Switch Theme:

Codex: Space Marines – Errata Now Available  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Crazy Marauder Horseman






With the quantity at which GW is putting out books I think they are doing good job. A few years back when they released 2-3 books a year those books where also in need of a FAQ from the release day. But didn’t get one for month or years or never got one. Not needing a FAQ would of cause be better but I prefer the current situation over the old one.

How the 9th edtion of warhammer fantasy should/could have been: Warhammer CE http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Baton Rouge, LA

 Azazelx wrote:
 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I have, it is, and that doesn't excuse it. Lots of work takes lots of work, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it well.


Thank you.

I've defended the "new" GW plenty in the last year or two, but proofreading is proofreading. I do a hell of a lot of it in my job, and have even been pulled from my normal duties at times to spend days proofing (and rewriting) others' reports that have to be sent externally - which then are proofed again by people in the organisation above myself. And I'm not even in the publishing business, nor working (or paid!) as an editor. True, rulebooks are complex documents, and tens of thousands of player will pick up every error as they swarm over a document like ants. GW might be better than a lot of others, but they're also a large company who is able to afford multiple editors and ideally, layers of editing, so what SC writes above remains pertinent regardless. FW seems to have a lot of the advantages of a large company, while also maintaining a lot of the disadvantages of a small shop.

I may be coming across as a lot angrier than I am here. The fact is that I'm simply a bit annoyed because I expect that a company with so much invested in their writing and publishing arm should (should) have better QA/QC. As I've said a few times, I think it's a Good Thing (tm) that they're now so much more responsive.


To be fair to GW, larger publishing companies still have mistakes like these slip through, they're by no means perfect.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
DR:80S++G++M+B+I+Pwmhd03#+D+++A(WTF)/mWD230R+++T(S)DM+++ 
   
Made in ca
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine






Malifice wrote:
No points reduction on Devestator centurions.

Assault cents (same stats, no weapons for either) cost 50 PPM while Devs cost 80 PPM.

Its weird.


Not really. They don't really tweak the cost of weapons based on the unit carrying them, and Dev Centurions can move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty, so they cost more to compensate.

   
Made in au
Been Around the Block




 John Prins wrote:
Malifice wrote:
No points reduction on Devestator centurions.

Assault cents (same stats, no weapons for either) cost 50 PPM while Devs cost 80 PPM.

Its weird.


Not really. They don't really tweak the cost of weapons based on the unit carrying them, and Dev Centurions can move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty, so they cost more to compensate.


30 PPM to avoid a -1 penalty?

Three of them (two armed with las cannons and one armed with heavy bolters) come out costing more than a land raider despite having more or less similar firepower. The Land Raider has double the wounds and T8. It also moves faster and doesn't get the minus one for moving and firing.

I guess the devastators can lurk in cover and benefit from chapter tactics.

They just seem horribly over costed. At 50 PPM base you would consider taking them. A squad of three with the same armament above costs 280 points at 50 PPM. At 80 PPM that figure approaches 400.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Platuan4th wrote:
 Azazelx wrote:
 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I have, it is, and that doesn't excuse it. Lots of work takes lots of work, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it well.


Thank you.

I've defended the "new" GW plenty in the last year or two, but proofreading is proofreading. I do a hell of a lot of it in my job, and have even been pulled from my normal duties at times to spend days proofing (and rewriting) others' reports that have to be sent externally - which then are proofed again by people in the organisation above myself. And I'm not even in the publishing business, nor working (or paid!) as an editor. True, rulebooks are complex documents, and tens of thousands of player will pick up every error as they swarm over a document like ants. GW might be better than a lot of others, but they're also a large company who is able to afford multiple editors and ideally, layers of editing, so what SC writes above remains pertinent regardless. FW seems to have a lot of the advantages of a large company, while also maintaining a lot of the disadvantages of a small shop.

I may be coming across as a lot angrier than I am here. The fact is that I'm simply a bit annoyed because I expect that a company with so much invested in their writing and publishing arm should (should) have better QA/QC. As I've said a few times, I think it's a Good Thing (tm) that they're now so much more responsive.


To be fair to GW, larger publishing companies still have mistakes like these slip through, they're by no means perfect.


Please don't white knight gw to hard buddy. If I'm paying 50 bucks a book I expect it to be without mass amounts of errors. Thus far this is piss poor. I don't own the grey knight codex, but every index, gw and forgeworld along with codexes has been with glaring obvious errors. 98% of the chaos codex table of contents for units is wrong.

This has nothing to do with being fair. I work for a large company. If I don't proof read my stuff and send it off, it's my arse if it's wrong.
   
Made in au
Three Color Minimum




In the casting shack.

I just got the book, god damn it. I mean, It's good they're keeping up with the game but still.

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” ― Robert A. Heinlein

"Yar har fiddle-dee-dee, being a pirate is alright with me!
I'll do what I want 'cause a pirate is free, I am a pirate!" 
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar





str00dles1 wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Azazelx wrote:
 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I have, it is, and that doesn't excuse it. Lots of work takes lots of work, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it well.


Thank you.

I've defended the "new" GW plenty in the last year or two, but proofreading is proofreading. I do a hell of a lot of it in my job, and have even been pulled from my normal duties at times to spend days proofing (and rewriting) others' reports that have to be sent externally - which then are proofed again by people in the organisation above myself. And I'm not even in the publishing business, nor working (or paid!) as an editor. True, rulebooks are complex documents, and tens of thousands of player will pick up every error as they swarm over a document like ants. GW might be better than a lot of others, but they're also a large company who is able to afford multiple editors and ideally, layers of editing, so what SC writes above remains pertinent regardless. FW seems to have a lot of the advantages of a large company, while also maintaining a lot of the disadvantages of a small shop.

I may be coming across as a lot angrier than I am here. The fact is that I'm simply a bit annoyed because I expect that a company with so much invested in their writing and publishing arm should (should) have better QA/QC. As I've said a few times, I think it's a Good Thing (tm) that they're now so much more responsive.


To be fair to GW, larger publishing companies still have mistakes like these slip through, they're by no means perfect.


Please don't white knight gw to hard buddy. If I'm paying 50 bucks a book I expect it to be without mass amounts of errors. Thus far this is piss poor. I don't own the grey knight codex, but every index, gw and forgeworld along with codexes has been with glaring obvious errors. 98% of the chaos codex table of contents for units is wrong.

This has nothing to do with being fair. I work for a large company. If I don't proof read my stuff and send it off, it's my arse if it's wrong.


I look forward to playing your game.

look if half a page of errata for codex space marines is such a mortal insult to you, to be honest I rteccomend going elsewhere for your gaming fix. can't offer any suggestions as I know of no gaming company that hasn't had to issue errata

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in gb
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




UK

At £25 a codex, they are selling a premium product. General errors are fine, but mechanical errors, i.e. Mistakes with their own ruleset being pointed out to them by their customers isn't really acceptable.

I sympathise that it's a lot of work for them to write and check a codex...but premium products should not need this amount of fixing after the sale.

 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Coming so soon after the Index's as well.... They've tried to make quick money on the index, then quick money on the codex so soon after the index and they've got it wrong, and I agree with the above, a premium product gives you much less margin for error, if it were £5 then fine, but it isn't.

They should have kept the index's as the sole army rules for longer, maybe first codex November/December and used the extra time for more scrutiny and proof reading and/or game testing so others could find these glaring mistakes.

On a side note, I wonder if the guys at frontline were involved in the testing of codex's as well, and if they were, how they didn't pick up at least some of these errors.
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar





endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Coming so soon after the Index's as well.... They've tried to make quick money on the index, then quick money on the codex so soon after the index and they've got it wrong, and I agree with the above, a premium product gives you much less margin for error, if it were £5 then fine, but it isn't.

They should have kept the index's as the sole army rules for longer, maybe first codex November/December and used the extra time for more scrutiny and proof reading and/or game testing so others could find these glaring mistakes.

On a side note, I wonder if the guys at frontline were involved in the testing of codex's as well, and if they were, how they didn't pick up at least some of these errors.



the guys at front line gaming weren't handed a copy of the codex 6 months early to test it. they where handed the rules yes but in a rough draft format. the ONLY thing in that errata list that POTENTIALLY might have been a "play testing should have picked this up" issue was the bit about Grimdalus. all the other stuff is BASICLY typos. editing issues (that said pretty small ones in the great scheme of things) not play testing issues...

seriously have the people claiming this means "GW incompetance" about this errata even LOOKED at the errata?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/13 07:33:05


Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




BrianDavion wrote:
endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Coming so soon after the Index's as well.... They've tried to make quick money on the index, then quick money on the codex so soon after the index and they've got it wrong, and I agree with the above, a premium product gives you much less margin for error, if it were £5 then fine, but it isn't.

They should have kept the index's as the sole army rules for longer, maybe first codex November/December and used the extra time for more scrutiny and proof reading and/or game testing so others could find these glaring mistakes.

On a side note, I wonder if the guys at frontline were involved in the testing of codex's as well, and if they were, how they didn't pick up at least some of these errors.



the guys at front line gaming weren't handed a copy of the codex 6 months early to test it. they where handed the rules yes but in a rough draft format. the ONLY thing in that errata list that POTENTIALLY might have been a "play testing should have picked this up" issue was the bit about Grimdalus. all the other stuff is BASICLY typos. editing issues (that said pretty small ones in the great scheme of things) not play testing issues...

seriously have the people claiming this means "GW incompetance" about this errata even LOOKED at the errata?


Do you even own any of the indexes or codexes?

I wasn't speaking to rules so messed up its unplayable. I'm speaking to the typos a child could catch.

Again, every single index they printed (5) had an issue in it. Every forge world index (4) had a lot of major issues in them. And owning 2 codexes now out of the 3, both have issues in them.

This is GW being purely lazy and not giving a . Please don't tell me how hard it is to read your own book at the very least in the rules sections of it for errors.

I equate this to 99% of the video games released now a days. Finished product is actually just beta. Released with flaws that when players catch and enough report, they end up patching. At least with them though its a free patch that doesn't ruin the product after. GW is you need to print all the errata pages out and makes your original product defective. they don't offer a new fixed book. This would be like a game that's broken, and a company releasing an expansion that fixes it but costs money.

Gamers from GW should expect more, as they have been around for a long time and offer a premium product.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 spiralingcadaver wrote:
BroodSpawn wrote:
'Bad Quality Control'

1 line, maybe 6 words missing from a book of thousands is 'bad quality control'?
Honestly? Yeah. A few bits of incorrect punctuation is something I wouldn't mind since they're usually just less correct rather than actually wrong, but yeah, that's bad QC. Is it bad QC as compared to the industry? Not really. Is it bad compared to FW? Certainly not. Are there errors that mean the text fails to convey meaning they were attempting to communicate? Yep.


You obviously aren't informed with how book publishing and editing works then.

–The Harrower
Artist, Game Designer, and Wargame Veteran

http://dedard.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Portland

 theharrower wrote:
 spiralingcadaver wrote:
BroodSpawn wrote:
'Bad Quality Control'

1 line, maybe 6 words missing from a book of thousands is 'bad quality control'?
Honestly? Yeah. A few bits of incorrect punctuation is something I wouldn't mind since they're usually just less correct rather than actually wrong, but yeah, that's bad QC. Is it bad QC as compared to the industry? Not really. Is it bad compared to FW? Certainly not. Are there errors that mean the text fails to convey meaning they were attempting to communicate? Yep.


You obviously aren't informed with how book publishing and editing works then.


I've got a message to deliver, from the quoted post's immediate future... but from your past!
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 spiralingcadaver wrote:
BroodSpawn wrote:
'Bad Quality Control'

1 line, maybe 6 words missing from a book of thousands is 'bad quality control'?
Honestly? Yeah. A few bits of incorrect punctuation is something I wouldn't mind since they're usually just less correct rather than actually wrong, but yeah, that's bad QC. Is it bad QC as compared to the industry? Not really. Is it bad compared to FW? Certainly not. Are there errors that mean the text fails to convey meaning they were attempting to communicate? Yep.

If you've worked in publishing you'd know that catching typos is a lot harder than it looks.


spiralingcadaver wrote:I have, it is, and that doesn't excuse it. Lots of work takes lots of work, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it well.


My painted armies (40k, WM/H, Malifaux, Infinity...) 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 spiralingcadaver wrote:
 theharrower wrote:
 spiralingcadaver wrote:
BroodSpawn wrote:
'Bad Quality Control'

1 line, maybe 6 words missing from a book of thousands is 'bad quality control'?
Honestly? Yeah. A few bits of incorrect punctuation is something I wouldn't mind since they're usually just less correct rather than actually wrong, but yeah, that's bad QC. Is it bad QC as compared to the industry? Not really. Is it bad compared to FW? Certainly not. Are there errors that mean the text fails to convey meaning they were attempting to communicate? Yep.


You obviously aren't informed with how book publishing and editing works then.


I've got a message to deliver, from the quoted post's immediate future... but from your past!
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 spiralingcadaver wrote:
BroodSpawn wrote:
'Bad Quality Control'

1 line, maybe 6 words missing from a book of thousands is 'bad quality control'?
Honestly? Yeah. A few bits of incorrect punctuation is something I wouldn't mind since they're usually just less correct rather than actually wrong, but yeah, that's bad QC. Is it bad QC as compared to the industry? Not really. Is it bad compared to FW? Certainly not. Are there errors that mean the text fails to convey meaning they were attempting to communicate? Yep.

If you've worked in publishing you'd know that catching typos is a lot harder than it looks.


spiralingcadaver wrote:I have, it is, and that doesn't excuse it. Lots of work takes lots of work, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it well.


Fair enough. I'm in publishing myself. Mistakes happen. It sucks, but it's part of the business.

–The Harrower
Artist, Game Designer, and Wargame Veteran

http://dedard.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Incorporating Wet-Blending





Portland

Yeah, I'm not overly concerned with the fiction since, for what I assume is the majority, you're buying the book for pics and rules, with the rest as fun stuff that's there to have you excited about the game, but if I were them, I'd put a huge effort into being absolutely sure RAW was as clear and concise as it could be, rather than what always seems kind of slapped together rules that make assumptions and that, for reasons that I'll never understand, tend to have bits of fluff thrown in and arbitrarily combine unrelated rules under one name.

At least they aren't those awfully proofread FW indexes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/13 17:52:47



My painted armies (40k, WM/H, Malifaux, Infinity...) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Baton Rouge, LA

str00dles1 wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Azazelx wrote:
 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I have, it is, and that doesn't excuse it. Lots of work takes lots of work, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it well.


Thank you.

I've defended the "new" GW plenty in the last year or two, but proofreading is proofreading. I do a hell of a lot of it in my job, and have even been pulled from my normal duties at times to spend days proofing (and rewriting) others' reports that have to be sent externally - which then are proofed again by people in the organisation above myself. And I'm not even in the publishing business, nor working (or paid!) as an editor. True, rulebooks are complex documents, and tens of thousands of player will pick up every error as they swarm over a document like ants. GW might be better than a lot of others, but they're also a large company who is able to afford multiple editors and ideally, layers of editing, so what SC writes above remains pertinent regardless. FW seems to have a lot of the advantages of a large company, while also maintaining a lot of the disadvantages of a small shop.

I may be coming across as a lot angrier than I am here. The fact is that I'm simply a bit annoyed because I expect that a company with so much invested in their writing and publishing arm should (should) have better QA/QC. As I've said a few times, I think it's a Good Thing (tm) that they're now so much more responsive.


To be fair to GW, larger publishing companies still have mistakes like these slip through, they're by no means perfect.


Please don't white knight gw to hard buddy. If I'm paying 50 bucks a book I expect it to be without mass amounts of errors. Thus far this is piss poor. I don't own the grey knight codex, but every index, gw and forgeworld along with codexes has been with glaring obvious errors. 98% of the chaos codex table of contents for units is wrong.

This has nothing to do with being fair. I work for a large company. If I don't proof read my stuff and send it off, it's my arse if it's wrong.


Pointing out that other companies make mistakes too is white knighting now?


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
DR:80S++G++M+B+I+Pwmhd03#+D+++A(WTF)/mWD230R+++T(S)DM+++ 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob





SoCal

Even if you don't have an editor in house, you can contract one freelance. If you have the kind of money GW does, this will not be an issue.

So yeah, usually it's a good and justified thing when you criticize poor workmanship in any industry, regardless of complexity. But with a captive audience, everything's in the air I guess.

   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Vertrucio wrote:
Even if you don't have an editor in house, you can contract one freelance. If you have the kind of money GW does, this will not be an issue.

So yeah, usually it's a good and justified thing when you criticize poor workmanship in any industry, regardless of complexity. But with a captive audience, everything's in the air I guess.


even editors won't catch everything. and at the end of the day I'm still waiting to see one example of a similer product that needed no FAQ and errata.

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine






There is no captive audience. If you don't like GW's products you are not forced to buy it. If you don't like what you bought, you can even return it to GW, sell it online, or even throw it away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
 Vertrucio wrote:
Even if you don't have an editor in house, you can contract one freelance. If you have the kind of money GW does, this will not be an issue.

So yeah, usually it's a good and justified thing when you criticize poor workmanship in any industry, regardless of complexity. But with a captive audience, everything's in the air I guess.


even editors won't catch everything. and at the end of the day I'm still waiting to see one example of a similer product that needed no FAQ and errata.



GW stopped putting names on the books because of the Ward internet gak storm. So we have no idea if there was or wasn't an Editor in the first place.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/14 04:31:07


“You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.” -- The Doctor 
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Crimson Devil wrote:
There is no captive audience. If you don't like GW's products you are not forced to buy it. If you don't like what you bought, you can even return it to GW, sell it online, or even throw it away.


the fact is for all these complaints GW's errata is hardly out of line with the industryWOTC has also published about a page of Errata for the D&D PHB. for example.

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: