Errata for Chapter Approved 2019?

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**

Dakka Wolf wrote:
Considering their codex was out of date before it even dropped I could be generous and believe their proof reader is busy playtesting...but somehow that just doesn't fly.

That was by far a new low for GW, errata before the book was even on sale.

**BrianDavion**

p5freak wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!

Not this nonsense again If they play as many games as they claim, they played thousands of games already. Every veteran player can spot broken combos, or broken rules, pretty much after a few hours reading. A week before normal players get their hands on a new book you see new youtube videos about broken combos, broken rules from previewers.

Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"

**Ginjitzu**

BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"

My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

And as you've noticed, people continue to give GW excuses.

People really need to stop buying their printed products.

**BrianDavion**

Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

ohh I agree, there are times when GW missing something is forgivable, such as something interacting with obscure rules we didn't expect. I'll happily forgive typos because they're easy to slip in even after editing, but yeah when they just reprint something that was errata'd.. that's annoying

**Gadzilla666**

BrianDavion wrote:
Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

ohh I agree, there are times when GW missing something is forgivable, such as something interacting with obscure rules we didn't expect. I'll happily forgive typos because they're easy to slip in even after editing, but yeah when they just reprint something that was errata'd.. that's annoying

They obviously don't have enough people, with enough knowledge of all the various rules/units in the game, working on each book and without enough communication between the teams working on the various books. Especially for something as all inclusive as ca.

But back on topic maybe the delay is due to gw actually paying attention to some of the units they ignored/forgot about. Not likely but I can dream.

**Dysartes**

Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

Which errors did they reprint in Codex: CSM 2.0?

I can think of the Great Obliterator Mix-Up, but that was a new issue, rather than one from the first version of the Codex.

**BrianDavion**

Dysartes wrote:
Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

Which errors did they reprint in Codex: CSM 2.0?

I can think of the Great Obliterator Mix-Up, but that was a new issue, rather than one from the first version of the Codex.

IIRC they published the original text of the alpha legion tactic as opposed the the errata'd version of it

**Wayniac**

I mean "customers" finding bugs is a common thing and that will happen. But the level of GW's broken combos or just bad editing is roughly equivalent to shipping a software product that compiles and shows correctly on the first screen, and then points to the wrong record when you view the details for an item on the first screen.

The errors/mistakes/OP combos are so basic that's what casts shade on them saying how they playest. Even the most basic tests should reveal that something is off or is probably too good, yet every book has something like that slip through. The proofing errors may or may not be on their shoulders since it's probably someone else who is doing the editing into the finished book but there's still no excuse for fixing something in one place and then reverting it back in a new book because presumably, nobody could bother to check or remember it was fixed before.

**MrMoustaffa**

BrianDavion wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

Which errors did they reprint in Codex: CSM 2.0?

I can think of the Great Obliterator Mix-Up, but that was a new issue, rather than one from the first version of the Codex.

IIRC they published the original text of the alpha legion tactic as opposed the the errata'd version of it

Close, it's the alpha legion strategem, it's word for word same as v1, even though it had been faqd for well months at this point. Unless the v2 codex was printed a year in advance or something there really wasn't any excuse

**Dysartes**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Ginjitzu wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"
My experience of software releases leads me to agree: customers always seem to find gak no matter how thorough you thought your testing regime was, so I'm willing to accept this excuse albeit with a skeptical pull of my cheek. However, what this doesn't excuse is how they can re-publish the same errors in a new publication that they've already addressed and solved before, as in Codex: Chaos Space Marines vII. When this happens in my industry, customers tear us a new one, and rightly so, because it is always due to either a failure to adhere to quality procedures or there are no quality procedures. In Games Workshop's case, I suspect it may be the latter.

Which errors did they reprint in Codex: CSM 2.0?

I can think of the Great Obliterator Mix-Up, but that was a new issue, rather than one from the first version of the Codex.

IIRC they published the original text of the alpha legion tactic as opposed the the errata'd version of it

Close, it's the alpha legion strategem, it's word for word same as v1, even though it had been faqd for well months at this point. Unless the v2 codex was printed a year in advance or something there really wasn't any excuse

Yeah, that's weird - it's like there's no central reference point for these things which gets amended where there's an update.

I picked up my copy of CA19 on Saturday, and was discussing the MFM with the staff member who sold it to me - he wasn't amused with how the errors within it reflect on the company, due to how unprofessional it is. Can't say I blame him, really.

**Gadzilla666**

Guess they should invest in some of those new fangled cogitators.

**Slipspace**

The Blood of Baal errata is out now, so they were likely working on them between release and Christmas. Hopefully that means the CA errata and FAQ aren't too far away.

**Sterling191**

Faith and Fury just dropped as well. Making progress.

**Gadzilla666**

No answer on how the "flay them alive " strategem and atsknf interact I see.

**zerosignal**

I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

**Not Online!!!**

Wrote them yesterday about the points issues that are within it?
As in, 55 pts acolyths and some other choice things.

Spoiler:

have yet to recive an answer for that.

**Nazrak**

zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.

**Wayniac**

Nazrak wrote:
zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.

it just appeared more like they cared more about the game in the past, even if it wasn't true.

**Gadzilla666**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Wrote them yesterday about the points issues that are within it?
As in, 55 pts acolyths and some other choice things.

Spoiler:

33pts Chaos spawn for R&H
5 pts cultists for R&H (even though worse.)
80 pts malefic.

have yet to recive an answer for that.

I'll add those to my regular "pestering gw into submission " emails. Enough squeaking wheels may get them to take notice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Nazrak wrote:
zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.
it just appeared more like they cared more about the game in the past, even if it wasn't true.

That was when they were a smaller company run by actual players. Now? STOCKHOLDERS.

**Jidmah**

It's also relevant to note that many armies are not played regularly by the people working at the studios. Remember the call to send boyz to GW so they could actually field a 2k point army of orks?

**Voss**

BrianDavion wrote:
p5freak wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
From Facebook:

Why dont they just get it right 1st time instead of releasing a codex that id wrong?

Warhammer 40,000 wrote:A good question and one that is worth answering!

So, we have an internal rules team and around 20 playtesters. Lets say, they all play 3 games a week with a new Codex. That's around 40 games being played a week. So, perhaps 100-120 games get played in the playtest period. They catch LOADs of things that need tweaking, and discuss points values, how rules work together, the way they interact with various enemies etc.

Release day rolls round. We sell (picking a number out of the air) 50,000 copies of Codex: Orks. That means 50,000 games being played on day one. Maybe another 50,000 games being played day 2.

In 2 days, the community has played 100,000 games or more, against every possible enemy, and every possible scenario. They spot a few things our playtesters didn't (it's a vast and complex game after all!) and pass it on to us at 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

Our rules writers, eager to make sure everyone's gaming experience is as good as it can be, take those questions and produce these FAQ documents.

For our rules team and playtesters to get through 100,000 games, they would need to play 3 games a week for almost 5 years. We reckoned you guys didn't want to wait that long, you see!

Not this nonsense again If they play as many games as they claim, they played thousands of games already. Every veteran player can spot broken combos, or broken rules, pretty much after a few hours reading. A week before normal players get their hands on a new book you see new youtube videos about broken combos, broken rules from previewers.

Maybe so but it's not the first time I've heard a game dev say something like that. I've been told by devs for other games that "more errors get spotted in a week of release then in 6 months of play testing"

That's factually true... but if the internal rules team and committed playtesters are only playing 3 games a week each in the crunch period before the codex is finalized and sent off, they're doing far, far too little.
They can't match the entire player base in terms of games played, but that's just statistics, not a reason to do so little. Before the final version of the codex gets approved, the team and playtesters should be playing 1-2 games per day each, not 3 per week each.

And some of them should be doing fact, math and error checking. Comparing stratagems to similar stratagems (and the cost) and grinding out the analytics on various units. At this point they've done hundreds of codexes over the decades, there should be pre-populated databases with formulas to simplify comparing the rough ballpark stuff. And there should be a whiteboard titled 'These rules are problem areas, check and make sure we didn't do it again!'

**BrianDavion**

Wayniac wrote:
Nazrak wrote:
zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.
it just appeared more like they cared more about the game in the past, even if it wasn't true.

you mean when we'd sometimes go decades between codices with narry an errata or FAQ for it in sight?

**ccs**

BrianDavion wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Nazrak wrote:
zerosignal wrote:
I'd like it if they reversed the move over the last 20 years to being a miniatures company first and a games company second.

Time to move back the opposite way. Invest the gains of the last two years in properly trained and technically skilled staff.

I wouldn't hold your breath. They've always been a miniatures company – the first edition of Warhammer was conceived as a means of selling more figures. The suggestion that any of this is a recent development is demonstrably not the case.
it just appeared more like they cared more about the game in the past, even if it wasn't true.

you mean when we'd sometimes go decades between codices with narry an errata or FAQ for it in sight?

well it beat the hell out of this constant churn where you have to recheck the rules every few weeks.

**Jidmah**

It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.

**Daedalus81**

Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.

Yea I don't know what the hell people are smoking. Utter disdain for GW? Plain ignorance? Over-baked nostalgia? We may never know.

**ccs**

Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.

Eh, so we disagree.

**BrianDavion**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
It really doesn't.

I'd rather re-check the rules every few months than go another four years with defunct rules and no way of knowing how they are intended to be used.

Yea I don't know what the hell people are smoking. Utter disdain for GW? Plain ignorance? Over-baked nostalgia? We may never know.

some people hate change, any thing that means more change is thus bad

**Larks**

BaconCatBug wrote:
So, crazy idea: Physical Codexes become collectors item with revision 1 of the rules. You get a voucher in the codex for a rules-only, printable PDF version of the rules. The rules only PDFs get updated two weeks after release and on the first of each even month with errata, FAQs and points adjustments. Congrats, you've now crowdsourced all your playtesting and editing and pretty much ended piracy via the Gabe Newel method.

You know, you often get (sometimes deserved) flak for being unreasonable on these boards, but I agree with you here 100%. A digital "Player's Edition" copy of rules (and only rules) that is regularly updated is sorely needed.

**BrianDavion**

I know some RPG manafacturers do this. If you buy a Morphedius product (such as the Star Trek RPG) you're able to get a code for the PDF, if you order it from them you're even given the code the minute you order it.