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.

8th edition is pretty much a Beta test, not a finished product. There are too many glaring things missed in the design of the rules. Best examples are FNP & Reserves. FNP is such a universal thing that I think it should have been somewhere in main phases, like after Saves another point "Make wound negating roll if able". Same for Reserves - they should have been standardised, say, 2 basic rules for Reserves - Infiltration & Reserves (tags). One is for units deploying before game begins, another after, etc.
They should also have structured the game completely in technical, programmers way - Deploy - Who goes First - GAME BEGINS - Turn (Round + Round) - Between turns (Discard objectives) - ENDGAME, something like that (akin to Magic the Gathering for example).

The more technical and to the point about the rules you are, the better. They kinda already went that way, just not entirely.

They are collecting the most needed clarifications to their super basic, naked rule kit to add them in 9th, to see what can they live with and what without.

You might think it's bad... but think again - we are actually shaping now 40K we want to play.

Just gonna chime in again, that 7th despite is MANY flaws did not have the amount of ambiguity that 8th does.

That's where my frustration comes in. The things being addressed in the FAQs are things that should have been caught right away and addressed. The biggest example is deep striking lords of war.

Getting FAQs for stuff like, how does this weapon work? That's fine.

Entire FAQs for factions to the point where I feel like I'm a sisters of battle player in 7th were I needed a rule book 3 FAQs and a white dwarf to play my army is getting nuts


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What the guy above me said, we are pretty much beta testing this game.

9th is probably not going to see as many FAQs

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
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!

Dakka in a nutshell really. Very much the vocal minority to complain about receiving regular updates. How quick some people can forget that some codexes would have issues desperately calling for a FAQ for several years only being addressed in a new codex or entirely new rules addition.

More specifically with the latest Daemons FAQ. They caught an abusive loop hole early that allowed deep striking unintended units such as Primarchs and Lord of Skulls etc, and quickly patched that out - isn't that exactly what the community has been begging GW to do for decades?

Some people are never happy, GW are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 NurglesR0T wrote:


Some people are never happy, GW are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

GOOD SERVES THEM RIGHT!

A. Company puts out defective product.

B. Customers complain.

C. Company repairs product.

I'm pretty sure people are complaining about step A not step C. Like Chris Rock says: You don't get credit for doing what you should do in the first place:

"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having #$%@@!

I'm not sure what modicum of QC these guys have in house but it is woefully inadequate for the price that they charge for the product.

10$ paperbook/digitial codex/rules. Sure have at it, I'll write all over the margins of that p.o.s. 200$ collectors edition golden codex, that thing better be perfect...

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
-30 foot strawman-

That's a big strawman you made there. Make sure it doesn't fall over!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
A. Company puts out defective product.

B. Customers complain.

C. Company repairs product.

I'm pretty sure people are complaining about step A not step C. Like Chris Rock says: You don't get credit for doing what you should do in the first place:

"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having #$%@@!

I'm not sure what modicum of QC these guys have in house but it is woefully inadequate for the price that they charge for the product.

10$ paperbook/digitial codex/rules. Sure have at it, I'll write all over the margins of that p.o.s. 200$ collectors edition golden codex, that thing better be perfect...

Yes, THANK YOU. That is the exact reason people are annoyed.

 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.

Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
-30 foot strawman-

That's a big strawman you made there. Make sure it doesn't fall over!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

bananathug wrote:
A. Company puts out defective product.

B. Customers complain.

C. Company repairs product.

I'm pretty sure people are complaining about step A not step C. Like Chris Rock says: You don't get credit for doing what you should do in the first place:

"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having #$%@@!

I'm not sure what modicum of QC these guys have in house but it is woefully inadequate for the price that they charge for the product.

10$ paperbook/digitial codex/rules. Sure have at it, I'll write all over the margins of that p.o.s. 200$ collectors edition golden codex, that thing better be perfect...

Yes, THANK YOU. That is the exact reason people are annoyed.

What other game has as many diverse armies? I am really enjoying this edition but I’m not a cheese ball either.

 fraser1191 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.

Okay I'm sorry but, "write it correct the first time"? What exactly does this entail?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frankly the fact that these codexes aren't out and we have to deal with whats there for years is enough of a reason to not complain

Do it perfect or don't do it at all from what I can see so far.

It requires an open free beta test so that all the players can break the codex before it goes to print. That way, we can complain when our favorite codex cheese doesn't make it into print that we had to pay for

It doesn’t require no company does that.

Just like point values, rules for everything seems very arbitrary.
A marine is S4 T4 why? just cause/Its always been that way.

So I'd say most of the rules are trial and error for the most part while having an idea or theme backing them.

A lot of people like to spit and gripe about terrible proofreading, but even large market publications with full-time proofreaders will have errors all over the place. It's just more evident in a rules book because you need to closely examine those rules at some point and their exact wording and grammatical structure can subtly change the meaning. So of course you'll find more problems when you're closely scrutinizing something.

Outside of writing the rules like a lawyer, there's going to be issues. However, I do think that they could have made them clearer by sticking to a slightly more formulaic writing style in the rules sections. Short sentences. No commas with ambiguous subject references, consistant and precise terminology and grammatical structure.

Quantity over quality, however, has lead them to a successful new edition. I mulled over getting into the game again every few years or so, but was put off by a lack of codexes for the army i wanted most times - or the threat of an incoming new edition that made starting right then a bad idea. This time around, I was interested in an army that had a codex - so I made the leap and started again.

Quantity IS quality when the choice for a player is "codex or no codex?". low quality > nothing. It's hard to get a new customer to take the leap and buy 200-300 dollars worth of stuff when there's no codex.

I still think chapter-approved is BS though. Seems like a bad way to treat old and new customers. The codex should be folded into their budget for product support. It's no different than a software company issuing patches - although I imagine software companies pay programmers a wee bit more than GW pays writers.

The way I look at it to make myself feel better is to think of the CA as 8.5th ed - just like how 6th ed was overhauled in about a year (how we used to joke that 7th is actually 6.5th ed)

7th Edition was a band aid solution for 6th Edition. Now they are rapid firing releasing codices and quickly releasing faqs and errata. 8th edition eliminates a lot of the problems proceeding it such as Death Stars and I prefer this approach a lot better.

 skchsan wrote:
The way I look at it to make myself feel better is to think of the CA as 8.5th ed - just like how 6th ed was overhauled in about a year (how we used to joke that 7th is actually 6.5th ed)

CA was exactly two rule changes and a few point tweaks. That's hardly 8.5

I remember 3.5, that was a big change from 3.

Except FLG was literally saying "Don't count on Deep Striking Magnus or Mortarion" BEFORE THE CODEX DROPPED, meaning GW knew about it.

In addition, they fixed it in the most borked way possible-not some "Add 'The unit deep struck cannot be a Lord of War'", but instead with some funky keyword shenanigans that goes against what they've said before.

 Primark G wrote:
It doesn’t require no company does that.

Privateer Press does that. All of their models from now on are going under a process they call Community Integrated Design (or CID) wherein they will test a set of models for a few weeks, get community feedback and change aspects of the models and sometimes universal game rules based on the feedback and battle reports submitted by the community.

They did a community "open beta" for the shift from Mk1.5 to Mk2 as well but it was less structures and resulted in a lot of imbalances so they skipped it for the Mk2 to Mk3 shift and lo-and-behold Mk3 was a mess at launch.

 Primark G wrote:
7th Edition was a band aid solution for 6th Edition. Now they are rapid firing releasing codices and quickly releasing faqs and errata. 8th edition eliminates a lot of the problems proceeding it such as Death Stars and I prefer this approach a lot better.

Funny...Vexillia Bullgryns must not be a Deathstar then.

DarkStarSabre wrote:I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.

I am, as a rule, never happy.

 Infantryman wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.

I am, as a rule, never happy.

I don't think I have been happy since my mid teens. I distrust happy people, makes me think they are hiding something.

Also, more strawmen! We're not angry at them releasing errata, we're angry it was needed, in such huge amounts, in the first place.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

DarkStarSabre wrote:I swear to god, between posts like this and posts in FB groups there is nothing GW could do to make people happy.

I am, as a rule, never happy.

I don't think I have been happy since my mid teens. I distrust happy people, makes me think they are hiding something.

Also, more strawmen! We're not angry at them releasing errata, we're angry it was needed, in such huge amounts, in the first place.

except it's not that huge an amount. the Errata consists of about a half page per book. thats actually pretty good considering. especially when you consider how many "moving parts" 40K has

BrianDavion wrote:
except it's not that huge an amount. the Errata consists of about a half page per book. thats actually pretty good considering. especially when you consider how many "moving parts" 40K has

It's also the fact it's things that should never have been missed were. A good example I can think of is the fact that originally you only had a "default" CCW if you didn't have any other CCW, meaning certain builds of carnifexes could only make a single attack.

And as you can see from my signature, and the MASSIVE list stickied in YMDC, they have barely scratched the surface.

*shrug*
My 2nd most favorite game (CBT) has 3 basic rulebooks, over 230 pages of errata (actual "cut this, paste that" errata) for those and zilch for the splatbooks. i.e. roughly a quarter of the books has been replaced over time. I love it anyway.
The thing is that during the writing process a lot of stuff seems to work that falls apart when it goes out into the wild. This is true for every complex game, in videogames you just don't notice it as much as you don't have to read the code or remember anything as the computer will apply all changes, you just live with them.
Also keep in mind that a low amount of errata for a game doesn't mean the writing is perfect. It might just be that there's no capacity to fix it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:
-30 foot strawman-

That's a big strawman you made there. Make sure it doesn't fall over!

I could spend 2 minutes browsing your posting history and find all you have done is complain like GW kicked your puppy, spat in your milk and pushed you over in the sandbox.

You make snide remarks about a strawman while you fill the barn with your own.

Never change BCB. Never change. Without you the salt levels in the ocean would drop to such an extent it would destroy the coral reefs.

To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.

The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.

Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.

The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.

Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.

Mind, sometimes the Terms are amusing. Like how "Java shall not be used in the operation of a nuclear power plant," and how I shudder at the prospect of an IT outsourcing firm considering doing exactly that.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair BCB, most of your "massive list" and your sig, etc. are perfectly functional rules that most people around the world, not even on this forum, are quite capable of using without a second thought.

The fact that they're massive 'for you' indicates an obsession with detail that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.

Do you read all of the Terms of Service documents for everything too? That seems like something you would do. After all, you want tight, clear rules. That's what it takes.

Mind, sometimes the Terms are amusing. Like how "Java shall not be used in the operation of a nuclear power plant," and how I shudder at the prospect of an IT outsourcing firm considering doing exactly that.

Do you want that in your 40k rules? Do you want someone to have to write "Warhammer 40k should not be played inside a nuclear reactor, despite themes including radiation weapons."? Because hiring lawyers to write your rules gets you this!

Though I suppose it's clear, or whatever.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
7th Edition was a band aid solution for 6th Edition. Now they are rapid firing releasing codices and quickly releasing faqs and errata. 8th edition eliminates a lot of the problems proceeding it such as Death Stars and I prefer this approach a lot better.

Funny...Vexillia Bullgryns must not be a Deathstar then.

Could you elaborate further on that list? It sounds like it'd be dead slow and it's not like Bullgryns were testing hard on morale before.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
7th Edition was a band aid solution for 6th Edition. Now they are rapid firing releasing codices and quickly releasing faqs and errata. 8th edition eliminates a lot of the problems proceeding it such as Death Stars and I prefer this approach a lot better.

Funny...Vexillia Bullgryns must not be a Deathstar then.

Could you elaborate further on that list? It sounds like it'd be dead slow and it's not like Bullgryns were testing hard on morale before.

The Vexilla Defensor gives them a 5++ since it works on all Imperium Infantry. Slabshields add +2 to all saves (FAQ confirms that such save mods also affect Invulnerable Saves), and you can either use Incoming or Psychic Barrier to add another +1 for a 2++. Throw in a Medic, Priest, or some other bonuses to flavor.