Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I like the irony of how many people complain about a free codex.

Tom Kirby: So, how did putting the codices up on the web for free go over with gamers?

GW Staffer: They complained and groaned, called us unprofessional, said it was confusing to new gamers.

Tom Kirby: No more free codices then.

Luckily, GW doesn't really pay attention to people on the interwebs, so we are ok here.

Before I was confused by the free pdfs, but this ruling clears everything up nicely. Good job, GW.

insaniak wrote:

Neconilis wrote: But yes, do you truly not see the foolishness in having two different versions of a codex that are both legal?

Yup, it's bound to cause huge problems. I can see the news headlines now:

"This just in: A Warhammer 40000 player in Chicago, Illinois was today angered and confused when his opponent turned up at the table with a Daemon Hunters army that contained no allies!..."



Seriously, there are far bigger things in this hobby to get cranky about. It's a free codex.

Maybe I seem a lot more upset in text than I actually am? I simply think they could've done a better job with all of this and that such a hope was/is not too much to ask for. Can you not agree with that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:And taking out the allies section is actually a good thing for a new gamer. They really don't want to go building an army with allies if the rules for those allies are on the way out.

Agreed, I just don't think asking for and expecting more communication on the why of all of this makes me (or anyone else who agrees with me) the bad guy here.

So whatever happened to Dakka anyways? I mean seriously. Two codices for one army is silly at best.

G

Neconilis wrote:
Maybe I seem a lot more upset in text than I actually am? I simply think they could've done a better job with all of this and that such a hope was/is not too much to ask for. Can you not agree with that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:And taking out the allies section is actually a good thing for a new gamer. They really don't want to go building an army with allies if the rules for those allies are on the way out.

Agreed, I just don't think asking for and expecting more communication on the why of all of this makes me (or anyone else who agrees with me) the bad guy here.

I don't think anyones the bad guy. I just don't think GW did anything really wrong here, quite the opposite. Free rules online is a good thing.

They could have just let the books go out of print and done nothing. Instead, they put them online. When there was confusion, they communicated.

And people still complain. Not to them, on Dakka. And want them to do a better job.

If they do notice, what do you think the lesson they take away is?

* looks over hte horizon *

"m8y wharz me trusty harpoonage?"

Oi cap'n that Furisio has at it again !!

* face palm *

mikhaila wrote:

Neconilis wrote:
Maybe I seem a lot more upset in text than I actually am? I simply think they could've done a better job with all of this and that such a hope was/is not too much to ask for. Can you not agree with that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:And taking out the allies section is actually a good thing for a new gamer. They really don't want to go building an army with allies if the rules for those allies are on the way out.

Agreed, I just don't think asking for and expecting more communication on the why of all of this makes me (or anyone else who agrees with me) the bad guy here.

I don't think anyones the bad guy. I just don't think GW did anything really wrong here, quite the opposite. Free rules online is a good thing.

They could have just let the books go out of print and done nothing. Instead, they put them online. When there was confusion, they communicated.

And people still complain. Not to them, on Dakka. And want them to do a better job.

If they do notice, what do you think the lesson they take away is?

The message I'd get if I was in their place would be to do a better job in the future or to not bother doing it at all, and honestly that's the message I'm trying to send. If I have to resort to my own means to have the full codices I'd rather they not post these abridged versions at all to be quite honest. At the very least if they're going to post the abridged versions have some explanatory text on the same page where I download these from as to how and why they're different from the old published ones, and how the old books are to be treated. I don't think I'm asking for miracles here, just some follow through to a logical end. You and others may feel differently, but I don't, and I can accept that even if I don't fully understand why you feel the way that you do.

Also, as to writing here and not to them. I did send CS a letter, I doubt it will do much, but I sent it nonetheless. I've added my commentary here as well however because Dakka is my main wargaming forum and in this instance it bothered me enough to say something.

mikhaila wrote:
Not side stepping, I don't think you have a point.

evilsponge wrote:.......why they took the trouble to remove that section if they didn't want it invalidated. Its not a question of liking allies or not liking them, its a simple request for a little consistency.

If you go to a tournament, I don't know of any that allow you to not have a copy of your relevant codices. So, you're fine there, b/c you can't play w/out your codex anywho.

Next up ... if you're playing with your buddies, and you show them the e-mail, and the language differentials, and the various quoted customer service responses people have been getting, and they still don't let you ... well, not really your buddies.

I don't get the big flipout. The e-mail I quoted was sent to every organizer on the GT circuit. So, they're going to be run with allies allowed if you have the dex (which you needed anyway), and if your local friendly types have a problem w/ you doing it ... well, again. Friendly?

I'm not upset, just confused. I'm happy allies are still in, and that's great that GW is allowing that at their GT's. I just don't understand why they weren't included in the PDF? It says right in the email that they intentionally removed the allies section, but in the same sentence say using allies isn't disallowed. So why was it removed? Does anyone else here not see the double speak?

I think corporate speak is a better view to take on it. I doubt you'll find many people swearing that this is "perfect" in all ways ... there wouldn't have been the questions to begin with.

BUT, now that it's been cleared up to a functional degree, further angst beyond "wow that's silly" or your usual buddy-to-buddy type convo is probably just ... unintentional drama mongering. Key on "unintentional" ... not accusing you or criticizing you (or anyone else) at all ... just trying to point out the lack of any positive to be gained by continued "rabble" over the matter. GW doesn't really read or listen to forums, or consider them especially representative of their customer base.


We have enough data to make our rulings and choices as tourney goers/organizers, and as friends. There are plenty of other targets more worth chucking stones at ... and as I plow through the FAQ for my own event, I can think of about 20 off the top of my head :p

mikhaila wrote:I like the irony of how many people complain about a free codex.

Tom Kirby: So, how did putting the codices up on the web for free go over with gamers?

GW Staffer: They complained and groaned, called us unprofessional, said it was confusing to new gamers.

Tom Kirby: No more free codices then.

Luckily, GW doesn't really pay attention to people on the interwebs, so we are ok here.

Quoted for truth.

Who would have guessed that just omitting one essential page from the English DH rules scan (by mistake or to hide the soon to be obsolete allies rule) would create such a confusion about two "different Codices". One is the scan of the other, for Christ's sake. And without the modelling part and the background, noone can seriously start a DH or WH army now. And not having the 10box is not a reason for that, as 80% of the DH/WH beginners didn't have or need that box. It wasn't available at the Codex release and has an odd and not helpful choice of heavy weapons for Sororitas, so everybody needed extra miniatures in blisters anyway. And the blisters are still available.

"Use what you have." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Good job GW.

.

I have no idea as to the validaty of this email (A quick blurb on the site in the Astronomican entry for the PDFs would be an excellent solution), but the answer makes things playable and is prolly all we are going to get for noe. Since it A) expands the rules to people who otherwise could not as easily get ahold of them and B) totally destroys some of the awe-inspiring analaching that has been going on, I am for it. Good solution, jobs a goodun until such time as further errata/new revs come out. This is certianly better than the situation we had starting about .3 femtoseconds after the dang PDFs got put up in the first place. Certainly a step forward from that nonsense.

evilsponge wrote: I just don't understand why they weren't included in the PDF? It says right in the email that they intentionally removed the allies section, but in the same sentence say using allies isn't disallowed. So why was it removed?

Again, because the Allies rules will be removed from the next versions of these codexes... so they have removed them from the PDF's, for the sake of anyone starting an army now to try them out, while leaving them as legal for now for the sake of those with the actual codex and an existing army.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but I guess common sense is a virtue seldom seen these days.

mikhaila wrote:I like the irony of how many people complain about a free codex.

Tom Kirby: So, how did putting the codices up on the web for free go over with gamers?

GW Staffer: They complained and groaned, called us unprofessional, said it was confusing to new gamers.

Tom Kirby: No more free codices then.

Luckily, GW doesn't really pay attention to people on the interwebs, so we are ok here.

They would be acting like a normal business if the discussion had gone like thus:


Tom Kirby: So, how did putting the codices up on the web for free go over with gamers?

GW Staffer: Well, we pretty much effed-up by putting diverging copies at first so there was a lot of complaints...

Tom Kirby: What did you do?

GW Staffer: We actually listened to the customer and promptly corrected the mistake by putting up the full codices as PDFs and added a notice saying that we were sorry about the earlier mistake, that we understood the frustration about waiting 7 years for a new codex, that for reasons of not creating confusion updates like point cost could not be done on a PDF but that a new codex was coming in the next 6 months. Complaints went away very quickly. We actually got some thank you emails.

Tom Kirby: Good job!

But no, being monopolistic jerks, they just didn't give a damn, as usual...

Phil

MVBrandt wrote:I have no rulings that prevent the burning of other players' rulebooks. Unfortunately, that's illegal in the US one way or another.

It's a mistiminor at worst unless they become hot collectors items worth $1000 or more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

evilsponge wrote:

My point exactly. Either have them and keep the allies section, or disallow them and take the allies section out. Having two different versions of the same codex both legal is only going to frustrate and confuse non-WH players.

It's pretty obvious, the UK wants allies out, the US doesn't want to piss off customers. This is not a case of GW not knowing what it's doing, it's a case of one arm of GW disagreeing with another decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirasu wrote:heh yeah.. all that "ruling" says to me is "use whatever codex you bought, who cares if its the right one.. we cant be bothered "

No, it says 'the UK changed the codex, the US tournament director disagreed so is ignoring them'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luco wrote:"Use what you have." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Good job GW.

.

I know I'll be using my GK list from the Rogue Trader Reams of Chaos books. Now where did I put those squat thunderers...

JMO,but is there anything GW really could do in this instance that would keep people from complaining?

Option 1-Let books go OOP and provide no PDF support.

Result=People complain about not being able to get rules for WH/DH and/or mass hysteria ensues that "GW may be squatting Inquisition,GK,and/or SoB."

Option 2-Remove allies in PDF format and errata allies out of the existing DH/WH codices.

Result=Existing DH/WH players are po'd and complaining about a ton of useless models.

Option 3-Remove allies from the PDF format so players starting the armies don't buy useless models,but allow people with the old 'dex to use allies to keep them happy.

Result=This thread.

In all seriousness,I don't see what's so difficult and confusing about it. Use the rules you've got. If you didn't pay for a 'dex,then you can't use allies. Simple.

No matter how you spin it there should only be one codex for any army. I've seen plenty of Grey Knight armies that have zero allies.

G

In all seriousness,I don't see what's so difficult and confusing about it. Use the rules you've got. If you didn't pay for a 'dex,then you can't use allies. Simple.

Or one could argue the rule exist regardless of who owns which codex. Thats like saying the people who wasted money on the first edition DE codex can use it instead of the updated revised printing

Two different similar situations yet one is okay to use and one isnt?

Get control of your regions GW, plain and simple

The allies rule doesnt matter but it sets a bad precedence for the future

Black Blow Fly wrote:No matter how you spin it there should only be one codex for any army.

Exactly, I really don't think that is too much to expect.

Kirasu wrote:Thats like saying the people who wasted money on the first edition DE codex can use it instead of the updated revised printing

Why can't they?


Unless you're playing in an event that specifies certain books, you're free to use whichever version of a codex you happen to have.

Using the most current rules outside of organised events is a choice, not a requirement of the game.

People are annoyed because, on top of appearing to be released late, these exciting new PDF's which are supposed to tide everyone over end up being incomplete and worth slightly less than the effort to download them. It's a bit like volunteering to cater a vegetarian convention for free, making an announcement that you're going to cater for free, and then showing up to serve 100% real beef hot dogs and hamburgers and wondering why people are complaining about free food.

solkan wrote:People are annoyed because, on top of appearing to be released late, these exciting new PDF's which are supposed to tide everyone over end up being incomplete and worth slightly less than the effort to download them. It's a bit like volunteering to cater a vegetarian convention for free, making an announcement that you're going to cater for free, and then showing up to serve 100% real beef hot dogs and hamburgers and wondering why people are complaining about free food.

Hyperbole much?

They were never promoted as 'exciting new PDFs'

And they're not 'late' either. They were said to be coming sometime in June and... it's still June.

So GW is giving something away and people complain. Funnily enough most poeple can't do a good impression of a female dog.
So if free stuff doesn't work?
Charge harder.

Thats the lesson they will take away: we gave away free stuff and people complained. Same with Spearhead - free expansion, to bridge the gap to Apocalypse quite neatly, and people complain about "a gw scheme to get more money!!!" (well, duh)

Whatever. It really isnt anything to get worked up over, if you start a new army because you find out hte rules are online you wont be using allies as they are likely gone - and if you REALLY want to use allies then you can find a printed copy fairly easily.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I know I'll be using my GK list from the Rogue Trader Reams of Chaos books. Now where did I put those squat thunderers...

sigh. *rolls eyes*

ChrisCP wrote:So GW is giving something away and people complain. Funnily enough most poeple can't do a good impression of a female dog.
So if free stuff doesn't work?
Charge harder.

Oh come on!

GW changed the rules in these books with the PDFs, there was a whole thread identifying the changes and discussing them.

But now a different arm of GW says the changes don't apply. So people with $100s of Inquisition forces don't know what the rules for their army are.

I think the confusion and irritation is totally justified.