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.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
so basically you use the same hyperbole in your argument that you accuse other off.
top, well done.

Not really. The entire argument against just ignoring the obvious accidental duplication of a character (a common mistake when pasting into excel tables btw) is "55 points for acolyte might be the correct value because we don't know what the correct value for Thunderhammers/Ogryns/Poxwalker/Chaos Spawn is" and the weird believe that all errors must be handled in the exact same way, no matter their magnitude and the availability of a solution.

I agree that this dumb typo and other obvious errors unnecessarily makes us question all other reverts to previous values and other unexpected changes.

But that is no excuse to not to just fix obvious errors with obvious solutions. Just like we assume that assault weapons implicitly have the permission to shoot after advancing.

This argument was enjoyable until it went down to the level of calling people stupid.

Honestly, everyone is right here. It's correct to say you must use the latest points values, it's also correct to point out an obvious typo. The only point at which you differ on is what to do about it, and the point is moot since none of you will ever play each other.

When the new CSM Codex came out, it had Obliterators listed at the old price. Everyone knew this was a typo, it was eventually FAQed, the solution was to simply wait for clarification. Until that happens, it does not matter whether you choose to use the new points or the old points. Arguing about it before that happens doesn't solve the problem.

I feel like Dakka owes me back the time spent reading this thread. Nothing was gained but an appreciation for how obstinate people can be pursuing pointlessness.

Final warning as some folks just can't help themselves, delving into the same old petty antic bs shenanigans.

 Jidmah wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Which is exactly why we have to ask the question about Ogryn costs, or other questionable changes. I see no reason why Orgyns would have jumped back up the same amount they jumped down but a year ago when they still aren't taken as is, have no real reason for such a rise in cost. So intelligence would dictate, having some really shockingly apparent mistakes in it, how could you trust other seemingly odd choices ?

I mean, it would be pretty stupid to just blindly follow what may in fact be a slightly less obvious printing error wouldn't it ?

I understand what you are saying, but there is a huge difference between a slightly less obvious printing error and a blatantly obvious printing error.
For example, if you are driving down a road with 70 mp/h and suddenly see a speed limit of 5 mp/h, that is pretty likely to be an error and should be 50. It might also not be an error because there is a ravine up ahead (I actually came across this situation once).
However, when you see a traffic sign telling you to turn left, when left is nothing but a wall, that is a blatantly obvious error and you have no reason to assume that driving into a wall is the correct course of action.

I see no reason to follow blatantly obvious errors.

As well, if it was just a couple easy fixes, why would it take so long ? They could have banged it out in a couple hours tops and that's really assuming they took their time, made a list and checked it twice which would end up being twice more than the original document got looked over before printing.

They also need to create some datasheets the accidentally invented...
I'm also pretty sure that FAQs get more quality assurance than the original document.

I get what you're saying, but the size of the problem is really a personal perspective. Like, I have and play Ogryns, those lost points matter to me a good deal. I don't play with or against GSC so their more obvious error means nothing to me personally. I'm just saying, I'd not question the point hike, if all seemed to be on the up and up other than feeling they are idiots who don't play their own game to understand units cost. That obvious error that means nothing to me, and others, does however lower my confidence that some of those questionable point changes aren't just more poor copy paste errors.

I'd hope there would be more quality checking with an errata, but this very document was an errata so I'm still not very sure of their assurance of quality.

Edit: That said, please we can be civil with each other over this. I don't blame anyone here for this, instead I wish they'd check twice and print once before releasing these products and causing these discussions in the first place. It's completely unreal for a company this size to make errors like this so regularly we come to just accept them as fact of every new release. It's sad.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Of course, this is all moot, because as the great rules developer Jervis Johnson says:

'...one thing players often get wrong when they look at points values is thinking that they are too high for units they really want to be able to include in their army - in my experience this reaction usually means that the points value is spot on...'*

So if you want to include Neophytes in a list, but think that 55 points each is too much, that's probably the correct value.



*'Rules of Engagement' in White Dwarf March 2019, pg.18

Straight from the horse's mouth. I am sure the Rules as "Intended" crowd put more stock into the legendary Jervis Johnson's opinion than mine. It's a happy coincidence my view aligns exactly with his!

So, can both sides now agree that 55ppm is the correct price (until otherwise specified)?

I will agree that 55ppm is their current price.
Wether or not it's their correct price, or a fair price, is debatable.

And if it turns out to be what GW intended? Then I'd LOVE to hear the reasoning behind it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.

i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cFXiNMn4rPnaNfw716MPPL5_R3MgkgOX0TmxYMZZW5o/edit?usp=sharing

Well I can think of some things you left out of fw for heretic astartes.

Oh well. My hill to die on I guess.

I think the SW fast attack is a copy paste from the index, it also has the wrong unit count for skyclaws and swift claws.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 oni wrote:
I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out, but...

I recall, not too long ago, when Obiliterators had a points increase in the Shadowspear booklet along with a change to unit size, but then the CSM v2.0 codex hit the shelf a week later with non-adjusted points values and unit size.

The arguments and hollow justifications that were made by CSM tourny-players to rationalize the use of under-pointed Obliterators reached levels of absurd that we see, but once an edition.

To the level headed, it was obvious that the adjustments in the Shasowspear booklet were supposed to make it into the CSM v2.0 codex and GW simply made an error.

But to the CSM tourny-players... Oh, no... No, no, no... They were firm in their position that the points cost and unit size was specific to the Shadowspear booklet -OR- GW says we're supposed to use the most currently printed document.

Anything to rationalize what they knew was wrong to gain an upper hand.

I see the same rationalizations being made in this thread.

The problem as I see it is that the W40K community at large has become spoiled and perverse. It has degenerated into meta chasers, rules lawyers and TFG's who increasingly care less and less about having an enjoyable experience and the challenge of outplaying their opponent tactically in favor of finding exploitable gimmicks and errors to effectively cheat their opponent.

Wake up people.

ya know, you'd have a point if they did not literally lower the points back down again... to the same point level again.

Get your facts straight. The adjustments went as follows:

65 in C:CSM
115 in Shadowspear
65 in C:CSM v2.0 (this was an error)
115 in C:CSM FAQ
95 in CA:2019

Wayniac wrote:
Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.

You said 55 point acolytes, but they're 7 points.

This makes you a liar, doesn't it?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.

You said 55 point acolytes, but they're 7 points.

This makes you a liar, doesn't it?

Or he mistyped, and meant the Neophytes.

And before you argue that that makes him no better than GW, guess what? He was not paid $35 from each of us for that post.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.

You said 55 point acolytes, but they're 7 points.

This makes you a liar, doesn't it?

Or he mistyped, and meant the Neophytes.

And before you argue that that makes him no better than GW, guess what? He was not paid $35 from each of us for that post.

No, he didn't mistype. That's exactly what it says in the post. How can you prove my opinion wrong?

Those who live in glass houses...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Why would you? Like maybe I'm just stupid but I don't get the reasoning behind not having consistency when applying rules and instead of wanting to bog things down with treating everything in isolation. There might be your weird exceptions (55ppm Acolytes..) but you should want to have a consistent approach.

You said 55 point acolytes, but they're 7 points.

This makes you a liar, doesn't it?

Or he mistyped, and meant the Neophytes.

And before you argue that that makes him no better than GW, guess what? He was not paid $35 from each of us for that post.

No, he didn't mistype. That's exactly what it says in the post. How can you prove my opinion wrong?

Those who live in glass houses...

How much money did you pay him for the post? Because Chapter Approved costs $35, here in the US. That post was free.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How much money did you pay him for the post? Because Chapter Approved costs $35, here in the US. That post was free.

I know BCB didn't pay for it. How do I know anyone paid for it? Clearly they didn't look at it, so that seems quite likely.

How much are customers paying you for your work? Can we view your work so we can sit here in our arm-chairs and analyze it and then pontificate about how we can't be rational human beings "because we just really don't know"?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How much money did you pay him for the post? Because Chapter Approved costs $35, here in the US. That post was free.

I know BCB didn't pay for it. How do I know anyone paid for it? Clearly they didn't look at it, so that seems quite likely.

How much are customers paying you for your work? Can we view your work so we can sit here in our arm-chairs and analyze it and then pontificate about how we can't be rational human beings "because we just really don't know"?

Holy hell, man. While the Neophytes are certainly the most egregious example, what about Ogryns? R&H Spawn? How many errors (or PRESUMED errors-again, GW has a completely opaque design process, so for all we know, the Ogryn change IS what they meant!) are acceptable?

And how many points is a Neophyte worth? I agree it's not 55, but is it 5? 6? 4? We don't know. We don't know what GW intended-we can agree that 55 is a typo, but it's so far off that we can't tell what the ACTUAL supposed points value is supposed to be. And GW has had AMPLE TIME to fix this, but they have not.

GW will fix it. Maybe patience really is a virtue.

So about five things out of...50 pages of points...100 or so items per page...5,000 items or 0.1% is enough to make you go, "I don't know what to dooo! This is chaos! We can't trust anything! This thing that was 5 points now says 55 points, but we have no clue what that could mean and how no way to remedy this like normal people!"

If people incapable of dealing with a handful of issues without throwing the baby out, too, then I dare say its time to move on to some other game rather than relentlessly poisoning the forum with false dilemmas.

How do you know it's that small amount of errors?

The egregious errors just show there's no proofreading, or what proofreading there is is woefully inadequate.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How do you know it's that small amount of errors?

The egregious errors just show there's no proofreading, or what proofreading there is is woefully inadequate.

Yes, sure, there could easily be more. There's real people behind those errors and everyone makes mistakes. I'm certain anyone can improve a process given proper resources and good leadership, but I don't know what their situation is nor can I divine one.

So, at the end of the day I know they'll fix it and I know how to treat other players suffering from errors equitably.

Ultimately, if punishment is what the situation requires then don't buy the book or future books and send them a message telling them why.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
How do you know it's that small amount of errors?

The egregious errors just show there's no proofreading, or what proofreading there is is woefully inadequate.

Yes, sure, there could easily be more. There's real people behind those errors and everyone makes mistakes. I'm certain anyone can improve a process given proper resources and good leadership, but I don't know what their situation is nor can I divine one.

So, at the end of the day I know they'll fix it and I know how to treat other players suffering from errors equitably.

Ultimately, if punishment is what the situation requires then don't buy the book or future books and send them a message telling them why.

Mistakes happen. But the egregious ones should be caught before it ever goes to print, such as 55 point Neophytes.

And again, where is the line drawn? Neophytes are OBVIOUSLY a mistake, so make them 5 points-unless, what if they're too good at 5? Would 6 be better? What about Ogryns? That's pretty clearly a mistake, but what's their ACTUAL points value supposed to be? Or what's fair? And why is it that Thunder Hammers are clearly NOT a mistake? Should the R&H player get CSM prices for Spawn? Or should they be cheaper, because they synergize less, or more expensive, because they synergize more?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW will fix it. Maybe patience really is a virtue.

So about five things out of...50 pages of points...100 or so items per page...5,000 items or 0.1% is enough to make you go, "I don't know what to dooo! This is chaos! We can't trust anything! This thing that was 5 points now says 55 points, but we have no clue what that could mean and how no way to remedy this like normal people!"

If people incapable of dealing with a handful of issues without throwing the baby out, too, then I dare say its time to move on to some other game rather than relentlessly poisoning the forum with false dilemmas.

i am waiting since 2 cycles for the fixes to these things (infact they have gotten more eregious at this stage due to further changes in other lists, )
Infact i am willing to bet there will be nothing done there.


_____________________________________________________
on a sidenote, i made a spreadsheet, i am willing to open that up so people can put the things they find fishy inn there, if they are so inclined.
Is for that any demand there?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.

i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cFXiNMn4rPnaNfw716MPPL5_R3MgkgOX0TmxYMZZW5o/edit?usp=sharing

Well I can think of some things you left out of fw for heretic astartes.

Oh well. My hill to die on I guess.

oh i know that i didn't catch all. I used the units i know how they are functioning and own them, due to my familiarity with them, aswell as the most eregious exemples of faults i've seen.
just PM me if you find any of these or want acess to writing them,.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW will fix it. Maybe patience really is a virtue.

So about five things out of...50 pages of points...100 or so items per page...5,000 items or 0.1% is enough to make you go, "I don't know what to dooo! This is chaos! We can't trust anything! This thing that was 5 points now says 55 points, but we have no clue what that could mean and how no way to remedy this like normal people!"

If people incapable of dealing with a handful of issues without throwing the baby out, too, then I dare say its time to move on to some other game rather than relentlessly poisoning the forum with false dilemmas.

i am waiting since 2 cycles for the fixes to these things (infact they have gotten more eregious at this stage due to further changes in other lists, )
Infact i am willing to bet there will be nothing done there.


_____________________________________________________
on a sidenote, i made a spreadsheet, i am willing to open that up so people can put the things they find fishy inn there, if they are so inclined.
Is for that any demand there?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.

i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cFXiNMn4rPnaNfw716MPPL5_R3MgkgOX0TmxYMZZW5o/edit?usp=sharing

Well I can think of some things you left out of fw for heretic astartes.

Oh well. My hill to die on I guess.

oh i know that i didn't catch all. I used the units i know how they are functioning and own them, due to my familiarity with them, aswell as the most eregious exemples of faults i've seen.
just PM me if you find any of these or want acess to writing them,.

All hellforged units are overcosted compared to loyalists due to the errated wording of machine malifica not allowing them to regain wounds in any way other than machine malifica. This affects shooty units like daredeos and sicarans the most.

Of course you know my biggest complaint. The arbitrarily high points increase hellforged/relic super heavys got in the last ca compared to other low which wasn't fixed in this ca.

Sorry haven't figured out how to pm yet.

PM is just under the "videos and podcast" part.
alternatively in each message to the blog you can pick the poster and get access to their profile on which the "PM" stands for Private message


Also will add to the issues department the hellforged part and point out the invalidation of repairss and lifegain for these as an issue.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
GW will fix it. Maybe patience really is a virtue.

So about five things out of...50 pages of points...100 or so items per page...5,000 items or 0.1% is enough to make you go, "I don't know what to dooo! This is chaos! We can't trust anything! This thing that was 5 points now says 55 points, but we have no clue what that could mean and how no way to remedy this like normal people!"

If people incapable of dealing with a handful of issues without throwing the baby out, too, then I dare say its time to move on to some other game rather than relentlessly poisoning the forum with false dilemmas.

i am waiting since 2 cycles for the fixes to these things (infact they have gotten more eregious at this stage due to further changes in other lists, )
Infact i am willing to bet there will be nothing done there.


_____________________________________________________
on a sidenote, i made a spreadsheet, i am willing to open that up so people can put the things they find fishy inn there, if they are so inclined.
Is for that any demand there?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Is there a concise list of the potential issues anywhere? I know BCB posted 5 in his original post, but I was wondering if others have been found and collated all in one place.

i have made one, altough atm mostly limited to AM, CSM and R&H, because those lists i know.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cFXiNMn4rPnaNfw716MPPL5_R3MgkgOX0TmxYMZZW5o/edit?usp=sharing

Well I can think of some things you left out of fw for heretic astartes.

Oh well. My hill to die on I guess.

oh i know that i didn't catch all. I used the units i know how they are functioning and own them, due to my familiarity with them, aswell as the most eregious exemples of faults i've seen.
just PM me if you find any of these or want acess to writing them,.

All hellforged units are overcosted compared to loyalists due to the errated wording of machine malifica not allowing them to regain wounds in any way other than machine malifica. This affects shooty units like daredeos and sicarans the most.

Of course you know my biggest complaint. The arbitrarily high points increase hellforged/relic super heavys got in the last ca compared to other low which wasn't fixed in this ca.

Sorry haven't figured out how to pm yet.

Loyalist Relic options require a tax of one non relic option in a detatchment per relic option used. Hellforged options don't, and are such much more points effective even with their higher base costs.

Machine malifica is probably your tax.

Vehemently disagree, considering the Tax units are a lot better then baseline units of CSM but probably GW regards it that way.


Also, i 'd really like to know, why CSM stopped to have their warpsmith /abbadababab tax on hellforged ones?
Probably should mention this aswell.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Vehemently disagree, considering the Tax units are a lot better then baseline units of CSM but probably GW regards it that way.


Also, i 'd really like to know, why CSM stopped to have their warpsmith /abbadababab tax on hellforged ones?
Probably should mention this aswell.

Also strongly disagree. Seriously loyalists are "taxed" by having to take a tfc along with a leviathan with a superior invul to the heretic leviathan?

I may never wrap my mind around those who take insult on the behalf of paid professionals working for a very large and very profitable company. I've seen minimum wage employees raked over the coals for errors much less than this being paid peanuts for their work. Yet, we must defend this poor, innocent company that is about as highly known for its amazingly high level of errors and poor quality in writing as it is fine models.

If they were an up and coming company, people would be calling them incompetent, a waste of money, a joke. Yet GW do it on the regular and its " They doin their best, they're learning " If they don't know how to proof read by now I doubt they ever will.

They will fix it, mostly, but now I have to question each thing they put out wondering what is and is not true. While their models are quality, their writing is not so. You can dislike hearing the complaints, that's fine, then don't respond. Some do want to complain about it because we're on a forum and such is us venting how we feel and why.

There exist plenty of echo chambers to think nothing but happy happy thoughts of GW, this however is an error on their part and one they are taking a lot of time to fix, who knows, maybe they won't ever fix it and say " They'll figure it out " at this point I'd not be surprised.

It's about as helpful to complain here as it is to send them a million angry messages. The sad fact is, they have a monopoly with their games as they are the most widely known, highest player base group of games. That means an awful lot and gives them incredible leeway with some people with how much they will tolerate from them. In some areas this is the only game in town or by far the largest, and that does factor in. As at the end of the day, where you going to go ? Many have friends in the scene who won't do other stuff so where will you go ? No where you'll just take it as you want to play and they know this. It limits their care and accountability for quality.

Despite my anger, I'm not going to run away from the game, I have loved it more than I've hated it. The moment I play it and really feel bad is the time I think of putting it down. That doesn't mean me or anyone else should not voice out over issues. You know, I don't respond in every single " I love GW ! " thread because I'd add nothing worth while. Why does everyone defending such a gak ridden practice as their writing rules demand so often love it or leave it ?

I'll make a deal, not to tell anyone they should hate it, or be angry at them, I'll just be good an angry by myself and with those like minded. You can feel free then to not tell me why I should sound off that I love the typos, errors and lack of proof reading or balance. Sounds like a good even steven to me.

I do hope they release the fix soon though.

I see that the Sisters codex has received an errata/faq, yet two months after its release, an errata has still not been issued to fix the issues with CA2019. Sad GW, sad. :(

edit: The Kill Team annual also seems to have several issues, where GW supposedly reversed issues that had already been fixed in the Elites book and other errata and articles. No errata for that book yet either. More and more, these annual books just seem to be quick cash grabs, reprinting older and sometimes incorrect material, without any attention paid to quality.

 Gnarlly wrote:
I see that the Sisters codex has received an errata/faq, yet two months after its release, an errata has still not been issued to fix the issues with CA2019. Sad GW, sad. :(

edit: The Kill Team annual also seems to have several issues, where GW supposedly reversed issues that had already been fixed in the Elites book and other errata and articles. No errata for that book yet either. More and more, these annual books just seem to be quick cash grabs, reprinting older and sometimes incorrect material, without any attention paid to quality.

I'm more of the idea that they have been holding the FAQ until the LVO results, for both 40K and killteam. I would expect the FAQs next week.

 Gnarlly wrote:
I see that the Sisters codex has received an errata/faq, yet two months after its release, an errata has still not been issued to fix the issues with CA2019. Sad GW, sad. :(

edit: The Kill Team annual also seems to have several issues, where GW supposedly reversed issues that had already been fixed in the Elites book and other errata and articles. No errata for that book yet either. More and more, these annual books just seem to be quick cash grabs, reprinting older and sometimes incorrect material, without any attention paid to quality.

Only now you see this?

It is pretty sad that they don't seem to update some master list when they do an errata, so a reprint/consolidation/next version has a good chance of reversing the errata because it's a copy/paste from the original without paying attention to the fact something was changed.

Wayniac wrote:
It is pretty sad that they don't seem to update some master list when they do an errata, so a reprint/consolidation/next version has a good chance of reversing the errata because it's a copy/paste from the original without paying attention to the fact something was changed.

Yup, CA has demonstrated that GW has no concept of even the most basic of version control techniques.

This goes beyond their shoddy rules writing. It's a failure at the most fundamental level of publishing books.

It has been way too long for this to be a simple FAQ. GW has to know that there are at least typos in the CA 2019 they could fix with a simple PDF on the community page.

I'm guessing that GW is struggling with having to change books so quickly after release and making customers feel like they are buying a sub-standard product (we are). The SM supplements are going to get a lot of changes (hopefully), if pages of the CA 2019 go out the window as well I think GW is worried about feels bad for people that shelled out significant dough for their product. Combined with the general feels bad for playing any army that isn't codex space marines it has to be a reason why they are dragging their feet on this one.

Vacation is over, they know of the issue, it's a relatively easy fix (pdf of the "right" numbers) what other reason could they have for fixing it?