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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
And we're back to the first reply to BCB; why do you (in general) keep buying them I you think they're not to an acceptable standard?

Because it's my hobby to answer rules questions on the internet. A noble goal, one of the most important in Human history to be sure. Also despite what other people might think I actually do enjoy playing 40k 8th edition, even if the rules aren't written properly most of the time.

If that's your hobby, why do you seem to complain about it so much?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

I did no such thing. I am asking them to not be 100% error full. That is very different. I would have been happy with even a single book without errors out of twenty one. As it is, we have twenty one out of twenty one rulebooks with errors. Some of which needed errata BEFORE THE BOOKS EVEN CAME OUT. We needed errata for a book of errata. How is that acceptable?

GW are able to get away with charging people extortionate prices for their books because they hold a monopoly over the 40k IP and generally don't have any competition in the same genre of tabletop game (any competition that hasn't self imploded anyway), when if they were charging what the books were worth they would have released them as free PDFs a long time ago.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

I did no such thing. I am asking them to not be 100% error full. That is very different. I would have been happy with even a single book without errors out of twenty one. As it is, we have twenty one out of twenty one rulebooks with errors. Some of which needed errata BEFORE THE BOOKS EVEN CAME OUT. We needed errata for a book of errata. How is that acceptable?

GW are able to get away with charging people extortionate prices for their books because they hold a monopoly over the 40k IP and generally don't have any competition in the same genre of tabletop game (any competition that hasn't self imploded anyway), when if they were charging what the books were worth they would have released them as free PDFs a long time ago.

I'm not sure you understand how IP works, and really do you have a set of war game books that didn't require errata? I don't. I have two or three kickstarted books that were 'nearly done' or 'ready for print' and turns out when you sick a few thousand different minds on the text they have wildly different understandings of the content, so they get errata'd.

I'm not sure the OP has indeed read all the 'errata' documents. Some of the so called errata, are not really correcting errors, but updating the rules to reflect feedback on how they work. There was no 'error' to correct, merely a rules mechanic that needed changing - it still worked before.

Possibly the fault is with GW for calling them Errata, a better title would have been Updates, or something to that effect.

And believing that there is a book, somewhere in the world, published without some kind of error or inaccuracy, is honestly living in a fantasy land.

The vast majority of people who buy GW rule books, and let's brace ourselves, don't nitpick the rules. I bet less than 1% go "Holy Terra! They said 'can' not 'may', we must stop the game dead in it's tracks."

It's important to harp on GW about rules until they embrace the digital age and create a free (or subscription based) living ruleset that is downloaded online. Especially now, since Stratagems, Datasheets, points, warlord traits, relics - all are potentially invalid in the codex.

If you buy a codex after chapter approved, will it have the correct points values? No. It won't. That's stupid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

I did no such thing. I am asking them to not be 100% error full. That is very different. I would have been happy with even a single book without errors out of twenty one. As it is, we have twenty one out of twenty one rulebooks with errors. Some of which needed errata BEFORE THE BOOKS EVEN CAME OUT. We needed errata for a book of errata. How is that acceptable?

GW are able to get away with charging people extortionate prices for their books because they hold a monopoly over the 40k IP and generally don't have any competition in the same genre of tabletop game (any competition that hasn't self imploded anyway), when if they were charging what the books were worth they would have released them as free PDFs a long time ago.

You want a book with 0 errors; i.e. one that's 100% error free. That's simply not going to happen, and I can't think of a single wargames publisher (quite possibly publisher in general) who manages that.

 Marmatag wrote:
It's important to harp on GW about rules until they embrace the digital age and create a free (or subscription based) living ruleset that is downloaded online. Especially now, since Stratagems, Datasheets, points, warlord traits, relics - all are potentially invalid in the codex.

If you buy a codex after chapter approved, will it have the correct points values? No. It won't. That's stupid.

If they started updating the books with the changed points values everytime CA came out they'd have to trash their left over stock and start marking the books with a version number to make it less confusing to people on which codex is the most current for rules and points.

And then the community would complain about needing new books everytime they change things.

They just need to put the update points on an updated points page set in every errata so we can make CA more of a purchase for the other stuff in it (like beta Sisters rules) than trying to keep your points current.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's important to harp on GW about rules until they embrace the digital age and create a free (or subscription based) living ruleset that is downloaded online. Especially now, since Stratagems, Datasheets, points, warlord traits, relics - all are potentially invalid in the codex.

If you buy a codex after chapter approved, will it have the correct points values? No. It won't. That's stupid.

If they started updating the books with the changed points values everytime CA came out they'd have to trash their left over stock and start marking the books with a version number to make it less confusing to people on which codex is the most current for rules and points.

And then the community would complain about needing new books everytime they change things.

They just need to put the update points on an updated points page set in every errata so we can make CA more of a purchase for the other stuff in it (like beta Sisters rules) than trying to keep your points current.

If its an online library that is updated when the FAQ/errata/CA is released then you wouldnt have to buy a new book.... If you bought a physical book your situation would be no different than it is now.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The OP of the topic is asking them to be 100% error free.

I did no such thing. I am asking them to not be 100% error full. That is very different. I would have been happy with even a single book without errors out of twenty one. As it is, we have twenty one out of twenty one rulebooks with errors. Some of which needed errata BEFORE THE BOOKS EVEN CAME OUT. We needed errata for a book of errata. How is that acceptable?

GW are able to get away with charging people extortionate prices for their books because they hold a monopoly over the 40k IP and generally don't have any competition in the same genre of tabletop game (any competition that hasn't self imploded anyway), when if they were charging what the books were worth they would have released them as free PDFs a long time ago.

They own 40k. Of course they have a monopoly on a product they own. Do you think 40k is some sort of freeform IP that they just have access to?

And well.. Yes, you are indeed asking for 100% error free. You are asking for no Errata (good luck), no errors (also good luck)

TL;DR

This may have been said before, but I am going to forgive GW of having typos and printing errors. This is simply the FASTEST I can ever remember getting codices. We've had like 1-3 per MONTH since 8th edition started. Stuff is bound to fall through the cracks.

Now having said all that: I WISH Deathmarks and Lychguard were actually troop choices =(

BaconCatBug wrote:This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 02/10/2018 11:49:15

Faintly ironic!

And honestly, complaining that GW have a ‘monopoly over the 40K IP’ is pointless and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of IP. I mean yes, of course they do... it’s an IP they created and own.

 Billagio wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
It's important to harp on GW about rules until they embrace the digital age and create a free (or subscription based) living ruleset that is downloaded online. Especially now, since Stratagems, Datasheets, points, warlord traits, relics - all are potentially invalid in the codex.

If you buy a codex after chapter approved, will it have the correct points values? No. It won't. That's stupid.

If they started updating the books with the changed points values everytime CA came out they'd have to trash their left over stock and start marking the books with a version number to make it less confusing to people on which codex is the most current for rules and points.

And then the community would complain about needing new books everytime they change things.

They just need to put the update points on an updated points page set in every errata so we can make CA more of a purchase for the other stuff in it (like beta Sisters rules) than trying to keep your points current.

If its an online library that is updated when the FAQ/errata/CA is released then you wouldnt have to buy a new book.... If you bought a physical book your situation would be no different than it is now.

Quite honestly: feth digital books. I had to use one for Sisters in 6th and 7th and I never want to go back to that being the way to play my army.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Quite honestly: feth digital books. I had to use one for Sisters in 6th and 7th and I never want to go back to that being the way to play my army.

You do know there is a magical device called a "printer" you can use to print digital books if you need a dead-tree-carcass-simulacrum for day to day gaming? You don't even have to print ALL the pages!

Mod Disclaimer: This is a joke. It is not intended to be "rude", "impolite" or other synonym.

Now, if GW made their rules (at least) available digitally in a format that updated as soon as the errata was live, I'd happily pay for that. They can still print the old style codexes with the fancy pictures and fluff for those who want an outdated copy of the rules for some reason.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Quite honestly: feth digital books. I had to use one for Sisters in 6th and 7th and I never want to go back to that being the way to play my army.

You do know there is a magical device called a "printer" you can use to print digital books if you need a dead-tree-carcass-simulacrum for day to day gaming? You don't even have to print ALL the pages!

Mod Disclaimer: This is a joke. It is not intended to be "rude", "impolite" or other synonym.

Now, if GW made their rules (at least) available digitally in a format that updated as soon as the errata was live, I'd happily pay for that. They can still print the old style codexes with the fancy pictures and fluff for those who want an outdated copy of the rules for some reason.

The formatting that way is still worse than the actual book, plus now I'm paying for a book, toner and paper (and likely a binder to put them in, and either a hole punch or document protectors). Why add costs to my gaming that way when I can just buy an actual book?

I find paper copies better for quick reference, and they're more drop proof it knocked off a table when compared to a digital device. Plus no batteries required!

But that book is mostly paperweight because the rules and points are no longer valid.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
But that book is mostly paperweight because the rules and points are no longer valid.

Well if you don't like lore, art or pictures of well painted models it is less handy by that arguement. That said, Post it notes and a pen fix that just fine (or just the pen if you want to be sloppier about it). That is why I said the points pages should also be offered as a part of the erratas for codexes instead of being in a seperate book.

I don't believe there's been a FAQ for the Starstriders or Gellarpox yet

Why does everyone who is against ebook version of the codexs seem to think that print codexes would cease to exist?

 Billagio wrote:
Why does everyone who is against ebook version of the codexs seem to think that print codexes would cease to exist?

I don't think they'd cease to exist, I just don't like dealing with them.

That said, there are some who think the rules should go digital only (Kirioth on Youtube for example). And while he has decent arguements for it, I honestly have found digital rules too cumbersome in the end.

 deviantduck wrote:
The vast majority of people who buy GW rule books, and let's brace ourselves, don't nitpick the rules. I bet less than 1% go "Holy Terra! They said 'can' not 'may', we must stop the game dead in it's tracks."

I do in fact nitpick rules, but moreso to fix incorrect rules and interactions rather than to break the game for my own advantage. I want a fair and balanced game for my opponent and myself. Winning and losing doesent matter if the game was played correctly. But if I have to reconsider, research rules wording, and record errors due to bad calls, and misinterpretations after a game, I often wish I had brought more questions up during the game. I don't, because I care to move the game forward, and trust that my opponent actually knows how to play their own army.

If you intentionally go against RAI to one up your opponent, or purposely break the game by rules lawyering, I pass on playing you ever again.

Rules in codexes should be the way they did "Codex Titanicus" years back, hole punched for a binder - CA then the same, with replacement pages

It is a given that grammatical and spelling errors will creep into any large body of writing. That is sadly just down to human nature.

However, what is annoying is that GW can't seem to pin down what they want with the rules. We have seen 3 iterations of how deepstrike works in just over a year. Yes, they may miss things during playtesting, and may not have foreseen every eventually. That being said it does come across as a being a bit sloppy when the company in question has so many years experience of making games. The staff may change at an alarming speed, but they all have access to previous editions of work to learn from.

So, here are a few questions to consider.

How many GW staff are dedicated to FAQs, erratas and general questions?
How many hours go into writing, discussing and testing those answers?
How many hours go into testing each release?
How many hours go into Chapter Approved?
How many hours go into problem identification and resolution?
Etc etc.

The point is, all of the above, and all the other related aspects, cost money. A fair amount of money.

Now, let’s imagine you took the vast majority of the hours and money spent on the above and instead piled it into preventing the above being requirements.
In the long run, it makes the customers happy, GW itself happy, the rules writers less stressful, and everyone saves money.

Since 8th edition started there has been a total of
640 erratas
391 faqs
(THIS DOES NOT COUNT INSTANCES WHERE 1 ERRATA AFFECTS MORE THAN 1 DATASHEET – i.e.

Pages 160, 161 and 188 – Grenade harness Change the AP value to read ‘-1’.

)

Now, erratas, I’m ok with – generally.
However, 391 FAQ related answers, not including the hundreds more than I expect have been submitted, is somewhat of an eyebrow raiser. Yes, some of the FAQs are questionable in the first place and are cases of players just not reading things properly, or GW answering other non-questions, but, the fact that there are so many questions hints at an underlying issue somewhere with the documentation of rules and intentions.

Ideally, the amount of FAQs coming from each codex should be around 1-2 per codex. Not the current 11.17 per document.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
There will always be minor mistakes (key being minor, not Space Wolves levels of errors) and the potential of questionable interactions, but, there doesn’t seem to be a conscious decision to monitor and reduce these instances right now.
I would argue that the best codex written so far was the Blood Angels codex, with 4 erratas over time and only 1 required FAQ.

Not really, the vast majoraty of FAQ answers are either faceplm inducing stupidity to even ask, or obvious rule lawyer nitpicking to get around the very obvious intent of a rule that cased the need to write it down.
I think only about 5% of the actual FAQ questions are valid questions that needed to be asked-and in a game of this sacle of rule and layers of them, and the release speed, its very acceptable even if 20% of them were rational questions.

As for erratas, they are most improving upon the writing, fixing typos and/or other writing issues (copypasta mistakes and such), I find no issue with most of them either.


The FEW actual changes they made to the game are honestly not that many, and not that extreme. they tended to do it step-by-step and tried to make minor adjustments when possible and only going for bigger ones when stuff just didn't pan out.

Balance changes are done in a very small scale outside of CA and it's massive points sweep. just a CP here/there, and some supplement rules that are going through a few months of beta beforehand.

The number of REAL screwups is honestly lower than expected, and the fact they get fixed (and at times really quickly) is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

GW should sell sticky note versions of the erratas so you can place them over the page/section.

I'm surprised this has 5 pages. Every edition has had errors, the only difference now is that GW is willing to correct them and listen to their playerbase.

Unfortunately, there are always Players determined to make GW regret ever engaging with us.

 skchsan wrote:
GW should sell sticky note versions of the erratas so you can place them over the page/section.

certainly for the cards...

 skchsan wrote:
GW should sell sticky note versions of the erratas so you can place them over the page/section.

That just gives them incentive to intentionally write the rules wrong so they can nickle and dime you for errata.