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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well GW removes basically all the negativity on their offical stuff for starters.

Also your apathy is what lets them continue to get away with garbage. Is it THAT hard to construct am email? No it isn't. I'm fact it's probably a skill you'd have perfected in the work place.

Yeah: work. I only do work if im getting paid for it.
And no I dont think its going to achieve anything as im not actually willing to go through with a refund. An empty threat is worthless..

Voicing your displeasure that the books constantly have proofing errors that need to be corrected is still the type of feedback they should get.

You may only do work if you're getting paid for it, but you're paying good money for a book that has the level of proofreading that even an entry-level employee would be able to spot going to print without second care.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well GW removes basically all the negativity on their offical stuff for starters.

Because people seemingly don't know how to express negative opinions without excessive swearing or wildly inappropriate language.

Their Facebook page is meant to be "family friendly".

So, another book, another mocking filled post by BCB

Jokes aside, yeah some errors, will need fixing. Par for the course, I do not have the spare energy to get worked up over this as I prefer to use my spare hobby time actually enjoying the game best I can.

GW Need to do better for sure, but BCB maybe do the opposite to GW and instead of making tons of separate threads with your issues, collapse them all into one massive megathread

 bullyboy wrote:
The errors are terrible in all honesty, but the Deathwatch one will make zero difference. You can't take all those extra models since the entry in the codex is very specific on what you can take. The entry in CA does not change this.

It's far more than the Veteran entry thats fethed in CA2019. There's numbers from CA2017, CA2018, and presumably new values for CA2019 mixed in across the entire Deathwatch series, which makes it next to impossible to know what is intended and what is an error. There's no confidence in any list that I can put together for Deathwatch until we get an FAQ confirmation on just what the feth is going on with that entire section.

For once BCB has a point. Mistakes happen, that is understandable. However, repeating the same mistake yet again after it has already been errated twice is pretty damn sad.

I also do not think your standards are unrealistic, and I'm generally a fairly big supporter of GW. Re-making an error that has already been fixed, remade and fixed again? That's pretty egregious.

What I will say, however, is that since 1987, GW has never, ever experimented with output of this magnitude. I think sometimes people underestimate just how much stuff GW produces.

24 dexes in 2.5 years, plus 5 campaign books and ongoing support for Blackstone, Kill Team, Aeronautica, Titan Legions, Apocalypse...

They've also taken Necromunda further than it's ever gone before. And that's just for their future games.

On the fantasy front, they've been every bit as prolific, given Warcy, Beastgrave, and whole new armies, like the deep kin and sky dwarves.

So yeah, I think people have a valid reason to complain and the right to do so- I wish GW did a better job on the editing front. But I also think people need to keep in mind the sheer scope of the company's operations.

Would I prefer FAQless codices? Absolutely. If it came at the expense of getting one every 3 months? Not so much. If we'd had to wait 3 months for each of the 24, we wouldn't have what we've got now for another three years!

 Crimson wrote:
However, repeating the same mistake yet again after it has already been errated twice is pretty damn sad.

I generally give GW a ton of slack. It's a big company run by very few people and deadlines need to be met. Not everyone plays every army.
But even I am scratching my head at this one.

It's like the previous Erratas don't matter and the "master file" or whatever they have, never gets these errors fixed. They clearly make changes to it, otherwise CA would just be missions. So why the same error that has occurred twice already has occurred again is beyond even my optimistic attitude.

That said, the only faction error that affects me is the DW models per unit error and that one is pretty obvious to correct. The Codex is still the authority on how many models a unit can contain.

-

If they asked for a volunteer to sign an NDA and proofread their book releases for free they would get thousands of applicants.

I know I'd go through the (not all that significant) effort just for the personal benefit of having a book without a bunch of errors in it.

PenitentJake wrote:
I also do not think your standards are unrealistic, and I'm generally a fairly big supporter of GW. Re-making an error that has already been fixed, remade and fixed again? That's pretty egregious.

What I will say, however, is that since 1987, GW has never, ever experimented with output of this magnitude. I think sometimes people underestimate just how much stuff GW produces.

24 dexes in 2.5 years, plus 5 campaign books and ongoing support for Blackstone, Kill Team, Aeronautica, Titan Legions, Apocalypse...

They've also taken Necromunda further than it's ever gone before. And that's just for their future games.

On the fantasy front, they've been every bit as prolific, given Warcy, Beastgrave, and whole new armies, like the deep kin and sky dwarves.

So yeah, I think people have a valid reason to complain and the right to do so- I wish GW did a better job on the editing front. But I also think people need to keep in mind the sheer scope of the company's operations.

Would I prefer FAQless codices? Absolutely. If it came at the expense of getting one every 3 months? Not so much. If we'd had to wait 3 months for each of the 24, we wouldn't have what we've got now for another three years!

While that may explain why these errors occur, I don't think the fact that GW is putting out more products (while charging the same amount they always have) justifies those mistakes to the consumer. If it were a ten dollar add-on I'd be more forgiving, but when this is an expensive hardbound book that is meant to be the definitive source of points going forward, it's just sloppy.

BCB may be... somewhat overbearing, but in this case the criticism is wholly warranted. Personally, I'm just not going to buy CA19.

If anything, the constant errors show they are trying to put out too much too quickly, since quality (of the books at least) is clearly dropping.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If they asked for a volunteer to sign an NDA and proofread their book releases for free they would get thousands of applicants.

I know I'd go through the (not all that significant) effort just for the personal benefit of having a book without a bunch of errors in it.

Why bother, people will buy it anyway. There is literally no reason to put in effort when it will just sell in any case.

Nevermind asking how well it would sell if it was "done right," <insert WeDon'tDoThatHere.jpg>. The answer probably isn't really all that well, honestly, so it's not in their interest to really try.

 H wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If they asked for a volunteer to sign an NDA and proofread their book releases for free they would get thousands of applicants.

I know I'd go through the (not all that significant) effort just for the personal benefit of having a book without a bunch of errors in it.

Why bother, people will buy it anyway. There is literally no reason to put in effort when it will just sell in any case.

Nevermind asking how well it would sell if it was "done right," <insert WeDon'tDoThatHere.jpg>. The answer probably isn't really all that well, honestly, so it's not in their interest to really try.

I think that's the biggest problem. People buy it regardless. So why would they bother? It's like writing good rules.. if you don't have to put in the effort, why would you?

Clearly enough people don't care about quality books since they still sell like hotcakes.

Wayniac wrote:
I think that's the biggest problem. People buy it regardless. So why would they bother? It's like writing good rules.. if you don't have to put in the effort, why would you?

Clearly enough people don't care about quality books since they still sell like hotcakes.

Nope, you can see it here, as long as the book contains even one "correct" rule, people will still shill out for it. And even defend it too.

Until the day where people realize the only way the rules get better is if people stop paying money for horrible rules, the quality will decline more and more. There is pretty much zero impetus to make "good" rules if whatever rules sell pretty much just as well. They've realized this to such a degree that they push out more and more books, which are superseded and interceded by more and more books, then WD articles then collected in books, only to then need another book to correct the errors and balance in those, which then needs FAQs to correct the errors and balance of that collected book of corrections, which then sets you up to buy the next book.

Imagine trying to sell that to anyone not entrenched in this GW "logic."

PenitentJake wrote:
I also do not think your standards are unrealistic, and I'm generally a fairly big supporter of GW. Re-making an error that has already been fixed, remade and fixed again? That's pretty egregious.

What I will say, however, is that since 1987, GW has never, ever experimented with output of this magnitude. I think sometimes people underestimate just how much stuff GW produces.

24 dexes in 2.5 years, plus 5 campaign books and ongoing support for Blackstone, Kill Team, Aeronautica, Titan Legions, Apocalypse...

They've also taken Necromunda further than it's ever gone before. And that's just for their future games.

On the fantasy front, they've been every bit as prolific, given Warcy, Beastgrave, and whole new armies, like the deep kin and sky dwarves.

So yeah, I think people have a valid reason to complain and the right to do so- I wish GW did a better job on the editing front. But I also think people need to keep in mind the sheer scope of the company's operations.

Would I prefer FAQless codices? Absolutely. If it came at the expense of getting one every 3 months? Not so much. If we'd had to wait 3 months for each of the 24, we wouldn't have what we've got now for another three years!

All the stuff you've just described there is simply making excuses for a multi-million dollar company who are under no obligation to churn out material as quickly as they do - it's an entirely self-inflicted problem if indeed the release schedule is the issue. They're also not short of a bit of cash and are easily capable of hiring enough people to ramp up production. the problems they have seem to be around company culture and attitude. There's a lack of professionalism and attention to detail in a lot of their publications and rules writing you just don't get from other companies.

It's a joke to keep spending money on their low effort, low quality book products This is more and more evidence that an online version of all this stuff would be so superior to the hard copy, but with how many people out there still buy into this crap it's no surprise they don't change their marketing practices.

My question now is: is it acceptable to use these obvious mistakes? Or is that TFG material?

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I honestly don't get how they keep screwing things up.

I do.

Its growing pains and mismanagement. The number of documents they have to juggle is absurd. The factors influencing what they have to account for are constantly shifting.

Without considerably strong leadership that owns the process you're going to get these continuous mistakes. That kind of leadership can be hard to come by and issues exacerbated by small staff numbers.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
My question now is: is it acceptable to use these obvious mistakes? Or is that TFG material?

Until it is errata'd, it is the most recent publication... So personally, I would say go for it with the expectation of it to change.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
It's a joke to keep spending money on their low effort, low quality book products This is more and more evidence that an online version of all this stuff would be so superior to the hard copy, but with how many people out there still buy into this crap it's no surprise they don't change their marketing practices.

I haven't bought a single CA. Ofc I am glad to bumb off what everyone else does but most of this information is free on the internet or via battle-scribe if you can wait just 1 week. I would however buy a subscription to a online rules source if it was reasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If they asked for a volunteer to sign an NDA and proofread their book releases for free they would get thousands of applicants.

I know I'd go through the (not all that significant) effort just for the personal benefit of having a book without a bunch of errors in it.

It is a great point you are making.

Imagine paying for this, lol.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
My question now is: is it acceptable to use these obvious mistakes? Or is that TFG material?

If you dont think me and the LGS yahoos arent going to take the opportunity to experience the hilarity that is a 2000 point Deathwatch squad, you sorely underestimate our level of stupidity.

 lolman1c wrote:
Imagine paying for this, lol.

People DO, that's part of the issue.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
It's a joke to keep spending money on their low effort, low quality book products This is more and more evidence that an online version of all this stuff would be so superior to the hard copy, but with how many people out there still buy into this crap it's no surprise they don't change their marketing practices.

I haven't bought a single CA. Ofc I am glad to bumb off what everyone else does but most of this information is free on the internet or via battle-scribe if you can wait just 1 week. I would however buy a subscription to a online rules source if it was reasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If they asked for a volunteer to sign an NDA and proofread their book releases for free they would get thousands of applicants.

I know I'd go through the (not all that significant) effort just for the personal benefit of having a book without a bunch of errors in it.

It is a great point you are making.

I 100% am with you on this one. Considering that we are seeing a surge in subscription based services from a variety of entertainment providers I think the market is telling the story that yes this kind of thing works. I think there are a lot of whales out there who just buy everything and overshadow what I think is the more moderate consumer majority who don't buy a lot of books. I also think we are going to see more and more people who don't buy books forcing GW to adapt their model and I look forward to that happening. What we have now is joke IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
My question now is: is it acceptable to use these obvious mistakes? Or is that TFG material?

In a joking manner for a silly game sure that's fine just have fun and laugh. In a more serious environment or pick up game with a stranger I think it's a bad idea and will get you funny looks.

Sterling191 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
The errors are terrible in all honesty, but the Deathwatch one will make zero difference. You can't take all those extra models since the entry in the codex is very specific on what you can take. The entry in CA does not change this.

It's far more than the Veteran entry thats fethed in CA2019. There's numbers from CA2017, CA2018, and presumably new values for CA2019 mixed in across the entire Deathwatch series, which makes it next to impossible to know what is intended and what is an error. There's no confidence in any list that I can put together for Deathwatch until we get an FAQ confirmation on just what the feth is going on with that entire section.

I don't think you and I are looking at the same book. The points for Deathwatch are very clear. The unit numbers are messed up, but that is absolutely pointless because the unit entry in the codex tells you exactly what you can add, replace etc. It's really not an issue at all.

Wayniac wrote:

You may only do work if you're getting paid for it, but you're paying good money for a book that has the level of proofreading that even an entry-level employee would be able to spot going to print without second care.

For the price I'm currently paying them for most of their books I can't really complain about the quality.... You know, you get what you pay for & all.

You guys can keep on complaining, I am just going to play with toy soldiers and roll some dice

 Smirrors wrote:
You guys can keep on complaining, I am just going to play with toy soldiers and roll some dice

whoa, did you just get off the grox feed truck? you know you're on dakka and posting in a BCB thread right?
Your way too logical to be posting such sane, rational thoughts about a game.

Well the issue is some people tend to care that they are being peddled mistake ridden junk, others just don't care. That is fine for either side I suppose, but I'd consider it pretty dumb to not care the company charges you for points " balance " changes and they screw things up, when it should be free for that anyways.

I'm not yet beaten down by the world enough I suppose to just take it and be thankful everything isn't wrong, at least not yet.

As for those who think a subscription service would in any way fix this or even be in any way be a reasonable cost, that is a laugh. They'd charge you through the nose, probably give even less effort and still make the same repeated errors that would take just as long for them to get around fixing if they ever deem worthy to.

It isn't that anyone just sits there and rages at GW, but people should hold this company to a higher standard. If they can't handle the speed, slow it down, if their leadership is bad, slow it down until they get someone who can direct the process better. There shouldn't be acceptable levels of repeated errors, let alone the amount they pump out now.

For me, it's way more logical to care if I'm being ripped off, than to just smile and say " Oh well...just games ! " then slip them my money and accept my shame.

I don't like pirating the rules, as I like to get the books and models through my FLGS where I grew the game back in 4th edition on, I support where I play and love, so getting the books from the high seas isn't something I want to do but with the effort they put forth that is about all the books end up being worth and I can't blame those who do that even if I won't.

BrianDavion wrote:
Yes it's too much to expect the book to be absolutely FLAWLESS.

you count what 4 mistakes out of how many unit entries? two of which are just some legends based confusion, one of which is a classic spread sheet collum error (those mistakes are realllly easy to make) and one is just an "wtf" points valuer that may well be the intent. still let's assume they're all mistakes. this is hardly an ERROR RIDDLED book. error riddled would be a mistake every page or two. seriously, the fact that you call out 4 errors as "riddled" does indeed suggest you have unrealistic expectations.

Heaven forbid a company making 'record profits' should be expected to put out a thoroughly proof read product by paying for a couple of editors.

But then again GW's always got plenty of white knights who would defend the pages being bound together by faeces and they'd not lack for people going "wow so much salt over a bit of poop, grow up whiners "