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 "Master in Gravis Armour" apparently didn't get the memo and now has one less wound than Captains and Wolf Lords.

"Reiver Squad, Terror Troops" errata does not apply to Space Wolves, who do not have a "Reiver Squad" unit.

"Aggressors, Firestorm" errata doesn't apply to anything. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Deathwatch and Grey Knights do not have a "Aggressors" unit. Space Wolves, while having an "Aggressors" unit, do not have the ability "Firestorm" on the datasheet of said unit.

And those are just the technical errors.
Immediate questions from taking 3 seconds to read the errata:

Does "Shock Assault" apply to Ragnar Blackmane or not? His datasheet has the "BEAST" keyword, but he himself does not, but the errata explicitly states "datasheets (excluding SERVITORS and BEASTS)" thus the entire datasheet doesn't get the Shock Assault rule.

What exactly does "exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule" mean? Already tons of arguments about it.

And the issues in the codex itself:

Ironclads STILL get the melee bonus after swapping one arm for a gun.

Codex: Space Marine stratagems can now be used on non-Codex: Space Marine units

Why does the Captain on Bike get brought in from the Index but none of the other Bike characters?

While I applaud GW in taking two steps forward (Fixing Smoke Launchers on the opponents turn, Fixing Stormraven+Centurion Sergeant issue, Fixing Chapter Tactics on Successors) they seem to have taken 3 steps back in their half-arsed and shoddy errata.

Wouldn't this be in YMDC?

 Grimskul wrote:
Wouldn't this be in YMDC?

No, because it's not a rules question. It's a discussion on GWs continued incompetence.

Not really, i belive BaconCatBug S point is that it is, once again, a shoddy Job from gw in regards to rulewriting.

However one could've expected such due to circumstances surrounding the codex sm allready soo.

Edit: seems the cat was faster.

While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Still a shoddy Job and especially when we regard mirror traits and ruleswritters coordination and communication.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.

I've worked many days in my life. You can give clear, concise directions to competent people and somewhere something will go wrong.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.

Look if your really going to pendatic about things, then pretty much any gaming system other than chess is going to have issues. It's clear what GW intended with that entry and your essentially looking for things to complain about.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.

I'm sorry but yes it is, unless the person is a fething idiot or being deliberatly obtuse they know what it means.

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.

I'm sorry but yes it is, unless the person is a fething idiot or being deliberatly obtuse they know what it means.

I disagree, and so do GW. Otherwise, why go though the trouble of all the extra wording in the Shadowspear book for SW units?

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.

I'm sorry but yes it is, unless the person is a fething idiot or being deliberatly obtuse they know what it means.

Regardless though, the amount of RAI shouldn't be as high as it is, especially as it wouldn't have taken them much more time to add that sentence, wouldn't you agree?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.

I'm sorry but yes it is, unless the person is a fething idiot or being deliberatly obtuse they know what it means.

Regardless though, the amount of RAI shouldn't be as high as it is, especially as it wouldn't have taken them much more time to add that sentence, wouldn't you agree?

maybe, but the FAQ was pretty obviously a quick job put out as a tide over until the inevitable codex update. at the end of the day it boils down to "add this errata from codex space marines, and you have these new Primaris units"

@BaconCatBug have you ever applied to be an editor at GW. Since you love nitpicking so much?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@BaconCatBug have you ever applied to be an editor at GW. Since you love nitpicking so much?

Tbf, we would get more coherent rules and probably less / smaller faq

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@BaconCatBug have you ever applied to be an editor at GW. Since you love nitpicking so much?

I'm of the opinion he applied to GW and was rejected. and ever since has been obsessive about pointing out every single error. "IF ONLY THEY HIRED ME THEN THEY WOULD HAVE AVOIDED IT"

true or not it's amusing to think

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why does the Captain on Bike get brought in from the Index but none of the other Bike characters?

Probably because recent DW box has plastic SM dude with captain's loadout? And there's also RW upgrade bits to make one?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.

Yeah, because there is zillion things that they could have meant by "Reivers" and not, in fact, only one very specific unit, eh?

Just like turret guns are not turret guns, being within specified range is not being within specific range, ability being usable once per battle actually means once in your lifetime, etc etc etc

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Codex: Space Marine stratagems can now be used on non-Codex: Space Marine units

That's not an error, that's comedy gold. I will now forever enjoy the thought of the Imperial Fists taking a Deathwatch allied Det, and using the stratagem to turn the Watch Captain into a Chapter Master with an ability that can't be chosen for Deathwatch (thus himself) but can for Imperial Fists.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@BaconCatBug have you ever applied to be an editor at GW. Since you love nitpicking so much?

Tbf, we would get more coherent rules and probably less / smaller faq

I not too sure about this, but at what cost?

Irbis wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why does the Captain on Bike get brought in from the Index but none of the other Bike characters?

Probably because recent DW box has plastic SM dude with captain's loadout? And there's also RW upgrade bits to make one?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

Space Wolves have "Reivers", they do not have a "Reiver Squad". This is not a minor point.

Yeah, because there is zillion things that they could have meant by "Reivers" and not, in fact, only one very specific unit, eh?

Just like turret guns are not turret guns, being within specified range is not being within specific range, ability being usable once per battle actually means once in your lifetime, etc etc etc

wait, your telling me that everyone else has been reading it wrong? All this time...man GW sure needs to work on their stuff and hire BCB pronto.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

The "Master in Gravis Armour" apparently didn't get the memo and now has one less wound than Captains and Wolf Lords.

"Reiver Squad, Terror Troops" errata does not apply to Space Wolves, who do not have a "Reiver Squad" unit.

"Aggressors, Firestorm" errata doesn't apply to anything. Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Deathwatch and Grey Knights do not have a "Aggressors" unit. Space Wolves, while having an "Aggressors" unit, do not have the ability "Firestorm" on the datasheet of said unit.

And those are just the technical errors.
Immediate questions from taking 3 seconds to read the errata:

Does "Shock Assault" apply to Ragnar Blackmane or not? His datasheet has the "BEAST" keyword, but he himself does not, but the errata explicitly states "datasheets (excluding SERVITORS and BEASTS)" thus the entire datasheet doesn't get the Shock Assault rule.

What exactly does "exempt from the Tactical Reserves matched play rule" mean? Already tons of arguments about it.

And the issues in the codex itself:

Ironclads STILL get the melee bonus after swapping one arm for a gun.

Codex: Space Marine stratagems can now be used on non-Codex: Space Marine units

Why does the Captain on Bike get brought in from the Index but none of the other Bike characters?

While I applaud GW in taking two steps forward (Fixing Smoke Launchers on the opponents turn, Fixing Stormraven+Centurion Sergeant issue, Fixing Chapter Tactics on Successors) they seem to have taken 3 steps back in their half-arsed and shoddy errata.

Yup. If said editors worked in most other fields their employment would have been terminated very quickly.

All of the Chapter Masters in the update PDF have the wrong Chapter Master ability. They need to be updated to have the ability as given by the Chapter Master Stratagem, not have the old ability from the old Codex.

So a new thread on GW about shoddy rules writing ...?


Sounds like a day ending in "y" to me.

BCB, if it grinds your gears so much, why continue to play?
It's not because of the rules, obviously.

GW would never hire BCB, because they recruit for attitude/enthusiasm, not skill/ability/competence. Basically, if you're not a slavering fanboy, dont even bother applying.

This, as they say, works out about as well as you would imagine.

To drop the snark for a moment, that hiring policy obviously does work out OK on the retail side of the business, and on the purely creative side (art, miniature design, etc.). It falls down on the rules writing and editing side, because those are roles that really would benefit from a greater emphasis on competence over enthusiasm. It continues to astonish me that GW don't employ a single trained technical writer in their rules team. But that's apparently what they 'want'. They're a miniatures company that vomits out rulesets occasionally to give people an excuse/incentive to buy more miniatures. They're not primarily a game/ruleset producing company. As a company, they don't really 'care' about the quality of the rules. Obviously the people actually writing the rules care, but they're not competent enough to do any better at it because they're mostly ascended fanboys, not really professional designers/writers. Any who turn out to actually be good at it (Priestley, Chambers, etc.) tend to eventually go off and work for more 'professional' game design companies, where the game design is the focus, not miniatures sales.

(Full disclosure: I used to work for GW.)

In fairness it's easier to teach skill sets then additude. doesn't mean GW'd not benifit from a better writer team (that said I've not once seen a table top game without some errata) but wanting folks with a positive additude first and foremost is something I can understand. Someone with no passion who considers writing for the game "just another job" would be a problem as well

BrianDavion wrote:
In fairness it's easier to teach skill sets then additude. doesn't mean GW'd not benifit from a better writer team (that said I've not once seen a table top game without some errata) but wanting folks with a positive additude first and foremost is something I can understand. Someone with no passion who considers writing for the game "just another job" would be a problem as well

Its not just tabletops. Look at all the games with online versus play that get updates. A software patch is just an errata in code. And its frequently used because people take a rule that was written to be used one way and used it in another way that "breaks" the game.

To be fair, while BCB may have a penchant for picking on the most minuscule of irregularities, I don't think it would be a bad thing if Games-Workshop had someone with the same mindset. I mean, attention to detail can only result in good quality, right? Now while I don't fall on the side of "Games-Workshop's rules are an unmitigated disaster," I also don't agree that, "there're a couple of issues, but they're otherwise fine." For me, something more like, "there seem to be a lot of recurring and sometimes obvious issues, that Games-Workshop really ought to be able to correct, pre-publication, by investing in a solid quality assurance team," describes the issue as I see it. I mean, so long as Games-Workshop are charging the premium that they are, it's only fair to expect a premium product in return, and I don't think anyone can say that these books are of a premium quality and mean it.

The one that really turned my thinking on this was when Codex: Chaos Space Marines was published with the same issues that had been addressed in earlier FAQs. This highlights to me, that there was literally no quality assurance on that book, and for the prices they charge, that's unforgivable. Of course, since then, rather than getting worked up on a forum - and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular - I just made the conscious decision not to buy them. That's not to say I don't have the books I need, I just pay what I think they're worth, and right now, I feel like the money I've paid over the past two years has me covered for the next half a dozen or so of the books I'll be needing, at least until there's either a dramatic drop in cost, or a dramatic rise in quality.

And I'd actually like to encourage everyone to do the same. I mean, if you can take a moment to internalize, and ask yourself, "Is the quality of this book really worth the money it cost me?" and and truly answer yes, then there's no issue. But if you don't feel the quality is up to scratch, then you really shouldn't keep spending that money, as surely this is the one way to guarantee that nothing will change.

I not too sure about this, but at what cost?

Nothing, bcb and the rest of us finally get a coherent less faq intensive ruleset and bcb is preoccupied in his new Job.

It's literally win-win

BrianDavion wrote:In fairness it's easier to teach skill sets then additude.

Yeah, and on the retail side of the business this works great. Because effective salesmanship is ~90% having a contagiously enthusiastic attitude towards the product. It doesn't work for the rules writing side, because writing a clear and concise ruleset is mostly a combination of technical skill, natural aptitude and experience. It's no place for enthusiastic amateurs.

Breton wrote:A software patch is just an errata in code. And its frequently used because people take a rule that was written to be used one way and used it in another way that "breaks" the game.

I don't think many people have a problem with GW issuing patches for balance purposes or to fix corner cases that couldn't reasonably be foreseen. This thread isn't about those sorts of things. A more appropriate software analogy would be glaring coding mistakes that make the software glitch or crash. Rules that just plain don't work as written and have to be creatively reinterpreted. All the issues in BCB's OP should have been caught by even a cursory proofreading / QC process.

Ginjitzu wrote:For me, something more like, "there seem to be a lot of recurring and sometimes obvious issues, that Games-Workshop really ought to be able to correct, pre-publication, by investing in a solid quality assurance team," describes the issue as I see it.

This.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While some of these are valid, others are just picking at hairs to be negative. For example space wolves have Reivers and we all know what GW meant with that FAQ entry.

in an age of RAW rules lawyers destroying the game you NEED to pick hairs.

yes WE know what it means and can apply common sense.
but we all know there are allot of players out there who are complete and utter...Anchors.

 Duskweaver wrote:
GW would never hire BCB, because they recruit for attitude/enthusiasm, not skill/ability/competence. Basically, if you're not a slavering fanboy, dont even bother applying.

This, as they say, works out about as well as you would imagine.

To drop the snark for a moment, that hiring policy obviously does work out OK on the retail side of the business, and on the purely creative side (art, miniature design, etc.). It falls down on the rules writing and editing side, because those are roles that really would benefit from a greater emphasis on competence over enthusiasm. It continues to astonish me that GW don't employ a single trained technical writer in their rules team. But that's apparently what they 'want'. They're a miniatures company that vomits out rulesets occasionally to give people an excuse/incentive to buy more miniatures. They're not primarily a game/ruleset producing company. As a company, they don't really 'care' about the quality of the rules. Obviously the people actually writing the rules care, but they're not competent enough to do any better at it because they're mostly ascended fanboys, not really professional designers/writers. Any who turn out to actually be good at it (Priestley, Chambers, etc.) tend to eventually go off and work for more 'professional' game design companies, where the game design is the focus, not miniatures sales.

(Full disclosure: I used to work for GW.)

Is it really that bad? There's bound to be some sort of professional standard, right? You'd think there would be a bit of discussion over design elements and whatever.