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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

bUt tHeY aReN't a pUblIshInG cOmPaNy

I've actually seen people use that to defend this gak. "They aren't a publishing company" so mistakes on this level are okay and no big deal.

I'm kind of curious as to what reasons people think there is for the delay? I seriously doubt they've forgotten, and they've released FAQs and errata for products that needed it much less than this year's Chapter Approved. Maybe they're unsure on how to rule something? Just a guess.

bananathug wrote:

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?

It is almost guaranteed that they're holding on to it to make more extensive changes to large balance issues. I can't conceive of any other purpose for the delay.

Darsath wrote:
I'm kind of curious as to what reasons people think there is for the delay? I seriously doubt they've forgotten, and they've released FAQs and errata for products that needed it much less than this year's Chapter Approved. Maybe they're unsure on how to rule something? Just a guess.

It could just be that the list of points costs is so broken that GW fears that a sufficiently large errata for the errata book would either disuade people from buying the book in the first place, or would mean that they are required to effectively give the content 90% of people would buy the book for out for free.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

bananathug wrote:

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?

It is almost guaranteed that they're holding on to it to make more extensive changes to large balance issues. I can't conceive of any other purpose for the delay.

I'm pretty sure this is it. Same reason the Iron Hands FAQ was delayed, then had two different versions released on the same day.

Maybe its so large they are waiting ntil the Big FAQ to address it. But really, I think as usual the lack of communication is what has most people pissed off. If they just came out and said we're aware of issues with CA19, we're working fixing this etc. etc. it'd help smooth things over.

Instead, it's silence and they release other things, basically acting like "CA19 FAQ? What CA19 FAQ?"

I'm sure to some extent they want to make sure that what is released is perfectly accurate. Especially after making themselves look like incompetent fools.

I assume that they're also doing a deep dive on legal ramifications for immediately having to invalidate a paid for 'system update' publication. There may be some precedent where if enough willing people form a class GW will have to compensate for monetary damages. Though I highly doubt this would ever be a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah, they very well could be intentionally ignoring it until April. At that point they can call it a 're-balance' instead of an 'error correction' to skirt around potential legal issues.

Go ahead and try to sue a company over the rules for a game, Oni. I'm sure the judge of your local court could use a good laugh.

 EnTyme wrote:
Go ahead and try to sue a company over the rules for a game, Oni. I'm sure the judge of your local court could use a good laugh.

I've heard of weirder.

Besides, there's a difference between "These rules are bad!" and "This product is literally unfinished."

 oni wrote:
I'm sure to some extent they want to make sure that what is released is perfectly accurate. Especially after making themselves look like incompetent fools.

Hasn't given them pause with any other publication...

 oni wrote:
I'm sure to some extent they want to make sure that what is released is perfectly accurate. Especially after making themselves look like incompetent fools.

Everything GW releases makes them look like incompetent fools. No FAQ has ever made anything "perfectly accurate".

If even Activision-"We sold our souls to China and laughed all the way to the bank"-Blizzard are willing to (somewhat saltily) give refunds when they release an unfinished and not fit for purpose product, GW can.

Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.

Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.

So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.

It certainly would garner an absolute fork-ton of good will if they said something like "Sorry about the CA2019 book(s), we've reprinted it with all the numbers and stuff correct, bring yours in or mail it to us and we'll replace it for no charge."

Not going to happen of course, but one can dream.

 Kcalehc wrote:
It certainly would garner an absolute fork-ton of good will if they said something like "Sorry about the CA2019 book(s), we've reprinted it with all the numbers and stuff correct, bring yours in or mail it to us and we'll replace it for no charge."

Not going to happen of course, but one can dream.

At this point I would settle just for them apologizing for the delay in the FAQ and saying they're working on it, even if it's a bald-faced lie. It's the silence which makes you wonder if they are just not saying anything or if they forgot about it or if they plan on reprinting and charging you again, or what. Anything other than radio silence.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.

Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.

So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.

You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.

 Brother Castor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.

Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.

So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.

You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.

You know, I thought that, but that means you'll be stuck with 4 cards instead of 5, and that's kind of weird. You'd think the wording would be a little clearer too. Like, it should have said "discard all and draw 4 cards to replace them" but it doesn't say that.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.

Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.

So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.

You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.

You know, I thought that, but that means you'll be stuck with 4 cards instead of 5, and that's kind of weird. You'd think the wording would be a little clearer too. Like, it should have said "discard all and draw 4 cards to replace them" but it doesn't say that.

That's the whole point - you got to change your cards but now you only have 4 cards so you're at a disadvantage (only for one turn though). It's a penalty for changing your cards.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.

Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.

So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.

You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.

You know, I thought that, but that means you'll be stuck with 4 cards instead of 5, and that's kind of weird. You'd think the wording would be a little clearer too. Like, it should have said "discard all and draw 4 cards to replace them" but it doesn't say that.

It's pretty clear.

USING YOUR OBJECTIVE DECK
At the start of the first battle round, each player shuffles their Objective deck and draws 5 Tactical Objective cards. If either player is not happy with the initial cards (referring to the 5 cards) that they have drawn, they can choose to place them (the 5 cards) at the bottom of their Objective deck, in any order, and draw 4 new Tactical Objective cards.

Huh, fair enough. It was the 4 cards that threw me off, because I was expecting a complete redo. But if its intended as a drawback then that makes sense.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Brother Castor wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Since we are on the topic of errata, can someone please explain to me how the first turn discarding process works for the new maelstrom objectives system? Because it says that if I don't like the 5 cards in my hand, I can get rid of them and draw 4 cards.

Here's the thing though -
- It doesn't state how many cards I can get rid of
- Its 4 cards and not 5, so if I discard all I will end up with 1 card short
- It says 4 cards, but not "up to 4 cards to a maximum of 5", meaning that if I just discard one, I can have 8 cards in my hand.

So what's the proper procedure RAW, because right now its super weird.

You draw 5 and if you don't like them you discard them all and draw another 4 instead.

You know, I thought that, but that means you'll be stuck with 4 cards instead of 5, and that's kind of weird. You'd think the wording would be a little clearer too. Like, it should have said "discard all and draw 4 cards to replace them" but it doesn't say that.

What's unclear, exactly? I thought it was fairly obvious you lose 5 and pick up 4.

You get less cards to compensate for taking the Mulligan. Pretty standard stuff.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Huh, fair enough. It was the 4 cards that threw me off, because I was expecting a complete redo. But if its intended as a drawback then that makes sense.

I think this is how the mulligan works in Magic, and other CCGs that use it - it's possible the wording could've been a little clearer, though.

That is not quite how it works in Magic.

You get seven cards.
First mulligan is free.
Second mulligan, draw seven-then place one card on the bottom of your deck.
Third mulligan, two cards on the bottom.
So on and so forth.

I guess its something I'm not familiar with. I don't know the term mulligan and I don't play magic. The only card games I'm really familiar with are the poker varieties.
I think the last time I played Uno was like a decade ago.

 JNAProductions wrote:
That is not quite how it works in Magic.

You get seven cards.
First mulligan is free.
Second mulligan, draw seven-then place one card on the bottom of your deck.
Third mulligan, two cards on the bottom.
So on and so forth.

They've tweaked it a little since I last played, then - when I was last playing it was draw 7, then 6, then 5, etc.

*exhales*

I just read this entire thread from start to finish. I was hoping we'd have some news on an FAQ for CA2019. What I instead found was mind-bloggling. And whilst I don't want to get too meta-commentary on Dakka, this thread is simply amazing. The amount of people who clearly don't understand what "trolling" or "strawman" arguments are is staggering.

I totally get why BCB rubs people the wrong way (I personally find him quite entertaining - he's the most mauleed Dakkanaut to have existed since the days of mauleed, and he garnered much the same response from people who didn't understand him), but come on folks:

His basic point is 100% correct.

We do not get to decide what rules are correct and which ones are wrong.
We do not get to decide which rules to include and which rules to ignore.
We do not get to decide what rules are typos and which are not.

The 55-point Acolyte is a wonderful example because it is so absurd, so obviously incorrect, so clearly a mistake and yet, it is the printed rules. It doesn't matter if everyone on Earth agreed it was incorrect, because that's what printed, and until it is unprinted it will remain that way, no matter how dumb you or I think it is.

And his further points just emphasise that. If the 55-point Acolyte is incorrect, what's to say that the Thunderhammer price increase is wrong? No one's been able to answer that question beyond "But 55 points is obviously wrong!" which doesn't actually answer the point BCB was making.

How much of a % increase is "obviously" a mistake?
How many extra points should something be before it is "clearly" an error?

More than that, the most frustrating thing about this thread is how everyone seems more interested in screaming at BCB because of how he's saying what he's saying than discussing what he's actually saying. The link to the 8th Ed errors in BCB is fascinating not because he's telling you how to play the game, but because he's pointing out the frustrating and obvious rules issues that GW has always had. I remember from years ago when it was technically possible to join Commissars to enemy units and execute their leaders when they failed Morale checks. Did anyone play that way? Of course they didn't. But they could have if they wanted to, and BCB's big list of 8th Ed's failings are very akin to that kind of murky ill-defined and clearly-not-intended rules that GW has always been (in)famous for.

All he does is argue RAW. People seem to take massive amounts of offence at that, and that's just silly. The rules say what the rules say, even if what they say is stupid. BCB isn't advocating that you must play them that way - I doubt he'd actually insist that his opponent cannot fire assault weapons after advancing - he's simply stating that they are the way that they are and yelling at him (of all people) for pointing out what the rules say is beyond stupid.

Eh, BCB does claim to actually play RAW. So he probably WOULD insist on not firing assault weapons.

I agree with him in most cases, but I do think he takes it rather too far. Technically right, if not always the way to play.

On your on-topic essay, let’s pull apart your Three Rules For Rules:

We do not get to decide what rules are correct and which ones are wrong.

Wrong... you literally can, if applying a semblance of critical judgement allows you to spot obvious snafus. The 55pt Cult guys is such a one, blatantly. Others may be in doubt so go as written. Being absolutist helps no one. A basic squad shouldn’t shoot up 50pts per guy for T3 squishy dudes. Fairly easy to weed that one out, unless you’re just posturing for internet points.

We do not get to decide which rules to include and which rules to ignore.

Wrong... in fact you must do that for every game you play. There default state for 40K used in most pickup games follow optional terrain and force composition rules.

We do not get to decide what rules are typos and which are not.

This is the same as your first point. You probably should attempt to ignore obvious typos. Blindly following an obvious typo doesn’t give you any kind of intellectual high ground, quite the opposite in fact.

And what determines a typo? Where is the line drawn?

Why are Neophytes obvious, but thunder hammers or Ogryns aren’t?

The GSC seems obvious as all hell. The others aren’t obviously wrong, so follow them unless told otherwise. Not hard to do. A T3 dude doesn’t go up 50pts. Everyone needs to stop being silly about that particular example.

Why can’t you draw a line? Not everything is a slippery slope to madnesssss. It’s possible to say “Neophytes going from 5 to 55pts is silly, the designer clearly hit the 5 key twice and no one spotted it” without throwing your arms up in the air and going “well how do I know if they aren’t ALL typos where do I draw the liiiiinnnne?” and collapsing into an existential mess.