Not Online!!!


It isn't like people would expect a completely faultless product,but when you get 10 / 12 core rules pages for a list wrong AND don't fix the mess WITHIN 2YEARS ,then yeah it is kinda hillarious.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 22:14:34


Post by: AngryAngel80


Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 22:57:36


Post by: BroodSpawn


AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.


Thing is, at least from where I sit in this hobby, that is the current case. Most of the 2-week later FAQ's have been clarifications to questions, not complete re-writes of rules (contrary to some posters beliefs). Yes there's been a few instances where that's not been the case (looking at Iron Hands/Salamanders) but for the vast majority of the currently released books they work with a 1-page addition clarifying a few points.
The problem for me isn't that your group complains about issues, it's that your group is automatically adding in a narrative of [insert anti-GW professionals here]. The wrong page goes to the printers gets met with 'useless interns, incapable proof-readers, incompetent players/playtesters, etc' every single time. It makes it hard to agree with your corner relating to the quality of the finished product when so much of the complaints are that.. aggressive? Horrible? Mean? (Anecdote) Heck I work professionally in quality assurance/quality control in my industry and if I had users giving me half the [expletive] that is fired at GW I'd seriously reconsider putting more effort in when I'd still be bombarded with this level of vitriol. (Anecdote over)

What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?
So we're on a 6-page topic deriding staff for not working over the Xmas/New Year break to get those numbers 'fixed' to this forums satisfaction* during the first full working week of 2020. And deriding other players that don't see these problems as such a massive issue they need to be up in arms about it.



*GW can never satisfy DakkaDakka no matter what they do.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 23:02:40


Post by: Jidmah


Wayniac wrote:
I think the only major thing they've stated, for AOS, is that the models come first and the rules team uses the model for a guide on what it should have. E.g. if it's normal size or bigger, if it has a big axe then it needs a big axe in the game, etc.

Everything sems to indicate that they are thrown a model and told to make it fit, without any input on what they feel might be needed, and there hasn't been anything on how the design process actually works.


I'm pretty sure that the ork buggies came to be in the same way. Luckily, most of the weird combinations of grot gunners, stikkbombs and some random big gun actually do work.

In general, I agree with the call to more transparency. When just looking at the CA changes for orks, one does wonder why they haven't touched Trukks or Battlewagons - maybe they thought that pushing them and buggies at the same time could push mech orks to be too powerful? Maybe there is something in the pipeline regarding transports (PA/9th), so they don't want to mess with them right now? Maybe because they think they are fine because they actually do appear in top tournament lists from time to time? Maybe they are aware of the problem, but don't have a good solution yet?
Right now the reasoning the community picks up is either "they don't care/have no clue about them" or "they want to sell buggies, not trukks/wagons". Neither is particularly flattering.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 23:09:05


Post by: Voss


 BroodSpawn wrote:
Wayniac wrote:

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.


To be fair to them on that, how often do members of this forum call them incompetent, unprofessional, demand they lose there jobs, proclaim them to not know what they're writing, question the intelligence of the various writers, etc. We can't expect them to give the kind of information or have the level of discussion that FFG/PP have with there community when such a vocal element of ours is that negativity and sheer hatred at times.


PP set its community on fire and closed their forums at the onset of their third edition, and FFG has apparently sacked much of their staff. Though I dunno, I remember most comments on FFGs community being about how unresponsive they were to problems.

I think you're arguing about a universal character trait, and trying to pretend it only happens here.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 23:12:44


Post by: Jidmah


 BroodSpawn wrote:
What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?

Well, the linked campaign chapter is pretty much worthless outside of using it to prevent spills when painting models.
On top of that, there is confusion about datasheets being listed in CA, but the datasheets not being in codex, legends or FW index.
The issue with the mixed up points is that while some mistakes are obvious like 55 point acolytes, the existence of such errors imply that there might be more, less obvious errors. I had a guy wonder whether pox walkers really went down in points again, or whether it's just a copy&paste error.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 23:24:38


Post by: Wayniac


 Jidmah wrote:
 BroodSpawn wrote:
What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?

Well, the linked campaign chapter is pretty much worthless outside of using it to prevent spills when painting models.
On top of that, there is confusion about datasheets being listed in CA, but the datasheets not being in codex, legends or FW index.
The issue with the mixed up points is that while some mistakes are obvious like 55 point acolytes, the existence of such errors imply that there might be more, less obvious errors. I had a guy wonder whether pox walkers really went down in points again, or whether it's just a copy&paste error.
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/11 23:44:49


Post by: Not Online!!!


 BroodSpawn wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.


Thing is, at least from where I sit in this hobby, that is the current case. Most of the 2-week later FAQ's have been clarifications to questions, not complete re-writes of rules (contrary to some posters beliefs). Yes there's been a few instances where that's not been the case (looking at Iron Hands/Salamanders) but for the vast majority of the currently released books they work with a 1-page addition clarifying a few points.
The problem for me isn't that your group complains about issues, it's that your group is automatically adding in a narrative of [insert anti-GW professionals here]. The wrong page goes to the printers gets met with 'useless interns, incapable proof-readers, incompetent players/playtesters, etc' every single time. It makes it hard to agree with your corner relating to the quality of the finished product when so much of the complaints are that.. aggressive? Horrible? Mean? (Anecdote) Heck I work professionally in quality assurance/quality control in my industry and if I had users giving me half the [expletive] that is fired at GW I'd seriously reconsider putting more effort in when I'd still be bombarded with this level of vitriol. (Anecdote over)

What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?
So we're on a 6-page topic deriding staff for not working over the Xmas/New Year break to get those numbers 'fixed' to this forums satisfaction* during the first full working week of 2020. And deriding other players that don't see these problems as such a massive issue they need to be up in arms about it.



*GW can never satisfy DakkaDakka no matter what they do.

They had in some cases multiple years and occaisons to fix issues like forgotten point adaptions etc.

They Releases a rulebook and codex Update that was a copypaste of the oldone not incorporating the changes in FAQ and ca etc.

Also whilest i agree saying they are incompetent is too harsh i believe lazy is a good adjective for them.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 00:03:50


Post by: Daedalus81


Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


That's a considerable leap in logic.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 00:17:37


Post by: AngryAngel80


 BroodSpawn wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.


Thing is, at least from where I sit in this hobby, that is the current case. Most of the 2-week later FAQ's have been clarifications to questions, not complete re-writes of rules (contrary to some posters beliefs). Yes there's been a few instances where that's not been the case (looking at Iron Hands/Salamanders) but for the vast majority of the currently released books they work with a 1-page addition clarifying a few points.
The problem for me isn't that your group complains about issues, it's that your group is automatically adding in a narrative of [insert anti-GW professionals here]. The wrong page goes to the printers gets met with 'useless interns, incapable proof-readers, incompetent players/playtesters, etc' every single time. It makes it hard to agree with your corner relating to the quality of the finished product when so much of the complaints are that.. aggressive? Horrible? Mean? (Anecdote) Heck I work professionally in quality assurance/quality control in my industry and if I had users giving me half the [expletive] that is fired at GW I'd seriously reconsider putting more effort in when I'd still be bombarded with this level of vitriol. (Anecdote over)

What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?
So we're on a 6-page topic deriding staff for not working over the Xmas/New Year break to get those numbers 'fixed' to this forums satisfaction* during the first full working week of 2020. And deriding other players that don't see these problems as such a massive issue they need to be up in arms about it.



*GW can never satisfy DakkaDakka no matter what they do.


A good post so I'll reply in kind. I'm probably a hot head when I post a little bit. I just tired of the status quo they pump out after a couple decades of watching them make the same mistakes. Not to devolve the discussion into yet another talk of their inward and outward balance issues, I don't think they need to be restated. However, that doesn't change some very sloppy work and their lack of caring to fix it. As others have placed out, and still haven't been addressed or even touched on in any way. The fact you can't tell what changes in CA for points ( which for some is the only reason they bought it ) are actual and which ones are copy paste errors or typos is a large problem when the whole goodness of it was to have all of that info in one place. A good thing, but one they couldn't get correct. Leaving it a bit dubious until we know what was accurate and what was snafu.

I accept that being mean isn't great for positive motivation, but what level of butt kissing will get them to work harder ? What kind of niceness will spur them onward to try harder ? Should we send them cookies ? I probably would if it would get results. You can only voice your issues so much nicely before you start to feel like they just don't care and at that point why be nice any longer ? If they don't care about our feelings its hard to find that care for them in return. I think they have a standard policy of not caring about any of our thoughts regardless of how nice or mean they are placed before them. Just a hunch on that.

I will say as well not everyone has such long Christmas breaks, maybe its an English thing I don't know about that, could be. I'd hope they are working on it currently however, I wish they didn't need to but I hope at this point they are.

As for not being able to satisfy me, sure they could. Just actually try harder and not make me need erratas as soon as a book drops, or release a book that is out of date the moment it drops any of that will make me pleased. I don't even usually bother to complain about balance much as I just come to accept some will be great and others will be poop. New edition same old balance as far as that goes. To their credit not every book needs that, however it ends up being more that do than don't. When you feel safer waiting a couple weeks to see if the book you want to buy will actually work the way it does on day 1 is a problem though, and that can actually happen these days.

Are they all bad ? No. However, as another wise poster here said, they could handle some of this by using their vast presence now and talking to all of us. Explaining why they do things, being open about screw ups. Not only would I and I'm sure others respect them more but it would at least give insight as to what we can expect. In that, sure they couldn't please everyone but I am willing to bet those bashing them would be far far less.

The issue is, they aren't really doing any of that, not trying harder, nor communicating, they don't even take blame when they screw things up big time. I'm sure even certain very annoyed GK players would be willing to give them some slack if they just said " We really screwed up the GK codex, we're sorry but we don't know how to fix it right now but we will, this is why it happened..etc " They have the PR team, maybe they should use it and let us in so we might actually understand them more. Couple communication that is more than just ' This new stuff rocks !!! Better buy it !! " and some tightening of writing so we have a minimum of mess ups in each new release and much of the annoyance would go away.

Until then I'll stick to saying they are incompetent. Others may call them lazy but I'll just be a touch more salty.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 00:23:48


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


That's a considerable leap in logic.
How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 01:04:08


Post by: Wayniac


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


That's a considerable leap in logic.
How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?
Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 01:18:37


Post by: alextroy


Wayniac wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


That's a considerable leap in logic.
How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?
Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 01:25:44


Post by: Karol


this maybe a stupid idea. But aren't we all acting as if CA was writen one day before printing, and the staff really had 1-2 days to fix it before christmas time starts? Don't they have the books ready 6 months before, and the prints before the premier too.

Could the staff then, read their own book, and seeing the errors write them down, before christmas time?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 01:38:37


Post by: AngryAngel80


 alextroy wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


That's a considerable leap in logic.
How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?
Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".


Ok, a more sensible one, they have mistakes riddled in the CA points, so if there is one there can be more. Like, Ogryns, they went up by the exact amount they dropped by last time. A question would be knowing they did some sloppy copy paste, is that what they should be or is that a typo because they used an old Copy paste for that unit entry ? As even at the dropped cost I didn't see anyone taking Ogryns, would be reasonable to wonder on that one yes ? I know I was kind of curious. When you see things that seem odd like that it does make you wonder. There, hyperbole free.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 02:06:24


Post by: Wayniac


 alextroy wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


That's a considerable leap in logic.
How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?
Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".
It's clear you don't understand what setting a precedent means. Imagine a tournament setting. If the TO suddenly says well we're pretty sure 55 point acolytes is a typo so they are 5 points, now that means you can bring up other "maybe this is a typo too" situations as well. Common sense isn't a factor because the rules have to be applied equally. Take it upon yourself to decide that X is a typo, well why not Y or Z as well? After all, you aren't TOTALLY sure it's a typo, you're just making an educated guess based on the circumstances. So why not other things too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Ok, a more sensible one, they have mistakes riddled in the CA points, so if there is one there can be more. Like, Ogryns, they went up by the exact amount they dropped by last time. A question would be knowing they did some sloppy copy paste, is that what they should be or is that a typo because they used an old Copy paste for that unit entry ? As even at the dropped cost I didn't see anyone taking Ogryns, would be reasonable to wonder on that one yes ? I know I was kind of curious. When you see things that seem odd like that it does make you wonder. There, hyperbole free.
This too. If you feel the 55 point acolyte thing is a bad example of why it could set a precedent, look at something else. The point remains. If you think 55 point acolytes are a typo (and you would probably be right but again we do not have confirmation, only an extremely reasonable guess), then what about Ogryns? Is that a mistake too that should be fixed? And if that is considered one too, then what about any other thing which may or may not be correct, or might be a typo or might be a gakky copy/paste job?

Where do you draw the line?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 02:51:11


Post by: Daedalus81


Wayniac wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


That's a considerable leap in logic.
How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?
Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.


Wait...wait if there's a typo when we choose a melee weapon? What if we're actually supposed to use a gun instead?! I've been playing this game all wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:
]It's clear you don't understand what setting a precedent means. Imagine a tournament setting. If the TO suddenly says well we're pretty sure 55 point acolytes is a typo so they are 5 points, now that means you can bring up other "maybe this is a typo too" situations as well. Common sense isn't a factor because the rules have to be applied equally. Take it upon yourself to decide that X is a typo, well why not Y or Z as well? After all, you aren't TOTALLY sure it's a typo, you're just making an educated guess based on the circumstances. So why not other things too?


Right.

And people said that if gay marriage was legalized that people would soon be marrying dogs and toasters.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 02:59:12


Post by: BaconCatBug


 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".
In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.

I wish it were the case where we could say that making models more than 10 times the original cost was unintended, but this is a game where flamers can hit super-sonic aircraft and Terminators can somehow charge three times what they normally can move while Valkyries somehow move slower when they charge.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 03:01:20


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".
In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.


And this is what we call intellectual dishonesty.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 03:03:20


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".
In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.
And this is what we call intellectual dishonesty.
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 03:07:01


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.


You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 03:15:23


Post by: Wayniac


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.


You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

Except there IS a precedent, especially in the context of a tournament. You may think it's not, but absolutely in a tournament, if a TO changes one thing, there will be requests to change something else on the same grounds that oh it MUST be a typo, it can't be right, so change this too. You act as though that won't happen, when you know damn well it will. There isn't your third option of oh well THIS has a be a typo, but this other thing isn't a typo, and this third thing well it might be so we'll change that too, but we aren't sure about the fourth so we won't change it.

You don't think that happens?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 03:15:26


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.


You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

I know no such thing. All I know is what GW have told us. And GW have told us they are 55 points. I don't actually care how people "take" me. I strive for objective truth and nothing else. To quote Konrad "Did nothing wrong" Kurze: "Death is nothing compared to vindication."


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 03:16:29


Post by: Wayniac


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.


You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

I know no such thing. All I know is what GW have told us. And GW have told us they are 55 points.
You aren't helping.

Anyway Daedalus you're focusing on the most extreme example, the 55 point acolytes which pretty clearly, barring some real stupidity, is actually a typo. But that's not the point. The point is selectively choosing what is a typo or isn't. That particular example is exceptional because it's so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly be true (but weirder things have happened with GW. I thought it would be ridiculous to let behemoths that are battle line ignore the limitations in AoS but they confirmed it).

What about any other example of something that could be a typo or not, rather than something that is almost certainly one.

Again, where do you draw the line? Or is your argument basically treat every potential "typo" on its own? So selectively apply thought to each potential situation? Who gets to determine that A must be a typo, B isn't, C might be so it gets changed and D seems close enough so it doesn't. How is that approach anything good?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 03:25:12


Post by: BaconCatBug


So, turns out CA19 reverted the Cultists back to 4ppm. This was an error on my part.

How do we know this isn't a typo?

I fully agree that the Acolytes are probably not intended to be 55ppm, but until an errata is released we cannot know for certain. In my opinion, it is an all or nothing thing when it comes to ignoring rules or points costs, either it's all ok to ignore or none of it is. I understand not many people agree with this opinion but I feel it is the only way that the game can function without being bogged down in arguments over who gets to decide what is "intended" or not.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 03:33:39


Post by: The Newman


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".
In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.

I wish it were the case where we could say that making models more than 10 times the original cost was unintended, but this is a game where flamers can hit super-sonic aircraft and Terminators can somehow charge three times what they normally can move while Valkyries somehow move slower when they charge.

Man has a point.

And leaving aside the game logic I totally agree, at least in principle.* 55 points for an Acolyte is blatently wrong, on the other had either 10 points for a Hurricane Bolter or 2 for a Stormbolter is also clearly wrong but I don't get to decide which one is the mistake. If I were playing GSC I wouldn't field Acolytes until they get the errata out, simple as that.

* - The exception would be something like Custodian Guard because they're the only Troop choice in the army if that was the only army I owned. Them suddenly being 400 points per model would make it impossible to build a legal list.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 09:55:34


Post by: vict0988


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.


That's a considerable leap in logic.
How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?

It's a 900% increase. The previously largest increase is less than 200%. Acolytes used to be around 5 pts, clicking twice on 5 yields 55. I can deduce with great likelihood that 5 was the intent, as can everyone else.

Infantry Squads and Cultists could, but them staying the same price as before gives very little indication that is the case, GW has not indicated they wanted to change the costs, them staying the same is relatively reasonable to a 900% increase in cost. You are being silly and using the false equivalence fallacy.

Wayniac wrote:
It's clear you don't understand what setting a precedent means. Imagine a tournament setting. If the TO suddenly says well we're pretty sure 55 point acolytes is a typo so they are 5 points, now that means you can bring up other "maybe this is a typo too" situations as well. Common sense isn't a factor because the rules have to be applied equally. Take it upon yourself to decide that X is a typo, well why not Y or Z as well? After all, you aren't TOTALLY sure it's a typo, you're just making an educated guess based on the circumstances. So why not other things too?

Where do you draw the line?

Setting the precedent that you'll give it a quick look over and see if it's an obvious error is great TO practice. Who wants to play against 2 pt Dreadnoughts or with 55 pt Acolytes? The Ogryn change is debatable, but because it is not without precedent that GW goes back on a good change I'd personally let it stick, there is no good argument for why GW has made an input error with Infantry Squads or Cultists. If something is a huge clear input error you ignore it and use whatever the old value was, if something is a stupid change (or lack of change) you live with it.
 BroodSpawn wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.


Thing is, at least from where I sit in this hobby, that is the current case. Most of the 2-week later FAQ's have been clarifications to questions, not complete re-writes of rules (contrary to some posters beliefs). Yes there's been a few instances where that's not been the case (looking at Iron Hands/Salamanders) but for the vast majority of the currently released books they work with a 1-page addition clarifying a few points.

Daemons needed the Errata preventing their Stratagems and Relics being used on CSM.

Necrons vehicles needed to be measured to from the model as well as the base.

Drukhari Codex was missing the FLY keyword on Cronos and Talos.

GSC had infinite damage psychic power combo.

Dark Angels had formatting errors in the pts section.

Space Wolves got new WL traits.

AdMech wound table on Dunecrawlers was messed up.

Craftworld Autarchs had to have their shield.

Price absent for Deathguard DP w. wings.

Brayhorn was supposed to replace instrument of chaos for TS Tzaangor. TS DPs didn't have the PSYKER keyword.

SM replaced Stratagems released in Vigilus.

Salamanders had a stupidly written Stratagem and also got some nerfs, but if we added all the nerfs that should have been out quicker that other factions eventually got we could add Knights and Orks as well.

IH were super OP, but at least GW owned up to it really quickly, although they nearly made me give up the game when they released the wrong patch without any of the nerfs.

All these, without mentioning the things GW haven't but should've touched like the Necron Tomb World or poorly designed Craftworld and CSM traits (CSM is mostly a balance issue, while Craftworlds is mostly a fluff issue).

The Newman wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".
In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.

I wish it were the case where we could say that making models more than 10 times the original cost was unintended, but this is a game where flamers can hit super-sonic aircraft and Terminators can somehow charge three times what they normally can move while Valkyries somehow move slower when they charge.

Man has a point.

And leaving aside the game logic I totally agree, at least in principle.* 55 points for an Acolyte is blatently wrong, on the other had either 10 points for a Hurricane Bolter or 2 for a Stormbolter is also clearly wrong but I don't get to decide which one is the mistake. If I were playing GSC I wouldn't field Acolytes until they get the errata out, simple as that.

* - The exception would be something like Custodian Guard because they're the only Troop choice in the army if that was the only army I owned. Them suddenly being 400 points per model would make it impossible to build a legal list.

You could build lists without Troops if you wanted to remain consistent. I'm also consistent, if GW increases the cost of a unit by 900% I'll assume it is a mistake, if they decrease a unit's cost by 90% I'll assume it's a mistake.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 10:37:58


Post by: Lemondish


 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, turns out CA19 reverted the Cultists back to 4ppm. This was an error on my part.

How do we know this isn't a typo?

I fully agree that the Acolytes are probably not intended to be 55ppm, but until an errata is released we cannot know for certain. In my opinion, it is an all or nothing thing when it comes to ignoring rules or points costs, either it's all ok to ignore or none of it is. I understand not many people agree with this opinion but I feel it is the only way that the game can function without being bogged down in arguments over who gets to decide what is "intended" or not.


False dichotomy. Take things on a case by case basis, not some all or nothing approach. You do not need all or nothing.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 10:43:54


Post by: Klickor


Lemartes didnt get black rage in BoB. Sanguinary Priest didnt get Angels of Death. All SM chaplains lost a litany in the FAQ. Fleshtearers got their chapter tactic removed from turn 3+.

This is things that got changed in the faq but what is even worse is what they didnt fix in BoB. They didnt fix Dante and Sanguinary Guard to reroll hits instead of failed hits when they updated the datasheets for BA. So now half our reroll abilities is reroll failed and half is reoll hits. They didnt bother with making sure we have the same wording and same general strats between BA and codex marines. Like taking extra relics and chapter master or have same wording on honor the chapter strat or fix cp cost for our stratagems to be more in line with what RG have.

This would have taken up at most 4 pages, 3 datasheets + strats, and could be done with a mostly copy and paste job in just a few minutes. Nothing new at all or unbalanced, just getting BA more in line with normal marines in wording. Would help them pad their super thin 83page book that costs 30€

I did not buy this piece of crap. It would have been so easy to make it a worthwhile addition if they just spent a few minutes doing that extra work. Took me one read through to notice what it lacked and what else could have been done to make it a better written rules compliment without really affecting the power of BA. Im more upset with their lack of care than the actual power increase. This just shows they are more interested in making new things than making good things.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 11:49:26


Post by: Karol


Well there are small things that at least point at a possibility of rather lax proof reading. The twin psycannon on GK razorbacks was costed not as if it was two psycannon, as in the case of all other twin linked weapons. But as if it was a heavy psycannon.

This made it through multiple CA and FAQs. Now does this means it was an error or that the point costs were on point? Does GW have special twink linked rules point costs for GK units, that the person writing the rules thought GK had a hvy psycannon without looking at the actual rules.

And this is just one gear on one GK vehicle. Typos can happen, and always will. But stuff that contradicts general rulings is really confusing to me, specialy on top of bad rules. I just don't understand how the same group of people can write something like codex CSM and codex SM back to back, unless they were writen by two separate groups of people, and a gigantic lock out of designer happened at the company.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 11:56:08


Post by: nareik


Wayniac wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.


You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

I know no such thing. All I know is what GW have told us. And GW have told us they are 55 points.
You aren't helping.

Anyway Daedalus you're focusing on the most extreme example, the 55 point acolytes which pretty clearly, barring some real stupidity, is actually a typo. But that's not the point. The point is selectively choosing what is a typo or isn't. That particular example is exceptional because it's so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly be true (but weirder things have happened with GW. I thought it would be ridiculous to let behemoths that are battle line ignore the limitations in AoS but they confirmed it).

What about any other example of something that could be a typo or not, rather than something that is almost certainly one.

Again, where do you draw the line? Or is your argument basically treat every potential "typo" on its own? So selectively apply thought to each potential situation? Who gets to determine that A must be a typo, B isn't, C might be so it gets changed and D seems close enough so it doesn't. How is that approach anything good?


In fairness STOMPA is off by more points than acolytes. Clearly GW meant to reduce it by 500 points, not 50. 420 seems about right for STOMPA.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 12:00:56


Post by: Karol


well bigger question is why the original point costs of the darn thing was as it was, and wasn't fixed in a post codex FAQ.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 12:10:24


Post by: Jidmah


Wayniac wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 BroodSpawn wrote:
What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?

Well, the linked campaign chapter is pretty much worthless outside of using it to prevent spills when painting models.
On top of that, there is confusion about datasheets being listed in CA, but the datasheets not being in codex, legends or FW index.
The issue with the mixed up points is that while some mistakes are obvious like 55 point acolytes, the existence of such errors imply that there might be more, less obvious errors. I had a guy wonder whether pox walkers really went down in points again, or whether it's just a copy&paste error.
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

I disagree with any sentiment that you shouldn't think about things in general, regardless of topic. There is no excuse for not using your own brain. You don't drive into a wall because of an incorrect traffic sign either.
The acolyte is clearly a mistake and we clearly know what it should be.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 12:11:43


Post by: nareik


Karol wrote:
well bigger question is why the original point costs of the darn thing was as it was, and wasn't fixed in a post codex FAQ.
i guess quadrupling its max potential damage (and over doubling the expected damage) compared to index was hoped to bring it in line...


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 12:12:37


Post by: Jidmah


Karol wrote:
this maybe a stupid idea. But aren't we all acting as if CA was writen one day before printing, and the staff really had 1-2 days to fix it before christmas time starts? Don't they have the books ready 6 months before, and the prints before the premier too.

Could the staff then, read their own book, and seeing the errors write them down, before christmas time?

That is true. Multiple youtubers and fan pages had enough time to make 1 hour+ videos to launch a week before the release. They could just collect feedback from those people and release the first errata/FAQs on day 1 of the release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:
Again, where do you draw the line?

It's quite simple actually. If the error is blatantly obvious as the 55 points or the 25 bikers, you check if there is a clear solution to that problem and apply that. There is no honest way to argue that either is intended. If you can make an honest argument for either case (like the Obliterator issue), you just go with occam's razor and use what GW told us.
Obviously, there is some grey inbetween, but arguing GSC acolytes are such a case is never honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
well bigger question is why the original point costs of the darn thing was as it was, and wasn't fixed in a post codex FAQ.

In his pre-release review of the codex, Reece claimed that the stompa is one of the most powerful units in the ork codex. I guess they listened to him.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 13:31:02


Post by: Vineheart01


i mean, technically Reece was correct.
Stompa IS the most powerful thing in the codex. On a direct model comparison anyway


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 13:45:27


Post by: Wayniac


I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

I don't think for consistency you can look at each potential "maybe a typo" rule. It introduces arguments by rules lawyers who can then try to argue that X is a typo too. That's the problem. No amount of "55 points is CLEARLY wrong" changes the fact about taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a typo/copy and paste error. It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

The blame for that 100% lies with GW not properly proofreading the book to catch such a glaring error.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 14:06:00


Post by: Dysartes


Wayniac wrote:
I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.


Didn't he make a claim about Grey Knights being really powerful at release, too - and even before the changes to core rules that crippled them, they weren't overly strong.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 14:09:54


Post by: Daedalus81


The Newman wrote:

And leaving aside the game logic I totally agree, at least in principle.* 55 points for an Acolyte is blatently wrong, on the other had either 10 points for a Hurricane Bolter or 2 for a Stormbolter is also clearly wrong but I don't get to decide which one is the mistake. If I were playing GSC I wouldn't field Acolytes until they get the errata out, simple as that.


Why is it clearly wrong? Just you decided 6 x 2 should be the cost? Did you forget that twin-linked style weapons get discounts?

This is the sort of lapse in logic that these over simplified obtuse arguments create. People stop using their heads and just use their ass.

And you know what's worse? People keep referencing Acolyte. But it isn't the Acolyte. It's the Neophyte. And that tells me that the vast majority of people here haven't even looked at the book and are just pig-piling on with internet rage.

It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.


Do any of you think any such logic would hold up in the court of law?

It doesn't "enable other things to be questioned" unless you're a disingenuous bellend incapable of interacting with other people.

TO releases mission packet. "Neophytes are 5 points for this tournament". Done. Wow. That's like on the level of creating the first atomic weapon it was so hard.

"But what if the stompa is a typo and it's supposed to be only 200 points now?"
"Here's a refund for your ticket"

It's the same bs logic that lead people to think Forgeworld was getting squatted in legends and that leads people to read into every sentence GW types to find the slant they want to apply.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 14:24:31


Post by: nareik


Wayniac wrote:
I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

I don't think for consistency you can look at each potential "maybe a typo" rule. It introduces arguments by rules lawyers who can then try to argue that X is a typo too. That's the problem. No amount of "55 points is CLEARLY wrong" changes the fact about taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a typo/copy and paste error. It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

The blame for that 100% lies with GW not properly proofreading the book to catch such a glaring error.
To be honest I don’t have a problem house ruling points costs, or tournament packs doing so. I’m not sure why people saying ‘lets house rule acolytes (neophyte, whatever) to 5 points’ is such a cardinal sin, whether 55 points is ‘intended’ or not.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 14:29:40


Post by: Wayniac


nareik wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

I don't think for consistency you can look at each potential "maybe a typo" rule. It introduces arguments by rules lawyers who can then try to argue that X is a typo too. That's the problem. No amount of "55 points is CLEARLY wrong" changes the fact about taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a typo/copy and paste error. It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

The blame for that 100% lies with GW not properly proofreading the book to catch such a glaring error.
To be honest I don’t have a problem house ruling points costs, or tournament packs doing so. I’m not sure why people saying ‘lets house rule acolytes (neophyte, whatever) to 5 points’ is such a cardinal sin, whether 55 points is ‘intended’ or not.
Because, and it's clear some people don't think this will happen, house ruling one thing that you THINK (however true it might be) is wrong just leads to house ruling other things which may or may not be intended but you "think" it's wrong so you change it. It's a slippery slope. I think X has to be a typo, so I'm reversing it. . But what about Y and Z? Ehh.. maybe they are okay, so not touching those. But A? A just seems wrong so I'm changing that too.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 14:30:10


Post by: JohnnyHell


Slippery slope fallacies are always nonsense.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 14:41:23


Post by: Emicrania


Wayniac wrote:
I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

I don't think for consistency you can look at each potential "maybe a typo" rule. It introduces arguments by rules lawyers who can then try to argue that X is a typo too. That's the problem. No amount of "55 points is CLEARLY wrong" changes the fact about taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a typo/copy and paste error. It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

The blame for that 100% lies with GW not properly proofreading the book to catch such a glaring error.



Reece is a clown, he called on Brandon Grant on "his" (GW own his and Pablos ass) Podcast for whining about SM. He actually asked him what was the problem to the current ITC champion....


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 15:08:24


Post by: Daedalus81


 Emicrania wrote:


Reece is a clown, he called on Brandon Grant on "his" (GW own his and Pablos ass) Podcast for whining about SM. He actually asked him what was the problem to the current ITC champion....


Could you link the podcast so I can get the context? Or do you mean on Twitch?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 15:30:26


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
Karol wrote:
this maybe a stupid idea. But aren't we all acting as if CA was writen one day before printing, and the staff really had 1-2 days to fix it before christmas time starts? Don't they have the books ready 6 months before, and the prints before the premier too.

Could the staff then, read their own book, and seeing the errors write them down, before christmas time?

That is true. Multiple youtubers and fan pages had enough time to make 1 hour+ videos to launch a week before the release. They could just collect feedback from those people and release the first errata/FAQs on day 1 of the release.

Faith and fury released the same day and already has its faq. Blood of Baal released after it and already has its faq. That's what makes me think (hope) their addressing more than just the obvious mistakes. Something's causing the holdup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
well bigger question is why the original point costs of the darn thing was as it was, and wasn't fixed in a post codex FAQ.

The hellforged super heavys would like a word.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 15:39:49


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.


Do any of you think any such logic would hold up in the court of law?

It doesn't "enable other things to be questioned" unless you're a disingenuous bellend incapable of interacting with other people.

TO releases mission packet. "Neophytes are 5 points for this tournament". Done. Wow. That's like on the level of creating the first atomic weapon it was so hard.

"But what if the stompa is a typo and it's supposed to be only 200 points now?"
"Here's a refund for your ticket"

It's the same bs logic that lead people to think Forgeworld was getting squatted in legends and that leads people to read into every sentence GW types to find the slant they want to apply.



Okey how do you interact with other people when your stuff is clearly overcosted and doesn't work, but GW decides to not fix it. There is zero way to force other people to accept point or rule changes done by a non official source.

And I don't think there were many people playing w40k, who in the face of a castellan point costs, could claim that the stompa was costed right.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:24:40


Post by: alextroy


Precedence is not a straight jacket. It informs future decisions, it does not decide them. You can change the clear errors while leaving the 'questionable' decisions alone.

I am fully confident that the vast majority of people can tell the difference between the errors and the 'questionable' decisions in the Munintorum Field Manual. We all know that GSC Neophyte Hybrids are not supposed to be 55 points a model (the same cost as a Sanctus and nearly 3 times the cost of a Aberrant). The decision to take GW's errors as 'law of the land' is purely up to you, especially before an FAQ is actually published.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:29:50


Post by: Lord Damocles


If Neophytes aren't supposed to be 55 points, what are they supposed to cost?
Why would we assume that GW intended them to be 5 points and not 4 or 6?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:43:15


Post by: Gadzilla666


Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.


Do any of you think any such logic would hold up in the court of law?

It doesn't "enable other things to be questioned" unless you're a disingenuous bellend incapable of interacting with other people.

TO releases mission packet. "Neophytes are 5 points for this tournament". Done. Wow. That's like on the level of creating the first atomic weapon it was so hard.

"But what if the stompa is a typo and it's supposed to be only 200 points now?"
"Here's a refund for your ticket"

It's the same bs logic that lead people to think Forgeworld was getting squatted in legends and that leads people to read into every sentence GW types to find the slant they want to apply.



Okey how do you interact with other people when your stuff is clearly overcosted and doesn't work, but GW decides to not fix it. There is zero way to force other people to accept point or rule changes done by a non official source.

And I don't think there were many people playing w40k, who in the face of a castellan point costs, could claim that the stompa was costed right.

You suck it up and either don't play the unit or understand that you're automatically going to be at a disadvantage when playing it. I've been doing this with my fellblade for a while. If the game isn't at least 2500 points it's probably staying home and even then I'm going to be starting out in the hole. I obviously still play it because it's my favorite model. But I understand the disadvantages. If gw would be a little more transparent and explain why they think the cost is fair it would at least take some of the sting out but that's not their current policy.

Of course that's just for things we just THINK are wrong. 55 point neophytes is obviously wrong and should be ignored. They just accidentally hit 5 twice.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:43:15


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.


Do any of you think any such logic would hold up in the court of law?

It doesn't "enable other things to be questioned" unless you're a disingenuous bellend incapable of interacting with other people.

TO releases mission packet. "Neophytes are 5 points for this tournament". Done. Wow. That's like on the level of creating the first atomic weapon it was so hard.

"But what if the stompa is a typo and it's supposed to be only 200 points now?"
"Here's a refund for your ticket"

It's the same bs logic that lead people to think Forgeworld was getting squatted in legends and that leads people to read into every sentence GW types to find the slant they want to apply.



Okey how do you interact with other people when your stuff is clearly overcosted and doesn't work, but GW decides to not fix it. There is zero way to force other people to accept point or rule changes done by a non official source.

And I don't think there were many people playing w40k, who in the face of a castellan point costs, could claim that the stompa was costed right.


These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:44:54


Post by: Gadzilla666


 alextroy wrote:
Precedence is not a straight jacket. It informs future decisions, it does not decide them. You can change the clear errors while leaving the 'questionable' decisions alone.

I am fully confident that the vast majority of people can tell the difference between the errors and the 'questionable' decisions in the Munintorum Field Manual. We all know that GSC Neophyte Hybrids are not supposed to be 55 points a model (the same cost as a Sanctus and nearly 3 times the cost of a Aberrant). The decision to take GW's errors as 'law of the land' is purely up to you, especially before an FAQ is actually published.

Yeah what he said.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:47:44


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:50:20


Post by: Gadzilla666


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:52:56


Post by: BaconCatBug


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:52:56


Post by: Wayniac


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.
Order of magnitude doesn't convey intent though. I think that's BCB's point as silly as it might seem. Sure, 55 point acolytes is most likely wrong. But people seem to be saying that this shouldn't set a precedent? That some other chance needs to be evaluated on its own and not "Well you changed this, so why not change this other thing".


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 16:53:34


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?


Because you know neos are not worth 55 points. You might not like that scripts are 4, but you know they're in that ballpark - that and being 3 points might tip too far given the granularity issues in the game.

But this is a complex discussion that you just want to boil down to nonsense to make a point that doesn't exist. "Throwing gak against the wall to see what sticks"






Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:08:04


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?
Because you know neos are not worth 55 points. You might not like that scripts are 4, but you know they're in that ballpark - that and being 3 points might tip too far given the granularity issues in the game.

But this is a complex discussion that you just want to boil down to nonsense to make a point that doesn't exist. "Throwing gak against the wall to see what sticks"
You can't tell me what I do or do not "know". I, in fact, do know that Acolytes are worth 55 points, because the rules of the game say they are. I can only know what the game actually tells me.

Case in point, I can claim that I "know" that Genestealers are "meant" to have a Move Characteristic of 88". It's simply a case of someone pressing a key once instead of twice. That claim is just as valid as you claiming the Acolytes points are due to someone pressing a key twice instead of once.

Again, I am fully aware that Acolytes at 55ppm is weird and most likely not correct, but without any information to the contrary I cannot logically or consistently ignore that while not allowing the ignoring of other "issues".


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:13:40


Post by: nareik


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Slippery slope fallacies are always nonsense.
I disagree. People refusing to house rule probable mistakes just leads to people refusing to house rule obvious mistakes!


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:13:42


Post by: Jidmah


 BaconCatBug wrote:
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.


If something goes up by 1000% without a rule change, the chance of that being intentional is so low that it can safely be ignored.
Anything that went up by less that ten times its original costs does not need to be considered as part of this debate.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:16:01


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Jidmah wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.


If something goes up by 1000% without a rule change, the chance of that being intentional is so low that it can safely be ignored.
Anything that went up by less that ten times its original costs does not need to be considered as part of this debate.
Ok, so if 1000% can be ignored, what % can't be? I am seriously asking here, what % in your opinion can't be ignored? And who gets to decide the arbitrary % value? I just want an number here. If the answer is so clear you should be able to provide me with a single number answer, right?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:27:37


Post by: nareik


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.


If something goes up by 1000% without a rule change, the chance of that being intentional is so low that it can safely be ignored.
Anything that went up by less that ten times its original costs does not need to be considered as part of this debate.
Ok, so if 1000% can be ignored, what % can't be? I am seriously asking here, what % in your opinion can't be ignored? And who gets to decide the arbitrary % value? I just want an number here. If the answer is so clear you should be able to provide me with a single number answer, right?
outliers are probably best dealt with on a case by case basis, and lets hope we never accrue enough extreme examples to be able to create a standard metric of when overruling official rules is appropriate.

Going back to Stompa, it literally got 3 times better at shooting and a 10% points reduction and is still considered poorly. Despite being so obviously underpowered in index it still wasn’t enough to warrant a universally accepted fanmade fix. The fact that so many people are able to come to a consensus on 55 point trash infantry being 11 times overpointed speaks volumes. Of course you don’t need to accept a game with anyone ‘house ruling’ them if you don’t want.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:32:01


Post by: Jidmah


You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:38:26


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.
And how do you define an outlier? There has to be a % value that distinguishes an outlier from an acceptable price increase. As I have stated, I am of the opinion you can't ignore any % value, but you are claiming that you can ignore some as "outliers". I want to know what your definition of "outlier" is as I am not you and cannot know without you telling me.

Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:43:56


Post by: Gadzilla666


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:45:52


Post by: JohnnyHell


nareik wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Slippery slope fallacies are always nonsense.
I disagree. People refusing to house rule probable mistakes just leads to people refusing to house rule obvious mistakes!


I was meaning more in the vein of “but if we allow this obvious 5>55pts error to be houseruled wHeRe DoEs It EnD?” type nonsense.

See above for more examples of any semblance of critical judgement jettisoned for Internet edgery. From a guy who doesn’t even play. It’s kinda silly...


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:45:52


Post by: BaconCatBug


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.
I have never said someone can't play. I am saying that if you request to ignore one rule, you cannot logically deny a request for me to also ignore one rule. There isn't a middle ground, in my opinion, it's either all ok to ignore or none of it is. Is my view considered "extreme" by some? Perhaps, but I am not particularly concerned with how others view my positions. My main issue is people arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't ok to ignore when there is no objective basis to do so. I am very much an "Objective Truth is by definition Good" kind of person.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:46:16


Post by: JohnnyHell


Gadzilla666 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.


He doesn’t even play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.
I have never said someone can't play. I am saying that if you request to ignore one rule, you cannot logically deny a request for me to also ignore one rule. There isn't a middle ground, in my opinion, it's either all ok to ignore or none of it is. My main issue is people arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't ok to ignore when there is no objective basis to do so.


There is a middle ground, patently, but nice try at slippery slopery. Again.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:48:54


Post by: BaconCatBug


 JohnnyHell wrote:
He doesn’t even play.
Demonstrably false, I actually played two games last week between revision for my mid year university exams, one with Orks and one with Primaris Marines.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:52:08


Post by: nareik


 JohnnyHell wrote:
nareik wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Slippery slope fallacies are always nonsense.
I disagree. People refusing to house rule probable mistakes just leads to people refusing to house rule obvious mistakes!


I was meaning more in the vein of “but if we allow this obvious 5>55pts error to be houseruled wHeRe DoEs It EnD?” type nonsense.

See above for more examples of any semblance of critical judgement jettisoned for Internet edgery. From a guy who doesn’t even play. It’s kinda silly...
To be honest I was just showing slippery slope works (or rather doesn’t) both ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Do minor points errors in a unit's cost make a difference? Yes but minor. A one point difference in guardsmen will change what you can or can't take but not by a lot. A 50 point increase to neophytes makes them completely unusable. The guard player can still use his army the gsc player can't. This is a game and basically telling someone they can't play because of pedantic rules lawyers isn't good for the game.

Seriously are you a Vogon? Please no poetry.
I have never said someone can't play. I am saying that if you request to ignore one rule, you cannot logically deny a request for me to also ignore one rule. There isn't a middle ground, in my opinion, it's either all ok to ignore or none of it is. Is my view considered "extreme" by some? Perhaps, but I am not particularly concerned with how others view my positions. My main issue is people arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't ok to ignore when there is no objective basis to do so. I am very much an "Objective Truth is by definition Good" kind of person.
I don’t think ignoring rules needs to be tit for tat, especially on areas where you may be able to reach a consensus with your opponent.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 17:56:42


Post by: BaconCatBug


nareik wrote:
I don’t think ignoring rules needs to be tit for tat, especially on areas where you may be able to reach a consensus with your opponent.
Yes, but the issue becomes that no two people have the same view of what consensus will be acceptable. The only fair method is to follow what the rules say, as they are objective, whereas "I want to ignore rule A but not rule B" is subjective.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 18:15:48


Post by: nareik


 BaconCatBug wrote:
nareik wrote:
I don’t think ignoring rules needs to be tit for tat, especially on areas where you may be able to reach a consensus with your opponent.
Yes, but the issue becomes that no two people have the same view of what consensus will be acceptable. The only fair method is to follow what the rules say, as they are objective, whereas "I want to ignore rule A but not rule B" is subjective.
You don’t need to agree on everything with everybody. Have fun playing with your 55 point chaff.

I’m certain plenty of players will agree not to follow raw on this issue, even if they can’t find common ground anywhere else.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 18:16:46


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.
And how do you define an outlier? There has to be a % value that distinguishes an outlier from an acceptable price increase. As I have stated, I am of the opinion you can't ignore any % value, but you are claiming that you can ignore some as "outliers". I want to know what your definition of "outlier" is as I am not you and cannot know without you telling me.

Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?


Are trees real? How do eyes see?

Because we can all come to an agreement and SEE with our own eyes that smashcaptains were very efficient and to deal with them increasing their weapon of choice for them was a wise move.

We have the ability to look at OTHER points of data and come to a RATIONAL conclusion on a case by case basis.

Stop playing coy and acting like the world is black and white.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 18:21:21


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.
And how do you define an outlier? There has to be a % value that distinguishes an outlier from an acceptable price increase. As I have stated, I am of the opinion you can't ignore any % value, but you are claiming that you can ignore some as "outliers". I want to know what your definition of "outlier" is as I am not you and cannot know without you telling me.

Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?


Are trees real? How do eyes see?

Because we can all come to an agreement and SEE with our own eyes that smashcaptains were very efficient and to deal with them increasing their weapon of choice for them was a wise move.

We have the ability to look at OTHER points of data and come to a RATIONAL conclusion on a case by case basis.

Stop playing coy and acting like the world is black and white.
In your opinion. In my opinion Smash Captains were highly inefficient and needed a points drop. Why is my opinion wrong and yours correct? Ultimately the only "opinion" that matters is GWs, they are the ones who decide the points costs.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 18:21:59


Post by: Wayniac


Again though, the 55 point acolyte is an extreme example. There are plenty of other examples where something was adjusted in error, but the error SEEMS close enough that you aren't sure it was intended or not. Harping on a clear mistake isn't addressing the underlying point, that none of us know what GW is/was thinking with adjustments, so care has to be taken to change one thing without opening the floor to debate a ton of other things which may or may not be typos.

BCB is technically correct in that, while it is almost certainly a typo, the rules currently say an Acolyte is 55ppm. So that's the only 100% true statement until an errata, even if we all "know" that 55ppm is a typo. The rules are the rules. I don't quite agree with the rest of his argument, but this point is true no matter how much we know it's wrong, it's what the rules say. Just like when they redid the CSM codex and had the new Obliterators copy/pasted with their old 65ppm instead of the at the time new 115. Until they fixed it, by GW's own statements about rule precedence, the most recent version of the rules said they were 65ppm. Sure, almost everyone figured it was a copy and paste mistake, and only a real jackass would try to argue otherwise, but at the time that's what the rule was.

Let's not get too caught up on a specific and quite frankly ridiculous example since yes, we are all certain the Acolytes should be 5 and not 55. But what about all the other "Maybe this was intended" cases? Treating individual things on a case by case basis isn't the answer here, and that's the point BCB is trying to make however ridiculous his argument might be. You can point to 55ppm Acolytes and almost everyone (probably even BCB) would reasonably agree that's a typo and shouldn't be taken as-is. But then for any other case, who decides if it's a typo, intended, or otherwise? WE have no way of knowing beyond what the rules state, as stupid as they are.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 18:29:11


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
You don't need that number for anything but your argument. An outlier of that magnitude remains an outlier.
And how do you define an outlier? There has to be a % value that distinguishes an outlier from an acceptable price increase. As I have stated, I am of the opinion you can't ignore any % value, but you are claiming that you can ignore some as "outliers". I want to know what your definition of "outlier" is as I am not you and cannot know without you telling me.

Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?


Are trees real? How do eyes see?

Because we can all come to an agreement and SEE with our own eyes that smashcaptains were very efficient and to deal with them increasing their weapon of choice for them was a wise move.

We have the ability to look at OTHER points of data and come to a RATIONAL conclusion on a case by case basis.

Stop playing coy and acting like the world is black and white.
In your opinion. In my opinion Smash Captains were highly inefficient and needed a points drop. Why is my opinion wrong and yours correct? Ultimately the only "opinion" that matters is GWs, they are the ones who decide the points costs.


You're the worst devil's advocate ever.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 18:50:55


Post by: BaconCatBug


You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 18:51:14


Post by: Unusual Suspect


This game, by its very nature, is voluntary. Nobody is forced to play.

This game also consists of rules, written haphazardly in plain language.

No rule, no matter how clear, isn't subject to interpretation.

Taken to an utterly, hilariously absurd level, you could certainly argue that no rule is truly knowable - there is practically always, within the subjective frame of reference, room for interpretive error, because objectivity isn't something we can know to be within our grasp (see Descartes' Daemon, and combine with the limitations of our mostly-salt-and-fat computer).

Until applied, rules have no force. To be applied, a rule must be interpreted.

For this game, then, there must always be some form of meeting of the minds, where interpretations are hashed out. A default of "follow the rulebook's RAW language" is a powerful tool, and presumed socially and culturally, in a meeting of the minds, but so is "Clear and obvious error" as an acceptable reason to stray from the default, as is amply demonstrated throughout practically every imaginable area of case law.

If less-than-100% is good enough for billion+ $ contract interpretation, I think it's fair to apply to a hobby game. There's even this great stand-in for judges when the game gets competitive - tournament judges!

If, in your meeting of the minds, you can't come to an agreed-upon conclusion about what meets the requirements to be a "Clear and Obvious Error", then the game can't take place. In a competitive setting, the person refusing play will take the loss, another default social convention.

A failure to come to an agreed-upon conclusion is going to be viewed by the local community (and any outsiders privy to this event) differently based on where the disagreement lies.

If it's about something with evidenced arguments on both sides, there's probably going to be less social judgment about the failure.

If it's something like a 1000% point cost increase to a basic infantry unit, the social judgment will increase with the proportion of those who find adherence to RAW absurd.

You have a right to express yourself, and the community has a right to toss crude rules utilitarian philosophical ideology into the garbage bin they think it deserves.

Personally, though, I find the thought of applying stricter standards to game rules for a hobby game than to contracts with potentially billions of $ at stake or criminal trials with livelihoods or even actual lives on the line to be hilariously absurd. Trying to apply one-size-fits-all rules because you got far enough in philosophy 101 to figure out that subjectivity is a problem (but apparently not far enough to figure out just how difficult it is for beings like us, with such limited access to reality, to actually recognize objectivity if we could even access it) to the point you'll actively defend the specific case of 55 point acolytes... man, that's just such a weird hill to die on.

We hopefully all know the harm that actual, obvious-but-technically-not-in-an-objective-sense-that-we-don't-have-access-to-anyway errors like 55 point acolytes cause. That's an actual, necessary harm to GSC armies. We know it will happen if we hold ourselves to an absurd standard of objectivity. We KNOW it will happen.

Wayniac, what sort of perceived harms are you suggesting will result from, in THAT case, making the obvious conclusion that you yourself agreed was true - that it was a typo, not an intended change? You've referenced a slippery slope, but if you intend to play the game in as balanced a way possible (assuming that balanced gameplay is what you enjoy), what SPECIFICALLY do you fear will happen such that even the RISK of it is enough to allow obvious, actual, existing harms to continue?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 19:04:01


Post by: Gordoape


 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.

I don't understand how this level of semantic trolling is even allowed on this forum. It's incredibly toxic and mostly just lame. You're play-acting that you are completely unable to understand nuance.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 19:06:28


Post by: nareik


 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.
You seem to be moving the goal posts... previously i perceived you were arguing no two opponents could possibly agree on how to change any rules.

Like literally the situation
“i love what you did with those models, lets say they are just 5 points each so we can see them on the battlefield”
“that sounds great” couldn’t ever occur according to you.

You were arguing because everyone has different rules they would want changed meant they couldn’t see past their differences to see common ground, especially as ~a player would never give up a rule without getting something in return~.

The only sense you made to me was if both players couldn’t agree on any changes then they can just use the printed rules. You said it would be fair, but really it is only fair in a loose sense as 55 points per model just effectively deletes a chaff unit entry from the game.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 19:09:23


Post by: Daedalus81


 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.


No, but you think what you want. Society wouldn't exist if it followed the rules in your head.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 19:39:38


Post by: JohnnyHell


Gordoape wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.

I don't understand how this level of semantic trolling is even allowed on this forum. It's incredibly toxic and mostly just lame. You're play-acting that you are completely unable to understand nuance.


We should probably stop feeding the t... thread derail though. 55pts per Neophyte is an obvious typo. If BCB is assuming his intractable myopic mantle as per, and pretending nuance doesn’t exist, well then that’s his loss.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 19:54:11


Post by: Lord Damocles


 JohnnyHell wrote:
[55pts per Neophyte is an obvious typo.

What should they cost instead?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 19:55:13


Post by: BaconCatBug


nareik wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.
You seem to be moving the goal posts... previously i perceived you were arguing no two opponents could possibly agree on how to change any rules.

Like literally the situation
“i love what you did with those models, lets say they are just 5 points each so we can see them on the battlefield”
“that sounds great” couldn’t ever occur according to you.

You were arguing because everyone has different rules they would want changed meant they couldn’t see past their differences to see common ground, especially as ~a player would never give up a rule without getting something in return~.

The only sense you made to me was if both players couldn’t agree on any changes then they can just use the printed rules. You said it would be fair, but really it is only fair in a loose sense as 55 points per model just effectively deletes a chaff unit entry from the game.
I never said it couldn't ever occur, I am saying that more often than not it won't because most people will say "You get to ignore rule A? Then I want to ignore rule B".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordoape wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.

I don't understand how this level of semantic trolling is even allowed on this forum. It's incredibly toxic and mostly just lame. You're play-acting that you are completely unable to understand nuance.
Disagreement is not trolling, nor is it toxic.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 19:57:31


Post by: alextroy


Lord Damocles wrote:If Neophytes aren't supposed to be 55 points, what are they supposed to cost?
Why would we assume that GW intended them to be 5 points and not 4 or 6?

Because they were 5 points before the obvious error made them 55 points. If the error made them 44 points, we have an argument for the correct value being 4 points, but that's not what we have.

BaconCatBug wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice, "I can't define when it is a typo, but I know one when I see one".


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:00:44


Post by: BaconCatBug


 alextroy wrote:
Because they were 5 points before the obvious error made them 55 points. If the error made them 44 points, we have an argument for the correct value being 4 points, but that's not what we have.
Thunder Hammers used to be 21 points before the obvious error made them 40 points. If the error made them 24 points, we'd have an argument for the correct value being 20 points, but that's not what we have.

My reasoning is just as valid as yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 alextroy wrote:
To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice, "I can't define when it is a typo, but I know one when I see one".
I am glad we fully agree! I don't see a typo.

The irony of this discussion is, of course, that when GW do errata it all it will do is prove me right, because if it was so obvious that no-one would follow it there would be no need for errata.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:06:37


Post by: Lord Damocles


 alextroy wrote:
Lord Damocles wrote:If Neophytes aren't supposed to be 55 points, what are they supposed to cost?
Why would we assume that GW intended them to be 5 points and not 4 or 6?

Because they were 5 points before the obvious error made them 55 points. If the error made them 44 points, we have an argument for the correct value being 4 points, but that's not what we have.

But how do we know that whoever was typing in the points didn't miss the key they were aiming for entirely? (they clearly weren't paying much attention)
How do we know that the points value wasn't supposed to change like loads of other values in the book did?
Why are we assuming that things like Ogryns reverting to old costs is a copy-paste error, but Neophytes apparently weren't copy-pasted?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:10:49


Post by: nareik


I thought errata existed to revise mistakes?

What if it gets FAQd?

Is neophyte point value meant to read 5?

Yes, replace 55 with 5.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:11:37


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Lord Damocles wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Lord Damocles wrote:If Neophytes aren't supposed to be 55 points, what are they supposed to cost?
Why would we assume that GW intended them to be 5 points and not 4 or 6?

Because they were 5 points before the obvious error made them 55 points. If the error made them 44 points, we have an argument for the correct value being 4 points, but that's not what we have.

But how do we know that whoever was typing in the points didn't miss the key they were aiming for entirely? (they clearly weren't paying much attention)
How do we know that the points value wasn't supposed to change like loads of other values in the book did?
Why are we assuming that things like Ogryns reverting to old costs is a copy-paste error, but Neophytes apparently weren't copy-pasted?


Right. All this debating around the neophyte is pointless. Let's ask a harder question like the Ogryn question. Or, IMO, an even harder one, like the Bonesinger. Is it in Legends or not? Is it an HQ or an elite? What's its point cost? The whole point of BCB's argument (and yours, which is a much better-expressed argument) is that this stuff matters, and you get the really grey areas like the Ogryn or the Bonesinger and you wonder "what the feth is the answer"? This is the crap that makes me justified in my decision to not buy another piece of print media from GW again.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:14:29


Post by: Martel732


Klickor wrote:
Lemartes didnt get black rage in BoB. Sanguinary Priest didnt get Angels of Death. All SM chaplains lost a litany in the FAQ. Fleshtearers got their chapter tactic removed from turn 3+.

This is things that got changed in the faq but what is even worse is what they didnt fix in BoB. They didnt fix Dante and Sanguinary Guard to reroll hits instead of failed hits when they updated the datasheets for BA. So now half our reroll abilities is reroll failed and half is reoll hits. They didnt bother with making sure we have the same wording and same general strats between BA and codex marines. Like taking extra relics and chapter master or have same wording on honor the chapter strat or fix cp cost for our stratagems to be more in line with what RG have.

This would have taken up at most 4 pages, 3 datasheets + strats, and could be done with a mostly copy and paste job in just a few minutes. Nothing new at all or unbalanced, just getting BA more in line with normal marines in wording. Would help them pad their super thin 83page book that costs 30€

I did not buy this piece of crap. It would have been so easy to make it a worthwhile addition if they just spent a few minutes doing that extra work. Took me one read through to notice what it lacked and what else could have been done to make it a better written rules compliment without really affecting the power of BA. Im more upset with their lack of care than the actual power increase. This just shows they are more interested in making new things than making good things.


We are playing Dante with the correct chapter master wording. RAI, baby.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:17:53


Post by: Dysartes


I have to say, I'm looking forwards to if GW do a seminar at UKGE this year - "So, WTF happened with the MFM?" is going to be a fun question to ask...


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:24:14


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Dysartes wrote:
I have to say, I'm looking forwards to if GW do a seminar at UKGE this year - "So, WTF happened with the MFM?" is going to be a fun question to ask...

That would be comedy gold. I hope there's a recording. Do they allow cameras?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:27:11


Post by: Lord Damocles


Ask them why they haven't fixed the damn assault weapons rules at the same time.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:30:44


Post by: Dysartes


 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ask them why they haven't fixed the damn assault weapons rules at the same time.

Nah, we need to have something to keep BCB from being able to play a game


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:48:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Dysartes wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ask them why they haven't fixed the damn assault weapons rules at the same time.

Nah, we need to have something to keep BCB from being able to play a game

Ok ask them why my fething fellblade is 740 points without wargear and a fething castellan is less than that WITH wargear.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 20:59:13


Post by: BrookM


If we could kindly stay on topic and not devolve into the same old petty antic shenanigans, that would be great.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 21:03:32


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


Right. All this debating around the neophyte is pointless. Let's ask a harder question like the Ogryn question. Or, IMO, an even harder one, like the Bonesinger. Is it in Legends or not? Is it an HQ or an elite? What's its point cost? The whole point of BCB's argument (and yours, which is a much better-expressed argument) is that this stuff matters, and you get the really grey areas like the Ogryn or the Bonesinger and you wonder "what the feth is the answer"? This is the crap that makes me justified in my decision to not buy another piece of print media from GW again.


No. The problem isnt that problems exist. The problem is they believe that these issues create a false dichotomy that places everyone in a no win situation, because they act in bad faith.

So you guys want the answer? What happens if I say the neos are 5 points and then you use that as justification to say thunderhammers are 20?

Then you dont get to play the game. which is great for BCB, because he doesn't play and gas lighting forums is his hobby.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 21:15:54


Post by: Karol


Ok in what faith did they have when they wrote the Inari book and the GK codex at tthe same time, because they were finishing one, when they were doing the other. How can one explain other then either bad faith or some intern being made to write the GK stuff alone, them being so different. The whole GK codex feel as if it was not writen with 8th ed in mind. It has non of the thing even the first 8th ed sm codex had.

And what options do people that have a bad codex have, if their armies aren't fixed by GW? Worse thing is that this is affecting non tournament players the most. A tournament player won't care. If army is bad, he will buy the best one. Same way a sportsman switchs from baned substance to a legal or a non illegal one. But a casual player who wants to play his army? What is he suppose to do? Army doesn't work, fixs don't happen. And the only anwser seem to be buy another army. But how the hell can this be put on the same scaled as the supposed play what you want ?

But again we are going in circle. Some people think GW errors are just something they do for what ever reasons, why others think it is random and GW has nothing to do with the errors. Doubt people will ever get to agree about it, unless someone goes wired and works at GW for 6 months.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 21:22:52


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
Ok in what faith did they have when they wrote the Inari book and the GK codex at tthe same time, because they were finishing one, when they were doing the other. How can one explain other then either bad faith or some intern being made to write the GK stuff alone, them being so different. The whole GK codex feel as if it was not writen with 8th ed in mind. It has non of the thing even the first 8th ed sm codex had.

And what options do people that have a bad codex have, if their armies aren't fixed by GW? Worse thing is that this is affecting non tournament players the most. A tournament player won't care. If army is bad, he will buy the best one. Same way a sportsman switchs from baned substance to a legal or a non illegal one. But a casual player who wants to play his army? What is he suppose to do? Army doesn't work, fixs don't happen. And the only anwser seem to be buy another army. But how the hell can this be put on the same scaled as the supposed play what you want ?

But again we are going in circle. Some people think GW errors are just something they do for what ever reasons, why others think it is random and GW has nothing to do with the errors. Doubt people will ever get to agree about it, unless someone goes wired and works at GW for 6 months.


Jesus, Karol. For once stop trying to make everything into an effigy of GK. The points they have are what they have. If something is WILDLY out of bounds - great, let's discuss that. Ogryns going up seems totally wrong?

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"
"Sure."

But if you want to pull the sword from the stone, then what if the GK points are too low? What if MY meta has GK wining a LOT? How are you going to disagree with that? From my perspective GK are GREAT! See what a bs premise this logic is?

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 21:37:44


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
Ok in what faith did they have when they wrote the Inari book and the GK codex at tthe same time, because they were finishing one, when they were doing the other. How can one explain other then either bad faith or some intern being made to write the GK stuff alone, them being so different. The whole GK codex feel as if it was not writen with 8th ed in mind. It has non of the thing even the first 8th ed sm codex had.

And what options do people that have a bad codex have, if their armies aren't fixed by GW? Worse thing is that this is affecting non tournament players the most. A tournament player won't care. If army is bad, he will buy the best one. Same way a sportsman switchs from baned substance to a legal or a non illegal one. But a casual player who wants to play his army? What is he suppose to do? Army doesn't work, fixs don't happen. And the only anwser seem to be buy another army. But how the hell can this be put on the same scaled as the supposed play what you want ?

But again we are going in circle. Some people think GW errors are just something they do for what ever reasons, why others think it is random and GW has nothing to do with the errors. Doubt people will ever get to agree about it, unless someone goes wired and works at GW for 6 months.


Jesus, Karol. For once stop trying to make everything into an effigy of GK. The points they have are what they have. If something is WILDLY out of bounds - great, let's discuss that. Ogryns going up seems totally wrong?

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"
"Sure."

But if you want to pull the sword from the stone, then what if the GK points are too low? What if MY meta has GK wining a LOT? How are you going to disagree with that? From my perspective GK are GREAT! See what a bs premise this logic is?

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.


Fine and dandy even without the balance aspect however their rules were and still are in a Bad state.
Spoiler:
Page 81: Chaos covenant of nurgle. an ability which at the time was absolutely useless due to it's conditions and even now is useless. not to mention the keywords weren't propperly handled, making it f.e. impossible technically for R&H infantry to use chimeras, valkyries etc.

page 83: An HQ printed without the <charachter> Keyword, is something that should've caught the eye at release not half a year later.

Page 86: Mutants. Mutation table was broken upon release

Page 86: Chaos Spawn beeing consistently ignored in the FW part over the last two CA cycles. Seems as if R&H just get forgotten by the rules team like most FW rules and ignored leading to the hillarious situation that the price tag never changed.

Page 87: Nobody checked what a renegade command squad was and how to transfer it over into 8th edition it seems, needed to be expanded 6 months later by the first FAQ to the propper squad size. Further nobody checked what the Command Vox Net does and how it interacts, it to this day doesn't work. BTW entry for chaos sigil still missing.

Page 88: The chaos sigil is now changed again? Infact even more nerfed then it was? Reason beeing?

Page 89: Enforcer did again miss the <Charachter> keyword upon release, still misses combat stimm injector piece of equipment, because reasons (Oh on that front i will give out a completly second paragraf). Balefull judge interaction with marauders still broken.

Page 90: Marauder Squads lost seemingly energy weapon options in the transitions, yet still were murder cultists as a speciality possible? Further, Hereteks gives the squad Krak greneades, yet the squad allready had krak grenades? Also lost the ability for a "Demolition charge" (which entry exists in the weapons list but nobody can equip it?), also rules interaction between the enforcer as allready mentioned.

Page 91: The squad size needed to be adjusted on the ogryn brutes. Limted at 5 at the start of 8th upon release. Also avalanche of muscle needed changing, i.e. was written to stack per charge permanently.

Page 92: Same as above, further,covenant of nurgle does not give the Nurgle keyword, meaning that what supposed to happen when a plague ogryn detonates is more likely to damage yourself. Congratulations.

Out of 12 core pages (without points even really regarded as other balance aspects) there are and were 10 pages with faults in them. of which the majority remains not fixed. Does a 83, 3 % fault/ Page rate not scream issue?





Even funnier , csm dex 2.0 not adapted stratagems according to faq's.

Etc
And co kg.




Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 21:40:00


Post by: Wayniac


I mean the issue is that you can't just treat every instance as its own thing.

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"

"Sure."

okay, now what about something else that may be off? Ask that too? And then the next? And the next?

That's why a precedent exists and has to exist. So you DON'T have to address everything which seems like it's a mistake or feels "off" without any clarification from GW.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 21:59:34


Post by: Gadzilla666


All this comes back to the OP's original question, when's the faq coming out? Why is it taking so long to address some typos when they've already issued faqs for both the pa releases that came out in December but not ca?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 22:14:32


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


Right. All this debating around the neophyte is pointless. Let's ask a harder question like the Ogryn question. Or, IMO, an even harder one, like the Bonesinger. Is it in Legends or not? Is it an HQ or an elite? What's its point cost? The whole point of BCB's argument (and yours, which is a much better-expressed argument) is that this stuff matters, and you get the really grey areas like the Ogryn or the Bonesinger and you wonder "what the feth is the answer"? This is the crap that makes me justified in my decision to not buy another piece of print media from GW again.


No. The problem isnt that problems exist. The problem is they believe that these issues create a false dichotomy that places everyone in a no win situation, because they act in bad faith.

So you guys want the answer? What happens if I say the neos are 5 points and then you use that as justification to say thunderhammers are 20?

Then you dont get to play the game. which is great for BCB, because he doesn't play and gas lighting forums is his hobby.



But nobody's answered the question. How about this; you play Neos at 5ppm. What is the confidence level you rate that choice at? That is, what percentage sure are you that you followed the rules as GW intended? I'd give myself a 90% there if I ran them at 5 points. But what about in the case of the Ogryn? GW have nerfed things weirdly before. And what about the case of the Bonesinger!? I don't think I could pick anything that was over 50%. That's screwed up, and that's the problem with this slowAF FAQ here. I'm not asking any of this in bad faith; I have 2 Bonesingers and I'd love to use them but *I don't know how right now*.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 22:22:08


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
Ok in what faith did they have when they wrote the Inari book and the GK codex at tthe same time, because they were finishing one, when they were doing the other. How can one explain other then either bad faith or some intern being made to write the GK stuff alone, them being so different. The whole GK codex feel as if it was not writen with 8th ed in mind. It has non of the thing even the first 8th ed sm codex had.

And what options do people that have a bad codex have, if their armies aren't fixed by GW? Worse thing is that this is affecting non tournament players the most. A tournament player won't care. If army is bad, he will buy the best one. Same way a sportsman switchs from baned substance to a legal or a non illegal one. But a casual player who wants to play his army? What is he suppose to do? Army doesn't work, fixs don't happen. And the only anwser seem to be buy another army. But how the hell can this be put on the same scaled as the supposed play what you want ?

But again we are going in circle. Some people think GW errors are just something they do for what ever reasons, why others think it is random and GW has nothing to do with the errors. Doubt people will ever get to agree about it, unless someone goes wired and works at GW for 6 months.


Jesus, Karol. For once stop trying to make everything into an effigy of GK. The points they have are what they have. If something is WILDLY out of bounds - great, let's discuss that. Ogryns going up seems totally wrong?

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"
"Sure."

But if you want to pull the sword from the stone, then what if the GK points are too low? What if MY meta has GK wining a LOT? How are you going to disagree with that? From my perspective GK are GREAT! See what a bs premise this logic is?

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.


Fine and dandy even without the balance aspect however their rules were and still are in a Bad state.
Spoiler:
Page 81: Chaos covenant of nurgle. an ability which at the time was absolutely useless due to it's conditions and even now is useless. not to mention the keywords weren't propperly handled, making it f.e. impossible technically for R&H infantry to use chimeras, valkyries etc.

page 83: An HQ printed without the <charachter> Keyword, is something that should've caught the eye at release not half a year later.

Page 86: Mutants. Mutation table was broken upon release

Page 86: Chaos Spawn beeing consistently ignored in the FW part over the last two CA cycles. Seems as if R&H just get forgotten by the rules team like most FW rules and ignored leading to the hillarious situation that the price tag never changed.

Page 87: Nobody checked what a renegade command squad was and how to transfer it over into 8th edition it seems, needed to be expanded 6 months later by the first FAQ to the propper squad size. Further nobody checked what the Command Vox Net does and how it interacts, it to this day doesn't work. BTW entry for chaos sigil still missing.

Page 88: The chaos sigil is now changed again? Infact even more nerfed then it was? Reason beeing?

Page 89: Enforcer did again miss the <Charachter> keyword upon release, still misses combat stimm injector piece of equipment, because reasons (Oh on that front i will give out a completly second paragraf). Balefull judge interaction with marauders still broken.

Page 90: Marauder Squads lost seemingly energy weapon options in the transitions, yet still were murder cultists as a speciality possible? Further, Hereteks gives the squad Krak greneades, yet the squad allready had krak grenades? Also lost the ability for a "Demolition charge" (which entry exists in the weapons list but nobody can equip it?), also rules interaction between the enforcer as allready mentioned.

Page 91: The squad size needed to be adjusted on the ogryn brutes. Limted at 5 at the start of 8th upon release. Also avalanche of muscle needed changing, i.e. was written to stack per charge permanently.

Page 92: Same as above, further,covenant of nurgle does not give the Nurgle keyword, meaning that what supposed to happen when a plague ogryn detonates is more likely to damage yourself. Congratulations.

Out of 12 core pages (without points even really regarded as other balance aspects) there are and were 10 pages with faults in them. of which the majority remains not fixed. Does a 83, 3 % fault/ Page rate not scream issue?





Even funnier , csm dex 2.0 not adapted stratagems according to faq's.

Etc
And co kg.



Did any fw stuff that didn't pertain to loyalist marines get a change? The only csm that I'm aware of that got changed was stuff we share with loyalists. Did any xenos stuff change? Honest question.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 22:24:56


Post by: Not Online!!!


Not to my knowledge. Actually yes some smaller daemonengines and weapons got some minor adjustments but that is it.

And that was just stuff i bothered to bring up as exemples.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 22:56:54


Post by: Gadzilla666


Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 22:59:35


Post by: nareik


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.

The internet: GW is hurrying out products, making too many mistakes.

Also the internet: Why won’t GW hurry out the product?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 23:00:08


Post by: Not Online!!!


Gadzilla666 wrote:
Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.


I mean theorethically attempting to fix up what would that be? 2-3 lists..
And about 1-2 lists worth of additional models?

Yeah could be if they also would add in tests for beta stratagems etc.

But i assume that they just have deleted the file and now searched/ had to rewrite it


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 23:03:14


Post by: BaconCatBug


nareik wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.

The internet: GW is hurrying out products, making too many mistakes.

Also the internet: Why won’t GW hurry out the product?
More like "GW promised FAQs would be issued after two weeks, why have they lied?"


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 23:11:53


Post by: Daedalus81


Wayniac wrote:
I mean the issue is that you can't just treat every instance as its own thing.

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"

"Sure."

okay, now what about something else that may be off? Ask that too? And then the next? And the next?

That's why a precedent exists and has to exist. So you DON'T have to address everything which seems like it's a mistake or feels "off" without any clarification from GW.



It's literally a handful of things not the myriad scenarios you conjure out of thin air.

"But if this was wrong then could this be wrong, too?" No, just stop. The forum identified the weird things. They are known. Everything else is absolute until GW says otherwise.

If you just want to play stupid mental games I'll just claim your point drops were a typo and refuse to let you use them. Or that clearly GW meant to nerf that unit. How can you refute my opinion?

Then no one gets to play and we can sit on the forums like smug donkey-caves assured in our mental superiority.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 23:12:25


Post by: Gadzilla666


Not Online!!! wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.


I mean theorethically attempting to fix up what would that be? 2-3 lists..
And about 1-2 lists worth of additional models?

Yeah could be if they also would add in tests for beta stratagems etc.

But i assume that they just have deleted the file and now searched/ had to rewrite it

Deleted the file? Don't you mean lost the binder full of hastily written notes written on old napkins?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 23:15:39


Post by: nareik


Don’t dismiss old napkins!

When I met a couple of nameless old men they told me the rhino was first designed on the back of a beer mat at the pub!



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 23:26:37


Post by: Not Online!!!


nareik wrote:
Don’t dismiss old napkins!

When I met a couple of nameless old men they told me the rhino was first designed on the back of a beer mat at the pub!



Aye old napkins would probably have stuck around indeed.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/12 23:51:39


Post by: bananathug


Yeah, the 55 point GSC is an aberration but there are tons of other assumed mistakes in CA2019 that should have been errata'd day 1 (just like the SW codex...).

Another poster wrote that it's not like GW opens the product the same time it goes to the public. These issues should have been known about before it was shipped and a day 1 errata should have been issued.

If I make a mistake at my job that some how gets to the client I'm working all night (or however long it takes) to get it right. The whole time I'm burning with shame/guilt/embarrassment and Vacation/Christmas/death be damned because it's a mark of professionalism and personal pride to not allow such an easily rectifiable mistake to continue. Something as simple as a typo in a PDF should get fixed right away.

The fact that GW hasn't fixed it yet and is so far outside of their schedule hopefully points to the fact that something else is going on and GW knows that CA2019 was a mistake and they have lots of things to fix.

Typos and copy/paste errors should take minutes/hours to fix not days/weeks. "Oh, we put the wrong space wolf fast attack page in (I hope they did). John, put out a community post and Frank you put up the right PDF." How the hell does that take a month?

I haven't bought any GW product since the SM 2.0 + supplements debacle and hopefully others are too. I doubt GW misses my 100ish bucks a month but a couple hundred of us could impact the bottom line enough that GW would take these mistakes (and rule balance in general) more seriously. GWs cavalier attitude towards the rules/balance of their game will only be addressed when we start voting with their wallet.

The vitriol leveled at the "white knights" on dakka is because those of us fed-up with being taken advantage of by GW understand that as long as we are the vocal minority nothing with change.

I am a huge fan of this game. It is one of the few hobbies I crave time out of my busy schedule to enjoy and wish that GW cared as much about it as they care about coming up with new ways to get our money. As others have said, as long as people keep buying then GW has little to no reason to change.

I came back to 8th because of the promises of the new GW. Better marketing, better communication and "the most play tested edition yet" lured me back in from almost a decade away from the game. It's frustrating that the problems the game has now seem so easy to fix and yet GW won't put forth anything but the minimum effort to fix them.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 00:01:35


Post by: Nazrak


Christ, can everyone just stop responding to BCB's ridiculous trolling? All they *ever* do is derail threads with willfully-idiotic, excessive pedantry, and then there's just page after page of arguing with somebody who's repeatedly demonstrated they're not interested in any sort of good faith discussion. It literally ruins this forum and I can't believe the little gak hasn't been banned.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 01:13:46


Post by: JohnnyHell


 Nazrak wrote:
Christ, can everyone just stop responding to BCB's ridiculous trolling? All they *ever* do is derail threads with willfully-idiotic, excessive pedantry, and then there's just page after page of arguing with somebody who's repeatedly demonstrated they're not interested in any sort of good faith discussion. It literally ruins this forum and I can't believe the little gak hasn't been banned.


Hear, hear.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 04:09:13


Post by: Blastaar


 Nazrak wrote:
Christ, can everyone just stop responding to BCB's ridiculous trolling? All they *ever* do is derail threads with willfully-idiotic, excessive pedantry, and then there's just page after page of arguing with somebody who's repeatedly demonstrated they're not interested in any sort of good faith discussion. It literally ruins this forum and I can't believe the little gak hasn't been banned.


BCB isn't trolling-they have a (quite poorly expressed) point. 55pt neophytes is probably unintended, being a massive increase with no improvement in their rules- -but GW hasn't acknowledged the error, or any other possible typos. Or bothered to explain their decision-making process when writing said rules. All we have to go on are what they print, and "forge the narrative." There is no solid, objective basis other than "I/we think X is wrong, and should be Y." Which leads to disagreement and potential abuse. This is why proper play testing, technical writing and proofreading are so vital.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 04:35:38


Post by: Daedalus81


It isn't probably unintended it is certainly unintended. Pretending otherwise is just trolling.

GW will acknowledge the error. Do you want to acknowledge as many as possible or just one at a time as they are found? A little patience goes a long way.

If you can't find someone to agree to let you use neos at their previous 5 point cost you're better off not playing that person. TOs are also entirely capable of addressing the major issues without allowing people to drag out other bs with no validity.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 05:18:47


Post by: Blastaar


 Daedalus81 wrote:
It isn't probably unintended it is certainly unintended. Pretending otherwise is just trolling.


Name calling doesn't make you correct. GW hasn't said anything one way or the other, so w'ere really just making educated guesses. Is 55 points for a neophyte dumb? Yes, Do we know the rules people didn't actually think this was a correct cost for some reason? No. Do we know for certain neophytes weren't intended to be 4ppm, or 6ppm? No.

GW will acknowledge the error. Do you want to acknowledge as many as possible or just one at a time as they are found? A little patience goes a long way.



How long is reasonable to wait?


If you can't find someone to agree to let you use neos at their previous 5 point cost you're better off not playing that person. TOs are also entirely capable of addressing the major issues without allowing people to drag out other bs with no validity.



And what about the other possible/probable errors? Can we all agree on each one, and the intended point value, wording, etc.?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 07:26:48


Post by: Lord Damocles


 Daedalus81 wrote:
It isn't probably unintended it is certainly unintended. Pretending otherwise is just trolling.

Even if we all agree that 55 points is an error (which I think that everyone does), that doesn't help us solve the problem(s) caused by it.

GW will acknowledge the error. Do you want to acknowledge as many as possible or just one at a time as they are found? A little patience goes a long way.

Acknowledge it like they've acknowledged the broken assault weapon rules?
It's been four years - something being obviously broken isn't at all a guarantee that GW will acknowledge it, let alone fix it.

If you can't find someone to agree to let you use neos at their previous 5 point cost you're better off not playing that person.

Why should we assume that 5 points is correct though?

Should we therefore be assuming that everything which changed since last year should revert?
The cost of Ogryns is certainly unintended (I said it in bold, therefore it's true) so we revert them too right?
Where do we stop with reverting changes?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 07:26:53


Post by: Dysartes


Setting the MFM aside for a moment, is there much in CA2019 itself that looks like it should get a FAQ or errata of some form?


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 09:38:54


Post by: Jidmah


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?

A 1000% increase is clearly a typo. It's all but irrelevant to that case whether completely unrelated increases that are an entire magnitude smaller are typos or not.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 10:03:36


Post by: T1nk4bell


The Hammer should cost 210


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 10:46:10


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Jidmah wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Another example: Space Marine Thunder Hammers went from 21 points for Characters to 40 points for Characters. That's nearly a 100% increase in points. Is this not also an "outlier" and a "typo"? If not, why not?

A 1000% increase is clearly a typo. It's all but irrelevant to that case whether completely unrelated increases that are an entire magnitude smaller are typos or not.
I never liked that idiom, "all but something". If it's all but irrelevant then it's actually everything except irrelevant, which means it's actually relevant (and blue, and a salmon, but that's beside the point).

Again, I am not asking for you to state once again that one is a typo and the other isn't. I am asking WHY one is a typo and the other isn't. You claim it's because one is a 1000% increase and the other isn't, so what % won't be considered a typo?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
 Nazrak wrote:
Christ, can everyone just stop responding to BCB's ridiculous trolling? All they *ever* do is derail threads with willfully-idiotic, excessive pedantry, and then there's just page after page of arguing with somebody who's repeatedly demonstrated they're not interested in any sort of good faith discussion. It literally ruins this forum and I can't believe the little gak hasn't been banned.


BCB isn't trolling-they have a (quite poorly expressed) point. 55pt neophytes is probably unintended, being a massive increase with no improvement in their rules- -but GW hasn't acknowledged the error, or any other possible typos. Or bothered to explain their decision-making process when writing said rules. All we have to go on are what they print, and "forge the narrative." There is no solid, objective basis other than "I/we think X is wrong, and should be Y." Which leads to disagreement and potential abuse. This is why proper play testing, technical writing and proofreading are so vital.
I am glad someone understands. Also, Nazrak, that was a very mean thing to say I am going to go into my corner and cry while tweeting about it now. :(


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 11:01:35


Post by: AngryAngel80


The issue is, if it has one very telling error. There is always the chance, and in some instances a very good one, other lazy work was done and other errors remain. Doesn't matter how big or small as importance is in the eye of the beholder. As if you use the units, even one or two points can mean an awful lot to the player.

Questioning what they did wouldn't be needed if they were open as to why they did things, point out mistakes in their product that will be corrected with erratas later even if not the fix or merely not make the foul up in the first place.

There has been a lot of back and forth and hyperbole flying all over. That fact remains though not making such mistakes is the easiest fix and doesn't lead to questioning everything they do as you can be sure it's right.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 11:09:07


Post by: BaconCatBug


AngryAngel80 wrote:
The issue is, if it has one very telling error. There is always the chance, and in some instances a very good one, other lazy work was done and other errors remain. Doesn't matter how big or small as importance is in the eye of the beholder. As if you use the units, even one or two points can mean an awful lot to the player.

Questioning what they did wouldn't be needed if they were open as to why they did things, point out mistakes in their product that will be corrected with erratas later even if not the fix or merely not make the foul up in the first place.

There has been a lot of back and forth and hyperbole flying all over. That fact remains though not making such mistakes is the easiest fix and doesn't lead to questioning everything they do as you can be sure it's right.
That's also a very good point. The shear number of mistakes and bizarre non-mistakes have lead us to a point were we genuinely cannot be sure if 55ppm is an error or not. Another example is cross book stratagems, they've given contradictory answers, sometimes saying yes, sometimes saying no, ignoring the RaW of the keyword system and sometimes enforcing it.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 12:15:41


Post by: Not Online!!!


 BaconCatBug wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
The issue is, if it has one very telling error. There is always the chance, and in some instances a very good one, other lazy work was done and other errors remain. Doesn't matter how big or small as importance is in the eye of the beholder. As if you use the units, even one or two points can mean an awful lot to the player.

Questioning what they did wouldn't be needed if they were open as to why they did things, point out mistakes in their product that will be corrected with erratas later even if not the fix or merely not make the foul up in the first place.

There has been a lot of back and forth and hyperbole flying all over. That fact remains though not making such mistakes is the easiest fix and doesn't lead to questioning everything they do as you can be sure it's right.
That's also a very good point. The shear number of mistakes and bizarre non-mistakes have lead us to a point were we genuinely cannot be sure if 55ppm is an error or not. Another example is cross book stratagems, they've given contradictory answers, sometimes saying yes, sometimes saying no, ignoring the RaW of the keyword system and sometimes enforcing it.


na the neophytes are just too obvious, a better exemple of this would be the situation between R6H chaos spawn and regular chaos spawn. (both are the same in essence but one pays more)
Or the Cultists.


Truth is, GW is inconsistent with rules. Quite heavily, and has in some cases not even considered interaction of a piece of equipment. Then when they did intervene and afterwards updated a roules source (cue CSM 2.0 dex) forgot that they adapted the stratagem / rules in question and just copy pasted....

To say that GW isn't putting propper effort you could expect in a monetized product is, quite valid.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 14:27:00


Post by: Jidmah


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, I am not asking for you to state once again that one is a typo and the other isn't. I am asking WHY one is a typo and the other isn't.

Because the possibility of an intentional 1000% increase on an unchanged troops unit is so low that it can be considered irrelevant.

You claim it's because one is a 1000% increase and the other isn't, so what % won't be considered a typo?

Somewhere below 1000% and above 0%. To the acolyte discussion, the exact value is irrelevant.

If you disagree, provide proof for the need of such a value.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 14:51:03


Post by: Karol




Considering they have like 2-3 sites, a facebook, twitter and the same can be said about the designers, why doesn't someone up the design totem pole come up and says guys we done goofed, the little gribblies do not cost 55pts, they cost 5, expect an FAQ/Errata soon?

how long does it take to write such a post?

Even if they would have to go to the very top of design team for it, for the head of all designers, and emails would have to be sent, because it was christmas seson, AND the book was not read after being printed by anyone, how long would the exchange take 3-4 hours, considering people not check their emails every 5 min?

And then some stuff, which GW later errates, gets the change not a day or hours later, but multiple months later, or even longer.



Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 15:13:37


Post by: Bharring


For the same reason they never corrected "Monsterous Smash" in 6th edition. Communication often relies on the context understanding of the receiver for smoothing out mistakes or oversights. Since the context makes it clear what was intended, there's no miscommunication to clear up. There's egg on their faces, and they should correct their mistake, but there's no actual harm beyond embarrasment.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 15:16:31


Post by: Slipspace


Karol wrote:


Considering they have like 2-3 sites, a facebook, twitter and the same can be said about the designers, why doesn't someone up the design totem pole come up and says guys we done goofed, the little gribblies do not cost 55pts, they cost 5, expect an FAQ/Errata soon?

how long does it take to write such a post?

Even if they would have to go to the very top of design team for it, for the head of all designers, and emails would have to be sent, because it was christmas seson, AND the book was not read after being printed by anyone, how long would the exchange take 3-4 hours, considering people not check their emails every 5 min?

And then some stuff, which GW later errates, gets the change not a day or hours later, but multiple months later, or even longer.



Because that's not how large corporation tend to work. There's a process and they're following it. In this case it's a stupid process because they really should have rushed out a quick fix for the most egregious errors like the 55 point Neophytes and the messed up Deathwatch unit sizes, with an understanding that a more complete errata would be forthcoming later.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 16:03:41


Post by: Abadabadoobaddon


So I actually have 2 theories as to why the errata is taking so long:

1. There were so many errors that there are actually more corrected pt values in the errata than correct pt values in the original. They can't release it because that many updated pts costs would normally be something that they would charge money for. So they're undergoing the painstaking process of ranking the corrections by order of importance with the understanding that they'll only release the top 20% now, with the remaining corrections to be set aside in a very safe place and included in CA 2020... Sorry! Sorry, couldn't keep it together through that last part. Almost made it with a straight face. Can we do another take?

2. They are extensively playtesting the corrections. After having played 3 whole games every week since it went to the printers, they've concluded that GSC neophytes might be too expensive at 55 pts per model. Currently testing 54 pts per model. More testing may be warranted (as time permits).


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 17:03:13


Post by: JohnnyHell


Slipspace wrote:
Karol wrote:


Considering they have like 2-3 sites, a facebook, twitter and the same can be said about the designers, why doesn't someone up the design totem pole come up and says guys we done goofed, the little gribblies do not cost 55pts, they cost 5, expect an FAQ/Errata soon?

how long does it take to write such a post?

Even if they would have to go to the very top of design team for it, for the head of all designers, and emails would have to be sent, because it was christmas seson, AND the book was not read after being printed by anyone, how long would the exchange take 3-4 hours, considering people not check their emails every 5 min?

And then some stuff, which GW later errates, gets the change not a day or hours later, but multiple months later, or even longer.



Because that's not how large corporation tend to work. There's a process and they're following it. In this case it's a stupid process because they really should have rushed out a quick fix for the most egregious errors like the 55 point Neophytes and the messed up Deathwatch unit sizes, with an understanding that a more complete errata would be forthcoming later.


Indeed. Things take as long as they take and get signed off by all kinds of people. Nerd rage doesn't usually speed up the corporate process.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 17:09:01


Post by: Nazrak


 JohnnyHell wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Karol wrote:


Considering they have like 2-3 sites, a facebook, twitter and the same can be said about the designers, why doesn't someone up the design totem pole come up and says guys we done goofed, the little gribblies do not cost 55pts, they cost 5, expect an FAQ/Errata soon?

how long does it take to write such a post?

Even if they would have to go to the very top of design team for it, for the head of all designers, and emails would have to be sent, because it was christmas seson, AND the book was not read after being printed by anyone, how long would the exchange take 3-4 hours, considering people not check their emails every 5 min?

And then some stuff, which GW later errates, gets the change not a day or hours later, but multiple months later, or even longer.



Because that's not how large corporation tend to work. There's a process and they're following it. In this case it's a stupid process because they really should have rushed out a quick fix for the most egregious errors like the 55 point Neophytes and the messed up Deathwatch unit sizes, with an understanding that a more complete errata would be forthcoming later.


Indeed. Things take as long as they take and get signed off by all kinds of people. Nerd rage doesn't usually speed up the corporate process.

Not to mention that it's very obvious to anyone employing even a modicum of common sense that the 55pts for a guard-equivalent infantry model was a mistake, so it's not actually that urgent at all.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 17:26:03


Post by: Pancakey


bananathug wrote:
Yeah, the 55 point GSC is an aberration but there are tons of other assumed mistakes in CA2019 that should have been errata'd day 1 (just like the SW codex...).

Another poster wrote that it's not like GW opens the product the same time it goes to the public. These issues should have been known about before it was shipped and a day 1 errata should have been issued.

If I make a mistake at my job that some how gets to the client I'm working all night (or however long it takes) to get it right. The whole time I'm burning with shame/guilt/embarrassment and Vacation/Christmas/death be damned because it's a mark of professionalism and personal pride to not allow such an easily rectifiable mistake to continue. Something as simple as a typo in a PDF should get fixed right away.

The fact that GW hasn't fixed it yet and is so far outside of their schedule hopefully points to the fact that something else is going on and GW knows that CA2019 was a mistake and they have lots of things to fix.

Typos and copy/paste errors should take minutes/hours to fix not days/weeks. "Oh, we put the wrong space wolf fast attack page in (I hope they did). John, put out a community post and Frank you put up the right PDF." How the hell does that take a month?

I haven't bought any GW product since the SM 2.0 + supplements debacle and hopefully others are too. I doubt GW misses my 100ish bucks a month but a couple hundred of us could impact the bottom line enough that GW would take these mistakes (and rule balance in general) more seriously. GWs cavalier attitude towards the rules/balance of their game will only be addressed when we start voting with their wallet.

The vitriol leveled at the "white knights" on dakka is because those of us fed-up with being taken advantage of by GW understand that as long as we are the vocal minority nothing with change.

I am a huge fan of this game. It is one of the few hobbies I crave time out of my busy schedule to enjoy and wish that GW cared as much about it as they care about coming up with new ways to get our money. As others have said, as long as people keep buying then GW has little to no reason to change.

I came back to 8th because of the promises of the new GW. Better marketing, better communication and "the most play tested edition yet" lured me back in from almost a decade away from the game. It's frustrating that the problems the game has now seem so easy to fix and yet GW won't put forth anything but the minimum effort to fix them.


If everyone would just stop buying CA the problem would work itself out.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 18:00:46


Post by: Gnarlly


Pancakey wrote:

If everyone would just stop buying CA the problem would work itself out.


This. Read it again folks; This. "But I NEED Chapter Approved in order to play the game!" No, you don't. There are other means to get the updated points, and by continuing to purchase these shoddy books full of errors the message you send to GW is "Sure, I will purchase whatever crap you put in front of me. Take my money!" Make them earn your money by ensuring they spend a little time proofreading their books.


edit: Look, I really like this game, or at least the potential of what the game could be if GW were to spend more of an effort writing consistent rules for all factions with an attempt to balance each unit's effectiveness with its point cost. Instead, their focus is on selling the newest hot models above all else. While this strategy increases their revenue in the short term, a better set of rules and greater attention to all factions would help them so much more in the long term by bringing in more players (and consumers $$$) for all factions, with more veteran players sticking around for the improved game experience.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 18:04:44


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Jidmah wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, I am not asking for you to state once again that one is a typo and the other isn't. I am asking WHY one is a typo and the other isn't.

Because the possibility of an intentional 1000% increase on an unchanged troops unit is so low that it can be considered irrelevant.

You claim it's because one is a 1000% increase and the other isn't, so what % won't be considered a typo?

Somewhere below 1000% and above 0%. To the acolyte discussion, the exact value is irrelevant.

If you disagree, provide proof for the need of such a value.
By your logic the thunder hammer increase or razorwing flock increase should be ignored. So I ask you to again, what % increase do you consider to be ignore worthy. You seem so sure that the acolytes increase can be ignored you must have an answer for me. All I ask is for a single number.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 18:10:08


Post by: JohnnyHell


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, I am not asking for you to state once again that one is a typo and the other isn't. I am asking WHY one is a typo and the other isn't.

Because the possibility of an intentional 1000% increase on an unchanged troops unit is so low that it can be considered irrelevant.

You claim it's because one is a 1000% increase and the other isn't, so what % won't be considered a typo?

Somewhere below 1000% and above 0%. To the acolyte discussion, the exact value is irrelevant.

If you disagree, provide proof for the need of such a value.
By your logic the thunder hammer increase or razorwing flock increase should be ignored. So I ask you to again, what % increase do you consider to be ignore worthy. You seem so sure that the acolytes increase can be ignored you must have an answer for me. All I ask is for a single number.


Oh good. A strawman. Seriously dude...

Also asking a question to which there is no answer. The answer is “use your nous”, and is covered in many posts above. Stop being absolutist and ridiculous.

One day you won’t be disingenuous and will contribute positively to a thread. Until then... threads will continue to circle the drain like this one. Roll on the thread lock.


Errata for Chapter Approved 2019? @ 2020/01/13 18:13:23


Post by: BaconCatBug


How is it a strawman? He is asserting that a points increase is too large, in his opinion, to be valid. I counter with examples that, in my opinion, are also invalid by the same argument.

Why are my examples invalid and his valid?