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.

You could probably grit roads with the amount of salt in this thread.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:


And I love the claim that GW isn't doing play testing in the edition where they actually thank the playtesters for each book in said book.

Nope no play testing it's all a lie. All their internal testers and guys at FLG are all paid actors to just say they play test. All the people at GW you see playing the game are actually well made cardboard cut outs.

Does that make Duncan a bit of left over Imperial Knight sprue sprayed with ultramarine blue that gets waggled in front of the camera?

Our lord Duncan is one of the few people who is not a cardboard cutout.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Our lord Duncan is one of the few people who is not a cardboard cutout.

If you go to Warhammer World with models painted in anything but GW paint, Duncan actually knows it. And if you do that with an Imperial Knight, he'll come to your house at night, open your fridge, and pour Lamian Medium in your orange juice.

This is beyond unacceptable. I really hope GW get their gak together and move their codexes to online living rulebooks for 9th edition because this once again proves they can't write rules for gak.

Banville wrote:
What store managers should do is download the pdf, print it out and make sure that anyone who buys a copy of the codex is given a hard copy of the new stuff with a proper explanation.

WHy the store manager? Is anyone anywhere buys a book the first thing they should be doing is checking for a errata. I regular check for errata in all my games. Its why I like stuff like PP's Warroom. I just hit the update button and know I'm now up to date.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This is beyond unacceptable. I really hope GW get their gak together and move their codexes to online living rulebooks for 9th edition because this once again proves they can't write rules for gak.

But then they can't charge us as much for those!

Reemule wrote:

Banville wrote:
What store managers should do is download the pdf, print it out and make sure that anyone who buys a copy of the codex is given a hard copy of the new stuff with a proper explanation.

WHy the store manager? Is anyone anywhere buys a book the first thing they should be doing is checking for a errata. I regular check for errata in all my games. Its why I like stuff like PP's Warroom. I just hit the update button and know I'm now up to date.

Not everyone is hip to the fact that GWs physical books are invalid on arrival.

Salt mine OP.

Mistake was made, then corrected in a timely fashion. Some would call that "proffessional".

 Insectum7 wrote:
Salt mine OP.

Mistake was made, then corrected in a timely fashion. Some would call that "proffessional".

No, some would call that covering their arse after the fact.

Why in the name of the Manperor were they playtesting the codex AFTER SENDING IT TO THE PRINTERS. You're supposed to do that BEFORE.

There is also the fact that only ONE codex in 8th has released without some sort of errata needed after the fact (Harlequins for those who care). Add to that the nonsense that is the Indexes, where Space Wolves almost have more Errata text than actual rules in the index. And that's not even counting the Chapter Approved "Balance" changes which wouldn't be needed in the "most playtested edition ever".

19 out of 20 is not acceptable as a failure rate for writing rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Salt mine OP.

Mistake was made, then corrected in a timely fashion. Some would call that "proffessional".

This is a broader discussion on the value of print codexes, not on whether or not they corrected the mistake. No one disputes that they're correcting this in the best way they can.

The point here is that printed codexes are a fixture in this game, yet no one can defend this really, other than with "but I like a physical book." The logistics behind a codex are constantly called into question. This is just the latest example.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Salt mine OP.

Mistake was made, then corrected in a timely fashion. Some would call that "proffessional".

No, some would call that covering their arse after the fact.

Why in the name of the Manperor were they playtesting the codex AFTER SENDING IT TO THE PRINTERS. You're supposed to do that BEFORE.

There is also the fact that only ONE codex in 8th has released without some sort of errata needed after the fact (Harlequins for those who care). Add to that the nonsense that is the Indexes, where Space Wolves almost have more Errata text than actual rules in the index.

I've eventually wanted to pick up Harlequins, so I'm curious what the issue was.

Didn't the fix happen so fast, only because there was a difference between the english and non english books?

It is good that they fixed it. And it ain't that bad, it is just one thing. If the book required like 4+ changes in units and rules, then it would be a much bigger problem.

On the other hand I do understand that if someone buys a limited edition, hearing it requires fixing day one is not something you want to hear. Same would happen if you bought a luxury car, and before it got shiped from China you hear you need to fix it, because one part does not work.

To err is human.

To arr is pirate.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Salt mine OP.

Mistake was made, then corrected in a timely fashion. Some would call that "proffessional".

No, some would call that covering their arse after the fact.

Why in the name of the Manperor were they playtesting the codex AFTER SENDING IT TO THE PRINTERS. You're supposed to do that BEFORE.

There is also the fact that only ONE codex in 8th has released without some sort of errata needed after the fact (Harlequins for those who care). Add to that the nonsense that is the Indexes, where Space Wolves almost have more Errata text than actual rules in the index.

I've eventually wanted to pick up Harlequins, so I'm curious what the issue was.

I'm saying the Harlequin codex is the only one that has not gotten any Errata. Every other codex has.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Salt mine OP.

Mistake was made, then corrected in a timely fashion. Some would call that "proffessional".

No, some would call that covering their arse after the fact.

Why in the name of the Manperor were they playtesting the codex AFTER SENDING IT TO THE PRINTERS. You're supposed to do that BEFORE.

There is also the fact that only ONE codex in 8th has released without some sort of errata needed after the fact (Harlequins for those who care). Add to that the nonsense that is the Indexes, where Space Wolves almost have more Errata text than actual rules in the index.

I've eventually wanted to pick up Harlequins, so I'm curious what the issue was.

I'm saying the Harlequin codex is the only one that has not gotten any Errata. Every other codex has.

Every book GW has ever released has had FAQs and Errata. Hell, almost every table game has needed tweaks. At least now GW does so in a timely manner. I remember back in 5th edition it could be months between things being released and any word on GW on fixes. Any complex game system will need patches.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
To err is human.

To arr is pirate.

Why would somali or far eastern pirates ever say arr? Or if we go back in the past the barbary or turkish pirates? Am not even sure if english speaking pirates used it that often. May as well be an american hollywood invention. Along the lines of chainmail armor cut with arming swords and full plate on migration era Arthurian "knights".

So saga of the hunter no longer offers +2 cover saves? That's disappointing, I was really excited about that...

Hunter seems pretty meh now.

So OP managed to blame bad rules in a game about toy soldiers on "gender studies" classes. Should have just titled this thread "How Millenials Are Killing Warhammer 40k". Amazing reach to find political enemies in this proof reading error there.

Edited by moderator. Please leave politics out of the discussion. Thanks!

Stux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
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.

You're right that it's unprofessional, I'm not arguing that. I'm sure internally someone is getting a stern talking to over this.

What I take issue to is people trying to claim the GW staff don't give a crap and are all wringing their hands watching the money roll in.

They are gamers like us, they are good people.

The hyperbole is unreal.

They might be nice people but they are amateurs pretending to be professionals. They should do job they are actually qualified to do

tneva82 wrote:

Stux wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
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.

You're right that it's unprofessional, I'm not arguing that. I'm sure internally someone is getting a stern talking to over this.

What I take issue to is people trying to claim the GW staff don't give a crap and are all wringing their hands watching the money roll in.

They are gamers like us, they are good people.

The hyperbole is unreal.

They might be nice people but they are amateurs pretending to be professionals. They should do job they are actually qualified to do

No, they are literally professionals. Many of whom have spent literally decades in the industry.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
[Hell, almost every table game has needed tweaks. At least now GW does so in a timely manner.

Lets not forget that they missed their own deadline for releasing the last FAQs because Adepticon (and then still managed to put the Index: Chaos text up in place of Imperium 2...)

I understand mistakes happen. I'm glad they tried to fix it. There are however two issues. First this is going to cause TONS of confusion. Second some of these are significantly worse than what they replaced. Saga of majesty is utter garbage. I'd consider it a downside to any named character forced to take it. This is an un-needed nerf to an already mediocre Codex.

Justyn wrote:
I understand mistakes happen. I'm glad they tried to fix it. There are however two issues. First this is going to cause TONS of confusion. Second some of these are significantly worse than what they replaced. Saga of majesty is utter garbage. I'd consider it a downside to any named character forced to take it. This is an un-needed nerf to an already mediocre Codex.

Yeah most of them seem pretty terrible now. The only ones that seem worth it are Wolfkin and Beastslayer. Saga of the Bear seems really risky trying to trigger the Deed, but it could be worth it.

The mistake doesn't bother me so much, but the changes themselves are very disappointing.

phydaux wrote:
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.

What does being in Gender Studies have to do with anything?

Justyn wrote:
I understand mistakes happen. I'm glad they tried to fix it. There are however two issues. First this is going to cause TONS of confusion. Second some of these are significantly worse than what they replaced. Saga of majesty is utter garbage. I'd consider it a downside to any named character forced to take it. This is an un-needed nerf to an already mediocre Codex.

I think that people are pretty hip to the fact that rules change. I see more people relying on Battlescribe than codices these days.

And Saga of majesty is really good on a character with any re-roll auras. Going to 9" gives you a lot of flexibililty.

Wolfkin and Warrior Born are both good traits for a choppy character, and not too hard to trigger the saga.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:

phydaux wrote:


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

What does being in Gender Studies have to do with anything?

I mean, why waste a perfectly good rant and not include an unrelated attack on things you don't like?

 Polonius wrote:

Justyn wrote:
I understand mistakes happen. I'm glad they tried to fix it. There are however two issues. First this is going to cause TONS of confusion. Second some of these are significantly worse than what they replaced. Saga of majesty is utter garbage. I'd consider it a downside to any named character forced to take it. This is an un-needed nerf to an already mediocre Codex.

I think that people are pretty hip to the fact that rules change. I see more people relying on Battlescribe than codices these days.

And Saga of majesty is really good on a character with any re-roll auras. Going to 9" gives you a lot of flexibililty.

Except to trigger Majesty's aura effect you have to kill the enemy warlord with your warlord. How often does that happen?

Primortus wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Justyn wrote:
I understand mistakes happen. I'm glad they tried to fix it. There are however two issues. First this is going to cause TONS of confusion. Second some of these are significantly worse than what they replaced. Saga of majesty is utter garbage. I'd consider it a downside to any named character forced to take it. This is an un-needed nerf to an already mediocre Codex.

I think that people are pretty hip to the fact that rules change. I see more people relying on Battlescribe than codices these days.

And Saga of majesty is really good on a character with any re-roll auras. Going to 9" gives you a lot of flexibililty.

Except to trigger Majesty's aura effect you have to kill the enemy warlord with your warlord. How often does that happen?

You need to kill the warlord to turn the trait itself into an aura, but the Warlord himself still gets the benefit of the trait even absent the Deed.

So, if your warlord kills the enemy warlord, then other characters will have expanded auras. But my understanding is that from the beginning of the game, the warlord himself gets the buff to his aura.

yeah you don't take saga of majesty for the deed of legend. you take it to have one guy with a 9 inch radius (people complain all the time about Gulliman's aura being so big.) to his re-roll aura. and if you really want some crack fearless guys, make logan your warlord and run him along side some wolfguard. boom every wolfguard unit within 9 inches is fearless and re-rolls their ones on attacks and wounds. potent.

 Polonius wrote:

Primortus wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Justyn wrote:
I understand mistakes happen. I'm glad they tried to fix it. There are however two issues. First this is going to cause TONS of confusion. Second some of these are significantly worse than what they replaced. Saga of majesty is utter garbage. I'd consider it a downside to any named character forced to take it. This is an un-needed nerf to an already mediocre Codex.

I think that people are pretty hip to the fact that rules change. I see more people relying on Battlescribe than codices these days.

And Saga of majesty is really good on a character with any re-roll auras. Going to 9" gives you a lot of flexibililty.

Except to trigger Majesty's aura effect you have to kill the enemy warlord with your warlord. How often does that happen?

You need to kill the warlord to turn the trait itself into an aura, but the Warlord himself still gets the benefit of the trait even absent the Deed.

So, if your warlord kills the enemy warlord, then other characters will have expanded auras. But my understanding is that from the beginning of the game, the warlord himself gets the buff to his aura.

An extra 3" on an aura doesn't seem worth it to me compared to +1 to wound or +1 attack.