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.

Lmao, you didn't even read the article...

You're talking about wounds, you know; a multiple of something.

As per the rules, fewer applies to more than one of something.

Hoisted by your own petard. Never change, never change.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:

Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.

You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.

BCB will probably reply with "you're"

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the man in question does not know the difference between less and fewer; as evidenced by the very first sentence ITT.

Guess what, I am not paid to write forum posts, and I don't charge you for them. Once I start charging you £50 per post, then you get to complain.

A typo in a internet forum post made at 10pm after 5 seconds of work is not comparable to a professionally made book.

Also, you're wrong in any case: https://commonenglisherrors.com/one-less-thing-vs-one-fewer-thing-one-correct/

True, but by the same token any book of reasonable length contains typos. Even ones published by people who have copy checkers on staff.

Never a dull moment on Dakka if you are looking for people arguing.

To quote a recent article I read: "For some people complaining is the hobby."

 ClockworkZion wrote:
To quote a recent article I read: "For some people complaining is the hobby."

Pedantry is its own reward.

 Stux wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Come on people. If someone makes a factual statement and it makes you:

Ask them to leave.
Make a personal attack.

You are the problem. Your terrible, and you should be ashamed.

BCB will probably reply with "you're"

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the man in question does not know the difference between less and fewer; as evidenced by the very first sentence ITT.

Guess what, I am not paid to write forum posts, and I don't charge you for them. Once I start charging you £50 per post, then you get to complain.

A typo in a internet forum post made at 10pm after 5 seconds of work is not comparable to a professionally made book.

Also, you're wrong in any case: https://commonenglisherrors.com/one-less-thing-vs-one-fewer-thing-one-correct/

True, but by the same token any book of reasonable length contains typos. Even ones published by people who have copy checkers on staff.

When I was taking college courses my $300+USD textbooks had typos and grammatical errors. When I was in the US Army, the official DoD and DA documents/regulations we dealt with had errors as well (the old APFT manual said the uniform included knee high socks to prevent shin splints while running. Not compression socks, regular tube socks. Yeah.).

Basically no document is ever perfect, and this nonconstructive criticism is almost never helpful.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.

Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.

Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!

The difference is those companies fix the issues. It's been over 2 years and the Assault weapons issue hasn't been fixed.

 Stux wrote:
True, but by the same token any book of reasonable length contains typos. Even ones published by people who have copy checkers on staff.

Do they? I have plenty of books on my self which I've never noticed either typos or glaring errors in.

Sure there might be a typo hidden away in them somewhere, but to suggest that that is comparable to the rules sections of GW's books (which are actually reasonably short) having multiple obvious errors is disingenuous at best.


GW's publications - be it Codexes, White Dwarf, or Black Library have a grossly disproportionate number of errors and simple typos compared to just about anything else I read; perhaps only beaten by Amazon print-on-demand books.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Never a dull moment on Dakka if you are looking for people arguing.

Well... You say that, but we have this same debate every time there's a new release now.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
When I was taking college courses my $300+USD textbooks had typos and grammatical errors. When I was in the US Army, the official DoD and DA documents/regulations we dealt with had errors as well (the old APFT manual said the uniform included knee high socks to prevent shin splints while running. Not compression socks, regular tube socks. Yeah.).

Basically no document is ever perfect, and this nonconstructive criticism is almost never helpful.

Of course, errors happen, that is inevitable. But errors in 100% of the books you produce?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.

Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!

The difference is those companies fix the issues. It's been over 2 years and the Assault weapons issue hasn't been fixed.

It doesn't really need to be though. It's clear to anyone how that rule is supposed to work. It's only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue. Which means there is no issue.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.

Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!

The difference is those companies fix the issues. It's been over 2 years and the Assault weapons issue hasn't been fixed.

Go Don Quixote go!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
When I was taking college courses my $300+USD textbooks had typos and grammatical errors. When I was in the US Army, the official DoD and DA documents/regulations we dealt with had errors as well (the old APFT manual said the uniform included knee high socks to prevent shin splints while running. Not compression socks, regular tube socks. Yeah.).

Basically no document is ever perfect, and this nonconstructive criticism is almost never helpful.

Of course, errors happen, that is inevitable. But errors in 100% of the books you produce?

100% of the books I've seen have had some kind of errors in them, regardless if GW made them or not and I read a fair bit. To err is human. So unless you're some kind of perfect AI from the future of a filthy xenos who has transcended language errors then you're only calling the kettle black.

 Stux wrote:
It doesn't really need to be though. It's clear to anyone how that rule is supposed to work. It's only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue. Which means there is no issue.

So why fix the "Must fire single use weapons the first time you fire" issue? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."

Why fix the Aerial Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."

Edit: Typos

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Stux wrote:
It doesn't really need to be though. It's clear to anyone how that rule is supposed to work. It's only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue. Which means there is no issue.

So why fix the "Must fire single use weapons the first time you fire" issue? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."

Why fix the Ariel Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."

Yeah, you're right. They didn't need to bother with those either, good catch.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
100% of the books I've seen have had some kind of errors in them, regardless if GW made them or not and I read a fair bit. To err is human. So unless you're some kind of perfect AI from the future of a filthy xenos who has transcended language errors then you're only calling the kettle black.

I've played wargames with much more complex rules than 40K, written by much smaller teams (or one person), without nearly the degree of typos, misprints, and general ambiguity that 40K endemically seems to have.

Some errors are to be expected and I don't think anyone realistically expects a 100% perfect book. But when GW can't even put out a short errata without these kinds of issues, that's beyond 'typos are inevitable'.

catbarf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
100% of the books I've seen have had some kind of errors in them, regardless if GW made them or not and I read a fair bit. To err is human. So unless you're some kind of perfect AI from the future of a filthy xenos who has transcended language errors then you're only calling the kettle black.

I've played wargames with much more complex rules than 40K, written by much smaller teams (or one person), without nearly the degree of typos, misprints, and general ambiguity that 40K endemically seems to have.

Some errors are to be expected and I don't think anyone realistically expects a 100% perfect book. But when GW can't even put out a short errata without these kinds of issues, that's beyond 'typos are inevitable'.

Indeed. GW are the only games company I know that need to issue errata for their errata. Emergency errata no less.

Peregrine wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you can't make out which unit is meant with Reiver Squad or Aggressors I'm not sure the incompetence is on GWs side.

Kind of agree. This is a game meant for nerds to have fun with toy soldiers. GW is a models company and put that first.

The rules are more like Saturday morning cartoons like Transformers and TMNT: basically 22min commercials for the toys. They did not have the best plots of most coherent story lines AT ALL, but they did their job at selling toys to kids.
Treat the rules like this, use "common sense", roll some dice or move on
Not so common, unfortunately.
-

This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.

The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

BCB not playing the game they are so vehemently attacking is one of the weirdest situations. I'd be willing to bet that if all of the "problems"(theirs or GW) were fixed their(BCB) head would explode.

This really seems to be a problem with how people approach the game. GW does not play the game to screw over the other player or to wipe the floor with them. GW seems to play to have fun(subjective), if their idea of fun doesn't line up with how you(BCB doesn't) play then the only rational solution is to stop.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
To quote a recent article I read: "For some people complaining is the hobby."

Pedantry is its own reward.

Excuse you, I don't look at little boys like that!!!

/joke

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
To quote a recent article I read: "For some people complaining is the hobby."

Pedantry is its own reward.

Excuse you, I don't look at little boys like that!!!

/joke

You must be a fellow Church goer /joke about joke.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?

-

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

huh, thats strange, i follow the rules and the game never broke for me, guess i've been lucky. Let me ask people at my LGS if they had issues.... nope, none of them had a game break because of the ruleset. Its almost as if the rules were easily understandable for normal people. Maybe for a robot parsing them like assembly they would break, good things us humans have critical thinking.

Also, lets not forget that GW considers itself a hobby/miniature maker before a game maker. Clearly they chose willignly to allocate more resources to modeling than to the rules for a reason.

Could the rules be written better? no doubt about it. Do they need to to have a functionnal game? absolutely not. Posting how Gw is a bunch of lazy/incompetent people like you do everytime they release something is completely useless. you could easily just point out that x,y,z are poorly written without the need to attack GW and come out as a dick.

I mean, theres a reason most of your posts get locked....

Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?

-

Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

huh, thats strange, i follow the rules and the game never broke for me, guess i've been lucky. Let me ask people at my LGS if they had issues.... nope, none of them had a game break because of the ruleset. Its almost as if the rules were easily understandable for normal people. Maybe for a robot parsing them like assembly they would break, good things us humans have critical thinking.

Also, lets not forget that GW considers itself a hobby/miniature maker before a game maker. Clearly they chose willignly to allocate more resources to modeling than to the rules for a reason.

Could the rules be written better? no doubt about it. Do they need to to have a functionnal game? absolutely not. Posting how Gw is a bunch of lazy/incompetent people like you do everytime they release something is completely useless. you could easily just point out that x,y,z are poorly written without the need to attack GW and come out as a dick.

I mean, theres a reason most of your posts get locked....

It sounds to me like you've house ruled a lot of things.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Galef wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

If following the rules causes the game to break then the rules are not written properly.

Correct, but if you can extrapolate the "proper" way it SHOULD have been written, to a degree that the vast majority of peers would agree with, than what is the problem?

-

Who gets to decide what the rules "should" be? You? Me?

Yeah. Us, the people playing the game, the community. It's fluid and contextual.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.

Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!

This just really is a bad analogy. Really bad. As somebody's pointed out in another thread like this (we do go around in circles, don't we?), a lot of the errors BCB points to are the equivalent of compiler errors -- that is, fundamentally, you have conflicting rules from GW that require a 4+ if you have 2 people who really can't agree (and I think, as we've seen on YMDC, that really can happen in the real world, not just in the dakkasphere). I think that if one of those companies sold millions of dollars of software to another business and the code didn't compile, there'd be litigation. That division of the business probably wouldn't buy from Microsoft for at least 5 years. Yes, there are bugs in the code. But yes, those companies actually hire technical writers and editors to evaluate the documentation; ya'know, the very thing others in this thread are asking GW to do. I'm sure that people like Cruddace operate under crazy deadlines. But a company with a 27% net profit margin can pay some technical writing guy 30k quid to fix this problem, and shut us over here at Dakka up. That's not anything but cheapness on GW's part.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Because willingly deciding to publish an error-filled product is inexcusable incompetence and/or abusive business practice, even worse than the theory that GW tries to do better but is too incompetent to succeed. Stop making excuses for GW.

Right? There has never been crippling bugs in IBM, Microsoft, or Apple software. They learned their lesson early on and all future products never have bugs! Amazing what multi-billion dollar corporations can do!

This just really is a bad analogy. Really bad. As somebody's pointed out in another thread like this (we do go around in circles, don't we?), a lot of the errors BCB points to are the equivalent of compiler errors -- that is, fundamentally, you have conflicting rules from GW that require a 4+ if you have 2 people who really can't agree (and I think, as we've seen on YMDC, that really can happen in the real world, not just in the dakkasphere). I think that if one of those companies sold millions of dollars of software to another business and the code didn't compile, there'd be litigation. That division of the business probably wouldn't buy from Microsoft for at least 5 years. Yes, there are bugs in the code. But yes, those companies actually hire technical writers and editors to evaluate the documentation; ya'know, the very thing others in this thread are asking GW to do. I'm sure that people like Cruddace operate under crazy deadlines. But a company with a 27% net profit margin can pay some technical writing guy 30k quid to fix this problem, and shut us over here at Dakka up. That's not anything but cheapness on GW's part.

on the contrary, its a suberb analogy. Isnt the game playable? So it does compile, only when you start digging in specific operation you find some calculation errors, thats closer to what happens in 40k's ruleset.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Peregrine wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
If you can't make out which unit is meant with Reiver Squad or Aggressors I'm not sure the incompetence is on GWs side.

Kind of agree. This is a game meant for nerds to have fun with toy soldiers. GW is a models company and put that first.

The rules are more like Saturday morning cartoons like Transformers and TMNT: basically 22min commercials for the toys. They did not have the best plots of most coherent story lines AT ALL, but they did their job at selling toys to kids.
Treat the rules like this, use "common sense", roll some dice or move on
Not so common, unfortunately.
-

This is exactly the problem! GW publishes a low quality product because they're too lazy to do better, and not only do their customers keep buying they even defend GW and present this lack of quality as a good thing! It's this weird "oh yes, hurt me more daddy" masochism, except without any of the sexy fun parts.

The game seems to work fine if you do not attempt to break it. But some people actively try to do so and cannot help themselves.

BCB not playing the game they are so vehemently attacking is one of the weirdest situations. I'd be willing to bet that if all of the "problems"(theirs or GW) were fixed their(BCB) head would explode.

This really seems to be a problem with how people approach the game. GW does not play the game to screw over the other player or to wipe the floor with them. GW seems to play to have fun(subjective), if their idea of fun doesn't line up with how you(BCB doesn't) play then the only rational solution is to stop.

Calm down, you don`t have any rights to attack someone on personal level, just because you don`t like the person and don`t agree of what he/she is saying.

It`s true that mistakes can be found everywhere, but especially big and obvious could have been avoided, especially when they are cough by the community hours after the release.
We had the the stratagem problem in the daemon codex already, so why is it repeating again ?
After the great job they did with the Ynnari, removing all chances of exploits of keywords, i`m starting to thing its intentional.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why fix the Ariel Spotters stratagem using model names instead of keywords? Surely that too was "only people over analysing RAW who even realise there's any potential issue."

There's a stratagem to spot the Little Mermaid? That's some ultra-niche rules-writing there...