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.

Karol wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah I'm sure they put everything at head office on hold to rush this Necromunda article out

What if the studios are separate and have separate testers etc, but the interns that do the web updating, making of the pdfs are the same people for whole GW


I wonder which faction is going to get the most changes, or will it just be that the trail rules that everyone has been using since spring are just going to be made official, and that ends up being the whole FAQ.

WARHAMMER CORE RULES ERRATA 09/27/2018

Q: Why is this page blank?
A: Because the game, like you, is perfect.

Are you making fun of me because I have asperger? Or is this a joke?

How would I know you have Aspergers?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Excellent resource allocation from GW right here. Flag ship game that makes 80% of the money taking back seat to a mini game that 1/100 customers are interested in. Amazing.

Are you trying to be serious? Because all you're doing is making yourself sound ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I'm *fairly* sure many of the faction FAQs were updated same-day with the Big FAQ - not over time, one at a time. Other edits to them did happen, but there was a slate of updates with the FAQ.

Also, if they only spent 30 minutes on the big FAQ, why was it so much better at helping balance the game than 90% of what we see in Proposed Rules?

I'm not saying GW is great. I'm saying balance isn't as trivial.

You are correct. Don't let him gas light you. A couple of factions came in late, but everything was on the same day.

tneva82 wrote:
If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different?

The difference is that you're doing something more important than they are.

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different?

The difference is that you're doing something more important than they are.

Except GW made this sound important to them with the song & dance they made early in 8th about "this is how we'll handle FAQ & errata".

Then they missed their first major deadline, for the "March" FAQ - arguably for good reasons - and rebranded it to the Spring FAQ instead.

As I'm typing this, there's exactly one working day of September left - I can't see them doing this on Saturday, due to the Night-thingy big launch, and I suspect this is the sort of launch they want to do during the week so they have multiple people around if there are technical issues - so it currently seems reasonable to suspect that they may miss their second self-imposed deadline for a major game-wide FAQ this edition. An own goal, which could've easily been avoided had they rebranded the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ - they could still have said they were aiming for a September release, but still given themselves cover if they missed it...

So, yes, to some people this isn't a major miss. But it is still (potentially) another miss, on top of an ever-growing pile of other misses...

 Dysartes wrote:

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different?

The difference is that you're doing something more important than they are.

Except GW made this sound important to them with the song & dance they made early in 8th about "this is how we'll handle FAQ & errata".

Then they missed their first major deadline, for the "March" FAQ - arguably for good reasons - and rebranded it to the Spring FAQ instead.

As I'm typing this, there's exactly one working day of September left - I can't see them doing this on Saturday, due to the Night-thingy big launch, and I suspect this is the sort of launch they want to do during the week so they have multiple people around if there are technical issues - so it currently seems reasonable to suspect that they may miss their second self-imposed deadline for a major game-wide FAQ this edition. An own goal, which could've easily been avoided had they rebranded the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ - they could still have said they were aiming for a September release, but still given themselves cover if they missed it...

So, yes, to some people this isn't a major miss. But it is still (potentially) another miss, on top of an ever-growing pile of other misses...

Nothing of that makes it more important.

The only thing that would make it more important is of another company came along that made a better game with better minis

I think it's important for their business to make clear policy regarding erratas.

Firstly, they should stop calling it "FAQ". We do not need our questions answered (it's not the point to explain rules) but rules/balance changed - we need an errata.

Secondly, clear date should be provided. Check out each competititve, semi competitive and even facebook pages where even new players and casuals are asking what to buy and the most common answer now is "wait for FAQ".

It holds sales (i don't know how much but it is). Tournaments have deadlines. Moreover people are tired to play vs broken armies when they know it will change soon so can stop playing now, waiting for "FAQ".

So it's not funny how they wait till end of month without any update or info if it will be delayed or not because it is creating a huge stop both in playing and shopping decisions now.

Instead of "Big updates" system of more hot-fix and point adjustments with some beta-stage would be much better but that would require a huge change from "codex-like" point system updates provided in some sources like CA to online/scroll/app system that GW still don't want to provide for 40k. Their list builder "only for narrative/open play" is a joke.

That's just the nature of the beast. You'll get lulls before a system changes, just as you'll get upticks when the changes arrive and everyone scrambles to adjust.

You'll get delays because it's a thing that's complicated, with many moving parts, and many chefs in the kitchen.

You'll have slower sales because people will hold fire and see what the new hotness is.

None of this is really avoidable, all of this is fine.

Oh boy, people calling FAQ deadline important. I wonder what kind of jobs you have where the deadlines are less important than a GW FAQ.

In companies I've worked in, deadlines are connected to contracts and fines, often going into seven or eight digit numbers. Those are important deadlines.

A few people raging on facebook that will spend large wads of money on the game even if it's late by a couple of days? Yeah, that's "leaving early on Friday" levels of important.

Guess GW will go back to releasing FAQs "whenever", if this causes so much butt-hurt.

The whole idea was to test-pilot a (possible) system for FAQ-releases that addresses the concerns of internet-forums that went butt-hurt over "there's too many FAQs, we cannot keep up, HELP!!!".

Lol.

 Jidmah wrote:
Oh boy, people calling FAQ deadline important. I wonder what kind of jobs you have where the deadlines are less important than a GW FAQ.

In companies I've worked in, deadlines are connected to contracts and fines, often going into seven or eight digit numbers. Those are important deadlines.

A few people raging on facebook that will spend large wads of money on the game even if it's late by a couple of days? Yeah, that's "leaving early on Friday" levels of important.

It’s as simple as this, honesty.

If you say you will do something, then do it, if you can’t do it, say so, if you just ignore the problem it shows dishonesty, personally I want expecting the FAQ in September anyway so I’m not really bothered too much, I understand that as with the last one it was likely to be delayed and that’s where managing your own expectations comes in.

Long story short GW just needs to be honest and say it’s been delayed, no harm, no foul.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Guess GW will go back to releasing FAQs "whenever", if this causes so much butt-hurt.

The whole idea was to test-pilot a (possible) system for FAQ-releases that addresses the concerns of internet-forums that went butt-hurt over "there's too many FAQs, we cannot keep up, HELP!!!".

Lol.

So back to 7ed where they were unable to fix problems regarding invisibility, deathstars etc. and there was no any ETA regarding FAQ/updates so we had massive drop in playerbase. Yeah, good way to go.

 Jidmah wrote:
Oh boy, people calling FAQ deadline important. I wonder what kind of jobs you have where the deadlines are less important than a GW FAQ.

In companies I've worked in, deadlines are connected to contracts and fines, often going into seven or eight digit numbers. Those are important deadlines.

A few people raging on facebook that will spend large wads of money on the game even if it's late by a couple of days? Yeah, that's "leaving early on Friday" levels of important.

Good to know you are so unprofessional at your work you don't make it point to stick at your deadlines. Hopefully I never have to deal any business with you.

Forfiter wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Guess GW will go back to releasing FAQs "whenever", if this causes so much butt-hurt.

The whole idea was to test-pilot a (possible) system for FAQ-releases that addresses the concerns of internet-forums that went butt-hurt over "there's too many FAQs, we cannot keep up, HELP!!!".

Lol.

So back to 7ed where they were unable to fix problems regarding invisibility, deathstars etc. and there was no any ETA regarding FAQ/updates so we had massive drop in playerbase. Yeah, good way to go.

No. Back to June 2017 to December 2017, when they released FAQs and Errata (for 8th Edition) without a fixed schedule and people complained.

 Formosa wrote:
Long story short GW just needs to be honest and say it’s been delayed, no harm, no foul.

Didn't they say on Monday it'll be out inside a fortnight as they're still waiting on the translated versions? I'll try to find that post...

 Formosa wrote:


Long story short GW just needs to be honest and say it’s been delayed, no harm, no foul.

Long story short, that's exactly what they did in March and thus (presumably) would have done the same now, if they'd think the FAQ wouldn't be published in September.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Oh boy, people calling FAQ deadline important. I wonder what kind of jobs you have where the deadlines are less important than a GW FAQ.

In companies I've worked in, deadlines are connected to contracts and fines, often going into seven or eight digit numbers. Those are important deadlines.

A few people raging on facebook that will spend large wads of money on the game even if it's late by a couple of days? Yeah, that's "leaving early on Friday" levels of important.

Good to know you are so unprofessional at your work you don't make it point to stick at your deadlines. Hopefully I never have to deal any business with you.

I'm very sure that you are not qualified to judge the professionalism of my work

A deadline is a deadline, no matter the fines and contracts linked to it. Saying a deadline doesnt count because there is no meaningful consequence linked to it, is like saying a lesser crime isnt crime at all. You wont go to jail? Fine just do it.

That said, its still September, and GW will most likely release it the next hours/days. So its fine.

Cinderspirit wrote:
A deadline is a deadline, no matter the fines and contracts linked to it. Saying a deadline doesnt count because there is no meaningful consequence linked to it, is like saying a lesser crime isnt crime at all. You wont go to jail? Fine just do it.

That said, its still September, and GW will most likely release it the next hours/days. So its fine.

Yeah but they don't even call it a deadline, that's a term the community have put on it. Deadline in itself means there are consequences for not hitting it, which there aren't.

September is the window their aiming for, no more no less.

torblind wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

ccs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
If I say at work "september" for deadline and I don't deliver it it's bad. Why GW would be different?

The difference is that you're doing something more important than they are.

Except GW made this sound important to them with the song & dance they made early in 8th about "this is how we'll handle FAQ & errata".

Then they missed their first major deadline, for the "March" FAQ - arguably for good reasons - and rebranded it to the Spring FAQ instead.

As I'm typing this, there's exactly one working day of September left - I can't see them doing this on Saturday, due to the Night-thingy big launch, and I suspect this is the sort of launch they want to do during the week so they have multiple people around if there are technical issues - so it currently seems reasonable to suspect that they may miss their second self-imposed deadline for a major game-wide FAQ this edition. An own goal, which could've easily been avoided had they rebranded the September FAQ to the Autumn FAQ - they could still have said they were aiming for a September release, but still given themselves cover if they missed it...

So, yes, to some people this isn't a major miss. But it is still (potentially) another miss, on top of an ever-growing pile of other misses...

Nothing of that makes it more important.

The only thing that would make it more important is of another company came along that made a better game with better minis

There are lots of better games. Better minis? Not so many.

None of which matters a gnats chuff if 40k is the only game your LGS is playing and the next LGS is over an hour away.

Cinderspirit wrote:
A deadline is a deadline, no matter the fines and contracts linked to it. Saying a deadline doesnt count because there is no meaningful consequence linked to it, is like saying a lesser crime isnt crime at all. You wont go to jail? Fine just do it.

There is difference between going over a speed limit and theft. I go over the speed limit all the time, but I never steal anything.

No one can force you to deliver work at a deadline - you just have to live with the consequences that are connected to missing a deadline. I can happily accept getting fined 10-40€ for being too fast, but I won't be going to jail any time soon.

There are companies which have entire departments dedicated to whether it is more profitable to pay contract fines or fulfill contracts. There are even companies which provide this service to other companies.

beast_gts wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Long story short GW just needs to be honest and say it’s been delayed, no harm, no foul.

Didn't they say on Monday it'll be out inside a fortnight as they're still waiting on the translated versions? I'll try to find that post...

Don't think fortnight was mentioned, just that it would be soon.

GW definitely hasn't said anything about deadlines, which makes this more of a release window being hit or not. If we're missing them for the sake of better translations and consistency between languages then it's not as big of a problem in my book as just missing it because of laziness.

Also there was a comment about not calling these "FAQs" anymore. Looking at the actual FAQ page the individual documents are labelled "errata" (also AoS has a bunch of Dev Commentary which I'd like to see more of for 40k to be honest).

 ClockworkZion wrote:
GW definitely hasn't said anything about deadlines, which makes this more of a release window being hit or not. If we're missing them for the sake of better translations and consistency between languages then it's not as big of a problem in my book as just missing it because of laziness.

Also there was a comment about not calling these "FAQs" anymore. Looking at the actual FAQ page the individual documents are labelled "errata" (also AoS has a bunch of Dev Commentary which I'd like to see more of for 40k to be honest).

Has there been any mention of how precisely the Militarum Tempestus and Advisors and Auxillia rules interact?

beast_gts wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Long story short GW just needs to be honest and say it’s been delayed, no harm, no foul.

Didn't they say on Monday it'll be out inside a fortnight as they're still waiting on the translated versions? I'll try to find that post...

No - they said they were up late last night playing fortnite...and they have been doing that all month instead of making the big FAQ 2.

Looks like a Daemon FAQ is up. Limits +1 invul strat to +4 instead of +3

and limits artifacts to the faction keyword that is warlord

Not just demon. A bunch of FAQs got updated.

They're all going up now!

Looks like we made the deadline kids. Panic is over, now we can start a new panic over the actual changes.

It's live!

Oh I didn't even see the Big FAQ. I thought it would be near the top.

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/warhammer_40000_the_big_faq_2_en.pdf