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.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

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.

It's almost like they know they are incompetent, unprofessional, etc and know they won't last under scrutiny. Maybe if they did live streams with competent, professional writers who knew what they were doing and didn't have the gall to charge people for points updates we'd not call them incompetent, unprofessional, and demand they lose their jobs.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

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.

Well, when they release broken products and make no effort to explain, then yeah, that contributes to a perception that they're incompetent and don't know what they're writing. That's kind of the point.

If they actually engaged with the community in a visible way then maybe the perception would be different. You see this happen in videogames all the time. It's the faceless teams releasing incomprehensible surprise updates that get the nasty labels, not the ones that have Q&A sessions with their players, discuss vision and roadmaps, and directly and publicly respond to criticism.

The way they approach rules writing and new releases is still very much the 'Old GW' way of doing things. There's no transparency at all.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

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.

I mean yeah, but they are showing that they are incompetent, unprofessional, et all with the quality. It might at least help to alleviate the vitriol if they were more upfront about the process, or what goes through their minds with some of it, even if it's like well we only had 4 weeks to do this book, so we didn't have much time to give it a lot of thought and had to think the best we could.

Lack of transparency is part of what makes them seem like buffoons because without any context it's the only logical conclusion given the quality of the work most of the time. Even if people didn't like the answer, having some idea of the process beyond the seemingly random, out of touch with how people actually play the game type of thing might give some leniency.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:

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.

It's almost like they know they are incompetent, unprofessional, etc and know they won't last under scrutiny. Maybe if they did live streams with competent, professional writers who knew what they were doing and didn't have the gall to charge people for points updates we'd not call them incompetent, unprofessional, and demand they lose their jobs.

You don’t even play 40K so have absolutely zero right to try and ruin someone’s livelihood. Source: yourself. Just can it.

Explaining their methodology would go a long way to dispelling ideas like "they make rules to sell models " or "they don't understand how their own game works ". Otherwise people will just assume everything comes from either greed or incompetence. If the simplest answer is to assume stupidity then you should assume stupidity.

Explaining their design decisions would cut down on such assumptions. Not with everyone, true, but you can't let the trolls frighten you into hiding.

Many design decisions get explained in Voxcast/White Dwarf, don’t they?

Honestly opening up any further just seems like an avenue to ‘call out’ not ‘transparency’ and would just add an extra layer for unhelpful criticism.

No.

Dont you people white wash the gakky and demeaning posts just because someone did a bad job. Own your bs.

White washing? I referred to them as trolls. That's the nastiest word I can use on this forum.

nareik wrote:
Many design decisions get explained in Voxcast/White Dwarf, don’t they?

Honestly opening up any further just seems like an avenue to ‘call out’ not ‘transparency’ and would just add an extra layer for unhelpful criticism.

No. They don't discuss the design process from a balance point of view, or really do much discussion about mechanics at all. The official line from GW is always that their products are great and there are no problems. Back when WHFB was a thing, Dark Elves had a horrifically weak book in 6th edition that required a mid-edition update it was so bad. That didn't really fix things, but it was only when they eventually got around to giving them a new book, only then did they admit in the designer's commentary in WD that they'd messed up previously (this was the only time I can remember where those designer's commentaries shed any real light on the process from a rules point of view).

My experience is that companies that do engage with their audience get way less flak than GW. This may be because those companies have better designers who are more capable of balancing the game, or it might be a direct result of the engagement. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation.

Slipspace wrote:
but it was only when they eventually got around to giving them a new book, only then did they admit in the designer's commentary in WD that they'd messed up previously (this was the only time I can remember where those designer's commentaries shed any real light on the process from a rules point of view).

I have two particular old copies of White Dwarf that I find funny in combination.

The first is from when they introduced Cityfight, and talks up how cool all the new rules for it are.

The second is from when they introduced Cities of Death, and it specifically calls out some of the old Cityfight rules as problematic, including the literal phrase 'What were we thinking?'.

So yeah, you'll only see reflection and self-criticism coming from GW when it's in the interest of selling you the new product.

I think the only major thing they've stated, for AOS, is that the models come first and the rules team uses the model for a guide on what it should have. E.g. if it's normal size or bigger, if it has a big axe then it needs a big axe in the game, etc.

Everything sems to indicate that they are thrown a model and told to make it fit, without any input on what they feel might be needed, and there hasn't been anything on how the design process actually works.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

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.

To be equally fair, I'd love to stop calling them unprofessional and inept just as soon as they stop releasing each and every book with need for erratas on day 1, when they actually do a good job at balancing at least internal if not external choices in a codex, the list could go on and on. This isn't just innocent blame throwing going on, this isn't just a once in awhile type of situation this is an every release expectation. The real problem is, if you want to stop being called on screwing up, just stop doing it. I don't think I've called for them to lose their jobs, but if they can't handle it without a string of failure left in their wake maybe that is a sign. Unless you are saying every job just puts up with mistake after mistake forever, if so I'd love to be a part of it, sounds relaxing. Some are actually held accountable to do things correctly the first time.

If you mess up, you accept the blame and work to do better, that's how it works. Can't handle being called up, they should retreat into the eye of safety deep in the comfort warp.

It isn't like people would expect a completely faultless product,but when you get 10 / 12 core rules pages for a list wrong AND don't fix the mess WITHIN 2YEARS ,then yeah it is kinda hillarious.

Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.

Thing is, at least from where I sit in this hobby, that is the current case. Most of the 2-week later FAQ's have been clarifications to questions, not complete re-writes of rules (contrary to some posters beliefs). Yes there's been a few instances where that's not been the case (looking at Iron Hands/Salamanders) but for the vast majority of the currently released books they work with a 1-page addition clarifying a few points.
The problem for me isn't that your group complains about issues, it's that your group is automatically adding in a narrative of [insert anti-GW professionals here]. The wrong page goes to the printers gets met with 'useless interns, incapable proof-readers, incompetent players/playtesters, etc' every single time. It makes it hard to agree with your corner relating to the quality of the finished product when so much of the complaints are that.. aggressive? Horrible? Mean? (Anecdote) Heck I work professionally in quality assurance/quality control in my industry and if I had users giving me half the [expletive] that is fired at GW I'd seriously reconsider putting more effort in when I'd still be bombarded with this level of vitriol. (Anecdote over)

What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?
So we're on a 6-page topic deriding staff for not working over the Xmas/New Year break to get those numbers 'fixed' to this forums satisfaction* during the first full working week of 2020. And deriding other players that don't see these problems as such a massive issue they need to be up in arms about it.



*GW can never satisfy DakkaDakka no matter what they do.

Wayniac wrote:
I think the only major thing they've stated, for AOS, is that the models come first and the rules team uses the model for a guide on what it should have. E.g. if it's normal size or bigger, if it has a big axe then it needs a big axe in the game, etc.

Everything sems to indicate that they are thrown a model and told to make it fit, without any input on what they feel might be needed, and there hasn't been anything on how the design process actually works.

I'm pretty sure that the ork buggies came to be in the same way. Luckily, most of the weird combinations of grot gunners, stikkbombs and some random big gun actually do work.

In general, I agree with the call to more transparency. When just looking at the CA changes for orks, one does wonder why they haven't touched Trukks or Battlewagons - maybe they thought that pushing them and buggies at the same time could push mech orks to be too powerful? Maybe there is something in the pipeline regarding transports (PA/9th), so they don't want to mess with them right now? Maybe because they think they are fine because they actually do appear in top tournament lists from time to time? Maybe they are aware of the problem, but don't have a good solution yet?
Right now the reasoning the community picks up is either "they don't care/have no clue about them" or "they want to sell buggies, not trukks/wagons". Neither is particularly flattering.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

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.

PP set its community on fire and closed their forums at the onset of their third edition, and FFG has apparently sacked much of their staff. Though I dunno, I remember most comments on FFGs community being about how unresponsive they were to problems.

I think you're arguing about a universal character trait, and trying to pretend it only happens here.

 BroodSpawn wrote:
What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?

Well, the linked campaign chapter is pretty much worthless outside of using it to prevent spills when painting models.
On top of that, there is confusion about datasheets being listed in CA, but the datasheets not being in codex, legends or FW index.
The issue with the mixed up points is that while some mistakes are obvious like 55 point acolytes, the existence of such errors imply that there might be more, less obvious errors. I had a guy wonder whether pox walkers really went down in points again, or whether it's just a copy&paste error.

 Jidmah wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?

Well, the linked campaign chapter is pretty much worthless outside of using it to prevent spills when painting models.
On top of that, there is confusion about datasheets being listed in CA, but the datasheets not being in codex, legends or FW index.
The issue with the mixed up points is that while some mistakes are obvious like 55 point acolytes, the existence of such errors imply that there might be more, less obvious errors. I had a guy wonder whether pox walkers really went down in points again, or whether it's just a copy&paste error.

Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.

Thing is, at least from where I sit in this hobby, that is the current case. Most of the 2-week later FAQ's have been clarifications to questions, not complete re-writes of rules (contrary to some posters beliefs). Yes there's been a few instances where that's not been the case (looking at Iron Hands/Salamanders) but for the vast majority of the currently released books they work with a 1-page addition clarifying a few points.
The problem for me isn't that your group complains about issues, it's that your group is automatically adding in a narrative of [insert anti-GW professionals here]. The wrong page goes to the printers gets met with 'useless interns, incapable proof-readers, incompetent players/playtesters, etc' every single time. It makes it hard to agree with your corner relating to the quality of the finished product when so much of the complaints are that.. aggressive? Horrible? Mean? (Anecdote) Heck I work professionally in quality assurance/quality control in my industry and if I had users giving me half the [expletive] that is fired at GW I'd seriously reconsider putting more effort in when I'd still be bombarded with this level of vitriol. (Anecdote over)

What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?
So we're on a 6-page topic deriding staff for not working over the Xmas/New Year break to get those numbers 'fixed' to this forums satisfaction* during the first full working week of 2020. And deriding other players that don't see these problems as such a massive issue they need to be up in arms about it.



*GW can never satisfy DakkaDakka no matter what they do.

They had in some cases multiple years and occaisons to fix issues like forgotten point adaptions etc.

They Releases a rulebook and codex Update that was a copypaste of the oldone not incorporating the changes in FAQ and ca etc.

Also whilest i agree saying they are incompetent is too harsh i believe lazy is a good adjective for them.

Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

That's a considerable leap in logic.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.

Thing is, at least from where I sit in this hobby, that is the current case. Most of the 2-week later FAQ's have been clarifications to questions, not complete re-writes of rules (contrary to some posters beliefs). Yes there's been a few instances where that's not been the case (looking at Iron Hands/Salamanders) but for the vast majority of the currently released books they work with a 1-page addition clarifying a few points.
The problem for me isn't that your group complains about issues, it's that your group is automatically adding in a narrative of [insert anti-GW professionals here]. The wrong page goes to the printers gets met with 'useless interns, incapable proof-readers, incompetent players/playtesters, etc' every single time. It makes it hard to agree with your corner relating to the quality of the finished product when so much of the complaints are that.. aggressive? Horrible? Mean? (Anecdote) Heck I work professionally in quality assurance/quality control in my industry and if I had users giving me half the [expletive] that is fired at GW I'd seriously reconsider putting more effort in when I'd still be bombarded with this level of vitriol. (Anecdote over)

What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?
So we're on a 6-page topic deriding staff for not working over the Xmas/New Year break to get those numbers 'fixed' to this forums satisfaction* during the first full working week of 2020. And deriding other players that don't see these problems as such a massive issue they need to be up in arms about it.



*GW can never satisfy DakkaDakka no matter what they do.

A good post so I'll reply in kind. I'm probably a hot head when I post a little bit. I just tired of the status quo they pump out after a couple decades of watching them make the same mistakes. Not to devolve the discussion into yet another talk of their inward and outward balance issues, I don't think they need to be restated. However, that doesn't change some very sloppy work and their lack of caring to fix it. As others have placed out, and still haven't been addressed or even touched on in any way. The fact you can't tell what changes in CA for points ( which for some is the only reason they bought it ) are actual and which ones are copy paste errors or typos is a large problem when the whole goodness of it was to have all of that info in one place. A good thing, but one they couldn't get correct. Leaving it a bit dubious until we know what was accurate and what was snafu.

I accept that being mean isn't great for positive motivation, but what level of butt kissing will get them to work harder ? What kind of niceness will spur them onward to try harder ? Should we send them cookies ? I probably would if it would get results. You can only voice your issues so much nicely before you start to feel like they just don't care and at that point why be nice any longer ? If they don't care about our feelings its hard to find that care for them in return. I think they have a standard policy of not caring about any of our thoughts regardless of how nice or mean they are placed before them. Just a hunch on that.

I will say as well not everyone has such long Christmas breaks, maybe its an English thing I don't know about that, could be. I'd hope they are working on it currently however, I wish they didn't need to but I hope at this point they are.

As for not being able to satisfy me, sure they could. Just actually try harder and not make me need erratas as soon as a book drops, or release a book that is out of date the moment it drops any of that will make me pleased. I don't even usually bother to complain about balance much as I just come to accept some will be great and others will be poop. New edition same old balance as far as that goes. To their credit not every book needs that, however it ends up being more that do than don't. When you feel safer waiting a couple weeks to see if the book you want to buy will actually work the way it does on day 1 is a problem though, and that can actually happen these days.

Are they all bad ? No. However, as another wise poster here said, they could handle some of this by using their vast presence now and talking to all of us. Explaining why they do things, being open about screw ups. Not only would I and I'm sure others respect them more but it would at least give insight as to what we can expect. In that, sure they couldn't please everyone but I am willing to bet those bashing them would be far far less.

The issue is, they aren't really doing any of that, not trying harder, nor communicating, they don't even take blame when they screw things up big time. I'm sure even certain very annoyed GK players would be willing to give them some slack if they just said " We really screwed up the GK codex, we're sorry but we don't know how to fix it right now but we will, this is why it happened..etc " They have the PR team, maybe they should use it and let us in so we might actually understand them more. Couple communication that is more than just ' This new stuff rocks !!! Better buy it !! " and some tightening of writing so we have a minimum of mess ups in each new release and much of the annoyance would go away.

Until then I'll stick to saying they are incompetent. Others may call them lazy but I'll just be a touch more salty.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

That's a considerable leap in logic.

How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

That's a considerable leap in logic.

How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?

Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.

Wayniac wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

That's a considerable leap in logic.

How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?

Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.

No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".

this maybe a stupid idea. But aren't we all acting as if CA was writen one day before printing, and the staff really had 1-2 days to fix it before christmas time starts? Don't they have the books ready 6 months before, and the prints before the premier too.

Could the staff then, read their own book, and seeing the errors write them down, before christmas time?

 alextroy wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

That's a considerable leap in logic.

How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?

Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.

No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".

Ok, a more sensible one, they have mistakes riddled in the CA points, so if there is one there can be more. Like, Ogryns, they went up by the exact amount they dropped by last time. A question would be knowing they did some sloppy copy paste, is that what they should be or is that a typo because they used an old Copy paste for that unit entry ? As even at the dropped cost I didn't see anyone taking Ogryns, would be reasonable to wonder on that one yes ? I know I was kind of curious. When you see things that seem odd like that it does make you wonder. There, hyperbole free.

 alextroy wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

That's a considerable leap in logic.

How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?

Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.

No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".

It's clear you don't understand what setting a precedent means. Imagine a tournament setting. If the TO suddenly says well we're pretty sure 55 point acolytes is a typo so they are 5 points, now that means you can bring up other "maybe this is a typo too" situations as well. Common sense isn't a factor because the rules have to be applied equally. Take it upon yourself to decide that X is a typo, well why not Y or Z as well? After all, you aren't TOTALLY sure it's a typo, you're just making an educated guess based on the circumstances. So why not other things too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Ok, a more sensible one, they have mistakes riddled in the CA points, so if there is one there can be more. Like, Ogryns, they went up by the exact amount they dropped by last time. A question would be knowing they did some sloppy copy paste, is that what they should be or is that a typo because they used an old Copy paste for that unit entry ? As even at the dropped cost I didn't see anyone taking Ogryns, would be reasonable to wonder on that one yes ? I know I was kind of curious. When you see things that seem odd like that it does make you wonder. There, hyperbole free.

This too. If you feel the 55 point acolyte thing is a bad example of why it could set a precedent, look at something else. The point remains. If you think 55 point acolytes are a typo (and you would probably be right but again we do not have confirmation, only an extremely reasonable guess), then what about Ogryns? Is that a mistake too that should be fixed? And if that is considered one too, then what about any other thing which may or may not be correct, or might be a typo or might be a gakky copy/paste job?

Where do you draw the line?

Wayniac wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

That's a considerable leap in logic.

How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?

Exactly. That's the problem. It's most likely the 55 points is a typo. But if you say that's a typo, what's to stop a similar argument for something else being a typo or mistake? It's the principle behind it. You change one thing, no matter how benign the reason is, and all of a sudden you've open the floor to suggesting changing other things because you already showed that you're willing to unofficially state that one thing is a typo.

That's how it works. If you change one thing, even if it's 99.99999% likely a typo (it can't be 100% since we aren't GW), you've just allowed for arguments to be made about other things which might "seem" like a typo too.

Wait...wait if there's a typo when we choose a melee weapon? What if we're actually supposed to use a gun instead?! I've been playing this game all wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
]It's clear you don't understand what setting a precedent means. Imagine a tournament setting. If the TO suddenly says well we're pretty sure 55 point acolytes is a typo so they are 5 points, now that means you can bring up other "maybe this is a typo too" situations as well. Common sense isn't a factor because the rules have to be applied equally. Take it upon yourself to decide that X is a typo, well why not Y or Z as well? After all, you aren't TOTALLY sure it's a typo, you're just making an educated guess based on the circumstances. So why not other things too?

Right.

And people said that if gay marriage was legalized that people would soon be marrying dogs and toasters.

 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".

In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.

I wish it were the case where we could say that making models more than 10 times the original cost was unintended, but this is a game where flamers can hit super-sonic aircraft and Terminators can somehow charge three times what they normally can move while Valkyries somehow move slower when they charge.