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.

The SW Codex lists Skyclaws as 5-10 models, Swiftclaws as 3-9.

The SW Errata changes this to match the datasheets, Skyclaws as 5-15 and Swiftclaws as 3-16.

Chapter Approved 2018 reverted this back to Skyclaws as 5-10 models, Swiftclaws as 3-9.

Is it surprising at this point that GW can't even make their book of errata correctly? Again? After CA17 has fundamental errors as well?

I hope someone emails GW about this for the "two week" FAQ (which I assume will be delayed due to Christmas) because I've started to give up hope at this point.

https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/6750/how-many-errors-per-page-volume-is-typically-okay-in-a-book
Writing books takes effort. GW are putting out a large volume of books each year. There can only be so much editing done in the time frames they're working with.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Write a book, from scratch, the same size as a GW book.
You'll make mistakes, I guarantee it.


What you should really think about is why something so small bothers you so much.
Don't sweat the small stuff. It'll just stress you out for no benefit.

Email them for the CA faq

Zustiur wrote:
https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/6750/how-many-errors-per-page-volume-is-typically-okay-in-a-book
Writing books takes effort. GW are putting out a large volume of books each year. There can only be so much editing done in the time frames they're working with.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Write a book, from scratch, the same size as a GW book.
You'll make mistakes, I guarantee it.


What you should really think about is why something so small bothers you so much.
Don't sweat the small stuff. It'll just stress you out for no benefit.

But they already did the edit, so it is not writing from scratch. Codex and index already exist, they just shift points around, and most points are changed in faction groups. So if all flamers go down in one marine army, they go down in points in all marine armies. So if changes happened last year, GW should kind of a know about them, as it is kind of a them that made the changes. Or do you want to tell me that when they write their new CA book, they don't look at the FAQ or errata that they themselfs made?

Zustiur wrote:
https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/6750/how-many-errors-per-page-volume-is-typically-okay-in-a-book
Writing books takes effort. GW are putting out a large volume of books each year. There can only be so much editing done in the time frames they're working with.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Write a book, from scratch, the same size as a GW book.
You'll make mistakes, I guarantee it.


What you should really think about is why something so small bothers you so much.
Don't sweat the small stuff. It'll just stress you out for no benefit.

It bothers him because he paid money.

Let's not forget gw hasn't released a single rule book without errors, that's beyond a mistake that's a pattern of not giving a skitja about quality.

Well I'm not sure have I bought any book without errors from any company. They all tend to have errors.

Perhaps these changes to unit sizes have been made deliberately, instead of jumping on the "hur hur, GW messed up again!" bandwagon.

 Valkyrie wrote:
Perhaps these changes to unit sizes have been made deliberately, instead of jumping on the "hur hur, GW messed up again!" bandwagon.

It would be a somewhat big change in both the fluff and crunch to change the unit size of Bloodclaws like that. Seems the type of thing that gets changed with a codex release instead of what’s effective a game patch book.

As to the whole “they fethed up again” vs “writing is hard, mistakes happen” bit. Mistakes happen in printing so its hard to catch errors BUT the one thing you go over with intense scrutiny is the zogging rules in a bloody rule book. With 8th and it’s “streamlined” rules it’s even less excusable because there should be less total text to mess up. Also these books aren’t cheap so accuracy is to be expected.

Is there a real reason to be surprised that the same error in the print version of the Codex is in CA? We don't know when it was noted an could easily have been after CA was sent to press.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The SW Codex lists Skyclaws as 5-10 models, Swiftclaws as 3-9.

The SW Errata changes this to match the datasheets, Skyclaws as 5-15 and Swiftclaws as 3-16.

Chapter Approved 2018 reverted this back to Skyclaws as 5-10 models, Swiftclaws as 3-9.

Is it surprising at this point that GW can't even make their book of errata correctly? Again? After CA17 has fundamental errors as well?

I hope someone emails GW about this for the "two week" FAQ (which I assume will be delayed due to Christmas) because I've started to give up hope at this point.

You do know that this quite likely went to the printers long before Codex Space Puppies was released right?

Also, do Erratas that are still "current", i.e. on the Warhammer Community page, get outdated by CA?
Back in the day FAQ/Errata superseded both Codex and BRB, and if a new book came out, that FAQ/Errata was taken down.
Considering the SW is still viable, I'd say it still supersedes any publication, regardless of CA2018 being "newer"

-