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:

 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.

Battlefront did stickies for one of their books, to be honest I much prefer that way, they also had the sheet as a free download for anyone who wanted to print it themselves (or just use as is)

My annoyance is the cards changing (both in text and CP) as they are harder to update - would be a good one for an issue of WD, have updated cards for those that change - and to stick "2018 update" on the boxes that have updated cards

 BoomWolf wrote:
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.

Oh, i completely agree that 90% of the FAQs probably didn't need writing in the first place, but, due to the way they were written, and the fact that they didn't always take the "bigger picture" into account when writing the original rules, it has left openings for people to try certain things that would usually just be resolved with a pitying look and the word "really?".

However, in a fair amount of cases, you could argue that the "eye roll" interpretation has a valid case, because a lot of rules had/have a certain amount of ambiguity to them. So, my point still stands in a way - if GW did things with a bit more focus and thought initially, they'd save themselves so much time, money and stress with not having to deal with all the stupid questions like "can a unit that has more than 1 missile (that explicitly says can only fire 1 a turn) fire more than 1 a turn?"

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But that book is mostly paperweight because the rules and points are no longer valid.

Pull your head out of your arse, Codex Space Marines has 78 pages of rules (I've counted the rules pages so you don't have to) of that it has 2 pages of errata. even IF you conclude the entire points cost is invalide due t CA etc, and remove that you're still looking at a good 75 pages worth of rules, Paper weight my ass.,

What? You didn't know it was a shear job when you signed up?

Silly.

What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

Simple really – because GW expect the game to be played in a certain way, even if the rules are not clear, or even contradict that method of play. But, because of that expectation, they don’t always pick up on the instances of deviation until further down the line when it is played out in front of them.

I think of it as like a GW bubble that is a smaller bubble inside of a larger “casual play” bubble, which is itself, inside of an even larger “competitive play” bubble.

Almost like a, GW takes the core rules and their mindset, casual play takes the core rules, the sensible bits of the mindset and then includes their own (often) logical interpretations and required houserules, and then competitive, takes the core rules, logical interpretations, houserules and then throws in additional interactions not normally seen elsewhere and subsequent rules to address them due to it often being a RAW v RAI v Who Knows situation.

The problem however, is that we see the “casual play” bubble expand as the “competitive play” bubble expands, as there is often a link between the two (especially if you play in a very competitive meta/group), but, GWs bubble doesn’t seem to expand at the same rate, if it expands at all a lot of the time. This results in them being left behind, and is, in part, what drives a fair amount of the frustration at their supposed inability to keep a grasp on their game.

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an actual explanation of what the issue was exactly. Does anyone know? (Assuming the whole anecdote is not made up.)

 Crimson wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an actual explanation of what the issue was exactly. Does anyone know? (Assuming the whole anecdote is not made up.)

I think it was mostly around the whole "i have a jump pack and i'm 9" above you in terrain, so i have an automatic charge" thing.

That said, there were reports of him needing to clarify a LOT of things, but, i think that was more because they could use him as that resource, rather than it being needed.

 Crimson wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an actual explanation of what the issue was exactly. Does anyone know? (Assuming the whole anecdote is not made up.)

It wasn't made up, some of these interactions was captured on video streams.

The fly keyword charge was indeed one of them.

The targeting rules was another. The GW rules creator gave RAI which contradicted RAW and has now been fixed in FAQ2 (when declaring targets, you need to assign weapons with said targets).

Another was fighting through walls also captured on video stream.

DudleyGrim wrote:
TL;DR



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

I don't. That mistake was dumb and I'm happy its corrected.
Now scarabs on the other hand, those should be troop choices, with a rule that says they don't get objective secured.

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

That's the most worrying thing for me. You can't have 100% error-free books with the amount of information and sheer number of rules involved in a Codex. It just won't happen. However, when GW are writing rules and not actually understanding the implications of those rules, that's a bigger problem, IMO. The Flying charge rule was very clear, not disputable according to the rules and not actually in dispute by anyone, AFAIK. The rules "worked", even if not in the way that was intended. To me, that's the biggest indicator that GW need to do a bit more outside playtesting and take the feedback seriously, even if they think it's just pedantic nitpicking.

Honestly my impression is that the GW rules writers are likely so in-tune with each other that there's a whole rafter of un-written rules and conventions that they play with which are just "common sense" to them which they never think to write down or define. You can see this very clearly with things like terrain and how casually it is detailed in the rules.

I think that this results in their internal testing being different and their writing not as comprehensive nor detailed as it could be; which results in things happening which they just don't foresee.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly my impression is that the GW rules writers are likely so in-tune with each other that there's a whole rafter of un-written rules and conventions that they play with which are just "common sense" to them which they never think to write down or define. You can see this very clearly with things like terrain and how casually it is detailed in the rules.

I think that this results in their internal testing being different and their writing not as comprehensive nor detailed as it could be; which results in things happening which they just don't foresee.

There's probably a little truth in that.

Reading the rules, I'm certain they are coming from a place of assuming some common sense on the part of the reader. That some things don't need explicit detailing, because that gets in the way of getting started and having fun playing a game with your friends.

Pretty much every boardgame I play has some rules interaction we find that can't be resolved purely from the rules. But that's never an issue, we agree on a way to handle it and carry on. I'm just used to tabletop games working that way.

Aye and that's how I feel GW is approaching their rules. The issue is that it relies heavily on the player scene and then players. Inexperienced players won't even know the conventions; experienced ones will know them, but it will vary a lot between different areas; whilst those in the middle will be left very unsure.

It's a situation ripe for abuse by accident or intention.

I'd welcome GW keeping the rules as is and then, in the same book, expanding upon them in more specific detail.

 Smirrors wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

I've seen this mentioned several times, but never with an actual explanation of what the issue was exactly. Does anyone know? (Assuming the whole anecdote is not made up.)

It wasn't made up, some of these interactions was captured on video streams.

The fly keyword charge was indeed one of them.

The targeting rules was another. The GW rules creator gave RAI which contradicted RAW and has now been fixed in FAQ2 (when declaring targets, you need to assign weapons with said targets).

Another was fighting through walls also captured on video stream.

How he could not know when the previous FAQ SPECIFICALLY told to do it so? Who wrote THAT entry then? Does the head rule designer not even go through FAQ then? Because if he had even read through that FAQ he should know that because the FAQ told to do it like that in the first place.

Would make sense if there hadn't been that previous FAQ. Then him being surprised makes sense. But when you have had one FAQ which specifically tells to do it like that how he can miss that one? Obviously he did not write that one then but not even checking completed FAQ? Wouldn't that much at least be part of head designers job describtion? At least go through if not write whole thing.

BrianDavion wrote:

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

Pull your head out of your arse, Codex Space Marines has 78 pages of rules (I've counted the rules pages so you don't have to) of that it has 2 pages of errata. even IF you conclude the entire points cost is invalide due t CA etc, and remove that you're still looking at a good 75 pages worth of rules, Paper weight my ass.,

Well am sorry for your ass, because my GK codex is full of rules and it is a paper weight. Somehow when GW was making it, testing it and checking it rules, they decided it is an improvment on the index, which it was not, and a valid way to play the faction in 8th ed. And it wasn't like GK were breaking the game in 7th ed, at least from other people told me. So it can't be GW deciding to punish GK players for giving a NPE to all other w40k players.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Aye and that's how I feel GW is approaching their rules. The issue is that it relies heavily on the player scene and then players. Inexperienced players won't even know the conventions; experienced ones will know them, but it will vary a lot between different areas; whilst those in the middle will be left very unsure.

It's a situation ripe for abuse by accident or intention.

I'd welcome GW keeping the rules as is and then, in the same book, expanding upon them in more specific detail.

I read my codex a few times over last month, and I am a rather newish player, comparing to people that play w40k at my store since 2ed. And each time I read and compare my codex rules and costs, to what other books have, the whole thing seems to feel to me like a miss print. One can't build the validity of a game on the assumption, that if someothing is bad it is probablly and error and the players will fix it themselfs. How am I and my opponent suppose to fix the GK codex within the constrains of a 1 hour game? It is not possible. Ah and there is also the social part of it too. Two people who oppose each other have to ok something. People can't even accept the existance of opponents, much less given them even an inch of anything, and will go to great lenghts to make their opponents live as misserable as possible.

 Stux wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly my impression is that the GW rules writers are likely so in-tune with each other that there's a whole rafter of un-written rules and conventions that they play with which are just "common sense" to them which they never think to write down or define. You can see this very clearly with things like terrain and how casually it is detailed in the rules.

I think that this results in their internal testing being different and their writing not as comprehensive nor detailed as it could be; which results in things happening which they just don't foresee.

There's probably a little truth in that.

Reading the rules, I'm certain they are coming from a place of assuming some common sense on the part of the reader. That some things don't need explicit detailing, because that gets in the way of getting started and having fun playing a game with your friends.

Pretty much every boardgame I play has some rules interaction we find that can't be resolved purely from the rules. But that's never an issue, we agree on a way to handle it and carry on. I'm just used to tabletop games working that way.

Speaking as someone who spent nearly a decade working an offiice job: even if you assume that the person has no common sense and give them a paint by numbers way of dealing with things there will still be someone who won't get it or generally screw up something you spent hours making sure is as clear as humanly possible without standing in the room with them and holding their hand while they're doing it.

As soon as you believe something is idiot proof, an idiot will outsmart you.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
As soon as you believe something is idiot proof, an idiot will outsmart you.

Which is just further proof of the futility of wanting "error" free rules when any idiot with a keyboard can complain about how "confusing" the rules are because they don't understand things.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

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

Pull your head out of your arse, Codex Space Marines has 78 pages of rules (I've counted the rules pages so you don't have to) of that it has 2 pages of errata. even IF you conclude the entire points cost is invalide due t CA etc, and remove that you're still looking at a good 75 pages worth of rules, Paper weight my ass.,

Well am sorry for your ass, because my GK codex is full of rules and it is a paper weight. Somehow when GW was making it, testing it and checking it rules, they decided it is an improvment on the index, which it was not, and a valid way to play the faction in 8th ed. And it wasn't like GK were breaking the game in 7th ed, at least from other people told me. So it can't be GW deciding to punish GK players for giving a NPE to all other w40k players.

I think you misunderstood what was being said Karol. BCB was arguing that with FAQs and CA, a codex is largely a useless paperweight because everything in it is incorrect. I was pointing out that this isn't true because the errata/FAQ only covers a small fraction of the stuff in the codex. codex Grey Knights has even less errata having a grand total of 3 things errata'd. so if you go to a game with your Grey Knights, you're not going to be mostly relying on chapter approved and FAQs, like BCB seems to imply. you'll still need the codex. As someone with a grey knights army myself, I wish I was wrong here, GKs need some MAJOR Errata

 Crimson Devil wrote:
As soon as you believe something is idiot proof, an idiot will outsmart you.

100% truth.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
As soon as you believe something is idiot proof, an idiot will outsmart you.

I like how Douglas Adams put it:
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

 Smirrors wrote:
What is most interesting observing this latest FAQ is how GW own rules writer was surprised at Nova to see some of the interactions of his rules and his intent being played out.

How can the head rules designer not know how the community has been playing the game up until Nova.

Having a life? Maybe it's like a casual part time gig? Who knows.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

There are different errors in every book. It's not like they're constantly repeating the same exact error in every book.

Except the first few codexes where they forgot to limit the Relic stratagem to once per battle? Same error, different codexes. By your own logic, you agree with us.

I wouldn't call that a mistake as much as an errata as GW thought people would abuse it. For whatever reason of course as their thought process is insane.

I can't say I am overly shocked a rule designer saw the fact that his 'intent' of the rules was not playing out in a competitive setting as intended. People who participate in tourneys will most likely exploit any ambiguity they can in order to get an advantage.

I don't play in tourneys though so a degree of speculation on my part.

Bare in mind the rules writers are probably under strict delivery deadlines, much like my own job. You do as best you can in the time allotted.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
THIS JUST IN: Water is wet, snow is cold and humans make mistakes.

I've had to drop FAR more on textbooks that had errors (and this isn't to count the US Army regulations I've seen with errors despite having a bigger budget to spend on stuff than GW does) than I do GW's books. Mistakes happen and sometimes you can miss errors even if you re-read something dozens of times.

But errors in 100% of their materials? Of course, humans make mistakes. But, it shows how poorly GW is doing with their rulebooks when 100% of the product line has errors.

SG

There are different errors in every book. It's not like they're constantly repeating the same exact error in every book.

Except the first few codexes where they forgot to limit the Relic stratagem to once per battle? Same error, different codexes. By your own logic, you agree with us.

I wouldn't call that a mistake as much as an errata as GW thought people would abuse it. For whatever reason of course as their thought process is insane.

I would not even call it an errata, its more of "ofcourse its like that moron!" statement.
It literally has a higher pricetag for using it to gain 2 relics, so using it multiple time is so painfully obvious not how its supposed to work that its like "the rules don't tell me I'm not allowed to fire ballistic missiles on the ball during a soccer match" level of avoiding the obvious.

I think people who are shocked about Cruddace being surprised at Nova forget that GW plays the game in a bubble where everyone already knows what is intended, while the rest of us are usually left guessing what is intended.

That said, I was watching Warp Charged Gaming's podcast thing last night and they had a screenshot from the Facebook team that saw RAW the Fly word was only supposed to work in the movement phase, so it's not like this is a new interpretation, just one that apparently got flipped in the last FAQ or the team felt it was worth allowing to play where you used it in every phase to see how it all susses out.

That said, I still feel like the problem would have been solved by making the fly unit charge every unit it passes over allowing for them to at least overwatch. I mean I get why they did this (to get at least 3 turns out of the game instead of 1-2), but I feel like making the characters make multiple charges instead of one would have been an effective way to solve it (allowing the unit you jump over to pile in on you if you're close enough and swing as well).

Kdash wrote:

The problem however, is that we see the “casual play” bubble expand as the “competitive play” bubble expands, as there is often a link between the two (especially if you play in a very competitive meta/group), but, GWs bubble doesn’t seem to expand at the same rate, if it expands at all a lot of the time. This results in them being left behind, and is, in part, what drives a fair amount of the frustration at their supposed inability to keep a grasp on their game.

I think you have the bubbles switched, out of the 100ish local players only 5 are what I would consider competitive and out of those only 1 really is. Gw does need to be a little more clear and concise with their rules. They really should have a 100% competition rules set and then have matched, narrative, & open. Matched doesnt always mean tournament level of "creative" and screw over the other guy lists.

Back on topic, GW is making great strides but still tripping over minutiae. All of the weird interactions, ridiculous combos, etc...are the unintended result of GW writing the rules like they play them(e.g. megacasual) and certain kinds of players exploiting loopholes.

BCB is just being themselves, outrage levied at anything to do with GW.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Kdash wrote:

The problem however, is that we see the “casual play” bubble expand as the “competitive play” bubble expands, as there is often a link between the two (especially if you play in a very competitive meta/group), but, GWs bubble doesn’t seem to expand at the same rate, if it expands at all a lot of the time. This results in them being left behind, and is, in part, what drives a fair amount of the frustration at their supposed inability to keep a grasp on their game.

I think you have the bubbles switched, out of the 100ish local players only 5 are what I would consider competitive and out of those only 1 really is. Gw does need to be a little more clear and concise with their rules. They really should have a 100% competition rules set and then have matched, narrative, & open. Matched doesnt always mean tournament level of "creative" and screw over the other guy lists.

Back on topic, GW is making great strides but still tripping over minutiae. All of the weird interactions, ridiculous combos, etc...are the unintended result of GW writing the rules like they play them(e.g. megacasual) and certain kinds of players exploiting loopholes.

BCB is just being themselves, outrage levied at anything to do with GW.

compeitive players are their own unique bubble that's for sure, and yeah BCB is mostly looking for excuses for drama. but at the same time, yeah there is some truth, that game designers can't catch all their errors because everyone around them useally develops an intuative understanding of how the game is to be played.

We also don't know how many problems GW caught before the books were published.

The Dakka bubble posits that after the rules designers wrote the rules on the back of a napkin, they finish their day counting huge stacks of money swindled from those poor exploited gamers.

Seriously, this place becomes more like Infowars every day.