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.

 Egyptian Space Zombie wrote:

 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

They essentially tried this with AoS with a beautiful series of (admittedly pricey) campaign books with scores of missions and fluff and while they did release codex, they were just background and the free unit rules, so entirely unnecessary. This did not go down well.and they changed their ways.

Anyway, I feel like many commenting have perhaps never been involved closely on a large project. It's incredibly easy to overlook things that might seem obvious to a pair of fresh eyes at times. They're listening to what those fresh eyes have to say these days, rejoice!

tneva82 wrote:

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.

So your complaint is the printed copy of the codex isn't perfect? If their greatest sin is that you have to wait 2 weeks for them to correct some game mechanics, then I would take that. Better than going entire editions with no one addressing balance issues. I would take this over their old way of game design 11 times out of 10.

Like I said, even video games, whose budget for playtesting alone is probably 10-20 times higher than the development cost for a single codex, will never be perfect out of box. We still have day 1 patches. Plus I would rather give them some creative design space to make an interesting book, and if that turns out to wreck a meta, then reign it back a bit after the fact if the competitive scene does not like it, in a quick and reasonable amount of time. With each new codexe released, the meta will shift, and I think it is unreasonable to assume they have a crystal ball that tells them how to design a codex that is competitive, fun and balanced for a meta that will emerge 6 months later.

This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players. I genuinely can't believe anyone is complaining about this. The fact that the complaint is specifically related to horrors makes me think that someone went and brought a ton, perhaps off ebay and is now disappointed that they can't be exploited. Sucks I guess.

[MOD EDIT - Rule #1 - Alpharius]

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 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.

Aren't the Daemons in the CSM book supposed to have the Daemon faction keyword though? I thought the idea was they were the exact same unit as the Daemon codex Daemons, just presented in Codex:CSM for summoning purposes. You can't use them in a Heretic Astartes or <Legion> detachment anyway.

When you beta test a game most companies don't charge you for that.

What we have with 8th is early access, I don't do early access if I'd known that's what 8th was I'd never of opted in.

They are charging full price for an unfinished product and that's not okay.

When you beta test a game you're generally playing a glorified demo.

This is a correction cycle people have claimed they wanted for years.

hobojebus wrote:
When you beta test a game most companies don't charge you for that.

What we have with 8th is early access, I don't do early access if I'd known that's what 8th was I'd never of opted in.

They are charging full price for an unfinished product and that's not okay.

"Most companies" What is 'Steam Early Access'

[MOD EDIT - Rule #1 - Alpharius]

GW in not-really-changed-much shocker

not.

Still, there's hope for the general upwards trend to continue. Maybe on the back of their recent success they might start hiring decent staff instead of Orks.

 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.

That's really a pointless and intellectually dishonest metric.

Codex Daemons is 144 pages and has 1 page of errata. If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.

GW has produced 11 codexes over 5 months at 120 pages average, roughly 1,320 pages. Prior to that they had to put out 5 indexes for another ~750 pages. And a rulebook at 280 pages. And CA with 128.

So roughly 2,500 pages of content in just over half a year. And we're going to quibble about 62 pages of FAQ? Especially when the changes are considerably minor in nature (despite having larger consequences on power of lists)?

Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

That's really a pointless and intellectually dishonest metric.

Codex Daemons is 144 pages and has 1 page of errata. If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.

GW has produced 11 codexes over 5 months at 120 pages average, roughly 1,320 pages. Prior to that they had to put out 5 indexes for another ~750 pages. And a rulebook at 280 pages. And CA with 128.

So roughly 2,500 pages of content in just over half a year. And we're going to quibble about 62 pages of FAQ? Especially when the changes are considerably minor in nature (despite having larger consequences on power of lists)?

^ This guy gets it.

I dunno, we as players have to take some responsibility too. GW write a lot of their rules wonky, but they work RAI.

I see two types of players exist. Those that try to use the rules correctly to create a fun FAIR gaming experience, and those that interpret rules to gain an edge over their opponent, usually incorrectly.

Alpha strikes is definitely an issue, but it has been clear since launch they wanted this 40k experience to be played faster.

GW write rules to sell models and have fun. It's the gamers that "break the game" intentionally. Every single new release is immediately followed by a thread on "How to break the_______ faction. Top 10 Broken units, etc.

Don't act like we don't get pleasure from their failures. We should recall the game Complaint Hammer.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.

One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.

 Infantryman wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.

One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.

I think that's because of where it fell, a lot of changes people wanted either are coming in a soon to be released codex (so they are still fine tuning things, and didn't want to change a point value that'll just be changed a month or two later) or inolved player feedback that came right before the book went to print. The double conscript nerf (sorta, it was a commissar nerf but still), one in FAQ one in CA, is the best example of wires getting crossed in that manner.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I dunno, we as players have to take some responsibility too. GW write a lot of their rules wonky, but they work RAI.

I see two types of players exist. Those that try to use the rules correctly to create a fun FAIR gaming experience, and those that interpret rules to gain an edge over their opponent, usually incorrectly.

Alpha strikes is definitely an issue, but it has been clear since launch they wanted this 40k experience to be played faster.

GW write rules to sell models and have fun. It's the gamers that "break the game" intentionally. Every single new release is immediately followed by a thread on "How to break the_______ faction. Top 10 Broken units, etc.

Don't act like we don't get pleasure from their failures. We should recall the game Complaint Hammer.

Poorly-written rules invite abuse. One only need glance at YMDC to confirm this.

Stux wrote:
Aren't the Daemons in the CSM book supposed to have the Daemon faction keyword though? I thought the idea was they were the exact same unit as the Daemon codex Daemons, just presented in Codex:CSM for summoning purposes. You can't use them in a Heretic Astartes or <Legion> detachment anyway.

Not according to the codex, if they were meant to be the same GW probably wouldn't have gone through and removed the Daemon Faction keyword from everything in the book. It's relatively clear that their intention was that nothing in the CSM codex would share faction keyword Daemon with anything in the Daemon codex.

However, CSM Daemons have two keywords only, Chaos, <Allegiance>, that's it. There has never been any FAQ or errata indicating otherwise.

Chapter approved was a dropped ball.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.

One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.

I think that's because of where it fell, a lot of changes people wanted either are coming in a soon to be released codex (so they are still fine tuning things, and didn't want to change a point value that'll just be changed a month or two later) or inolved player feedback that came right before the book went to print. The double conscript nerf (sorta, it was a commissar nerf but still), one in FAQ one in CA, is the best example of wires getting crossed in that manner.

It's easy to forget the timeframe GW are working in with these books as well. Codex: Space Marines through to AdMech was likely finished and being printed up when 8th was released. They have to write these books like a year in advance so CA was possibly very rushed or was expected to have last minute changes based on feedback. Even then they probably forewarned the printers that there would be last minute changes.

That's really a pointless and intellectually dishonest metric.

Codex Daemons is 144 pages and has 1 page of errata. If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.

GW has produced 11 codexes over 5 months at 120 pages average, roughly 1,320 pages. Prior to that they had to put out 5 indexes for another ~750 pages. And a rulebook at 280 pages. And CA with 128.

So roughly 2,500 pages of content in just over half a year. And we're going to quibble about 62 pages of FAQ? Especially when the changes are considerably minor in nature (despite having larger consequences on power of lists)?

Also a bit dishonest tbh.
The actual rules sections for the Daemon codex are 41 pages long. The Eldar are 44.
Taking say 42 as an average across all 11 codices thats 484 pages of rules.

No one cares if the fluff has typos or discrepencies, the errata and FAQs only cover rules. Hence it isnt anywhere near 2500 pages of rules. Its about a fifth of that.

 greyknight12 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.

To be fair, games like DOTA and League are patched all the time, and often minor patches follow major updates. The obvious difference is that DOTA 2 is free to play, as are the "errata", while Warhammer 40K is not. The meta shifts, unexpected interactions happen, and abuses pop up. I don't have a problem with "patches" to 40K in general, however when the content is paid for I'd expect them not to miss the mark so dramatically the first time.

To also be fair, the concept of games like DOTA, DOTA 2 and LOL are micro transactions where you can end up spending just as much if not more then playing Warhammer if you get lost in it. They also tend to have beta servers. In every game I've played the dedicated, internal testing team can never foresee everything the player base will do. Thus patches are required to fix things that were out of the imagination of the testers, who are mainly there to make sure the game functions and is fun to play.

I personally like this approach. Maybe because i'm a big PC gamer and it reminds me of patches for games. You usually pay for a DLC in a game now anyway and that's basically new rules. Hell CA charges 2 bucks for blood spurts in Total War: Warhammer.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Stux wrote:
Aren't the Daemons in the CSM book supposed to have the Daemon faction keyword though? I thought the idea was they were the exact same unit as the Daemon codex Daemons, just presented in Codex:CSM for summoning purposes. You can't use them in a Heretic Astartes or <Legion> detachment anyway.

Not according to the codex, if they were meant to be the same GW probably wouldn't have gone through and removed the Daemon Faction keyword from everything in the book. It's relatively clear that their intention was that nothing in the CSM codex would share faction keyword Daemon with anything in the Daemon codex.

However, CSM Daemons have two keywords only, Chaos, <Allegiance>, that's it. There has never been any FAQ or errata indicating otherwise.

Huh. I stand corrected.

I would think they're supposed to have the faction keyword. If you've unlocked the Daemon stratagems I feel you should be able to use them on summoned Daemons. I suppose that given the FAQ, you still can't use them even on Horrors who do have the faction keyword though.

Yeah... Bit of a mess isn't it?

 Egyptian Space Zombie wrote:

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?

THIS. Imagine if GW took the codice and went in the "build-your-own-codex" direction? They can make faction themed binders, faction themed holed sheet protectors, sell datasheets in "decks" of papers so you choose which ones to put in - kind of like trading card binder collection system? You can also make faction themed stickers and stuff!! This way, whenever new datasheet or major FAQs come out, it just tells you to replace the old sheet with the new one!

They can also make a limited edition binders on releases. Imagine the upsell scheme!

And then half year down the line, re-release them in mini sized versions with less illustrations per page.

They can also provide free B/W PDF's of the datasheets, then sell "booster packs" containing colored datasheets with a chance of getting a holographic ones!

 Ratius wrote:

That's really a pointless and intellectually dishonest metric.

Codex Daemons is 144 pages and has 1 page of errata. If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.

GW has produced 11 codexes over 5 months at 120 pages average, roughly 1,320 pages. Prior to that they had to put out 5 indexes for another ~750 pages. And a rulebook at 280 pages. And CA with 128.

So roughly 2,500 pages of content in just over half a year. And we're going to quibble about 62 pages of FAQ? Especially when the changes are considerably minor in nature (despite having larger consequences on power of lists)?

Also a bit dishonest tbh.
The actual rules sections for the Daemon codex are 41 pages long. The Eldar are 44.
Taking say 42 as an average across all 11 codices thats 484 pages of rules.

No one cares if the fluff has typos or discrepencies, the errata and FAQs only cover rules. Hence it isnt anywhere near 2500 pages of rules. Its about a fifth of that.

See this section of my comment:

If you want to go by datasheets then it's 50 to 1, but the errata largely does not cover datasheets.

If you really want to get granular -- 50 pages of datasheets, 1 page of FAQ of which 1/6 is the intro, 112 words devoted to datasheet changes, and 337 words for FAQ.

The point is the complaint is a little bit silly.

 Infantryman wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.

One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.

Chapter Approved was likely written before players were able to give much feedback. I suspect it was finished not long after 8th dropped and based off initial feedback.

 Sim-Life wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This is a very ironic post. The fact that GW releases regular updates is proof itself that the game is the most play tested ever, if not by GW staff themselves then by us players.

One concern that still seems to hold some weight is that the recent CA changes didn't really reflect player feedback / discovery all that well.

I think that's because of where it fell, a lot of changes people wanted either are coming in a soon to be released codex (so they are still fine tuning things, and didn't want to change a point value that'll just be changed a month or two later) or inolved player feedback that came right before the book went to print. The double conscript nerf (sorta, it was a commissar nerf but still), one in FAQ one in CA, is the best example of wires getting crossed in that manner.

It's easy to forget the timeframe GW are working in with these books as well. Codex: Space Marines through to AdMech was likely finished and being printed up when 8th was released. They have to write these books like a year in advance so CA was possibly very rushed or was expected to have last minute changes based on feedback. Even then they probably forewarned the printers that there would be last minute changes.

Publishing lag is a big part of why PP dropped books altogether. Physical books leave you aiming so far in the future you have no idea how your last batch of changes will affect the game before you have to commit to the next.

The point is the complaint is a little bit silly.

I was just being pedantic

 skchsan wrote:

 Egyptian Space Zombie wrote:

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?

THIS. Imagine if GW took the codice and went in the "build-your-own-codex" direction? They can make faction themed binders, faction themed holed sheet protectors, sell datasheets in "decks" of papers so you choose which ones to put in - kind of like trading card binder collection system? You can also make faction themed stickers and stuff!! This way, whenever new datasheet or major FAQs come out, it just tells you to replace the old sheet with the new one!

They can also make a limited edition binders on releases. Imagine the upsell scheme!

And then half year down the line, re-release them in mini sized versions with less illustrations per page.

They can also provide free B/W PDF's of the datasheets, then sell "booster packs" containing colored datasheets with a chance of getting a holographic ones!

Yea, especially for the digital codexes. Making the change to the digital copy would be easy enough, and then reposting it on BL so that those who already purchased it could just re-download the most recent and correct copy. I don't understand why they have not clued into this. Then the PDF documents would only be relevant to those who purchased physical copies.

9breaker wrote:
Yea, especially for the digital codexes. Making the change to the digital copy would be easy enough, and then reposting it on BL so that those who already purchased it could just re-download the most recent and correct copy. I don't understand why they have not clued into this. Then the PDF documents would only be relevant to those who purchased physical copies.

I believe you have to buy the Enhanced Digital version to get this benefit. I know my enhanced digital copies update very regularly.

Never change BCB. Never change. I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.

Playerbase during 6th and 7th

WE WANT REGULAR FAQS!
WE WANT POINT UPDATES!
WE WANT META-CHEESE ADDRESSED AS IT RISES!
WE WANT REGULAR RULE UPDATES AND TWEAKS!
WE WANT UNIT CONSISTENCY!

GW in 8th

Okay then.

Regular FAQs.
Point updates in Chapter Approved.
Meta Cheese addressed in point updates and FAQs.
Rules updates to address concerns as they arise.
Unit consistency - did a daemon change in its Codex? We produce a FAQ giving the new profile to change it across the board in other books that it may have been published in!

GW FANBASE

WE'RE NOT HAPPY THAT WE'RE GETTING WHAT WE WANTED!