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.

There are rules and rules though.

The occasional "woops, we forgot our game worked this way" is embarrassing. At the same time however some players engage in utterly ludicrous RAW/RAI arguments that are not due to sloppy word use, but deliberately twisting statements to suit their ends. These will always be there.

On balance I really think they would do better working to a spreadsheet and keep power levels roughly flat for the edition. Instead we see fairly sustainable creep - its not universal, but clearer understanding of what works and what doesn't, so they put out more powerful things (and occasionally some trash because they were feeling bad that way).

Thought: The only book without errors is the one that remains unwritten.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The entire Song of Ice and Fire series—the books that the HBO show A Game of Thrones is based on—is rife with typos and consistency errors, but Book Five arguably has the most. For instance, on page 854, where Queen Cersei descends a staircase and muses: "’I am beautiful,’ she reminded himself." The word “wroth” is consistently misused in this book as well—e.g., page 53: "Even in the north men fear the wroth of Tywin Lannister." (Wroth is an adjective, meaning angry—author George R. R. Martin should have used “wrath,” the noun form.)

I'd argue that the whole of the ASOIAF series is a typo, and that GRRM is a hack who discovered that "High Murder Fantasy" works for shock value, rather than a writer.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

meleti wrote:
It’s hilarious to imply that older video games never had bugs and problems. The infamous nuke-happy Gandhi in the Civilization series originated from a bug in the 1991 game! Look at any old game, even critically acclaimed ones like Super Mario Bros (1985) and there are a host of bugs and glitches.

-1 world for example.

Very true - I seem to recall that particular rabbit hole can go deeper too - -2 or -3 world, at least.

 Big Mac wrote:
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!

Tzeentech is a recognised subsidiary of Dark Mechanicus Inc...

shrugs.

would prefer them to make "errors in editing" and correct them than the alternative, which is just them making the errors.

I'm not of the opinion they will ever write tight, well edited and proof read rules, GW are not that sort of people (Engineers, technical writers, coders, legal types etc).

... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

If Insurance Underwriters wrote what they actually mean all the time, I’d be out of a job!

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

True, however they tend to get the basics right, and write documents with proper cross referencing and a decent level of checking.

They make mistakes, they don't make quite so many

leopard wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

True, however they tend to get the basics right, and write documents with proper cross referencing and a decent level of checking.

They make mistakes, they don't make quite so many

You've got to remember though that a lot of errata result from a balance change or top level rule change, rather than being explicitly an error.

 Stux wrote:

leopard wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

True, however they tend to get the basics right, and write documents with proper cross referencing and a decent level of checking.

They make mistakes, they don't make quite so many

You've got to remember though that a lot of errata result from a balance change or top level rule change, rather than being explicitly an error.

Tend to class those as mistakes, just different to basic typos, its more down to a failure to test and comprehend their own game - perhaps just one of those things.

What is pretty obvious is they have no overall plan for an edition and just wing it, hence stuff not really gelling nicely.

I think it's about time they released a full rule pamphlet (no lore) with the most updated rulebook, chapter approved and faq content. One book to rule them all, at least for some time.
Now if a new player started I think the current rulebook purchase would be hard to justify, as almost all rule paragraphs have changed.

leopard wrote:

 Stux wrote:

leopard wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

True, however they tend to get the basics right, and write documents with proper cross referencing and a decent level of checking.

They make mistakes, they don't make quite so many

You've got to remember though that a lot of errata result from a balance change or top level rule change, rather than being explicitly an error.

Tend to class those as mistakes, just different to basic typos, its more down to a failure to test and comprehend their own game - perhaps just one of those things.

What is pretty obvious is they have no overall plan for an edition and just wing it, hence stuff not really gelling nicely.

It's debatable. Some of them definitely are mistakes. Some of them are just deciding on a different direction based on feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:
I think it's about time they released a full rule pamphlet (no lore) with the most updated rulebook, chapter approved and faq content. One book to rule them all, at least for some time.
Now if a new player started I think the current rulebook purchase would be hard to justify, as almost all rule paragraphs have changed.

That would be really good, unless we happen to only be like 9 months off 9e anyway

Gitdakka wrote:
I think it's about time they released a full rule pamphlet (no lore) with the most updated rulebook, chapter approved and faq content. One book to rule them all, at least for some time.
Now if a new player started I think the current rulebook purchase would be hard to justify, as almost all rule paragraphs have changed.

Would love for them to go to the idea of a modular rulebook, forget page numbers, number the rules - with sections getting letters, stick each "major" rule so it starts on its own sheet of paper, fill blank space with diagrams, artwork or whatever.

each year "CA" provides new content for various sections (scenarios, terrain etc) and can then replace specific pages.

do the codexes in the same way, CA having updated pages for them.

Plus a complete points index each year.


Its been done before and it works nicely.


As an aside, slightly irritated to see the CP cost of some strategems, and the wording of them changing.. will the cards be ammended to suit?

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

Nah, it's because a lot of the players are young and inexperienced and really don't understand how complicated jobs (like publishing) work

Alcibiades wrote:

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

Nah, it's because a lot of the players are young and inexperienced and really don't understand how complicated jobs (like publishing) work

And then some of us have written lengthy technically focussed documents for a living and actually do understand such a process, it generally needs a bit more planning than is apparent with GW - its also not cheap, I suspect you have someone somewhere who has worked out, largely correctly, what the lowest acceptable quality standard is - and thats what they work to - afterall the product still sells.

if they doubled the amount they spent writing it, would they sell more? probably not, the books are not bought for the quality of writing so why in a rational sense would GW care?

For my money I expect better, the days of trying to buy all the books are long gone, even though these days I could probably afford it, as long as Mrs L didn't find out.

GW have come on significantly with 8th in terms of concepts, the <KEYWORD> concept for example is very good, I wish they had expanded it to say weapons but thats something they may get around to, I also wish they had gone with the concept of a Defined Term being distinct from a defined term, so when they say x must be within 3", you have a definition of what within means clearly written somewhere - you gain a lot of clarity, at a cost of needing a much better planned and more focused writing effort.

As I noted early, I'm just glad they are actually taking the trouble to fix errors and not just wait for the next edition 'x' years down the line, where 'x' is measured in decades

Gitdakka wrote:
I think it's about time they released a full rule pamphlet (no lore) with the most updated rulebook, chapter approved and faq content. One book to rule them all, at least for some time.
Now if a new player started I think the current rulebook purchase would be hard to justify, as almost all rule paragraphs have changed.

Nothing's changed much if you're a Grey Knight!

Anyway, please carry on. Your main point still stands.

 Overread wrote:
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.

Yet it never happens in these systems like Black Powder due to player mentality.
But go over to 40k and then you will never play a game.

ValentineGames wrote:

 Overread wrote:
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.

Yet it never happens in these systems like Black Powder due to player mentality.
But go over to 40k and then you will never play a game.

Is it player mentality or convention within the clubs? Also are black powder gamers building lists or are they more re-using the same lists over and over or using proposed campaign lists etc... Ergo are they building or are they using what is already built and modifying it a little.

I'd also say that games like Black Powder might be more open to re-creation of famous events based on historical numbers and counts; something that Warhammer can't do at all because, well, there aren't any historical records nor accurate numbers of combatants at battles.


I think its easy to blame the attitude of players without realising that its not really them but the actual games structure and design as well as the background to it.

Historic players argue over other things - not having accurate colour schemes or authentic lists for example (2 reasons I stopped playing Bolt Action).

Regardless of the game, two players can agree to work through rules discrepancies, or they can argue/fight for advantage for their side/find unreasonable Reddit/BCB approaches and treat them as the only approach/etc. I.e. between you and your opponent you can decide to have fun, or decide you’re going to grind the other side into a paste via whatever means necessary for nerd bragging rights. Or somewhere in the middle. The social contract is up to you, and the rules aren’t so broken you can’t agree and move on... should you be so inclined. Screeching “we can never know intent this game is broken and cannot progress!” is hopefully only internet behaviour, luckily I’ve never come across it.

beast_gts wrote:
Historic players argue over other things - not having accurate colour schemes or authentic lists for example (2 reasons I stopped playing Bolt Action).

We call them "rivet counters"

And 40K has it's own version too - over the lore.

For me, not to long ago I realized that most game rules are a farce - they are just agreed-upon constructs for playing with your toy soldiers. For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules".

 Stormonu wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Historic players argue over other things - not having accurate colour schemes or authentic lists for example (2 reasons I stopped playing Bolt Action).

We call them "rivet counters"

And 40K has it's own version too - over the lore.

For me, not to long ago I realized that most game rules are a farce - they are just agreed-upon constructs for playing with your toy soldiers. For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules".

So are the 40k version "skull counters"?

And I await the person who gets mad that I'm doing my Primaris in the VII Legion's scheme (with one of my Gravis captains wearing the Aquila that shows he once fought on the same battlefield as the Emperor himself). Look, I get that lore is important and all since it puts our silly plastic dudesmen into context, but at the end of the day I had to go to FW for my decals and since I'm paying for a sheet of VII Legion decals I'm getting the full use of them, the lore be damned into the Warp.

My justification is based on the idea that GW has shown a desire to transfer characters into Primaris at events: that Captain was a VII Legionionare who "died" during the Iron Cage only to have the Ultramarines hand him (and others) over to Cawl (with a few of them surviving the testing of Cawl's furnace implant) allowing me to then start legion building with my Primaris as they are on a "crusade" to find Dorn. Of course if they do find Dorn the crusade will likely to be to unmuck the Imperium, but baby steps, right?

They won't notice, since most self described 40k fluff players aren't fluff players. Their knowledge is only as deep as the stereotypes and memes. It's simply a beard they wear to hide behind. You're more likely to anger them simply by using Primaris because it the cool thing to hate them.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
They won't notice, since most self described 40k fluff players aren't fluff players. Their knowledge is only as deep as the stereotypes and memes. It's simply a beard they wear to hide behind. You're more likely to anger them simply by using Primaris because it the cool thing to hate them.

You're probably right as long as none of them are also skull counters who play 30k. That seems to have caused some of the rivet counters from historical games to fall into the same trend in that game.

 Stormonu wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
Historic players argue over other things - not having accurate colour schemes or authentic lists for example (2 reasons I stopped playing Bolt Action).

We call them "rivet counters"

And 40K has it's own version too - over the lore.

For me, not to long ago I realized that most game rules are a farce - they are just agreed-upon constructs for playing with your toy soldiers. For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules".

Hear, hear. Borrowing that for my sig.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
... all of whom also make these kinds of mistakes, otherwise we wouldn’t have multiple editions of university textbooks or rerevisions and patches for software.

Yes but do you want 100 mistakes or 10 mistakes? Do you want game that can actually be legally played through or one that requires players to alter rules to their taste to even be possible to play game through without running into situation rules don't cover?

Who cares? If experienced technical writers and publishing houses vastly larger than GW can't get the errors out of books where it's important, why do we expect the relatively tiny GW to do better with something as unimportant as games rules?

I can't think of anything in a GW game that made us have to abandon the game, so they're good enough IMO.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Who cares? If experienced technical writers and publishing houses vastly larger than GW can't get the errors out of books where it's important, why do we expect the relatively tiny GW to do better with something as unimportant as games rules?

I can't think of anything in a GW game that made us have to abandon the game, so they're good enough IMO.

Nobody is expecting them to do 100% error free. But there's one thing about doing 10 errors and then doing 100 errors. Or doing game with errors but that can still be played without tons of house rules and game that requires house rules to be even possible to play it...

Just think about it: You MUST come up with house rules to play it through.

There's quite likely not 2 groups that play 100% identical 40k without even doing deliberate house rules to level of adjusting points or stats...

GW claims to be Apple of miniature games. Not too much to ask for them to do their rules like PROFESSIONALS rather than amateurs. As it is they are 100% amateurs who aren't even trying to do a good job. That's unacceptable.

You.. Really don't have to come up with house rules... Where did you get the idea you did?

tneva82 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Who cares? If experienced technical writers and publishing houses vastly larger than GW can't get the errors out of books where it's important, why do we expect the relatively tiny GW to do better with something as unimportant as games rules?

I can't think of anything in a GW game that made us have to abandon the game, so they're good enough IMO.

Just think about it: You MUST come up with house rules to play it through.

No more, in my experience, than any other game I've played.

And we're back to the first reply to BCB; why do you (in general) keep buying them I you think they're not to an acceptable standard?

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
And we're back to the first reply to BCB; why do you (in general) keep buying them I you think they're not to an acceptable standard?

Because it's my hobby to answer rules questions on the internet. A noble goal, one of the most important in Human history to be sure. Also despite what other people might think I actually do enjoy playing 40k 8th edition, even if the rules aren't written properly most of the time.

tneva82 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Who cares? If experienced technical writers and publishing houses vastly larger than GW can't get the errors out of books where it's important, why do we expect the relatively tiny GW to do better with something as unimportant as games rules?

I can't think of anything in a GW game that made us have to abandon the game, so they're good enough IMO.

Nobody is expecting them to do 100% error free. But there's one thing about doing 10 errors and then doing 100 errors. Or doing game with errors but that can still be played without tons of house rules and game that requires house rules to be even possible to play it...

Just think about it: You MUST come up with house rules to play it through.

There's quite likely not 2 groups that play 100% identical 40k without even doing deliberate house rules to level of adjusting points or stats...

GW claims to be Apple of miniature games. Not too much to ask for them to do their rules like PROFESSIONALS rather than amateurs. As it is they are 100% amateurs who aren't even trying to do a good job. That's unacceptable.

The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.