PDA

View Full Version : A statement about rules from Jervis Johnson



Wraith Phoenix
27-01-2011, 15:22
Recently, I was sorting out my bookshelf, and I found a few old White Dwarf issues out of place. Rather than just put them away, I decided to flick through them (excellent procrastination). In one I found an old Standard Bearer article, that after reading I though deserved repeating here since it answered some fundamental questions about the design of this game and the rules in general that some here won't know or have forgotten, in particular, why GW does not update rules through FAQs.

So, without further delay, the words of Jervis Johnson


If it ain't broke don't fix it

I have to admit that, very occassionally, we do get it wrong. We might not word something perfectly or a rule might get changed late in writing and affect other rules in an unforeseen way. Speaking as a designer, there is nothing worse that finding out that a rule you have written is not achieving the effect you wanted, and one's instinct is to dive in and try and fix it immediately. However, I've learnt that doing this in the errata for a rule book can cause all kinds of other problems.

One example of this concerned the Wolf Guard Leaders I allowed players to take for their Scouts when I wrote the Space Wolves Cpdex. What I failed to notice was that the Leader could take Terminator armour, but the unit of scouts he joined could infiltrate and operate behind enemy lines. This was a bit silly (it's hard to imagine anyone in Terminator armour sneaking about), and so when we published the FAQ for the Space Wolves I banned it. Unfortunately I had failed to take into account that not everybody had access to the FAQ, with the result that the rule change caused all kinds of ill-will.

Still, you live and learn, and so to avoid this happening in the future, from now on our errata will only fix typographical errors or unclear rules.

Further changes will only be made when we bring out a new edition of a rule book or supplement. Thus, when we next do Codex Space Marines we may change the rules for Drop Pods, and you can rest assured that the next Codex Space Wolves will not allow infiltrating Wolf Guard Leaders. What we won't do is alter the rules in the errata or other mediums. By doing we can ensure all players are made aware of changes, as it's rather hard to miss a new codex coming out!

First published: White Dwarf issue 321, september 2006

Kulgur
27-01-2011, 15:30
Should see the 2 pages he (I think it was Jervis) did near the back of the 3rd Ed rulebook about rules

HerrDusty
27-01-2011, 15:35
Recently, I was sorting out my bookshelf, and I found a few old White Dwarf issues out of place. Rather than just put them away, I decided to flick through them (excellent procrastination). In one I found an old Standard Bearer article, that after reading I though deserved repeating here since it answered some fundamental questions about the design of this game and the rules in general that some here won't know or have forgotten, in particular, why GW does not update rules through FAQs.

So, without further delay, the words of Jervis Johnson



First published: White Dwarf issue 321, september 2006

That's quite amusing as the current Space Wolves codex does allow infiltrating Wolf Guard leaders, but I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to wear Terminator armour :p

Godzooky
27-01-2011, 15:38
That's quite amusing as the current Space Wolves codex does allow infiltrating Wolf Guard leaders, but I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to wear Terminator armour :p

Hopefully they can't take thunderwolves, either. :D

The_Lemon
27-01-2011, 15:46
So the reason is beacuse "not everybody had access to the FAQ"? And that was only four years and a half ago?
I could see it reasonable 10-15 years ago when internet was not everywhere, but now on the 21st century that's just a bad excuse, everyone or at least most of the people that buy warhammer have access to internet. Hell usually latest faqs are only relevant in a tournament setting, and those should have a copy of the rules for the judge/players to read. If you only play with the same friend down in your basement you will not even know when something new has come for your army because the way to learn about those is to check internet once in a while, or buy a white dwarf, and in that magazine they could also write the new faqs, not everything just the changes between them.

Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 15:48
I think that attitude has changed though: If you look the FAQ's are extremely detailed now and I personally really like it.

However something I still miss would be a proper "Examples" section. something that would give you 4 or 5 examples of the rules in use so you can understand them a bit better.

jason_sation
27-01-2011, 16:36
I think that attitude has changed though: If you look the FAQ's are extremely detailed now and I personally really like it.

However something I still miss would be a proper "Examples" section. something that would give you 4 or 5 examples of the rules in use so you can understand them a bit better.

That's a great idea, because then it would help to clarify "Rules as Intended" arguments.

Vaktathi
27-01-2011, 17:27
When their target market has ubiquitous internet access, most likely from several devices in mulitple locations at almost any time of day, and are the amongst the most tech savvy in the world (NEEEEEEEERDS!:p), along with the fact that every other major tabletop based game (DND, Flames of War, Dark Heresy, etc) does routine rules changes online, and most popular games even before the internet published regular Errata, and the fact that every electronic game that this same demographic plays also receives regular "errata" in the form of downloadable patches, this just reeks of someone simply getting their feelings hurt by a couple angry players that got ******** because they hadn't checked the thing in time for some event, instead of a properly thought out business and game design decision.


Though to be fair, it doesn't help that the FAQ's are buried in the GW website in what is not exactly the most user friendly place to find, and they don't do anything to announce changes or updates...at all. Putting a simple banner on the front page that says "FAQ UPDATE!" and a small thing about it in the latest WD, along with a direct link that didn't require one to navigate through 2-3 menus and a filler page to get to the FAQ/Errata would go a long way.

Wraith Phoenix
27-01-2011, 18:00
So the reason is beacuse "not everybody had access to the FAQ"? And that was only four years and a half ago?
I could see it reasonable 10-15 years ago when internet was not everywhere, but now on the 21st century that's just a bad excuse, everyone or at least most of the people that buy warhammer have access to internet. Hell usually latest faqs are only relevant in a tournament setting, and those should have a copy of the rules for the judge/players to read. If you only play with the same friend down in your basement you will not even know when something new has come for your army because the way to learn about those is to check internet once in a while, or buy a white dwarf, and in that magazine they could also write the new faqs, not everything just the changes between them.

For those saying that everyone has internet access now and it is easy to update the FAQs regularly and all that. NO!

Even here in the UK, internet access is not universal, yes there are many ways to access the internet but not everyone has that regular access (there are areas of the UK that still don't have broadband landlines and they arn't rural areas either).

But the most important fact as to why this policy has been retained is not because people don't have access, it's because GW cannot guarantee that every player will access them. Not everyone who plays even use the website on a regular basis (some don't even use it at all), and as to putting them into White Dwarf, would you like to see the FAQ section take up half the mag and be mostly reprinted every month, because that would be the only way to guarantee most people saw it (magazines go out of print, and not everyone buys it on a regular basis).

The only way GW can guarantee that everyone is playing from the same rules is buy only changing them in an update of the books, and I'm sorry to all those who feel that that is lazy, but it is simply the way it is. The only way it will change would be if GW decided to stop publishing all the books, converted them to a digital format, and rather than downloading them had them in a client program that was permanently updated and the players subscribed to the rules instead.

Vaktathi
27-01-2011, 18:10
Every store has a computer with internet access (even if not available to customers), it wouldn't be difficult, or expensive, to simply have each manager print errata and make it both known and available to customers.

Even if people don't have fast internet at home, they likely still at least have it in some form (downloading a PDF isn't exactly the most bandwidth intensive thing in the world either), or likely do at work, school, a library, internet cafe, etc, or on their cell phones.

This doesn't seem to be an issue for any other tabletop wargame or RPG out there.

GW's problem is not access. It's informational. When they introduce or update an FAQ, they simply upload it to the website and call it good. They don't reprint it in WD (which is really what something like that should be for), they don't even mention it in WD, or post a notification on the website, or have anything informing customers in stores.

*That* is the problem more than anything else. They simply don't bother to actually *inform* people when such updates are made.


If dozens of developing nations can keep the world updated in real time on political and social upheaval from just about anything electronic, I'm sure a multihundredmillion pound business in one of the most advanced nations on earth should have no problem updating a largely tech savvy player base on rules updates every few months.

tezdal
27-01-2011, 18:42
"If it ain't broke dont fix it"...is that why I have to pay 75 bucks for WFB rules that are worse then the old ones?

AndrewGPaul
27-01-2011, 19:01
Why are you all crying about this now, when it's blatantly obvious that they've changed their mind?

"Every store has a computer with internet access (even if not available to customers), it wouldn't be difficult, or expensive, to simply have each manager print errata and make it both known and available to customers."

That's no use, is it? By that point, I've already made my army based on what I thought the rules were.

Vaktathi
27-01-2011, 19:08
Why are you all crying about this now, when it's blatantly obvious that they've changed their mind? Because they haven't completely, and still do their updates half-heartedly? Better for sure, but not anywhere near the standard of other tabletop games.



"Every store has a computer with internet access (even if not available to customers), it wouldn't be difficult, or expensive, to simply have each manager print errata and make it both known and available to customers."

That's no use, is it? By that point, I've already made my army based on what I thought the rules were.

And you can change it based on that information for future games, and have a better idea of the capabilities of your opponents armies? Unless it radically alters something critical, and most likely a humongous WYSIWYG issue, what's the problem?



Why is 40k the only game where this is seen as an issue? You don't see people complaining that they get rules updates/fixes with Flames of War, Dark Heresy, Dungeons and Dragons, Warmachine, Magic, Legend of the Five Rings, etc.

Stickmonkey
27-01-2011, 19:13
For better or worse gw has been slow to adapt to the Internet age. I know there have been discussions of digital copies of codexes and army books, but who knows when such a forward view would be considered to be implemented. While it'd be nice to have more than daemon hunters and witch hunters codex on my iPad, I don't think a majority of players would want that. Nor any ereader device or computer. The average person still likes a book over a screen.

AndrewGPaul
27-01-2011, 19:14
I don't, but then nobody I know cares in the slightest about keeping up to date with FAQs.

The most recent FAQs have changed the stats for various weapons and bits of equipment, at least for the older Space Marine armies. If that's not a total reversal of the attitude espoused by Jervis four years ago, I don't know what is. Obviously they haven't addressed every issue, but the will is there. Of course, it is an FAQ document - how many of these issues do people actively tell GW about? Moaning on forums doesn't count - the GW writers don't have any more time to surf Warseer at work than the rest of us. They can only answer what they get asked.

Vaktathi
27-01-2011, 19:39
I don't, but then nobody I know cares in the slightest about keeping up to date with FAQs. Not every player knows the details of every army or even the generalities of every army. Many players do however, and new FAQ's/Errata's are usually the big topics of conversation at many stores/clubs.



The most recent FAQs have changed the stats for various weapons and bits of equipment, at least for the older Space Marine armies. If that's not a total reversal of the attitude espoused by Jervis four years ago, I don't know what is. I'm not saying its not progress, it's wonderful that they have done that, but it's not like these were hardball issues seeing as how obviously unpopular these armies were becoming, how easy they were to fix, and how much worse it was that there were 2-3 rules for stormshields and PotMS and the like.


Obviously they haven't addressed every issue, but the will is there. Of course, it is an FAQ document - how many of these issues do people actively tell GW about? Moaning on forums doesn't count - the GW writers don't have any more time to surf Warseer at work than the rest of us. They can only answer what they get asked.Most of the issues that people talk about here come up frequently in clubs and stores. Warseer, Dakka and BoLS are not isolated, insulated groups. They are people from all walks of life and from just about every nation that GW operates in. They may be a bit more vocal than some, but, at least in my experience, they represent the questions and concerns player base rather well. What I see discussed here is often the same rules questions, tactics ideas and metagame concerns I see in the store. There are nearly 72,000 accounts on Warseer alone, 38,000 on Dakka, nearly 9,000 on BoLS, and 52,000 on Bolter and Chainsword. Granted many of those may be the same person and many may not be active, but those are still humongous numbers of players (read:Customers) that probably fairly well reflects the moods, questions and concerns of the player base as a whole, and a resource that GW would have to be braindead from a business perspective to not make use of, at least unofficially.

As for GW writers, I'm sure they are at least somewhat aware of what the major topics of discussion amongst the playerbase are, and this is usually reflected on big internet forums. Most game developers, both for tabletop and video games, spend time on forums for their product, even if they aren't active posters, they'll read what is discussed. It's part of the job, if not explicitly, then at least it is professionally implicit. I'd be incredibly surprised if the GW design studio staff didn't at least spend time lurking on Dakka/Warseer/BolS/B&C/etc. I do know that some in the past have at least been active posters, and that design studio staff for most other major tabletop games are active in online forums. "Surfing" forums for them is not a leisure activity, it's part of the position to be aware of player concerns, metagame trends, and rules issues.

Wraith Phoenix
27-01-2011, 20:31
Vaktathi, you seem to miss the point. GW has in the past done what you suggest, they printed errata and rule updates in White Dwarf in a way that could be cut out and glued into the books (this is about 10 years ago now), they have also published updates on the web, and not forgetting the living rule books of the specialist games ranges.

All these things have simply created more problems in the long run. it is not a problem informing players, it is making sure all players are constantly informed.

Please realize, the community here on warseer and other forums, form only a fraction of the total player base. Also GW is not as big a company as you seem to think (2010 pre-tax profits were only 16.1 million, not exactly multihundredmillion).

And as to the tech savvy nature of the players, does that include all the 6-12 year olds who enjoy this hobby regularly? I know kids are advanced these days, but...

And one final thought, Games Workshop, for all its failings, is more closely connected and supportive of its customers than any other company in the industry, all through their network of stores. No other game company gives players a place to play, or actively teach them how to do everything (how to play, model and paint) all for free.

GW has taken a decision, in the future it may change, but not because you think they are lazy, or not listening (Jervis, in that article stated that, as a designer, when something isn't working as intended their first instinct is to immediately fix it, that has not changed, so think how much they must be holding themselves back), it is because they want to be fair to everyone who plays this game. The full article (which I suggest you look up) was about how to deal with rule ambiguities and disagreements and includes a statement about HOUSE RULES.

AndrewGPaul
27-01-2011, 20:34
I'm not saying its not progress, it's wonderful that they have done that, but it's not like these were hardball issues seeing as how obviously unpopular these armies were becoming, how easy they were to fix, and how much worse it was that there were 2-3 rules for stormshields and PotMS and the like. Not my point. Four years ago, Jervis basically said "if there's a rule that needs changing, you'll have to wait until the next book". Now, they appear to have ditched that idea. It's possible that, since they no longer run a tournament scene directly, that they've decided having a globally consistent ruleset is irrelevant.


Most of the issues that people talk about here come up frequently in clubs and stores. Warseer, Dakka and BoLS are not isolated, insulated groups.

Never said they were. How many of them write to GW, that was my question. :)

Ventus
27-01-2011, 20:36
I couldn't agree more with Vaktathi. In the internet age it is absurd that a company that produces rules that often require errata/FAQs is unwilling or seemingly only doing so at a snails pace (like their codex releases). When I played Avalon Hill board wargames a lot, the company had a magazine where they sometimes posted errata if errors crept into a game. Now for these types of games this did not need to happen often with a game.

For GW, this is different. It is great that DA abd BT finally got an update for some things in their dexes. But this is nit even close to adequate. Look at he tyranid codex. It has numerous problems with poorly written rules, internal balance problems, etc. In an ideal world GW would go oops and release a new codex. Since nid players will have to likely wait 5+ years for a new book it would be relatively simple to at least fix some of the simple problems (GW did clarify in the long awaited FAQ some obvious rule issues but added some bizarre rulings to make things worse).

The trygon tunnel and lictor pheromone trail do not work properly. It would be simple to provide an errata (GW did this with the release of 8th edition fantasy for some army books but neede to go further) that would correct these problems. If you fixed up these types of things (ideally in the playtesting and editing phase but that is another issue) your customers would be happy, buy more product because they know the company wants to make a good product, supports it and cares that their customers have spent a lot of money and time on this game.

Chem-Dog
27-01-2011, 21:07
For those saying that everyone has internet access now and it is easy to update the FAQs regularly and all that. NO!


QFT



That's no use, is it? By that point, I've already made my army based on what I thought the rules were.

There was a time when you'd find errata slips inside rules books, I'm sure even the one man stores could manage to print off a couple of copies of a slip and wedge them into Codexes when they get delivered.


For better or worse gw has been slow to adapt to the Internet age. I know there have been discussions of digital copies of codexes and army books, but who knows when such a forward view would be considered to be implemented. While it'd be nice to have more than daemon hunters and witch hunters codex on my iPad, I don't think a majority of players would want that. Nor any ereader device or computer. The average person still likes a book over a screen.

To be honest, I don't see a whole huge lot of utility in the internet for ACTUALLY playing games, I've been present at games where people have pulled up Codex copies on their laptops, no great advantage over a book.
The only advantage of computer over a book I could see is some kind of armylist and combat calculator, but then GW's forray into computer armylists didn't go too well as I remember.



Not my point. Four years ago, Jervis basically said "if there's a rule that needs changing, you'll have to wait until the next book". Now, they appear to have ditched that idea.

GW is nothing if it's not notorious for changing direction mid-stride ;)

Vaktathi
27-01-2011, 21:37
Vaktathi, you seem to miss the point. GW has in the past done what you suggest, they printed errata and rule updates in White Dwarf in a way that could be cut out and glued into the books (this is about 10 years ago now), they have also published updates on the web, and not forgetting the living rule books of the specialist games ranges.

All these things have simply created more problems in the long run. it is not a problem informing players, it is making sure all players are constantly informed. Again, GW's games seems to be the only ones that have a problem in this regard. Every other tabletop game does these things and manages just fine. The only reason Warhammer players should have any issues is that GW, as I've stated before, simply doesn't let anyone know that they've updated anything. It's all word of mouth originating from those who happened to notice a new FAQ version number. There's no notification in WD, the website, newsletters or stores. Most other companies will make an announcement "ERRATA V.1.04 HAS BEEN RELEASED" or something on their website or newsletters or forums. GW does nothing of the sort, or *very* little of it, and so of course some portions of the player base may be uninformed. If people couldn't handle WD errata, then honestly that's a problem on their end, because that's really the a large part of point of such publications, or should be (as it is no longer with GW) and it really isn't an issue for other games.

It has also been some time since the last specialist games update if I'm not mistaken. BFG's last one was what, 4 years ago and isn't available on the GW website? :(


Please realize, the community here on warseer and other forums, form only a fraction of the total player base. Also GW is not as big a company as you seem to think (2010 pre-tax profits were only 16.1 million, not exactly multihundredmillion). Their *revenue* was something like 125 million GBP and their market worth is something like 250 million GBP. Their profits after costs of operation aren't really a determinant of size.

Loltangets :p


And as to the tech savvy nature of the players, does that include all the 6-12 year olds who enjoy this hobby regularly? I know kids are advanced these days, but... Every store/club I've ever played at or visited has been populated by college aged players and older. The store I play at the median age is probably 24 and the big store in town is probably closer to 30 or even older. I've heard this may be a difference between the US and UK, but I can count on my fingers, probably one hand, the number of under 18 40k players I've seen in the last couple years, and certainly on a couple fingers how many owned more than a couple boxes of stuff and showed up more than a couple times. That said, at 10-13 (back in the mid to late 90's for me) the internet even in its relative infancy certainly wasn't exactly unknown to me. The handful of middle schoolers I know practically live on the internet between MySpace, Facebook, their cell phones, YouTube, Wikipedia, online gaming, online classroom things like Blackboard, etc.


GW has taken a decision, in the future it may change, but not because you think they are lazy, or not listening (Jervis, in that article stated that, as a designer, when something isn't working as intended their first instinct is to immediately fix it, that has not changed, so think how much they must be holding themselves back), it is because they want to be fair to everyone who plays this game. The full article (which I suggest you look up) was about how to deal with rule ambiguities and disagreements and includes a statement about HOUSE RULES.I didn't say they weren't listening or were lazy. My supposition was that someone overreacted to a handful of players being angry because they showed up to play without knowing a rules update had occurred, and made a poor decision.

Not my point. Four years ago, Jervis basically said "if there's a rule that needs changing, you'll have to wait until the next book". Now, they appear to have ditched that idea. It's possible that, since they no longer run a tournament scene directly, that they've decided having a globally consistent ruleset is irrelevant. Hopefully we will see more of it. I don't think we can call it a total reversal, but again yes its progress. However these were also mostly Copy/Paste fixes to issues that were exerting financial pressure as such armies were being grossly overshadowed by similar equivalents along with being horrifically confusing facing a different PotMS rule half the time you faced a different color of Space Marine, so I'm skeptical as to seeing significantly more of this, though I can hope. It'd be nice to see more in depth errata for things like Lictor Trails (which are practically useless) or Hive Tyrant Deathspitters (I can have either 3 S5 shots or 6 S6 shots with a morale effect, and both are the same price...?) and the like, though I realize that's not something 40k has had in recent memory, even though most other major tabletop games do so.

Never said they were. How many of them write to GW, that was my question. That I don't know, but if I were the design studio, I wouldn't simply be relying on the people that write in, which is likely not going to give one a complete view of the issues, especially as such mail, if I'm not mistaken, goes to the Jervis in his role as Standard Bearer, and not directly to the Design Studio.

TheMav80
27-01-2011, 21:48
As far as children being tech savvy...

My neice is 11 and on Facebook. She has her own cellphone (not a smartphone just the cheap penny phone). Her and her younger brother (8 years old) are plenty tech savvy. I recall several years ago for Christmas them both getting these stuffed animals. They came with a code that you went to the website and entered and you got the animal in your online collection and could play do stuff with it on there. Like a digital doll house type thing. They both knew how to do it.

Any 12 year old who can follow the rules for 40K and Fantasy should be smart enough to navigate a (well designed) web site.

massey
28-01-2011, 02:27
I see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, as a guy who posts regularly on warseer and keeps up to date on the latest GW stuff, updates to rules and FAQs is very helpful. People who stay on top of it really benefit a lot from that type of customer support.

However, there is another type of player. The type who don't come to warseer all the time, the ones who don't live and die for 40K updates, the "casual gamer". I know that type well, because I used to be that guy. You go off to college for the year and you leave your game stuff at home. You come back for the summer and want to get in a game, and suddenly the rules have changed. "But I have the rulebook right here..." My freshman year of college, some of the guys in the dorm played this game called Magic: The Gathering. They tried to get me to play. I spent ten bucks on a starter pack and gave it a shot. I was then told that the rules that came in the set were already outdated. Card X didn't work that way anymore. I needed to check the FAQs online. Then I discovered that the FAQs changed almost weekly. I put the cards down and never played another game.

Most casual gamers (meaning, not any of you) hate having to check for rules updates. I did. I still do. It's not friendly for new players, no matter how well-designed the website.

solkan
28-01-2011, 03:30
And four years ago, they didn't release a new edition of their other main game that necessitated putting out huge changes to all of the published material for that other game. If you're doing that for one game, it makes the other game look bad if you're not willing to put in the same effort.

So it's probably more than just changing internal opinions about the Internet.

Ulrig
28-01-2011, 08:26
Don't forget the middle finger from GW....oh what's that called?
...oh yeah The Tyranid FAQ.

Azulthar
28-01-2011, 12:31
If they don't believe in the digital route, release an Update Codex every 1-2 years, containing tweaks and fixes for all armies. Perhaps add some experimental armies, scenarios and rules as well.

The rules of this game really need more frequent updating and balancing.

massey
28-01-2011, 14:07
If they don't believe in the digital route, release an Update Codex every 1-2 years, containing tweaks and fixes for all armies. Perhaps add some experimental armies, scenarios and rules as well.

The rules of this game really need more frequent updating and balancing.

Not really. I got into wargames through Battletech. That game went decades without really altering the core rules. Sure, you get new weapons added as the timeline advanced, but the mechanics of the game have gone through fewer changes since it was introduced in 1984 than you have in any edition change in 40K. And it's still a better game. :)

I'd just like to see GW do it right the first time. Yeah, sometimes page 36 has a typo, or someone forgets to include a weapon chart in the Ork codex, or something else happens that necessitates a rules change in a FAQ. But random rebalancing isn't a goal to which they should aspire. I like that they made storm shields a 3++ for all marine chapters, but overall I'd prefer more measured changes between codexes and editions, requiring fewer emergency patches.

Oakwolf
28-01-2011, 15:15
I find it quite conservative to refuse to update rules that are being played (playtested) by their fanbase. Players are -the- main source of feedback one can get, and while they are not always right, it's still good practice to double-check. Almost all the other companies use the internet to reach out to the player base and update rules through it where necessary.

GW was always overly slow when it came to the internet, and that might have something to do with the age of the company (and its shareholders) in the first place.

It has taken a collectible card game business (ccg) model for its main games, which means an ever changing balance (enticing players to re-adapt and buy more models each time), rather than aiming at a stable wargame.

zantis
28-01-2011, 15:22
"If it ain't broke dont fix it"...is that why I have to pay 75 bucks for WFB rules that are worse then the old ones?
This is completely true. Im not sure what they were thinking with random charges, random power dice and other crap like that. I liked 7th ed fantasy because it offered something a bit more tactical than 40k. But now fantasy only seems to require lucky dice.

The Orange
28-01-2011, 16:15
Yes I remember that article and IMO it was a worthless cop-out by JJ because (IMO) the dev. team simply didn't want to deal with FAQ's anymore. Yea not everyone has access to the internet for updates but tell me should Microsoft (or multitude of game developers) simply not make patches for their software just because "some" people might not get it?
"Oh sorry guys, we know there's a bug with the programming that sometimes makes the game crash on level 22, but we'll fix it with the next game okay?" :rolleyes: yea that's going to fly over well. Nothing's perfect and that's a fact of life, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things if we can. That's why I LOVE Privateer Press. Weather I'm aware of a problem or not they fix it and they log it, cuz eventually I'll come across those problems, and thankfully they give me a place to look and find out what to do instead of GW's "why not flip a coin?" approach.


My freshman year of college, some of the guys in the dorm played this game called Magic: The Gathering. They tried to get me to play....

There's a bit of a difference from a game changing things every week (most likely to generate new review) to a game making one time fixes to rules (as is the case most of the time with wargames). And of course if you leave the game for years and come back you should expect changes. GW changed the standard rules for 40k (4th-5th edition) and even though my Tau codex didn't have any changes in wording my Tanks wargear suddenly did different things (because of changes to definitions, etc.).

And how about the 2 official versions of the GK codex (because GW printed 2 different versions). Is that rule still standing? (someone please tell me it isen't) Yea I have to really have to pat GW on the back for that. Little Timmy will understand why his GK can't do something but yours can because you got the better "official" codex while he bought the worse "official" codex.