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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And what determines a typo? Where is the line drawn?

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

Cue the core issue.
There are a bunch of obvious typos in there, like the 55pts Hybrids.
There are also choices in there that are not making sense,cue MoP and sorcerer drop.
There are Units in there not changed even though they should've been in all the ca's cue Chaos spawn r&h variety.

But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!

If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.

Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

You again miss his point.

Of course 55 point Acolytes is wrong, but that doesn't matter. It's the printed rules and until it is changed it remains the printed rules. You and I don't get to decide what's not the rules and what is the rules. How much clearer can we make this?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

Stop being so intellectually dishonest. Of course there are elements of the rules that you don't use all the time (you don't use points values in a Narrative Play game where the players have agreed to use Power Levels, for example) but that is not what I was talking about (and I suspect you knew that).

I'm not going to restate my point, lest you start calling me a troll...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

What's an obvious typo? And as BCB said, it's not blindly following the rules. It's just following the rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!

If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.

Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?

Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!

If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.

Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?

Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.

And that is a problem.

Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!

If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.

Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?

Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.

And that is a problem.

Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.

Which Leads to my point above, the quality of the ca is shoddy enough to Make people question it, legitimately i might add, if Change xyz was really intended.

MoP,drop makes absolute sense, it's a nieche psyker with a terrible nieche,the regular sorcerer however is a whole other Level of justifyablity.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!

If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.

Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?

Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.

And that is a problem.

Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.

Which Leads to my point above, the quality of the ca is shoddy enough to Make people question it, legitimately i might add, if Change xyz was really intended.

MoP,drop makes absolute sense, it's a nieche psyker with a terrible nieche,the regular sorcerer however is a whole other Level of justifyablity.

The drop brings the sorcerer in like with the loyalist's librarian. Why should our psyker cost more? Especially considering the massive amount of psychic powers the loyalists currently have access to?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!

If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.

Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?

Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.

Thats what I'm saying Ogryns were still not good compared to bullgryns yet they go up the same amount of points they'd gone down last year ? For what reason ? For what point ? The obvious errors give you pause to think there may be other ones especially when they seem to come without any kind of logical reasoning. Then they just decide to never fix any of them. I mean are they still on vacation at this point ? If it was just the couple of obvious errors, why take this long ? I thought the way they set up the new CA was good, but I'm very happy I didn't buy it with how fubar the offerings ended up.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!

If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.

Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?

Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.

And that is a problem.

Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.

Which Leads to my point above, the quality of the ca is shoddy enough to Make people question it, legitimately i might add, if Change xyz was really intended.

MoP,drop makes absolute sense, it's a nieche psyker with a terrible nieche,the regular sorcerer however is a whole other Level of justifyablity.

The drop brings the sorcerer in like with the loyalist's librarian. Why should our psyker cost more? Especially considering the massive amount of psychic powers the loyalists currently have access to?

And yet i'd Change not away from the csm discipline, conparatively to any sm discipline.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

You again miss his point.

Of course 55 point Acolytes is wrong, but that doesn't matter. It's the printed rules and until it is changed it remains the printed rules. You and I don't get to decide what's not the rules and what is the rules. How much clearer can we make this?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

Stop being so intellectually dishonest. Of course there are elements of the rules that you don't use all the time (you don't use points values in a Narrative Play game where the players have agreed to use Power Levels, for example) but that is not what I was talking about (and I suspect you knew that).

I'm not going to restate my point, lest you start calling me a troll...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

What's an obvious typo? And as BCB said, it's not blindly following the rules. It's just following the rules.

Oh do stop. The subject of the thread isn’t BCB’s preferences, and backhanded accusations of trolling are still against Rule 1. Stay on topic, stay polite, do relax a little. It’s a chat about toy soldiers.

I’m not missing any points (I understand BCB’s ethos better than you do it seems) or being ‘intellectually dishonest’ on your second statement. You literally must decide what rules you’re using in every game. There is no default ruleset. Given this, your slippery slope fallacy falls apart like a wet cake. If it’s possible to decide that X terrain rule would be unfun to use then it’s possible to exclude an obvious outlier points typo and revert to the more likely and previously-published 5pts. Because piss and moan as much as you like in pursuit of a point, but that 55pts is a typo that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t just posturing. I’m sorry, but it is. I can’t speak to other potential errors but this one isn’t even in doubt.

Following a rule that screams typo (and that the community has generally deduced to be a blatant typo) *is* blindly following the rules, sorry bud. The aim of the game is to compete and have fun. Following the rules isn’t necessarily in itself fun or the object of 40K. Again, an absolutist stance doesn’t work for 40K, and claiming fixing one typo leads to anarchy or is verboten is just silly, frankly. And once again, seems to be an Internet-only problem.

And how are you certain that was a typo? You don't have proof do you?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
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.

You again miss his point.

The rules only matter if you let them matter, you play by the rules you want to play by. When you play 40k you don't care about Warmahordes rules, you cannot know the actual intention behind every single rule so you have to come to an agreement with your opponent as to which rules you want to follow.

It absolutely is blindly following the rules, if you lived in a country that forced you to cannibalize your firstborn sibling at the age of 13 you wouldn't do that either, you would come to an agreement with your sibling that you're either supposed to give them a gift or take them to the carnival or just do nothing, because cannibalizing your siblings is insane, even if the government's official stance is that you should do it. I am not exaggerating here, 55 pt Acolytes is as insane as cannibalizing your siblings. Or you could consider the formal government rules which mandated racism in some countries, even in times and places where it was mandated some still chose not to follow these inane rules. GW is not even my government or my religion, I can house rule as much as I want as long as my opponent agrees. There is a difference between the government mandating you not cross a red light at 90 miles an hour and the government mandating you become a racist or a cannibal. Watch The Wave (Die Welle), you're a sheep. Oooor a troll.

It doesn't even matter if it was a typo, whether someone at GW thought it'd be funny to see people arguing around like a bunch of headless cats or if it was a typo, it's wrong and you should not play with it.

I find it hard to believe that they intended Neophytes to be 5 pts. Why would they retype the same pts cost? Wouldn't they just copy-paste the old value? Do you mean to tell me they don't have a spreadsheet with these numbers and instead they literally have someone with a printout of the old pts values typing it in by hand? Sorry, but I don't believe it - no one is that incompetent.

Obviously they intended to increase the pts cost for Neophytes in anticipation of the awesome new Prepared Ambush stratagem. No other unit in the game can fire their autoguns as Assault 2 and Neophytes pts cost should reflect this.

Now clearly 55 pts is a wee bit steep even taking into account the fantastic new utility of the unit, and therefore more than likely a typo. Common sense should tell us that they obviously intended to type 11 pts but hit the 5 key twice rather than the 1 key twice. So because I'm such a nice guy I'll let you, my opponent, field them as 11 pts until the errata is released. You're welcome.

Are neophytes 55 points now? I thought acolytes were, which are not neophytes.
Not that I think acolytes should be 55 points; I'm not too familiar with their statline, but the models don't look like 55 point models.

Maybe GW confused them with abberants?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The subject of the thread isn’t BCB’s preferences, and backhanded accusations of trolling are still against Rule 1. Stay on topic, stay polite, do relax a little. It’s a chat about toy soldiers.

Big words given everything you've been throwing out at him (in a most backhanded way, I might add ):

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I’m not missing any points...

And yet you're still arguing against 55 point Acolytes when 55 point Acolytes aren't the point, they're just the example. An extreme one, to be sure, but an example nonetheless, one indicative of the issue at hand: Typo or not, they're the written rules as they are. To say they are a mistake is callous because it is essentially you deciding it is a mistake, rather than the rules doing so.

Again, I could decide that GW clearly didn't meant to make Thunder Hammers 444% more expensive than 9 point power fists, right? I mean that's just silly. It has to be a typo, right? And it wouldn't matter if it is or if it isn't. It's what the rules say. There is no distinction between "blindly" following the rules, and following the rules. That's what you need to understand.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You literally must decide what rules you’re using in every game. There is no default ruleset. Given this, your slippery slope fallacy falls apart like a wet cake.

Ignoring the mixed metaphor, I don't think you know what a slippery slope argument is. And your dishonest (or just disingenuous - you pick!) example doesn't work.

This isn't about the framework of the game (are we narrative, matched, etc.), what type of game we're playing (Spearhead, ITC, whatever), or the nitty gritty of armies (X PL, Y points, etc.). You don't get to ignore the shooting phase, for example. You don't get to ignore the rules for Smite. You don't get to choose whether you follow or ignore the rules for transports. If you're playing a matched play game that involves points you do not get to choose the points. GW has done that for you. And you don't get to decide what's a typo and what isn't, no matter how frickin' stupid that typo may be. If you are making that up, then you have ceased playing 40K as it exists in GW's rules (a bit like ITC), and whilst that's perfectly fine, it doesn't change that BCB or anyone else arguing RAW is right.

So take 5 point Acolytes. Take 10 points Acolytes. Take fething free Acolytes for all I care. Whatever you chose, you're not following the rules as written. That is the point.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Because piss and moan as much as you like in pursuit of a point, but that 55pts is a typo that’s obvious to anyone who isn’t just posturing.

Of course it's a typo... but that's not the point. How many times must it stated. You're fixated on this ultimately meaningless 55 point cost. It's not about the cost of Acolytes. The cost of Acolytes is immaterial to the conversation at hand.

1. You don't get to decide what the rules are. You and your friends are more than welcome to come up with your own rules, ignore bits of the rules and do whatever you want with them, but you can't them come along and tell us that your version of the rules would be as valid or correct as what GW has written because it's their game, not yours. Our group abandoned 40K and did our own version for years and years - but we never pretended that our version was just as valid as GW's.

2. You don't get to decide what's a mistake and what's not, for the reasons already stated. Neither do I, mind. This applies to all of us equally, not just you. And it doesn't matter how obvious the mistake is. Up until last week (or whenever it was) Mortifiers could come in units of 6, or 4, depending on which page of the book you looked at. 4 made more sense given Pengine units, but which one was the typo? I don't think GW meant for Thunder Hammers to be over 400% more than Power Fists. But it doesn't matter if I think that (I don't actually, much like I don't think Acolytes are meant to be 55). But it's what's there.



And I'm not even going to dignify that "baby eating" post below yours with a response. I mean Jesus Christ...

[opinion]
BCB is a treasure, and this community would be worse off in his absence. He's almost 100% right on his assessment of Games Workshop's publications. I say almost, because sometimes he uses hyperbole to suggest that the books are completely worthless, but that's not true. Even the most error ridden books have some value, and a good game can generally be got by just working around these issues with your gaming buddy.

On the other hand, the issues mentioned are definitely and undeniably there, and the thing that I'm entirely onside with BCB on is that these books, with their many issues absolutely are not worth their premium cost, and therein lies the issue. Games Workshop charges a premium cost for what is essentially, a fairly crappy product. Not total garbage, but fairly crappy, and definitely not worth the premium.

In other words, he's correct when he says the books are not worth the money, but he's wrong when he says the game is unplayable because of it.

I don't think there's anything really controversial in any of this. My suspicion is that the controversy arises from BCB's penchant for hyperbole and talking in absolutes, but it seems to me that this is just the passion of someone who really does love the game no matter what he says, and we should consider this before judging him too harshly.
[/opinion]

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But ogryns are almost certainly a typo too! They suck, but they went up!

If I played more IG, I’d be pretty salty if my playgroup wanted me to use the official points cost when they’re a blatant error.

Also, probably more importantly, WHY HASN’T IT BEEN FIXED? Seriously, it’s been how long with that error still out?

Tbf i don't think ogryns were meant for the hike but rather bullgryns.
And or they just copy pasted the older ca and called it a Day.

And that is a problem.

Seriously-this is not hard QA stuff. This is basic, obvious to anyone who plays QA.

Which Leads to my point above, the quality of the ca is shoddy enough to Make people question it, legitimately i might add, if Change xyz was really intended.

MoP,drop makes absolute sense, it's a nieche psyker with a terrible nieche,the regular sorcerer however is a whole other Level of justifyablity.

The drop brings the sorcerer in like with the loyalist's librarian. Why should our psyker cost more? Especially considering the massive amount of psychic powers the loyalists currently have access to?

And yet i'd Change not away from the csm discipline, conparatively to any sm discipline.

Yes but if gw insists on pricing similar units for loyalists and heretics the same I say take the good with the bad. Remember ALL their units get doctrines, super doctrines, access to more strategems, atsknf, and on and on. If they get all of that while paying the same price for similar units as csm then it's perfectly reasonable our psykers cost the same even with their superior discipline.

So, no news on errata for CA 2019, then?

You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?

Moriarty wrote:
So, no news on errata for CA 2019, then?

You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?

The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information.
It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

snippity

Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?) I fundamentally disagree. Repeating the same things back and forth intractably ad nauseam/thread lock isn’t interesting so this post will be it from me on this topic.

Following things verbatim when you can have a more fun game by boiling out obvious errors is just... wel, counter-intuitive is the politest way I can express it. Screw anyone who tries to make my Neophytes 55pts each “because tHe RoOlZ sAy So”. That’s just utterly inane. I’m taking 40 in a list tomorrow and won’t be paying 2,200 points for them. If that would make you decline the game then I’d be absolutely OK with that.

YMMV (and clearly does). Play the game you like how you like, it doesn’t affect my enjoyment.

And if I said the same about Thunder Hammers, you would accept that too? If not, why not? Why is one a typo and the other not? What is the cut off point?

 JohnnyHell wrote:


Ignoring the continued baiting (srsly y you so salty?) I fundamentally disagree. Repeating the same things back and forth intractably ad nauseam/thread lock isn’t interesting so this post will be it from me on this topic.

Following things verbatim when you can have a more fun game by boiling out obvious errors is just... wel, counter-intuitive is the politest way I can express it. Screw anyone who tries to make my Neophytes 55pts each “because tHe RoOlZ sAy So”. That’s just utterly inane. I’m taking 40 in a list tomorrow and won’t be paying 2,200 points for them. If that would make you decline the game then I’d be absolutely OK with that.

YMMV (and clearly does). Play the game you like how you like, it doesn’t affect my enjoyment.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Moriarty wrote:
So, no news on errata for CA 2019, then?

You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?

The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information.
It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.

And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.

Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Moriarty wrote:
So, no news on errata for CA 2019, then?

You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?

The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information.
It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.

And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have followed have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.

Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?

probably realising that they should do a propper CA / balance sheet / doccument they can adapt on the fly.
And or the intern is responsible is drunk again.

Moriarty wrote:
So, no news on errata for CA 2019, then?

You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?

A watch that's five minutes fast I guess.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Moriarty wrote:
So, no news on errata for CA 2019, then?

You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?

The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information.
It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.

And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have followed have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.

Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?

probably realising that they should do a propper CA / balance sheet / doccument they can adapt on the fly.
And or the intern is responsible is drunk again.

Probably option number 2 as option 1 would have to involve making it free online and that doesn't fit the typical gw business model. Gw is to money as orks are to dakka. Never enough.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Moriarty wrote:
So, no news on errata for CA 2019, then?

You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?

The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information.
It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.

And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.

Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?

It may be combined into the Spring FAQ. Already more than 1/2 the way there from when CA came out.

Particularly if a balance patch for Space Marines is in the works, it might make sense to them to wait and do both at once.

 Asmodai wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Moriarty wrote:
So, no news on errata for CA 2019, then?

You may want to consider; a watch that is five minutes fast is never right. A watch that has stopped is right twice a day. Which is more useful?

The fast watch because you can easily extrapolate the current time while the stopped one cannot give you that information.
It's now February, the book was released in December and GW PROMISED that faqs and errata would be out two weeks after book release.

And considering that all the other books released at the time and afterwards have stuck to the 2 week schedule the delay on the ca faq is perplexing, frustrating and infuriating.

Seriously gw what's the holdup? Just what are they doing? Complete rewrite?

It may be combined into the Spring FAQ. Already more than 1/2 the way there from when CA came out.

Particularly if a balance patch for Space Marines is in the works, it might make sense to them to wait and do both at once.

Well if that's it then that's bullgak seeing as people have already paid $30 for ca. It should be corrected now. That's just bad business.

I think people just don't like the radio silence from Games Workshop on the issue of CA. Everyone agrees that the radio silence is bad for the consumer, right?

Darsath wrote:
I think people just don't like the radio silence from Games Workshop on the issue of CA. Everyone agrees that the radio silence is bad for the consumer, right?

Yes. They could at least explain some of the thinking on their decisions.

Right, apparently it is too hard for GW to go "oops, we messed up. Fixes are on the way!"