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.

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

They spend a lot of money into the hobby and expect a bargain for their money. They compare their investment into Games Workshop product to a night at a 5-star resort. And while the prices are similar, the result often betrays expectations.

At a 5-star resort, if there's a mistake, you complain and get it fixed immediately, with zero cost, and sometimes with a bonus for free for subjecting you to the horror of a mistake.

With GW, you get error-riddled literature that gets fixed months later, and sometimes those fixes don't even work as intended or fix the thing you wanted them to fix in the first place. And on top of that, you don't get an apology.

It comes down to expectations. I don't expect GW to be perfect. I expect them to put out gorgeous models and support them with some semblance of rules to make a more-or-less cohesive game. So far, they've been delivering that with aplomb and I'm happy to give them my money.

Let's all remember that GW is not Hollywood. They are not some monolithic corporation that pumps out billion dollar blockbusters every season. They're a game company, and despite everything, they're on the small end of game companies. The fact that they're still around today is, frankly, a miracle.

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

He wants attention and this is his chosen method.

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Because after over 40 years of writing rules they should not have a 100% failure rate when it comes to writing books.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Because after over 40 years of writing rules they should not have a 100% failure rate when it comes to writing books.

Which is an impossible standard, short of desiring for them to never release errata, but there's been plenty through the thread that's already mentioned such that you've pushed by.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Because after over 40 years of writing rules they should not have a 100% failure rate when it comes to writing books.

Which is an impossible standard, short of desiring for them to never release errata, but there's been plenty through the thread that's already mentioned such that you've pushed by.

Sorry, but how is wanting just one book out of twenty one to be written properly an "impossible" standard?

I've yet to find any other book that matches your standard.

By that note, it basically means they've written to industry standard given I've yet to find a book that has not been made without some sort of error.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

posixthreads wrote:
It seems like a bit much to demand error-free codices, especially when GW has committed to putting out FAQs and errata. There might be a point to be made about the wound needing to be updated, but the erreta are usually no more than a page per faction.

it IS a bit much, not sure why BCB is so obsessed about it

Because after over 40 years of writing rules they should not have a 100% failure rate when it comes to writing books.

Which is an impossible standard, short of desiring for them to never release errata, but there's been plenty through the thread that's already mentioned such that you've pushed by.

Sorry, but how is wanting just one book out of twenty one to be written properly an "impossible" standard?

Because your definition of "written properly" is a moving, unreasonable, irrational target for them to hit. No matter what they do, you've proven yourself someone who will find *something* to complain about.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sorry, but how is wanting just one book out of twenty one to be written properly an "impossible" standard?

Because your expectation of a book being "written properly" is absurd. These books are tens of thousands of words and each word is a chance to make an error. No matter how small that chance is, when you repeat that chance THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF TIMES you are going to have an very high chance of making any number of mistakes. Having 0 mistakes is the outlier, not the norm

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Sorry, but how is wanting just one book out of twenty one to be written properly an "impossible" standard?

Well I think that very much depends on your definition of "properly". If you mean properly formatted, spell checked and without contradictions within the book in question then yeah I agree that should always be their aim.

If on the other hand you're talking about a book that has no combination/conflicts of units/rules that can abused (in ways unforeseen by the writers) and that therefore never needs to be amended or rebalanced within the current ruleset. Then yeah I think you expect too much.

Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

 Togusa wrote:
Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

BCB isn't saying "As close to perfect as possible". He is saying it has to be literally perfect with 0 errors

 Togusa wrote:
Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

In short nope its not a matter of mindset. Its much easier to test a surgical device within its set limits than a set of rule interactions that span multiple books and that are themselves individually open to interpretation.

I noticed a error on the GW US website, I was looking up the retail pricing of pink horrors, and notice the spelling of Tzeentech instead of Tzeentch, omg the world is falling apart!

 Sasquatch wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

In short nope its not a matter of mindset. Its much easier to test a surgical device within its set limits than a set of rule interactions that span multiple books and that are themselves individually open to interpretation.

I assume OP is referring to grammar, is this not the case?

I guess the OP after reading the subject title - was not surprised

 Togusa wrote:

 Sasquatch wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Okay, but to defend OP a little bit. Why is it unreasonable to expect that a product be as close to perfect as it can be?

While a defective book is one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't want a defective surgical device. Though the two are drastically different things, the mindset that would lead to one or the other being defective, is the same, is it not?

In short nope its not a matter of mindset. Its much easier to test a surgical device within its set limits than a set of rule interactions that span multiple books and that are themselves individually open to interpretation.

I assume OP is referring to grammar, is this not the case?

no BCB is refering to any and all eratta.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

I'm glad you spoke up - I was concerned that maybe you had run out of worthless things to whine about.

drbored wrote:
Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

They spend a lot of money into the hobby and expect a bargain for their money. They compare their investment into Games Workshop product to a night at a 5-star resort. And while the prices are similar, the result often betrays expectations.

At a 5-star resort, if there's a mistake, you complain and get it fixed immediately, with zero cost, and sometimes with a bonus for free for subjecting you to the horror of a mistake.

With GW, you get error-riddled literature that gets fixed months later, and sometimes those fixes don't even work as intended or fix the thing you wanted them to fix in the first place. And on top of that, you don't get an apology.

It comes down to expectations. I don't expect GW to be perfect. I expect them to put out gorgeous models and support them with some semblance of rules to make a more-or-less cohesive game. So far, they've been delivering that with aplomb and I'm happy to give them my money.

Let's all remember that GW is not Hollywood. They are not some monolithic corporation that pumps out billion dollar blockbusters every season. They're a game company, and despite everything, they're on the small end of game companies. The fact that they're still around today is, frankly, a miracle.

I never understood why GW gets some much sympathy. They very much ARE a monolithic corporation. Yeah, they're not Disney, but GW's yearly revenue is currently a bit over $200,000,000. They have an over $50,000,000 per year operating budget. By contrast, the average small business in the U.K. is valued a bit over $100,000, and the average manufacturing business is valued only at a bit above $500,000. GW's no minnow in a vast sea. They also certainly have the money on hand to make sure they're stuff gets properly vetted before publication. They just don't want to because, obviously, it doesn't seem to be hurting their sales so why bother?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
With the addition of Errata to the Harlequins codex, that makes twenty one out of twenty one books released for 8th (1 rulebook, 19 codexes, and 1 Chapter Approved) that had errors that required fixing.

While I appreciate the fact they did fix them, the fact remains there were an unacceptable amount of errors to begin with. When you need to errata a book BEFORE IT IS ON SALE, and have to Errata your Big Book of Errata is when I say GW have no right for charging money for them without straight up admitting they are fleecing you.

You're so tiresome. Almost every tabletop gaming book has errors in it somewhere,videogames have bugs, even the bible has typos. Please stop doing stuff like this, it makes your actual legitimate claims sound crazy by association.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Audustum wrote:

drbored wrote:
Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

They spend a lot of money into the hobby and expect a bargain for their money. They compare their investment into Games Workshop product to a night at a 5-star resort. And while the prices are similar, the result often betrays expectations.

At a 5-star resort, if there's a mistake, you complain and get it fixed immediately, with zero cost, and sometimes with a bonus for free for subjecting you to the horror of a mistake.

With GW, you get error-riddled literature that gets fixed months later, and sometimes those fixes don't even work as intended or fix the thing you wanted them to fix in the first place. And on top of that, you don't get an apology.

It comes down to expectations. I don't expect GW to be perfect. I expect them to put out gorgeous models and support them with some semblance of rules to make a more-or-less cohesive game. So far, they've been delivering that with aplomb and I'm happy to give them my money.

Let's all remember that GW is not Hollywood. They are not some monolithic corporation that pumps out billion dollar blockbusters every season. They're a game company, and despite everything, they're on the small end of game companies. The fact that they're still around today is, frankly, a miracle.

I never understood why GW gets some much sympathy. They very much ARE a monolithic corporation. Yeah, they're not Disney, but GW's yearly revenue is currently a bit over $200,000,000. They have an over $50,000,000 per year operating budget. By contrast, the average small business in the U.K. is valued a bit over $100,000, and the average manufacturing business is valued only at a bit above $500,000. GW's no minnow in a vast sea. They also certainly have the money on hand to make sure they're stuff gets properly vetted before publication. They just don't want to because, obviously, it doesn't seem to be hurting their sales so why bother?

It's not sympathy insomuch as it's...individuals...missing the forests for the trees. People whining about typos are tacitly accepting things like 'Why do we even still have codexes at all? Sigmar has a free app that I can get all the datasheets on (which are the part you actually really need to own) and can buy my faction's books for 20$ (which is the part that is so easily crowdsourced I honestly don't know why you'd buy codexes for allied factions anymore).That's where the con is bro, worrying about typos just means you fell for a textbook Kansas City Shuffle.

Basically people whine about things that don't matter, other people point out that they don't matter, whiners whine about people calling them whiners, and GW keeps making a mint off of all the stuff whiners missed while they were critiquing the type of ink they use or whatever.

Audustum wrote:

drbored wrote:
Some people have incredibly high expectations for Games Workshop and there's only one reasonable expectation:

They spend a lot of money into the hobby and expect a bargain for their money. They compare their investment into Games Workshop product to a night at a 5-star resort. And while the prices are similar, the result often betrays expectations.

At a 5-star resort, if there's a mistake, you complain and get it fixed immediately, with zero cost, and sometimes with a bonus for free for subjecting you to the horror of a mistake.

With GW, you get error-riddled literature that gets fixed months later, and sometimes those fixes don't even work as intended or fix the thing you wanted them to fix in the first place. And on top of that, you don't get an apology.

It comes down to expectations. I don't expect GW to be perfect. I expect them to put out gorgeous models and support them with some semblance of rules to make a more-or-less cohesive game. So far, they've been delivering that with aplomb and I'm happy to give them my money.

Let's all remember that GW is not Hollywood. They are not some monolithic corporation that pumps out billion dollar blockbusters every season. They're a game company, and despite everything, they're on the small end of game companies. The fact that they're still around today is, frankly, a miracle.

I never understood why GW gets some much sympathy. They very much ARE a monolithic corporation. Yeah, they're not Disney, but GW's yearly revenue is currently a bit over $200,000,000. They have an over $50,000,000 per year operating budget. By contrast, the average small business in the U.K. is valued a bit over $100,000, and the average manufacturing business is valued only at a bit above $500,000. GW's no minnow in a vast sea. They also certainly have the money on hand to make sure they're stuff gets properly vetted before publication. They just don't want to because, obviously, it doesn't seem to be hurting their sales so why bother?

it's not sympthy so much as an understanding of the realty of game design

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

So American rules-writers expect their players to be rules lawyers fishing for advantage and British rules-writers expect their players to be gentlemanly about the whole affair?

I don't have a huge sample size but it'd make an interesting subject to look into further.

To be fair that is how something like how black powder works.
It gives you a rules template and just says "the rest is up to you. We can't factor in everything...it's a game"

It would probably force American players to commit mass suicide

ValentineGames wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

So American rules-writers expect their players to be rules lawyers fishing for advantage and British rules-writers expect their players to be gentlemanly about the whole affair?

I don't have a huge sample size but it'd make an interesting subject to look into further.

To be fair that is how something like how black powder works.
It gives you a rules template and just says "the rest is up to you. We can't factor in everything...it's a game"

It would probably force American players to commit mass suicide

It's way more complicated than that.

I don't think you can divide consumer attitude by country that easily (case in point, BCB is British).

I think it comes down more to the specific culture of GW.

Also, as many others have pointed out, literally no publication of any real length releases without errors.

ValentineGames wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I find that quantity of errors is more forgiveable than GW's continual refusal to write a clear and consistent game. Rulebooks written by competent people do things like write a page or two of universal timing sequence to create a consistent framework in which special rules can be written, whereas GW goes "no, timing sequences are too complicated, we don't need to bother with that" and then has to write the timing sequence of every single rule as a discrete FAQ entry because they couldn't be bothered to write the rules properly in the first place.

It seems to be a British thing. at least going by the now defunct spartan games books, and some confusion in warlord stuff on occasion (at least format wise).

The obsession with timing and super lawyer type rules seem to be an american thing with MTG the king of timing and erattas and possibly some flavor of warmahords.

So American rules-writers expect their players to be rules lawyers fishing for advantage and British rules-writers expect their players to be gentlemanly about the whole affair?

I don't have a huge sample size but it'd make an interesting subject to look into further.

To be fair that is how something like how black powder works.
It gives you a rules template and just says "the rest is up to you. We can't factor in everything...it's a game"

It would probably force American players to commit mass suicide

And UK ones too.

See the thing is making up your own rules is fine, anyone can do it. But at the same time its open to abuse, its open to spending the 5 hours of the gaming night half debating what the rules should be or could be rather than playing the game itself. In general most people prefer to have rules that let them just get on playing the game For them the fun isn't making a game its playing the game.

Online there is a higher concentration of people who are keen/skilled in writing rules so it comes across a little more accepting to have a more bare-bones rules system that people modify. There's a market for both and 40K, being mass market rather than niche, is going for the approach of actually having rules; however they've put two games modes in addition which present the idea of players coming up with their own ideas too, if they want.


And here's the thing, if you have a rules system written out you can CHOOSE to use or ignore it or part of it. If you don't have rules system written out then the choice is gone and you're forced down one path of having to build your own.

GW doesnt care about perfectly written, unambiguous rules. Because its nearly impossible to achieve with 40k. Thats one reason they created the most important rule. Should they do better at rule writing ? Yes, they should. But demanding a perfect codex with 0 errors is unrealistic.

 p5freak wrote:
GW doesnt care about perfectly written, unambiguous rules. Because its nearly impossible to achieve with 40k. Thats one reason they created the most important rule. Should they do better at rule writing ? Yes, they should. But demanding a perfect codex with 0 errors is unrealistic.

This is my position.

At least we do get errata, even if it doesn't cover everything we might like.

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
GW doesnt care about perfectly written, unambiguous rules. Because its nearly impossible to achieve with 40k. Thats one reason they created the most important rule. Should they do better at rule writing ? Yes, they should. But demanding a perfect codex with 0 errors is unrealistic.

This is my position.

At least we do get errata, even if it doesn't cover everything we might like.

Problem is when new errata creates new unclear situations, and we have to wait another six months for possible answers.

 p5freak wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
GW doesnt care about perfectly written, unambiguous rules. Because its nearly impossible to achieve with 40k. Thats one reason they created the most important rule. Should they do better at rule writing ? Yes, they should. But demanding a perfect codex with 0 errors is unrealistic.

This is my position.

At least we do get errata, even if it doesn't cover everything we might like.

Problem is when new errata creates new unclear situations, and we have to wait another six months for possible answers.

Still better than waiting 2 to 3 years in hopes it's better in the next edition.

Or longer - People forget that before the current edition of 40K or AoS/fantasy it wasn't a question of "when" you got a codex it was a question of IF you got one for that edition. Your army might be lucky and get one near the start of the new edition; or you could be unlucky and get one right at the end or even miss it out entirely.

This is the first time GW will have all armies done within a 2 year period. Plus the nature of Chapter Approved means that we might well move to an age where new editions of the game are not whole re-writes of the rules but refinements. Seeing the game evolve toward a tighter rules system that improves over time and strengthens rather than chopping and changing itself. With chapter approved every year and updates there will be more than enough reason in 5 or so years to release new updated codex with updated lore and stats to reflect all the changes and also add in new units/things added over time.

Ultimately, for the most part the books as they are released work fine. However, given the level of complexity of a game like 40K, and the number of possible rules interactions, it’s inevitable there will be some outlying cases where loopholes exist, or things don’t work as intended.

Now, as I see it, in the modern era of 40K, two things exacerbate how bad this seems: 1. The attitude that 40K needs to be completely “fair” and “balanced” in order that it can be played at a high-end competitive level, therefor all such “flaws” in the ruleset need to be eradicated, rather than just discussing it with one’s opponent, dicing off and moving on (which is literally codified in the rules as the method for resolving any such situations); 2. With the prevalence of the internet these days, the moment a loophole or unintended interaction comes up, it can be immediately be disseminated to the entire player base (at least that portion of it that is interested in engaging with such things), which serves to amplify the issue and, in addition, allow it to be more widely abused/taken advantage of (depending on your point of view) than it might be otherwise.

Now, in light of this, GW has three potential options:
1. Ignore it, just put the rules out, and leave people to get on with it. Maybe the occasional erratum dealing with the most egregious problems. This is essentially the approach GW took until relatively recently.
2. Keep updating the rules as and when any problems and issues come to light, in an attempt to further refine them, thereby gradually improving the rules and tightening up the way in which they function. This is essentially the approach they’re currently taking.
3. Employ an actual army of proofreaders and playtesters, and/or massively increase the development time for all their rules. In this scenario, it’s still unlikely to ensure 100% perfect rules, but it is going to result in heftily reduced profit margins for GW, given that they’d need to significantly increase their staffing levels, and/or they’d be able to get less product out in the same time period. Alternatively, they could crank the prices right up to alleviate this, but I think we all know how people are likely to react to that.

For the most part, the rules are good enough to crack on with a game, and I’d argue that, with the current system, GW are doing the best they feasibly can to address the worst complications as and when they arise. There’s not *really* a practical alternative that allows them to remain a viable company and simultaneously pander to a vocal minority of the player base (or those who don’t actually play the game because they don't like it) who like to complain about things on the internet in the most hyperbolic and pedantic way possible as a means, as another poster pointed out, of garnering attention. Fundamentally, they’re never going to please all the people all the time, but there’s just no pleasing some people.