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.

Friendly reminder that the r&h Index rules, 12 pages core, had 10 faulty pages in it.
Of which at this state only 2 pages have been cleaned up. After 2 years. Off which i regularly pointed them out to gw.

That makes on release a fault quota of 83,3% /page. Not even considering the point changes that just got overlooked.

Excuse me for wanting a non more then half faulty product.
Also since now come the reeeers that say i have unreasonable entitlement, i'd tolerate a 10-15 % fault/ page quota. Still high but workable.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.

I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.

They would have to have people playing or at least knowing the rules for the armies they check in depth. If the person checking doesn't know the army it is kind of a hard to pick up errors, or even less stuff that clearly won't work aka won't be bought.

Agree - personally, I wouldn't have caught the Space Wolf or GSC errors, simply because I don't know those armies at all, nor do any of my regular opponents play them.
Then again, it's not my job to know those things.

Well, at the very least you would have compared the points in the 2019 book with the 2018 book and the codices. And that should have immediately highlighted the 5pt to 55pt error as any unit having a 1000% increase in cost is pretty drastic.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Karol wrote:
That would explain why, if no one at the studio is interested on actualy working on new rules, the books are mostly a copy paste of an old book.

I mean i get copy/paste to save time, but JFC double check it.

They would have to have people playing or at least knowing the rules for the armies they check in depth. If the person checking doesn't know the army it is kind of a hard to pick up errors, or even less stuff that clearly won't work aka won't be bought.

Agree - personally, I wouldn't have caught the Space Wolf or GSC errors, simply because I don't know those armies at all, nor do any of my regular opponents play them.
Then again, it's not my job to know those things.

Well, at the very least you would have compared the points in the 2019 book with the 2018 book and the codices. And that should have immediately highlighted the 5pt to 55pt error as any unit having a 1000% increase in cost is pretty drastic.

As someone who works in print production, I'd say yes, ideally someone should have done this, and it should have been picked up. But it's very rare that things run exactly on schedule, and sometimes they get rushed, and that's when things get overlooked. Unfortunately, (and as much as I'd like it to be the case, both professionally and as an end user/consumer) "how long do you need to make sure everything's done meticulously and comprehensively?" is very rarely the sole consideration in scheduling these things.

 Nazrak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.

Nothing hyperbolic in this at all, I see.

It's easy to downplay all the very real complaints and reasonable desires people have from a very large company. Don't worry about that though, far be it from me to derail someone riding hyperbole train on a straight course to pretentious town.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Well, at the very least you would have compared the points in the 2019 book with the 2018 book and the codices. And that should have immediately highlighted the 5pt to 55pt error as any unit having a 1000% increase in cost is pretty drastic.

Maybe. Assuming it was my job to do that, there is actually a CA 2018 available, I'm not buried in work, there is time left to do that and there aren't more interesting things to do.

The correct way to do it would be putting "compare all values against those from the previous releases" as a quality gate in the release process, have a person which is responsible for doing that and then provide that person with the time and means to perform that task.
And that's assuming that all the changes are documented in a central place and not just edited into the layout pdf stored on a thumbdrive.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.

Nothing hyperbolic in this at all, I see.

It's easy to downplay all the very real complaints and reasonable desires people have from a very large company. Don't worry about that though, far be it from me to derail someone riding hyperbole train on a straight course to pretentious town.

Awww cute, but no. Valid complaints are valid. The volume and delivery method are the issue. As well as the intractable bickering. If you believe a certain poster you need one hundred and twelvety-seven documents just to be able to play any given game, which is untrue.

Expending energy writing politely to GW with concerns is appropriate. Discussing politely is great. Spending all day telling people they’re wrong to enjoy a ‘broken product’, blah blah you’re a white knight if you play GW etc. (yawn) is the issue. I’ll blow your mind for a second... it’s possible to be upset, express that constructively, listen to others’ views and not try to make everything into sides/camps/being right and wrong.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.

Phil Kelly is a stronger gamer than the rest of the team and he regularly uses the Stompa so stompa pays a tax for Phil’s gaming competence.

And where in this thread was impolitness?
I expressed the numbers in my case.
So you think that that is an acceptable ammount of faults?
Is pointing that out now also impolite?

nareik wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.

Phil Kelly is a stronger gamer than the rest of the team and he regularly uses the Stompa so stompa pays a tax for Phil’s gaming competence.

According to the studio, Phil Kelly doesn't own any orks anymore. According to Phil Kelly, he has lost interest in them a long time ago - 7th edition codex orks was allegedly written by Mat Ward, who hates orks.

 Jidmah wrote:

nareik wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.

Phil Kelly is a stronger gamer than the rest of the team and he regularly uses the Stompa so stompa pays a tax for Phil’s gaming competence.

According to the studio, Phil Kelly doesn't own any orks anymore. According to Phil Kelly, he has lost interest in them a long time ago - 7th edition codex orks was allegedly written by Mat Ward, who hates orks.

That's one theory down I guess.

They let somebody who hates orks write their codex? That's ridiculous.

Who wrote the Grey Knight's codex? Tzeentch?

GK wasn't written to be bad. Many of their problems are related to general rule changes.

 Jidmah wrote:

nareik wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

I still have no theory on the pitiful cut they gave the stompa compared to the others however.

Phil Kelly is a stronger gamer than the rest of the team and he regularly uses the Stompa so stompa pays a tax for Phil’s gaming competence.

According to the studio, Phil Kelly doesn't own any orks anymore. According to Phil Kelly, he has lost interest in them a long time ago - 7th edition codex orks was allegedly written by Mat Ward, who hates orks.

Things have turned around. Freebooter Stompa is seen periodically on the warhammer world tables.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
There is nothing hyperbolic on wanting something working one day 1 without need of FAQ or Errata in 2 weeks every time.

I don't think it is hyperbolic to not want errata to be necessary within 2 weeks.

However, FAQ should be in response to questions raised by the community, normally in relation to interpretation. If you're writing rules in English - even technically-written English - there are always going to be differences in interpretation, which in turn lead to questions, and an early FAQ to clear up these makes perfect sense.

Admittedly, it'd be good if the FAQ documents issues after 2 weeks did achieve that, but I'm not sure on the track record there...

Wow, this game really is better if you just stay away from the internet.

Seabass wrote:
Wow, this game really is better if you just stay away from the internet.

it's like they say, "those who are happy are playing, those who aren't are complaining on the forums"

Seabass wrote:
Wow, this game really is better if you just stay away from the internet.

Yes and no. There isn't one universal definition of how well Warhammer functions simply because the variance of play environment and house rules is so great, so if you have a great local play environment the Internet may only make things worse, but if you have a crap local play environment sometimes you find suggestions on the Internet that make it better.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.

Nothing hyperbolic in this at all, I see.

It's easy to downplay all the very real complaints and reasonable desires people have from a very large company. Don't worry about that though, far be it from me to derail someone riding hyperbole train on a straight course to pretentious town.

Awww cute, but no. Valid complaints are valid. The volume and delivery method are the issue. As well as the intractable bickering. If you believe a certain poster you need one hundred and twelvety-seven documents just to be able to play any given game, which is untrue.

Expending energy writing politely to GW with concerns is appropriate. Discussing politely is great. Spending all day telling people they’re wrong to enjoy a ‘broken product’, blah blah you’re a white knight if you play GW etc. (yawn) is the issue. I’ll blow your mind for a second... it’s possible to be upset, express that constructively, listen to others’ views and not try to make everything into sides/camps/being right and wrong.

Well, unless your eyes are surgically implanted into this thread and others like it, I don't see any reason at all why you need to ever bother with the delivery of valid complaints or their frequency of popping up.

I'd go ahead and turn your jolly trolly around as I never said people were wrong for enjoying whatever they want to, I said I don't enjoy it, and we deserve better and such consideration wouldn't be given a lesser company for their kings weight of errors and that they can do better. All of which I consider to be true. Now, I'll consider my time well spent bringing it up in whatever reasonably polite fashion I can. You can feel free to ignore it all if it is so unpleasant to thine eyes, otherwise all you're doing is complaining about complaining which while quaint would also be a bit pointless, from a certain point of view.

 Jidmah wrote:
GK wasn't written to be bad. Many of their problems are related to general rule changes.

True. If you write a codex with turn 1 deep strike in mind, no rule of 3 etc. And then remove those options from matched play, the codex kind of stops working as intended. One can of course play with points, and if termintors were suddenly running around costing 15pts, GK would be an OP army, as long as other marines didn't get point drops too. They require either a drastic rule adjustment, the way pods and stratagems allow other marines drop stuff turn one 9" away from opponents. Or they have the rewrite the codex from ground up, throw out the old rules. no more copy paste codex.

The chance of that happening without someone really liking GK at the studio is probably close to zero %.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Awww cute, but no. Valid complaints are valid. The volume and delivery method are the issue. As well as the intractable bickering. If you believe a certain poster you need one hundred and twelvety-seven documents just to be able to play any given game, which is untrue.

Expending energy writing politely to GW with concerns is appropriate. Discussing politely is great. Spending all day telling people they’re wrong to enjoy a ‘broken product’, blah blah you’re a white knight if you play GW etc. (yawn) is the issue. I’ll blow your mind for a second... it’s possible to be upset, express that constructively, listen to others’ views and not try to make everything into sides/camps/being right and wrong.

How long does one have to wait for good rule updates, to be allowed to post ones dissatisfaction with an armies rules? Is 2-3 editions enough, or does not have to wait longer?

Honestly , there shouldn't even be any edition long issues in regards to rules for any faction.
GW has the tools to update their balance in the fly. GW just continously ignores them in order to make money by clinging to the old method of just releasing more books.

Honestly, I think we're in part feeding some trolling here gentlemen, as even the people who " Don't like to read " the complaints don't say they are wrong. So it's cool to complain without waiting countless editions.

Like for instance I made this online handle way back when the Dark Angels got their 4th edition codex. I was pretty pissed off as that book was total poo poo. The same kinda people told me to relax and love it, and it took many many years for that awful codex to be fixed.

On the bright side, it also came with errors, which after like 2 years they fixed, then copy pasted the same wrong unit entry into the next codex that needed a day 1 errata. Kinda gives an idea of how long they have put out books that are very poorly proof read, if they even do it at all. Then however they couldn't blame fast pace as they released things so slow that even a drugged up sloth would have seen the errors just left to slide through.

I can understand small miss prints and poorly worded rules needed to be faqed but no codex should be released without good internal balance and the ability to at least put up a good fight against any other armies in the game without jumping the faction in question leagues ahead of the competition.

Gw could also cut down on a lot of complaining if they'd just explain some of their design decisions. Just give me a good reason my fellblade costs more than two baneblades and I'll shut up about it.

It is right to point out one thing though, for some armies GW does make fixs. For example marines were not that good most edition. And suddenly normal marines are good, IH/IF are really good. Even stuff like RG are workable. And with trait mixing do it yourself chapters can be great too. From what people say about AoS, armies there are made great 50% of time too.

So it is not like they always make bad books. They just don't seem to have any ideas for some armies.

 Nazrak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.

The solution (easier said than done) is to not engage with these posters. There's no value in asking them to explain, with reasonable arguments, a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place.

Lemondish wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nah, I just mean the hyperbolic levels the complaining rises to are not ‘discussion’ or ‘debate’. I love to discuss things. Just reading anecdotal rants presented as fact or one player’s experience extrapolated into some global pattern become kinda tedious after the thirtieth time. And occasionally the odd “objectively bad” thrown in for good measure. If people tone down and discuss that would be great.

Also there are some posters who don’t play at all, have stated so, yet pollute threads constantly. They bring nothing to this community but toxicity.

Whining pretending to be discussion is not discussion.

Yeppppp.

It's one thing to have a discussion. It's another to constantly resort to hyperbole to the point that reasonable discussion becomes completely impossible and/or pointless. See also: the widespread attitude on this forum that unless [insert unit X here] is an absolutely optimal competitive choice, it's "trash", "not worth taking", "pointless even discussing" etc etc.

The solution (easier said than done) is to not engage with these posters. There's no value in asking them to explain, with reasonable arguments, a position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place.

Haha, mate you should see my Ignore list. It just keeps getting bigger.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

I know this is from way back in the thread, but that does not set the bar for GW poor release quality.

When they released that new rules reference book and we all though "$40 is a bit steep for something that should have been a free .pdf, but it will be nice to have all the updated core rules in one place instead of having to dig through two years of errata" only to find that the new book was a copy-paste of the original core rules with none of the errata at all, that set the bar.

The Newman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

I know this is from way back in the thread, but that does not set the bar for GW poor release quality.

When they released that new rules reference book and we all though "$40 is a bit steep for something that should have been a free .pdf, but it will be nice to have all the updated core rules in one place instead of having to dig through two years of errata" only to find that the new book was a copy-paste of the original core rules with none of the errata at all, that set the bar.

I missed that debacle. That's top fething kek right there.

So yeah, the people who think it's no big deal and continually give GW a pass for it are the biggest part of the problem.

Gadzilla666 wrote:


Gw could also cut down on a lot of complaining if they'd just explain some of their design decisions. Just give me a good reason my fellblade costs more than two baneblades and I'll shut up about it.

Interestingly, FFG just released their semi-annual points update on Thursday and the approach they take is night and day compared to GW. They had a livestream where two of the game designers went over the changes, providing reasoning for them in broad terms and also talking about some specifics. As a bonus, this approach also gives people a bit more confidence that the designers know what they're talking about because you get some insight into the thought processes.

There was also one small mistake in the updated points list. An upgrade slot was missed from one ship but because the update was released as a free PDF it was quickly fixed once the problem was identified. GW could vastly improve their rules just by taking a leaf out of FFG's book when it comes to updating points and rules.

I mean even if people disagreed with the reason, having SOME explanation for why would at least give some credence to thinking about it. Which goes back to a big part of the issue being lack of transparency into the actual design process, so for all intents and purposes it looks like a bunch of trained monkeys flinging poo at the wall and seeing what sticks because their decisions often make no sense and they aren't giving any insight into why they opted for it.

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.

Wayniac wrote:

I suspect they don't do that because they don't want to see/hear negative feedback that their ideas are wrong or misinformed. Just like in the old days they shut down their official forum because they didn't want to hear people point out how their decisions were wrong.

To be fair to them on that, how often do members of this forum call them incompetent, unprofessional, demand they lose there jobs, proclaim them to not know what they're writing, question the intelligence of the various writers, etc. We can't expect them to give the kind of information or have the level of discussion that FFG/PP have with there community when such a vocal element of ours is that negativity and sheer hatred at times.