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.

The Space Wolves codes doesn't even hit the streets until this Friday, but it's already out of date. GW has ALREADY changed how some mechanics will work. See below:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/08/21/20th-aug-updated-space-wolves-warlord-traitsgw-homepage-post-2/

Why do we give this company our money? It seems like everything they do is half-assed. If someone told me that there is NO ONE working for the company with the tile of "40k Game Designer" and the responsibility of developing and releasing a coherent & cohesive set of game rules then I would not be surprised.

If someone said "All of 8th Ed was a beta test, but GW couldn't be arsed to hire playtesters so they just sold the beta version retail" then I would not be surprised.

In fact the only thing that would ever surprise me if if GW released a quality product that could attract customers on its merits alone.

I had intended to buy the SW codex this Friday, and paint my new models as Space Wolves. As of this morning I intend to use that money to buy cheeseburgers instead.

I haven't seen the page on Saga's before this FAQ'd one. I gathered from Previews that Saga's affected just the lone dude before achieving the "saga" trigger, and then affected a bubble (likely 6 inches) thereafter. I bet they forgot to put in that line in the codex saying what the saga does after it goes off. Hilarious. Unfortunate. Sloppy. However, I'm glad they're being honest about their mistake and pro-active.

That would just be an editing mistake. While you're right, sloppy, that's not what they're saying. Their official story is that they wrote the rules one way, did additional play testing, changed their minds, and wrote the rules this way.

The lie, of course, is that they did ANY play testing. Ever. That would require a Game Designer with a clue on how to do his job and a company that gave a damn about its customers. GW has/is neither.

Nor, it would seem, do they have any editors or proofreaders.

Games Workshop - Staffed entirely by interns recruited from the Gender Studies department of the Nottingham Evening College, Cheese Bakery & Muffler Shop.

I wonder if this was just damage control from incorrect information posted in the community preview. Why announce this before the book even releases, instead of including it in the next chapter approved?

There are several strong warlord traits in the codex, and they are all significantly worse now as Sagas. If this was intended as an upgrade for players who like narrative play, they forgot to check the impact on competitive lists. It just baffles me why they would nerf a codex in the week before it’s release, unless the real reason is that it’s an extremely overpowered army, which I doubt.

So y'see that line they say where the correct version is in the non-English language printings of the book but they messed up on getting the right version to the English printer?
Stay classy Dakka

phydaux wrote:
The Space Wolves codes doesn't even hit the streets until this Friday, but it's already out of date.

...how is it 'out of date and invalid' when they literally pushed the one-page fix out to you, free of charge- ahead of the book so you can use it as soon as you get it? These aren't bad at all, I kind of like this. What's wrong... are you just not used to playing Space Wolves or something? This ties right in to how they work, based on my experience with them. They're not going to be the same as regular Space Marines with a few unique characters and weapons, dude.

phydaux wrote:
Why do we give this company our money? It seems like everything they do is half-assed. If someone told me that there is NO ONE working for the company with the tile of "40k Game Designer" and the responsibility of developing and releasing a coherent & cohesive set of game rules then I would not be surprised.

How many actual games do you play? Because if this counts as 'half-assed' to you, then you're gonna have some difficulties.

phydaux wrote:
In fact the only thing that would ever surprise me if if GW released a quality product that could attract customers on its merits alone.

And here you are, upset about a product. You know what I do when WarMaHordes releases a crappy model or rule? Nothing, because I don't care about that game. I guess if I cared about it, it'd be different, and I'd be on their forums with these sorts of angry posts.

phydaux wrote:
I had intended to buy the SW codex this Friday, and paint my new models as Space Wolves. As of this morning I intend to use that money to buy cheeseburgers instead.

1- That's a lot of Hamburgers, don't do that. You'll get obese and it's not healthy. Get some veggies and stuff, buy a novel, get some tea.

2- If this is an error that's got you pissed off, you should see what kind of errors happen at the typical burger joint. Just warning you.

Tower wrote:
I wonder if this was just damage control from incorrect information posted in the community preview. Why announce this before the book even releases, instead of including it in the next chapter approved?

Only English language is FAQed, the other versions already have this information so the change was done some months ago.

Well this is pretty normal these days. Generally new games in computer also need updating right away.

I have called a waaahmbulance.

On a side note, am i the only one who think these sagas are too situational and abit on the lame side?

These aren't bad at all, I kind of like this

I think what makes me salty is seeing what the codex could have had (and apparently has in English), and having that taken away for something worse. If I had never seen the original warlord traits, I probably would have liked the Sagas. And part of me thinks the authors don’t realize that the new Sagas are worse than what they replace, which also annoys me.

For example, I think the saga of majesty in the English book granted a 12” aura of fearlessness. That’s pretty good (and probably only the third best original warlord trait). Now it makes the warlord fearless, which has zero in game benefit on a single model character, and instead extends the character’s aura 3”, which gets a big “who cares” from me. And good luck ever triggering that saga. In the one game in ten that it triggers, it will be epic (but even then, the aura from the saga will only have half the range of the printed version).

Timely FAQ and errata, the horror!

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
1- That's a lot of Hamburgers, don't do that. You'll get obese and it's not healthy. Get some veggies and stuff, buy a novel, get some tea.

2- If this is an error that's got you pissed off, you should see what kind of errors happen at the typical burger joint. Just warning you.

Good thing they're planning on getting cheeseburgers instead of hamburgers then.

You guys doing ok? You all seem very stressed over a rules update.

Maybe go outside? Take a deep breath, play some other games? A bunch of us are still having fun playing 8th edition however if you want to come back to the table.

Tower wrote:

These aren't bad at all, I kind of like this

For example, I think the saga of majesty in the English book granted a 12” aura of fearlessness. That’s pretty good (and probably only the third best original warlord trait). Now it makes the warlord fearless, which has zero in game benefit on a single model character, and instead extends the character’s aura 3”, which gets a big “who cares” from me. And good luck ever triggering that saga. In the one game in ten that it triggers, it will be epic.

Just running that over in my head- and don't get me wrong, it's something that should have been caught- but I can almost see this being something that could easily be overpowered. It's one of those "Oh, you're using that Warlord Trait? Let me put my models up, good luck finding a game" kind of things. I think, maybe- my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IronBrand wrote:
Good thing they're planning on getting cheeseburgers instead of hamburgers then.

That's even worse.

What's with the clickbait title?

"One page in a codex is updated. CODEX IS INVALID!"

I was expecting a "Codex is invalid" thread to have something to do with how it's 'invalid for competitive play' or how it's 'not allowed for matched play'.

This is silly. Yes, a single page had to be rewritten, and was done so for free and at no cost to you, and then distributed digitally so you could have a look.

Tower wrote:

These aren't bad at all, I kind of like this

I think what makes me salty is seeing what the codex could have had (and apparently has in English), and having that taken away for something worse. If I had never seen the original warlord traits, I probably would have liked the Sagas. And part of me thinks the authors don’t realize that the new Sagas are worse than what they replace, which also annoys me.

For example, I think the saga of majesty in the English book granted a 12” aura of fearlessness. That’s pretty good (and probably only the third best original warlord trait). Now it makes the warlord fearless, which has zero in game benefit on a single model character, and instead extends the character’s aura 3”, which gets a big “who cares” from me. And good luck ever triggering that saga. In the one game in ten that it triggers, it will be epic (but even then, the aura from the saga will only have half the range of the printed version).

Honestly Majesty was probably the worst OG one, because Morale really isn't that big of a deal in 8th (especially for Marines).
Pretty much all of them look to be buffs (or at the very least sidegrades for traits like Hunter) to the original sagas.

I was actually thrilled they found this, and reacted so quickly.

Tower wrote:
I wonder if this was just damage control from incorrect information posted in the community preview. Why announce this before the book even releases, instead of including it in the next chapter approved?

Because the change made it into the non-English version of the Codex. Only the English version was wrong.

Pretty much all of them look to be buffs (or at the very least sidegrades for traits like Hunter) to the original sagas.

Wolfkin was probably the best one of the printed traits. I don’t have the book, but if I recall correctly, it gave the plus one attack buff in an aura around the warlord. Now it only grants that aura on the turn after your warlord slays its fifth model, which likely isn’t going to happen on your first turn charge. That one is reasonable to trigger, but the fact that you need to trigger it to get the bonus that you have already in the printed book is a straight downgrade.

Hunter is easy to trigger, but then your word lord is way up in front of your army, or has already charged with other charging models, and the benefit from the aura is very hard to utilize. The models in the second wave that could advance and charge, either aren’t going to be within 6 inches of your warlord, or don’t need the benefit if they are already that close. It’s the fact that you don’t get the benefit immediately, that makes the Sagas pretty bad in my opinion.

 sfshilo wrote:
You guys doing ok? You all seem very stressed over a rules update.

Maybe go outside? Take a deep breath, play some other games? A bunch of us are still having fun playing 8th edition however if you want to come back to the table.

No joke, ever since I've started to look into other games I've become more relaxed and less caring about 40k i still play it but it's become more of a hobby and collection I own rather than a life style. Something gets changed i have weeks to adapt to it as I focus on other games. Also, less stress when it comes to painting because I bought some x wing so I don't feel like I'm overwhelmed.

Tower wrote:

Pretty much all of them look to be buffs (or at the very least sidegrades for traits like Hunter) to the original sagas.

Wolfkin was probably the best one of the printed traits. I don’t have the book, but if I recall correctly, it gave the plus one attack buff in an aura around the warlord. Now it only grants that aura on the turn after your warlord slays its fifth model, which likely isn’t going to happen on your first turn charge. That one is reasonable to trigger, but the fact that you need to trigger it to get the bonus that you have already in the printed book is a straight downgrade.

Hunter is easy to trigger, but then your word lord is way up in front of your army, or has already charged with other charging models, and the benefit from the aura is very hard to utilize. The models in the second wave that could advance and charge, either aren’t going to be within 6 inches of your warlord, or don’t need the benefit if they are already that close. It’s the fact that you don’t get the benefit immediately, that makes the Sagas pretty bad in my opinion.

Yeah Wolfkin is the main exception - that one is just a straight nerf.
I say sidegrade for Hunter because +2 cover is pretty situation, since you'll likely either be untargetable or not in cover after your opponent flees from combat anyway.

Yeah Wolfkin is the main exception - that one is just a straight nerf.
I say sidegrade for Hunter because +2 cover is pretty situation, since you'll likely either be untargetable or not in cover after your opponent flees from combat anyway.

Agreed

phydaux wrote:

The lie, of course, is that they did ANY play testing. Ever. That would require a Game Designer with a clue on how to do his job and a company that gave a damn about its customers. GW has/is neither.

Utter tripe.

Yeah, they ballsed this up big time. But to suggest they don't care is simply wrong. They are real people, passionate gamers, who spend all their time thinking about and working on this stuff. They finish their day at work, then go to the tables and play games. Every week. They care a lot about what they do.

To the OP, you do realize this is pretty much how every single video game launched works these days, right?

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
To the OP, you do realize this is pretty much how every single video game launched works these days, right?

SG

Right!?

We don't even know if it's the designer's fault. Someone might have just sent an early version of the document in error.

"We don't even know if it's the designer's fault. Someone might have just sent an early version of the document in error."

But that's just it - It IS the Designer's fault. There has to be SOMEONE who says "I'm the one responsible for 8th Ed being a quality product."

8th Ed is a major revision from previous editions - AP system, Armor Penetration, Wound Table, Initiative in melee, all majorly changed. OK, fine.

3rd Ed was a major revision, too. And 3rd Ed had ONE GUY who was "The Game Designer." His name was Jervis. And a couple of years after 3rd was released Jervis was []i]FIRED[/i].

People remember that, and now NO ONE at GW wants to be "The Game Designer" because if the game turns into a total Dog's Breakfast then it will be their job on the line. So now we have cock-ups a plenty and people saying "Awe, someone should have caught that..." when there IS NO "someone."

Stux wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:
To the OP, you do realize this is pretty much how every single video game launched works these days, right?

SG

Right!?

We don't even know if it's the designer's fault. Someone might have just sent an early version of the document in error.

It's not the end of the world or anything but something like this should've never happened. There should be checks in place to make sure whatever hits the presses is the final version. The other languages having the correct text indicates that they just sent it off to the presses without checking things properly.

This can't really be compared to a patch on video games either. GW never really gives us dates for anything until practically the day it's dropped so delays with a codex would largely go unnoticed whereas as video games shipped broken is usually a result of things being rushed to meet the release date they promised a year ago.

There's really no excuse when we're not given release dates that things should be rushed in any way. Additional play testing shouldn't happen after things are sent to the presses. They should write and test everything, rewrite and perform additional testing as necessary then and only then send it off to the presses. After that they should move that team onto their next project. I'm not saying something can't be broken or need adjusting. Just that there is no excuse for it to happen between the book being printed and the release date.

While I realize this is not a big deal, I do find it a little funny how quickly people will defend a lack of basic proofreading. It's unprofessional, regardless of if it is a big deal or not, yet it's constantly excused.

And mistakes are constantly over reacted to as well.