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.

When there is a discrepancy between an electronic source for rules and that same source in printed form, which is more official?

Check the publish dates, go with the most recent. Also refer to the FAQs to see if there's clarification there

What discrepancies are you referring to?

col_impact wrote:


When there is a discrepancy between an electronic source for rules and that same source in printed form, which is more official?

They are both equally official. This is like asking which of two pregnant women is more pregnant. Whether or not a rules source is official is a yes or no question. One is not somehow more official than the other.

In the instance of a discrepancy between two formats of the same rules source, the only reasonable course of action is to notify GW, ask for an FAQ/Errata and then work out among your local gaming group how you would play it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheEyeOfNight wrote:
Check the publish dates, go with the most recent. Also refer to the FAQs to see if there's clarification there

Publish dates are difficult to nail down as GW/FW/BL doesn't always include more than a year of publication in the actual book. Unless you're meticulously tracking releases on a weekly basis, it's tough to know what day things were released.

Also, these aren't different publications. They are different formats of the same publication. It's exactly like asking what the difference is between the Limited Edition Blood Angels Codes and the normal Blood Angels Codex. They look different, but the actual rules content should be identical because they're the same book in different formats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
What discrepancies are you referring to?

This specifically came up due to a difference in the physical book copy of Shield of Baal: Exterminatus and the eBook. One clearly has to be a mistake, but we don't know which.

Consider this.

A printed version of a source is always technically older than the electronic version of the same source due to the publication process.

A book is sent to print well in advance of an official release. An ebook can be changed much closer in time to an official release.

Quite commonly missing tidbits can be addressed in an electronic version that are to late to be addressed in the version that already is in the hand of the publisher who is printing books.

If it's any help, I did ping off a question for which version, print or Ebook, had the accurate profile to customer services a few days ago.

Dunno how helpful the reply will be, but at least it's something.

Quite literally, the electronic version left GW hands a lot later than the printed version did, simply due to the nature of the publication process.

I think that they are both official, however if the eBook has updates that the regular rulebook does not have and there is no FAQ then it would be up to your LGS/LGG to decide which version should be officially used in tournament/free play.

I go with the printed medium. The editors of printed medii at a company like GW are more likely to be scrutinizing than the Ebook editors.

It's easy to be flippant on a computer.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I go with the printed medium. The editors of printed medii at a company like GW are more likely to be scrutinizing than the Ebook editors.

It's easy to be flippant on a computer.

Not really. Remember FMC's "Relentless Smash" special rule?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I go with the printed medium. The editors of printed medii at a company like GW are more likely to be scrutinizing than the Ebook editors.

It's easy to be flippant on a computer.

Not really. Remember FMC's "Relentless Smash" special rule?

I never claimed the process was flawless.

An ebook is an easy go to for GW to amend issues and have it "official" by being in a book. Ultimately, when discerning an faq on GW's website or an ebook, post marks trump. I guess both are easy enough to do, but the real issue should be "why doesn't GW have an auto update format and app" for these concerns?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I go with the printed medium. The editors of printed medii at a company like GW are more likely to be scrutinizing than the Ebook editors.

It's easy to be flippant on a computer.

Not really. Remember FMC's "Relentless Smash" special rule?

I never claimed the process was flawless.

Yeah but there is proof that there isn't a real difference in editorial quality between physical and digital properties so isn't an adequate reason to pick one over the other. Especially since GW can go back and fix mistakes in digital copies.

I'm seeing lots of HIWPI in this thread, but no actual rules.

GW/FW/BL publishes rules.

They publish them in physical form, limited edition physical form, ePub electronic form, Mobi electronic form and iBooks electronic form.

The fact that there are discrepancies between what should be identical content speaks to the the poor quality of GW's editorial staff.

We treat every discrepancy the same way. We evaluate what is written and try to make a best guess as to what GW intended while we wait for an FAQ. There is no hierarchy of "officiality" (which I know isn't a word, per se).

If there is a hierarchy, let's not do things by half measures!

Which is more official, the limited edition hardback or the standard edition hardback?

Which is more official, the ePub version or the Mobi version?

Which is more official, the Mobi version or the Interactive Edition version?

They're equally official. Which means when you have to decide which ones take precedence, it's always going to be HIWPI. The RAW answer for "which one do you go with" doesn't exist.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
They're equally official. Which means when you have to decide which ones take precedence, it's always going to be HIWPI. The RAW answer for "which one do you go with" doesn't exist.

100% agree. This is a HIWPI argument. There is no RaW past the fact that all sources are official until a DIFFERENT publication comes along to replace them.

It depends on the rule in question.
If one contradicts the other, you have a serious problem.
That'd be something like: Unit can do X versus Unit cannot do X.

It's a ruleset that works with permissions, so if the eBook gives me permission than I have permission. No matter what the book says, as long as it doesn't contradict my permission.

Kangodo wrote:
It depends on the rule in question.
If one contradicts the other, you have a serious problem.
That'd be something like: Unit can do X versus Unit cannot do X.

It's a ruleset that works with permissions, so if the eBook gives me permission than I have permission. No matter what the book says, as long as it doesn't contradict my permission.

One way of resolving two equally official rules sources is that the player plays the rules he owns.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
They're equally official. Which means when you have to decide which ones take precedence, it's always going to be HIWPI. The RAW answer for "which one do you go with" doesn't exist.

Sure there is! You roll a dice to see which publication you use for Rules for that game!

I would say as the digital book can be updated it would be what I go with, since a mistake will always be wrong in the printed copy but the digital one can be corrected. while this is HIWPI that is the best you will get till GW decides to FAQ it in 2018.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I go with the printed medium. The editors of printed medii at a company like GW are more likely to be scrutinizing than the Ebook editors.

It's easy to be flippant on a computer.

Not really. Remember FMC's "Relentless Smash" special rule?

I never claimed the process was flawless.

Yeah but there is proof that there isn't a real difference in editorial quality between physical and digital properties so isn't an adequate reason to pick one over the other. Especially since GW can go back and fix mistakes in digital copies.

I suspect both the printed version and the electronic version are single sourced from one content management system. The content is published to multiple outputs from one source. What probably happened is the deadline for the print version had passed and an error was discovered and corrected before the shook was published. It is not really a question of editing quality from one deliverable to another. In all likelyhood it is one team. It is a matter of timing.

I work in publishing like this and we have the same issue. Our "e-version" is updated with changes as errors are discovered. Our "print" version is simply a snapshot in time.

Loborocket wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I go with the printed medium. The editors of printed medii at a company like GW are more likely to be scrutinizing than the Ebook editors.

It's easy to be flippant on a computer.

Not really. Remember FMC's "Relentless Smash" special rule?

I never claimed the process was flawless.

Yeah but there is proof that there isn't a real difference in editorial quality between physical and digital properties so isn't an adequate reason to pick one over the other. Especially since GW can go back and fix mistakes in digital copies.

I suspect both the printed version and the electronic version are single sourced from one content management system. The content is published to multiple outputs from one source. What probably happened is the deadline for the print version had passed and an error was discovered and corrected before the shook was published. It is not really a question of editing quality from one deliverable to another. In all likelyhood it is one team. It is a matter of timing.

I work in publishing like this and we have the same issue. Our "e-version" is updated with changes as errors are discovered. Our "print" version is simply a snapshot in time.

Yes, and this reality of the publishing process means that if you were forced to give more weight to an eBook or a paper codex then you have to give more weight to the eBook since technically its always more current.

Both are official. In case of rules conflicts, the only RAW solution is to roll off.

However, in most circumstances, it's good to simply discuss the issue and decide which version makes more sense, though you'd have to know the rules pretty well for this.

This happened to me once as well with one of the To Wound charts - my opponent and I noticed that the chart in the iBook version was internally inconsistent, so we checked the physical book and found that it was different (and consistent with itself) and ended up using that instead.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...medii...

"Media" or "mediums".

It states on the FAQ page on The Black Library, that the digital editions will be immediately updated if there is an FAQ or Errata. With that in mind, the digital edition will always be the most current version and should be used as the most current rules if there is a difference.