PDA

View Full Version : So they write articles and they cheat in those articles, brilliant.



Kalandros
17-07-2009, 19:27
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat1300316&categoryId=400025&section=&pIndex=8&aId=13500004&start=9

Nog's Banner & the Squigs
Adam Troke: A cunning little tactic that my mate Henry used to use involved giving an Orc Battle Standard Bearer Nog's Banner of Butchery and adding him into a unit of Cave Squigs - in the turn that the banner is used, the Squigs each have a staggering 3 Strength 5 Attacks!


Okay... If I'm not mistaken, they mean "Squig Herd" when speaking of "Cave Squigs", as it would be even more pointless to have a M4 character in a 3d6 compulsory unit.
Squig Herds - in the Orc & Gobs Armybook: "Characters may not Join squig herds"

If the Games Workshop employees who are involved in the writing of rules cannot even follow them properly, why do I even bother with their games again? :[

Avian
17-07-2009, 19:35
Characters can't join squig hoppers either.

And they misspelled "Nogg"...



And the tip under "Armour penetration" above makes no sense:

you can charge into the best armoured units that your enemy has, dishing out the hurt with your whopping -4 saving throw modifier (-5 if you charged that turn)
The Skewerer is not some kind of spear.

Arduhn
17-07-2009, 19:37
I saw something like that in the Regiments of Reknown section at one point. They were recommending Birdmen in a Dwarf army or something like that, when they are only allowed in Dogs of War or Empire armies.

Condottiere
17-07-2009, 19:46
Well, if you take RoR, you might not always notice the various restrictions. But I have heard of some more obvious goofs involved with the then current army books being promoted.

badgeraddict
17-07-2009, 20:00
/facepalm

Oh dear. I do wonder about GW sometimes. Its like they have short term memory loss or something!

Way to go confusing newbies (to the game) reading that article for 'tricks'.

Lord Malorne
17-07-2009, 20:09
Noobs cheat anyway, this way they at least think they are not and are being clever using their 'own' tactica :D.

loveless
17-07-2009, 20:20
I still like the old article (...may have been in a White Dwarf) that talked about the benefits of taking a Glamourweave Spellsinger on foot in a unit of Dryads.

Though I still remember the Eldar v. Black Templar battle report where the Eldar player was over points (and knew it) and the Templar list was one of the worst concoctions I've ever seen that book produce.

Then there's the "I kill a champion, I get a roll!" WoC battle report...

They really don't seem to know their own rules very well.

cornixt
17-07-2009, 21:43
They are rarely players of the armies they use in battle reports. Most of them barely play fantasy, they are mostly 40k players.

Slyphor
17-07-2009, 22:40
While I agree with the fairly obvious point that GW bat reps should be accurate, I think the "rules lawyers" would find an insane number of errors in all of our games if we were to report them all. Part of the charm of the game is in its flexibility and in the way it allows you to experience hundreds and thousands of unique events with a fairly concise set of guidelines.

I would recommend that an easy way to solve the issue would be to have the army book editors/writers read through each bat rep/tactica involving their particular army for errors and masking or hiding those errors when it came to publication. While being aware of the rules while playing is ideal, this strategy would at least protect the White Dwarf staff from obvious derision.

outbreak
17-07-2009, 22:51
alot of their battle reports seem to take lists that noone on most forums would say is a good list it seems.

Arduhn
17-07-2009, 23:12
alot of their battle reports seem to take lists that noone on most forums would say is a good list it seems.

That's something I'm not so concerned with. It seems that the forums come up with the best possible lists based on mathematical formulas of what is worth its points cost, and what has a chance of performing certain roles, etc. In the end, I just play for fun, I've never played in a tourney, so I don't really worry if I get beaten, I'm more worried about having a good time, and ensuring that the other guy does too.

I can see why it would bother people who are competative, and play the game as if it's a sport. No offence intended to any who do so, it's a perfectly legitimate way to play, and I'm not saying that people who play this way have any less fun than I do.

Slyphor
17-07-2009, 23:15
alot of their battle reports seem to take lists that noone on most forums would say is a good list it seems.

I would also argue, that as a business model, the White Dwarf folks have a mandate to use troops/armies that aren't selling as well or that are just being released to boost interest and sales in those armies. They might not be the most competitive, but they do often show different facets that you might not have considered if you didn't consider that particular unit to be worthwhile.

Ozorik
17-07-2009, 23:29
I think the "rules lawyers" would find an insane number of errors in all of our games if we were to report them all.

I doubt it, any experienced wargamer will be able to play games with a minimum of errors. GW staff are supposed to be experienced wargamers, at the very least they should know their own rules well.

There is no excuse, its simply shoddy work.

WD armies are seldom 'competative'.

WD battle report armies tend to be comprised of the studio showcase minis, which are designed to be representative of the entire list. This leaves little room for list tailoring, this is not a bad thing though.

Urgat
17-07-2009, 23:40
While I agree with the fairly obvious point that GW bat reps should be accurate, I think the "rules lawyers" would find an insane number of errors in all of our games if we were to report them all. Part of the charm of the game is in its flexibility and in the way it allows you to experience hundreds and thousands of unique events with a fairly concise set of guidelines.

I would agree when it comes to rules themselves, but army lists, that's a bit far fetched. The rules for each units are usually pretty clear, and not that numerous or difficult to follow, and when it says that a character may not join a unit, I find it difficult to swallow that anybody could miss that. "Cunning" isn't exactly the word I'd use for that "tactic" described above. Even if it was legal, I wouldn't see what's so cunning about it anyway. The banner gives one more attack, so yeah, the unit you give it to would gain one more attack. Woopeedoo, Einstein level tactic! Brilliant! You give it to big'un savage boar riders with spears, and they get five S5 attacks on the charge. Am I brilliant for thinking of that, or what? :p

decker_cky
18-07-2009, 00:38
The WD armies are also very limited by the studio models. They usually have a single box set of each thing, and often don't have enough to make effective units.

Another screw up by Adam Troke was when he bragged about how hard lion chariots were with the S6 attacks of the riders.

catbarf
18-07-2009, 04:52
While I agree with the fairly obvious point that GW bat reps should be accurate, I think the "rules lawyers" would find an insane number of errors in all of our games if we were to report them all.

Beating a dead horse, but

To think that they would not seize upon the potential for free rules revision.

Condottiere
18-07-2009, 07:32
The WD armies are also very limited by the studio models. They usually have a single box set of each thing, and often don't have enough to make effective units.

Another screw up by Adam Troke was when he bragged about how hard lion chariots were with the S6 attacks of the riders.That is funny - one story I heard was that he deliberately designed the chariots so that it would consistently deliver six attacks strength 5 at WS 5.

Tae
18-07-2009, 09:08
I remember after the new Dark Elves book came out the website gave some 'tactical advice' to new players, specifically when it comes to the magic phase.

Their tactical genius was to cast Power of Darkness with all your sorceresses before using any of the extra power dice to cast other spells.

Yes brilliant idea GW, then just wait for one miscast with the first sorcereress to end the magic phase and watch as your entire magic threat/defence all dies horribly in the first turn. Amazing!

EvC
18-07-2009, 20:15
They are rarely players of the armies they use in battle reports. Most of them barely play fantasy, they are mostly 40k players.

Don't have a clue what you're talking about. The worst mistakes are ALWAYS be the very authors of the books themselves, whether it's Adam Troke giving two Arcane Items to one of his Mages (When he specifically removed anything like that ability from the army) or +2S for chariot-mounted models, or the Warriors of Chaos author enthusing about how great the Eye of the Gods rule is because you get rolls from killing unit champions...

Nuada
18-07-2009, 21:09
Not that i'm defending the studio here, but has anyone considered that when they write the articles or battle reports those mistakes could be the rules at the time. We get photocopies of the armies about 6 months before all the books are released. The rules change alot in playtesting, and those articles are written a long time in advance.

The +2 str to white lion in a chariot could have been just for a the high elves (but they scraped it at the last min) The fanatic movement when rolling a hit (in WD they said you could chose the direction) may have been a rule at the time the article was written.

OK, it's a long shot..... but possible :D

AFnord
18-07-2009, 21:12
Many battles reports are written before the main rulebook is actually in print, at least those "army introduction" ones. So the Eye of the gods mistake might simply be from an older version of their rule, something that they simply figured out would be too good, or promote a type of play that they did not intend. The same might well be true with many of the other army specific mistakes made in these introductuary battle reports.

Slyphor
19-07-2009, 03:24
The rules change alot in playtesting, and those articles are written a long time in advance.

OK, it's a long shot..... but possible :D

I capitulate on the army selections here. Yes - I agree that army selection should be basic enough to get right EVERY time. However, when it comes to the suggestion quoted above, that makes a lot of sense. I remember from old issues that battle reports or even features in WD can be written months before they are able to be included in the mag. If you want a battle featuring a particular army to be in the WD that's released the same month as the army, then no doubt the rules weren't in the 'official' rule books that we all eventually purchase. What are they using as references, pdf print-outs? Previous editions of rules with stuff crossed out and changed? It's totally feasible that some of these changes might not have been noticed before publication. Again, not defending the WD staff, but playing devil's advocate.

Urgat
19-07-2009, 04:24
I capitulate on the army selections here. Yes - I agree that army selection should be basic enough to get right EVERY time. However, when it comes to the suggestion quoted above, that makes a lot of sense. I remember from old issues that battle reports or even features in WD can be written months before they are able to be included in the mag. If you want a battle featuring a particular army to be in the WD that's released the same month as the army, then no doubt the rules weren't in the 'official' rule books that we all eventually purchase. What are they using as references, pdf print-outs? Previous editions of rules with stuff crossed out and changed? It's totally feasible that some of these changes might not have been noticed before publication. Again, not defending the WD staff, but playing devil's advocate.

Even if that is true, this does not excuse that O&G article. The book's been out for years now.

Condottiere
19-07-2009, 07:30
That's why you have copywriters and editors to spot that sort of thing. Also, the players can tack on additional notes later or alter their manuscripts.

Nephilim of Sin
19-07-2009, 09:08
Even if that is true, this does not excuse that O&G article. The book's been out for years now.

I was going to have to jump in and defend them here, since I agree about the age of articles not reflecting what may be current (we simply don't really know), but after reading those, I simply can't. Not only is the article badly formed, but the fanatic part is just beardy, and is a step away from the 'Fanatic Slingshot'.

Urgat
19-07-2009, 11:48
Mmh? The fanatic thing, I (and many people) do that all the time, excepted I don't deploy my gobs wide, my fanatic release rolls being always so abysmal, no need for that :p You know someone siuggested ever worse, lately: you can release your fanatics from any point, into any direction: just release the fanatics from the back of the unit, towards the front of the unit: you're about garanteed that anybody charging your unit will stop on top of them.
Anyway I don't see what's beardy with that. If you charge a unit of night gobs that hasn't released his fanatics yet, you deserve the punishment. It's really not on the same level as the slingshot.

Chicago Slim
19-07-2009, 13:56
I doubt it, any experienced wargamer will be able to play games with a minimum of errors.

Garbage.

Some years back, 3 of my mates and I trekked out to Origins, where, among other activities, several of us played in the Star Fleet Battles championship tournament. This was, at the time, THE high-profile tourney for that wargame, with nearly a few hundred players coming from all over the world, most of them with at least a decade of experience playing that particular game.

There were 10 judges on hand, during game times, to address rules issues that came up. My mates and I, for a long time afterwards, told stories about opponents who were absolutely certain (and completely wrong) about the rules, but who who say, "Of course I know-- I use this ship all the time!"

Looking things up ourselves after, we also found a handful of cases where judges were clearly and boneheadedly wrong about rules decisions-- despite having well-indexed copies of the rules at hand.


I mention all this only to refute the suggestion that experienced wargamers make few errors. The people in that tournament had, collectively, played hundreds of thousands of hours of that game alone, and made, collectively, thousands of mistakes that weekend.


That said, I agree that GW could do well to screw up less in their WD battle reports-- but, then again, so what? Not everyone's a power gamer, and (perhaps ironically-- though I think it makes a great deal of sense) people who work with games for a living are, in my experience, rarely power gamers. When those guys get a chance to play a game on the clock, they're probably just kicking back and having a good time. Which is, I admit, a perfectly reasonable way to play the game...

Even power gamers like us can afford a little tolerance for the relaxed gamer-- they are, after all, the ones writing the rules... :)

Gratan
19-07-2009, 18:52
Didnt you know?! Bat Reps are played using the next edition of the game! Thats why they dont jive with the current ruleset!

*runs and hides*

Arduhn
19-07-2009, 19:07
Chicago Slim, I can't agree more with what you said. I will add this: when you consider yourself an experienced wargamer, you sometimes take it for granted that you know the rules, and possibly look up fewer things, and don't even know when you are making mistakes.

I also agree that a relaxed battle that almost feels more like hanging out and joking around is a perfectly reasonable way to play, and for me at least, it's more fun.

catbarf
19-07-2009, 23:36
Garbage.

Some years back, 3 of my mates and I trekked out to Origins, where, among other activities, several of us played in the Star Fleet Battles championship tournament. This was, at the time, THE high-profile tourney for that wargame, with nearly a few hundred players coming from all over the world, most of them with at least a decade of experience playing that particular game.

There were 10 judges on hand, during game times, to address rules issues that came up. My mates and I, for a long time afterwards, told stories about opponents who were absolutely certain (and completely wrong) about the rules, but who who say, "Of course I know-- I use this ship all the time!"

Looking things up ourselves after, we also found a handful of cases where judges were clearly and boneheadedly wrong about rules decisions-- despite having well-indexed copies of the rules at hand.


I mention all this only to refute the suggestion that experienced wargamers make few errors. The people in that tournament had, collectively, played hundreds of thousands of hours of that game alone, and made, collectively, thousands of mistakes that weekend.


That said, I agree that GW could do well to screw up less in their WD battle reports-- but, then again, so what? Not everyone's a power gamer, and (perhaps ironically-- though I think it makes a great deal of sense) people who work with games for a living are, in my experience, rarely power gamers. When those guys get a chance to play a game on the clock, they're probably just kicking back and having a good time. Which is, I admit, a perfectly reasonable way to play the game...

Even power gamers like us can afford a little tolerance for the relaxed gamer-- they are, after all, the ones writing the rules... :)

Comparing Warhammer and SFB is like comparing tic-tac-toe to chess. Warhammer's a beer-and-pretzels game, SFB is a mammoth of a ruleset. Apples and oranges here.

Kalec
20-07-2009, 00:41
Warhammer's a beer-and-pretzels game

Not for the prices GW charges, it isn't.

Caboose123
20-07-2009, 00:47
Deja-vu?

-Anyway, its a bit harsh to say they're cheating, its a mistake, it happens. Live with it.
-Also: Even experienced players can get some rules wrong, its unavoidable.

Slyphor
21-07-2009, 05:27
although I was "shouted down"? no, "heartily disagreed with" initially - I want to thank @Chicago Slim for standing up for the casual gamer. As always "if you can't decide whos interpretations of the rules are correct - role a D6."

Night Bearer
21-07-2009, 17:19
I had the chance to talk to Paul Sawyer once about WD (when he was still editor), and IIRC, he said that the deadline for an issue is 3 months prior to it actually hitting the shelves.

I don't remember what specifics (if anything) he might have said about timelines for batreps, but given the amount of work involved, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them aren't played 4-6 months prior to the actual issue they show up in.

If so, and with a 3 month hard deadline for any "last minute" edits, it's probably not real surprising that there are rules discrepancies. At least it's not like the old days, when Space Wolves fought using Assassins, Imperial Psykers, and an Ultramarine Land Raider! :)

Lord Zarkov
21-07-2009, 17:22
Not for the prices GW charges, it isn't.

It's beer and pretzels because that's all you can afford after buying their stuff :P

Ozorik
21-07-2009, 17:53
Garbage.


Well I seem to manage fine, perhaps you need to try harder?

Ixquic
21-07-2009, 18:36
Reading White Dwarf battle reports is like watching the two of the slowest 10 year olds in a store play a game with beautifully painted models. You shouldn't assume they know the rules of the game, let alone play intelligently.

Mireadur
21-07-2009, 20:30
Not that i'm defending the studio here, but has anyone considered that when they write the articles or battle reports those mistakes could be the rules at the time. We get photocopies of the armies about 6 months before all the books are released. The rules change alot in playtesting, and those articles are written a long time in advance.

The +2 str to white lion in a chariot could have been just for a the high elves (but they scraped it at the last min) The fanatic movement when rolling a hit (in WD they said you could chose the direction) may have been a rule at the time the article was written.

OK, it's a long shot..... but possible :D

I personally agree with this, specially about the WoC champion killing issue with Phill Kelly.

Lorcryst
22-07-2009, 11:18
I know that White Dwarf articles are written 3 to 6 months before the magazine is published.

I know that humans make errors.


But there's no excuse for an online article written two years after the Army Book, and reviewed by a team of people, as said by GW themselves.

I've read the whole piece on GW's website, and I wonder if the guys that wrote that are playing the same game as the rest of the world ...