Is there really a need for change?

[The Low King]

Lets look at one current example of their work: the ogre kingdoms book. I'll quote you this first one straight out of the faq.

Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.
Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.

Really, they didn't see the obvious result of mundane armour for a caster allowing magic armour? And then, rather than officially errata it, they instead say you can do it but if you do you're a bad sport? Meanwhile, the multiple sniper shots for maneaters question is still unanswered. As is shooting for thundertusks (the issue there being multiple ranged weapon types, i can elaborate further if its of interest).

For one you assume it is the same team doing the designing, the FAQs etc
Secondly, its quite easy to miss things like that, it really depends on what order they did things in.
Finally, what that FAQ message said to me is that there was a massive disagreement on the team doing the FAQ and they had to compromise

[Torga_DW]

For one you assume it is the same team doing the designing, the FAQs etc
Secondly, its quite easy to miss things like that, it really depends on what order they did things in.
Finally, what that FAQ message said to me is that there was a massive disagreement on the team doing the FAQ and they had to compromise

1- Even if they're separate entities within gw, shouldn't there be communication between them? Working together?
2-you're right, its very easy to miss things like that. Thats why writers have editors, and games have testers. The ogre community picked it up pretty quickly, how did gw miss it?
3-It does sound like a disagreement. But they're getting paid to reach a decision, if the team can't do it then it falls to their team leader. But the end statement is: you can do it, but you shouldn't. It seems pretty black and white to me, either you can or you can't. The effect was either intentional or it wasn't.

Meanwhile we're still waiting on the maneater multi-shot snipers, and the thundertusk.

[Urgat]

The ogre community picked it up pretty quickly, how did gw miss it?

Maybe a dozen people versus possibly hundreds? That might be a factor, don't you think?

[Sexiest_hero]

There are a lot of things in sports that are technically legal but frowned on, that is one of them. Welcome to the world of sports.

[Torga_DW]

Maybe a dozen people versus possibly hundreds? That might be a factor, don't you think?

You know it might, but then it might not. Its not like it was some minor obscure rule interacting with another minor obscure rule (such as deathfisting). Giving armour to a caster seems pretty obvious and straightforwards to me.

[The Low King]

Meanwhile we're still waiting on the maneater multi-shot snipers, and the thundertusk.

What are these paticular issues?

[Torga_DW]

What are these paticular issues?

Well the sniper rule issue is: the sniper rule says you make 'a' shot (as far as i know, when this rule was written there was pretty much only the hochland long rifle which conferred this ability, please correct me if i'm wrong). Maneaters however can take the rule on them as a model, and can be given a brace (2) of pistols. So the question is, are you making a sniper shot with one weapon, or are you making a sniper shot with each weapon. Note the use of 'a', and not 'one'.

The thundertusk has two weapons with very big range differences, but essentially standard shooting weapons. However it also has an attack that shoots like a stonethrower, and theres debate over whether or not a unit must be targetted or the template simply placed on the table. From what i understand, this particular issue actually started with the goblin arachnarok.

Myself, i try not to get into the specifics of the debates. I've seen good arguments from both sides that make sense. My issue is, i want to know the correct way to play the game. Is it one way or the other? What is the rule as intended, and in the case of the ironfist, why has it officially been ruled to be the opposite of the rule as written?

There are a lot of issues like this that crop up all the time with gw, some more obvious than not. For me its a case of the straw that broke the camels back, i don't expect perfection from anyone, but at some point i have to acknowledge the horde of pink elephants in the room. If people are happy and don't care, thats fine and i'm glad they're enjoying themselves. Really. Different strokes for different folks. But i totally don't understand the idea that gw as a business should get an automatic pass on their quality control, especially given that they seem to be marketing as luxury items. To me its a bit like buying a fancy car, only to find its full of defects while driving it off the lot, but being told thats part of the prestige that goes with it and that i shouldn't even mention or consider the defects.

[Urgat]

The thundertusk has two weapons with very big range differences, but essentially standard shooting weapons. However it also has an attack that shoots like a stonethrower, and theres debate over whether or not a unit must be targetted or the template simply placed on the table. From what i understand, this particular issue actually started with the goblin arachnarok.

The arachnarok catapult clearly states that it works like a regular stonethrower apart from the points indicated in its rules.

[The bearded one]

I think the problem with FAQ issues like the odd designer note Jervis made, is that you can't go around errata'ing and changing too much, or it becomes difficult for players to oversee, and for players who don't actually know there are errata's and FAQs tucked in the GW site, at a certain point they're simply playing an entirely different game. Thus they attempt to do FAQs and errata's in batches (instead of adding individual ones constantly, at that point you're gonna end up at FAQ version 76.1) and try not to change too much so that the printed book remains as correct as possible.

[Torga_DW]

The arachnarok catapult clearly states that it works like a regular stonethrower apart from the points indicated in its rules.

Yes, and let me quote you the wording: "To fire the stonethrower, take the small round (3") template and place it anywhere completely within the war machine's line of sight, outside of the stone thrower's minimum range and within its maximum range".

Key words there: place the template, and not necessarily on a unit.

a bit further down it says: "if placed over an enemy unit, the hole in the middle of the template must be placed over a single model".

Which doesn't answer the question, does the model (thundertusk) have to direct all its shooting at a single target (like normal ranged attacks), or can it target separately with the frost breath, which as you said works like a regular stonethrower apart from the point indicated in its rule.

I'm happy to play it as the game designers intended, but which is it?

I think the problem with FAQ issues like the odd designer note Jervis made, is that you can't go around errata'ing and changing too much, or it becomes difficult for players to oversee, and for players who don't actually know there are errata's and FAQs tucked in the GW site, at a certain point they're simply playing an entirely different game. Thus they attempt to do FAQs and errata's in batches (instead of adding individual ones constantly, at that point you're gonna end up at FAQ version 76.1) and try not to change too much so that the printed book remains as correct as possible.

I can see your point, it definitely is an issue. But its also a problem from their system of taking years to update a particular army book. And when they do, it usually seems more of a reboot than a revision, which means there are more potential issues that are going to be created and discovered, assuming the previous issues were addressed.

If it takes 76.1 faqs to resolve the issues, then so be it. Personally i'd see that as alarming indictment on their quality control, but you keep patching till its fixed. Meanwhile in this day and age, practically everyone has access to the internet and given how much they advertise their website, should hopefully know of its existance. I shouldn't be given updates to resolve issues in their ruleset that i paid above average prices for because i may not be competant enough to stay on top of any changes? Really?

edit: to give people some perspective on my view points, and where i'm coming from, let me describe my local meta. There is basically one club in town, and the average gamers there are rules lawyers, power gamers and the odd downright intential cheaters. Being able to recite every rule by heart isn't just the sign of a good player, its necessary to prevent (accidental or intentional) misunderstandings, that will always work out in the opponents favour. If i'm playing spearmen and not claiming the +1 as, no-one will mention it unless it gives them an advantage. If theres an ambiguity in the rules, its always obviously intended to be played in favour of the other person. Finding loopholes is a sign of tactical genius. Even if someone is clearly in the wrong, both in rules as intended and rules as written, it will require a 5 minute discussion and still probably have to end with a dice off. Some people will get verbally abusive, even when they're clearly wrong. This is not tournaments, this is average friendly games. If i want to play a game with even a fair chance of winning, i have to come heavy and remember as much as possible. My alternative is basically not playing at all. So for me, unclear rules and potential exploits is a big issue that i would like to be kept as clear as possible at all times.

[Grocklock]

Yes, and let me quote you the wording: "To fire the stonethrower, take the small round (3") template and place it anywhere completely within the war machine's line of sight, outside of the stone thrower's minimum range and within its maximum range".

Key words there: place the template, and not necessarily on a unit.

a bit further down it says: "if placed over an enemy unit, the hole in the middle of the template must be placed over a single model".

Which doesn't answer the question, does the model (thundertusk) have to direct all its shooting at a single target (like normal ranged attacks), or can it target separately with the frost breath, which as you said works like a regular stonethrower apart from the point indicated in its rule.

I'm happy to play it as the game designers intended, but which is it?

In regards to this rule, I think it is important to quote page 39 second paragraph 'Now you have chossen the unit that will make the shooting attack, you must choose a target for it to shoot at. all models in the unit must shoot at the same target'.

now take this with the stone thrower rule which mentions that you can target anywhere on the table within range, but if template is over a unit then the hole must be placed over a single model.

So its my thundertusks turn to shoot, and i place the template on the enemy unit and so following the rules on page 39 I now need to shoot the chain trap and harpoon launcher at the same unit would you not agree.

Or RAW I suppose i could shoot the chaintrap and harpoon at unit A, then place the template near unit B in the HOPE that it will scatter the way i want it too and land on unit B.

I can see your point, it definitely is an issue. But its also a problem from their system of taking years to update a particular army book. And when they do, it usually seems more of a reboot than a revision, which means there are more potential issues that are going to be created and discovered, assuming the previous issues were addressed.

If it takes 76.1 faqs to resolve the issues, then so be it. Personally i'd see that as alarming indictment on their quality control, but you keep patching till its fixed. Meanwhile in this day and age, practically everyone has access to the internet and given how much they advertise their website, should hopefully know of its existance. I shouldn't be given updates to resolve issues in their ruleset that i paid above average prices for because i may not be competant enough to stay on top of any changes? Really?

edit: to give people some perspective on my view points, and where i'm coming from, let me describe my local meta. There is basically one club in town, and the average gamers there are rules lawyers, power gamers and the odd downright intential cheaters. Being able to recite every rule by heart isn't just the sign of a good player, its necessary to prevent (accidental or intentional) misunderstandings, that will always work out in the opponents favour. If i'm playing spearmen and not claiming the +1 as, no-one will mention it unless it gives them an advantage. If theres an ambiguity in the rules, its always obviously intended to be played in favour of the other person. Finding loopholes is a sign of tactical genius. Even if someone is clearly in the wrong, both in rules as intended and rules as written, it will require a 5 minute discussion and still probably have to end with a dice off. Some people will get verbally abusive, even when they're clearly wrong. This is not tournaments, this is average friendly games. If i want to play a game with even a fair chance of winning, i have to come heavy and remember as much as possible. My alternative is basically not playing at all. So for me, unclear rules and potential exploits is a big issue that i would like to be kept as clear as possible at all times.

I think the problem here is how you are playing the game GW has been for the past 25 years a game not ment for competition, they make an fantastic rules set that I will admit does have some holes in it. Which GW often says figure it out amoungst yourselves, as it is a beer and pretsals game. Problems arrise when people are using it for competition eg striked tordiments, or win at all cost games. If you are doing this then you are playing the game in a manor that it was not ment to be played in.

[Grocklock]

to reply to an earlyer post it was 25 page document, as in a document consisting of 25 pages, it it was 25 pages front and back it would be a 50 page document

[Torga_DW]

In regards to this rule, I think it is important to quote page 39 second paragraph 'Now you have chossen the unit that will make the shooting attack, you must choose a target for it to shoot at. all models in the unit must shoot at the same target'.

now take this with the stone thrower rule which mentions that you can target anywhere on the table within range, but if template is over a unit then the hole must be placed over a single model.

So its my thundertusks turn to shoot, and i place the template on the enemy unit and so following the rules on page 39 I now need to shoot the chain trap and harpoon launcher at the same unit would you not agree.

Or RAW I suppose i could shoot the chaintrap and harpoon at unit A, then place the template near unit B in the HOPE that it will scatter the way i want it too and land on unit B.

Which is an interesting opinion, but not really different to any of the other ones i've read on the subject. If we get enough players with the same opinion, we can make: a house rule. The merits of which have been discussed, and may end with a 25 page document that some people have nothing but contempt for.

I think the problem here is how you are playing the game GW has been for the past 25 years a game not ment for competition, they make an fantastic rules set that I will admit does have some holes in it. Which GW often says figure it out amoungst yourselves, as it is a beer and pretsals game. Problems arrise when people are using it for competition eg striked tordiments, or win at all cost games. If you are doing this then you are playing the game in a manor that it was not ment to be played in.

Thats all well and good, but doesn't change my local meta. Meanwhile, there are still clear problems that haven't been resolved. Going back to the ogres, theres been 2 new army books released since then i believe. As i said before, i believe the issue started with the arachnarok, which was what, the first army book put out? This isn't rocket science here, but it is a commerical product that is subject to scrutiny just like any other commercial product.

So to bring it back to the OP, yes as long as gw keeps behaving in this manner, there will always be a need for change. Some people may be happy with the product they paid for, and some will see problems that need fixing that are being ignored by the developer. Creating solutions for problems is proactive behaviour. The downside is 25 pages of controversy.