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.

What exactly changed for Horrors? On first glance I only noticed mortal wounds tied to number of models.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Dead tree carcasses? how Macabre.

We could go back to using Animal skin instead.

Or reeds pounded into fibers.

Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.

I'm partial to stone tablet myself.

On a more serious note, why would anyone need to bring a copy of every erratum to a game? Why not just bring the stuff that applies to your army? Same with Forgeworld books and errata. If you're using a Forgeworld model, of course you're going to need a Forgeworld book. How is this different from any previous edition?

I usually choose to read the erratta, and I've been a kind of group bookkeeper in the past by keeping the most current ones on hand, but most people just bring the ones they need and nothing more.

 EnTyme wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Dead tree carcasses? how Macabre.

We could go back to using Animal skin instead.

Or reeds pounded into fibers.

Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.

I'm partial to stone tablet myself.

On a more serious note, why would anyone need to bring a copy of every erratum to a game? Why not just bring the stuff that applies to your army? Same with Forgeworld books and errata. If you're using a Forgeworld model, of course you're going to need a Forgeworld book. How is this different from any previous edition?

Not hard to stick specific notes in the margins of your army lists too.

 EnTyme wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Dead tree carcasses? how Macabre.

We could go back to using Animal skin instead.

Or reeds pounded into fibers.

Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.

I'm partial to stone tablet myself.

You damn kids. We played ninth edition on digital tablets and waited for the Matrix to reboot.

 Shadenuat wrote:
What exactly changed for Horrors? On first glance I only noticed mortal wounds tied to number of models.

They released a new data sheet to reflect the changes from the Daemons codex, but they forgot to remove the Daemon faction keyword, so the new data sheet, presented to fix the old data sheet, is itself, a broken data sheet.

So there is now two BCB threads in general doing his usual paint the edition bad topics when something new comes out.

And there's.. a discussion on writing tools.

I dont mind 8th and I'm happy there willing to correct their errors, however, If the rules are going to change this much they should have the app available so are the rules are maintained in one place, OR have the rules available online for free so people arent spending $50 on a rule book that wont be good in a month or two

are people really complaining about getting quick updates to stats? I've been asking for years for them to simply release updated stats/values as the meta shifts or something is discovered to be costed wrong. What games are people playing that don't have patches to adjust power/ fix mechanics? Or would people on Dakka rather have years of a unit being over/under costed simply because it's annoying to have to print out a new FAQ every now and then?

9breaker wrote:
So, video games (especially online competitive ones) go through patches all the time, taking in new data and adjusting the game systems. Also, playtesting is never as good as data feedback from actual game play. You can playtest a video game all you want, but the moment it hits player console/PCs, issues are going to be found.

This is effectively what GW is doing. And this is what we want. The fact they are changing the rules and adjusting to the meta is a good sign. Why are you complaining?

I was doing really well in Star Wars Battlefront 2 last night until someone showed me the new patch notes and I realised they nerfed my Wookiee. Oh, wait, no...because I don't need to remember if it takes 3 or just 2 shots with the bowcaster to kill someone, because that's not how video games work. I appreciate the intent but there really should be a better way to keep things updated.

Asmodios wrote:
are people really complaining about getting quick updates to stats? I've been asking for years for them to simply release updated stats/values as the meta shifts or something is discovered to be costed wrong. What games are people playing that don't have patches to adjust power/ fix mechanics? Or would people on Dakka rather have years of a unit being over/under costed simply because it's annoying to have to print out a new FAQ every now and then?

I am very happy to see them regularly updating the rules to keep things clear.

I am very disappointed that the one thing they just took the time to scrub from the CSM codex re-appeared on the new data sheet they just asked us to use in place of the old one.

That's just sloppy and lazy.

I think all of the other rules make sense and honestly, I was expecting some variation of them regardless.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
26 FAQ/Errata documents, 62 Pages of Errata/FAQ (that's 7.75 pages of errata per page of the core rules) and the fact they had to RELEASE AN ERRATA for their yearly errata document conclusively proves that GW simply are not hiring enough or competent enough people.

You just need to see the pay on offer for rules writers at GW to see why.

Asmodios wrote:
are people really complaining about getting quick updates to stats? I've been asking for years for them to simply release updated stats/values as the meta shifts or something is discovered to be costed wrong. What games are people playing that don't have patches to adjust power/ fix mechanics? Or would people on Dakka rather have years of a unit being over/under costed simply because it's annoying to have to print out a new FAQ every now and then?

No, people seem to be complaining that their quick updates are to fix clear blunders that result from them not knowing how to write proper rules or properly balance things in the first place. Rules updates are good, but when they are to fix things that should have been blatantly obvious with even a modicum of proper playtesting...

Honestly, some of these things don't even need to be fielded if one can do math.

9breaker wrote:
So, video games (especially online competitive ones) go through patches all the time, taking in new data and adjusting the game systems. Also, playtesting is never as good as data feedback from actual game play. You can playtest a video game all you want, but the moment it hits player console/PCs, issues are going to be found.

This is effectively what GW is doing. And this is what we want. The fact they are changing the rules and adjusting to the meta is a good sign. Why are you complaining?

There's definitely been a need for more agile updating of tabletop games for a while. I think Hearthstone just really pressed the issue by being a pretty viable direct competitor.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?

No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.

No other game? Do you play other tabletop games? Have you seen the errata for various editions of Dungeons and Dragons? Pathfinder? Star Fleet Battles? Advanced Squad Leader? Complex games with many books of rules and many factions? Avalon Hill published the first edition of ASL in a binder with hole-punched pages because they knew there would be errata and fixes and updates and wanted to make it easier to replace whole pages! It was a pretty innovative approach 30 years ago - maybe 40K should do the same thing.

Oh what a burden - you print your 1-2 page FAQ's for your core book and your codex/index/FW book, tuck them inside your rulebook and you have whole OUNCES extra to carry! 2-6 extra pages to keep up with amidst the hundreds of pages of your rulebook and codex and possibly index and possibly a second codex if you mix factions and possibly a forgeworld index because you want to use those models too! How dare they inflict this on us?!

Would you rather brimstone horrors continue to be their original incarnation? Honest question.

craggy wrote:

I was doing really well in Star Wars Battlefront 2 last night until someone showed me the new patch notes and I realised they nerfed my Wookiee. Oh, wait, no...because I don't need to remember if it takes 3 or just 2 shots with the bowcaster to kill someone, because that's not how video games work. I appreciate the intent but there really should be a better way to keep things updated.

Battlefront 2 = competitive? lol.
Joking aside, there ARE actual instances of changes like what you described. Destiny PVP for example, have had balance changes exactly like this, where a certain weapon might need an extra shot to kill from range, and it makes a difference of whether a weapon is considered in meta or not. MOBA's often have little changes like this, that can have a big impact, and you really should be keeping an eye on patch notes if you want to stay competitive.

I'm not saying GW's method of delivery is perfect, but 8th is still in its 1st year and its really their first real stab at it with 40k. I'd rather they give us a copy of the rules for free in a pdf FAQ than them making us buy a new codex to do it. Hopefully if we can give them constructive suggestions, they will come out with a better way of delivering these updates (just look at the new Shadespire card library for example).

 Desubot wrote:
At least they did address it instead of the standard wait 2 years for a new book.

Exactly! It's like a FREE FAQ is worse than paying $50 for a new rulebook!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Considering their epubs are literally unusable, to the point where I had to learn how to convert xhtml into pdf to be able to read the bloody things I BLOODY WELL BOUGHT, I don't think the digital department at GW is well staffed either.

They use the fixed layout implementation of ePub 3, which ibooks and Azardi (a Windows application) handle fine but many other readers don't bother with because the majority of epub3 format documents are free-flow implementation.

That's an application issue, not a GW issue. The warhammer digital site even tells you "use a fixed-layout compatible reader (we recommend Azardi)"

I've actually taken to writing in changes in my Codices (from erratas and CA).... makes it easier on me.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?

No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.

You *clearly* have never played anything written for 4th edition D&D or anything by White Wolf. 26 pages is nearly the size of the summary of their updates.

For a game with as much balance work as 40k has, this is damn nice for overall changes needed.

I'm personally willing to forgive the fixes as long as they are making an active attempt rather than just letting it be crap until the next edition.

If they had some sort of open community beta-testing, it may have fared better - but with the way the 40k online community is, the whole beta period would just be a big flame war. I've participated in a open beta for another game within a much less argumentative community and it was still a flame war half the time. People threatening to quit the game entirely - declarations that their lives have been ruined, and all manner of hyperbole about the hobby, company, and community. When people own 100s of dollars worth of your product, they feel entitled - which is just exacerbated when you ask them to help you with the rules.

Even if they played 100s of games in-house, there's no way that can find all of the kinks that will be found when 1000s of games are played by the actual players. All they can really do is hope to find the most obviously broken parts.

SirWeeble wrote:
I'm personally willing to forgive the fixes as long as they are making an active attempt rather than just letting it be crap until the next edition.

All they can really do is hope to find the most obviously broken parts.

Given how much changed, I assume that GW did address the obviously broken stuff from playtesting.

One may expect the next edition to be a lot cleaner, building off the current, cleaner foundation.

9breaker wrote:

craggy wrote:

I was doing really well in Star Wars Battlefront 2 last night until someone showed me the new patch notes and I realised they nerfed my Wookiee. Oh, wait, no...because I don't need to remember if it takes 3 or just 2 shots with the bowcaster to kill someone, because that's not how video games work. I appreciate the intent but there really should be a better way to keep things updated.

Battlefront 2 = competitive? lol.
Joking aside, there ARE actual instances of changes like what you described. Destiny PVP for example, have had balance changes exactly like this, where a certain weapon might need an extra shot to kill from range, and it makes a difference of whether a weapon is considered in meta or not. MOBA's often have little changes like this, that can have a big impact, and you really should be keeping an eye on patch notes if you want to stay competitive.

Eh, I'm competing against other players. Poorly. I preferred to give an example where I somewhat knew what I was talking about. Point is that it's a hell of a lot easier to manage balance in video games where the player has no choice in abiding by the newest rules. You need to take the time to download the update, but aren't required to know what it changes.

If GW puts out an FAQ making all Space Marines T3 all of a sudden, and you'd somehow managed to avoid all the whining online, you'd never know until you read the errata or someone pointed it out in a game.

Tight rules are important for us, not as important to GW. Time is money. If the rules are good enough to get us to buy the books and minis, they’ve done their job. Continuing to update them is a gesture of good will that will ideally make us happy and keep us spending money, but spending too much time isn’t worth it for them. That being said, I’m just not gonna pay for Chapter Approved, ever. If that discourages them from making any changes, so be it.

Not a very satisfying answer, for sure.

 EnTyme wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Dead tree carcasses? how Macabre.

We could go back to using Animal skin instead.

Or reeds pounded into fibers.

Slats of wood bound together in sheets with threads.

I'm partial to stone tablet myself.

On a more serious note, why would anyone need to bring a copy of every erratum to a game? Why not just bring the stuff that applies to your army? Same with Forgeworld books and errata. If you're using a Forgeworld model, of course you're going to need a Forgeworld book. How is this different from any previous edition?

Why does anyone bring any of that to the game? Do you just not own cellphones? You don't need the BRB, most of the forgeworld datasheets show up under an image search, all the faqs and errata are available to download, the only book you actually need to bring is your codex and if you have battlescribe and your tactical deck you don't even need that.

If you're bringing a bunch of books and printouts to a tournament it's because you wanted to, not because you had to.

Shh, you're poking holes in the hyperbole.
Honestly I'm surprised they haven't gone all the way and complained about needing to bring every codex along to games as well.

Half of the documents people list as being required (CA, Designer Commentary, FAQs) are so small nearly everyone has them commited to memory. If you asked me what was in the Designer Commentary, CA or FAQs I probably couldn't tell you exactly because I follow the rules of them by habit.

 supreme overlord wrote:
I dont mind 8th and I'm happy there willing to correct their errors, however, If the rules are going to change this much they should have the app available so are the rules are maintained in one place, OR have the rules available online for free so people arent spending $50 on a rule book that wont be good in a month or two

This. They should have given up the on codexes and just sold more lore/campaign books. It would have been better for the game. People aren't upset about them updating the rules, they are upset about buying a book that seems to almost immediately be out of date having to read a ton of erratas and FAQs. At least make it a binder design and have free replacement of obsolete pages at GW stores if you really want to stick with this model. Your new book should never feel old. Again, rules changes make sense, but why are you still delivering the rules in a way where they can't be quickly updated?

Daedalus81 wrote:
Be salty all you want. They've put out more codexes in 7 months than they previously would in 4 YEARS. I'm willing to give them slack especially since they've committed to addressing issues one week after release.

You know quantity is not be end and all...Quality would be good as well. Would help if they would have given workable quality index to begin with and then roll out quality codexes out at bit slower rate. Do index right and there wouldn't have even been as blatant power gap between index and codex armies but of course that was deliberate as well. GW doesn't care balance so they don't even try and they are definitely interested in cash grabs resulting in them deliberately making index weaker despite there not being any real reason they HAVE to be weaker.

If GW was interested in balance IG trooper from codex wouldn't have gotten such a power boost compared to points as they did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Right, but the issue is that the players clearly do. And the players, at least a strong number, seem to be the type of fethers who will look for anything and everything to abuse to make a "killer combo", which is why you see crap like that question; the obvious reason is that IF they were different spells, they would then stack and/or not be affected by the rule of one. Something only a WAAC powergamer would even remotely consider doing because it's "optimal"

So yes, while GW never thinks like that, the issue is the players do. So it's this constant running around, GW fixing the meta which is always one step ahead because the people involved with the meta are always looking for the next loophole/poor wording/unintended combo to exploit.

Thing is you don't need to have players looking for killer kombo's to spot these. You need to just read rules through with SOME thought. I'm making about as watered down lists as possible without much thought is this some uber combo. Took me about few seconds to realize deep striking primarch issue.

One non-competive player reading through would spot majority of these issues by single read through. When this is compared to guys that are PAID supposedly to do that it's rather embarrassing for GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If they had updated Horrors in the CSM book they would have done this same thing for the Index. Waiting for the Daemons book to drop before doing it only pushes the same exact update back to when the codex came out.

If I can point to something GW did "wrong" was bowing to the ridiculousness of the community and letting the indexes live beyond codexes. Indexes will become irrelevant through tournament action regardless.

That's wrong only if they would provide rules in codex. As long as GW insists on this "no models, no rules in codex" keeping indexes alive is required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?

No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.

Have you ever written anything and made a mistake?

It's not that "they didn't bother", it's that they made a mistake the first time. At least they've been bothered to fix it. It's roughly an errata per codex, not too bad all things considered.

This sounds to me like there's a lot of salt around horrors because of all those players that are disappointed they can no longer exploit their broken rules.

Again it's not that there's fixes. Issue is there's too much of this because they can't be arsed to do even simple cursory reading. That or they are totally incompetent seeing like 99% of active forum users here were able to spot these issues right away. Those FAQ's and errata's should be lot smaller than they are. Only thing keeping is GW developers can't be bothered to do even basic reading with some thought.

We are talking about guys that managed to write assault weapons so that they STILL as per RAW don't actually do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

9breaker wrote:
So, video games (especially online competitive ones) go through patches all the time, taking in new data and adjusting the game systems. Also, playtesting is never as good as data feedback from actual game play. You can playtest a video game all you want, but the moment it hits player console/PCs, issues are going to be found.

This is effectively what GW is doing. And this is what we want. The fact they are changing the rules and adjusting to the meta is a good sign. Why are you complaining?

But here issues aren't even found by playing but by quick reading codex once...Which shows either how incompetent GW staff are(they can't spot stuff pretty much everybody here did) or how little effort they put that they can't be bothered to read through once.

Seriously they had nobody in staff that could have read codex through once before final commit? Duncan? SOMEBODY? As it is they just wrote bunch of rules, put it onto layout and that's it by the looks of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
are people really complaining about getting quick updates to stats? I've been asking for years for them to simply release updated stats/values as the meta shifts or something is discovered to be costed wrong. What games are people playing that don't have patches to adjust power/ fix mechanics? Or would people on Dakka rather have years of a unit being over/under costed simply because it's annoying to have to print out a new FAQ every now and then?

These aren't even balance fixes(then again GW doesn't do balance fixes but just bunch of random meta changes to shift things around. They don't care what's balanced and what's broken. Just that meta changes so that people buy new models). Issue is crapload of badly written rules anybody who reads through with half a thought would have caught up that should have been caught up BEFORE codex was sent to printers so now we have silly long faq's and errata's when after release faq/errata should be fairly small.

Book wasn't even RELEASED yet there was already glaring issues found. Any half-decent rule writer would have caught with deep striking primarch issue. Or that assault weapons(still) can't actually advance and fire. Or numerous other silly screw ups they have done.

They are releasing half-arsed books and let actual proof reading be outsourced to players. Guess that's one way to buff up profit margin. Make customers do their job for free...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

SirWeeble wrote:
I'm personally willing to forgive the fixes as long as they are making an active attempt rather than just letting it be crap until the next edition.

All they can really do is hope to find the most obviously broken parts.

Given how much changed, I assume that GW did address the obviously broken stuff from playtesting.

One may expect the next edition to be a lot cleaner, building off the current, cleaner foundation.

Or total change in style. GW doesn't do small tweaks in editions but has habit of changing rules and then new wave of codexes in new style which rather than small tweaks shift entire balance upside down. Hell getting all codexes in same style and power level within edition is rather rare as style changes often enough midway.

GW isn't interested about balance. Deliberate shuffling of balance(doesn't matter how as long as it's different to previous) yes.