40K: FAQ Bloat is Going To Be a Problem

 

I need how many books to play this game?

FAQs, and errata, have always been a bit of a contentious subject when it comes to Games Workshop. These amendments and clarifications of the published rules have incredible power. Power to end arguments, to render lists illegal or ineffective and to fix seemingly broken of overpowered aspects of the game. Players have in the past complained about GW’s slowness to FAQ and address issues, often wishing for a faster process. With the advent of 8th Edition GW seems to be taking a different approach, releasing rules changes and FAQs at a blistering rate. While at first this seemed like a great thing, some players are stating to worry that this might be too much, too fast. Lets take a look some of the issues surrounding FAQs.

The Minimum


Lets start off with a pretty tame option and see just how FAQ’s effect me. If you’ve watched us stream at all you know that I love playing our Emperor’s Children list. If I want to take that list and play a matched play game, how many books and FAQs do I need? To start off I need a copy of the basic rule book, in addition I’ll need my Codex: Hectic Astartes books. Pretty simple so far, but we soon hit a snag. See my list includes a Chaos Lord on a Steed of Slaneesh, whose rules are not in the Codex, so I also need a copy of Index:Chaos. That’s three books so far. Now we add in FAQ’s, one for the rulebook, one for the index and one for the codex. So just to play a simple list I already need 3 books and 3 FAQs. In addition the FAQs could update at any moment so I need the most recent version of them, and they may not always agree with each other.

A Worse Case

Not all of us have a Sam to carry our books

Now the above case is a simple one, but what happens if I want to play a more complex list at say a tournament or something? Well lets say its a few months from now and I want to play a list that has some Marines, some AdMech and some Astra Miltarum in it. Maybe I throw in Saint Celestine for some fun. This could mean to play one army I could need 4 Codexs, 2 Indexs, the main rulebook and 7 FAQs.

If I’m playing a tournament that event may also have its own FAQ that I would have to use. Lastly lets consider that I could also need a copy of the 2017 Chapter Approved and its FAQ. That’s 8 books and 9 FAQs or 17 documents. For one army. All of those FAQ’s could again be updated at any time and any number of times adding more stuff to them over time. That’s quite a lot books and FAQs for one army.

What Even is an FAQ

Making the question even worse is the issue of what really counts as an FAQ or errata. While there are the official erratas on the GW site there are also a number of other sources we now get information from. Is something said on the (totally amazing) Warhammer Community site counted as an answer? What about an answer given on the Facebook page?  Both of these tend to muddy the waters a bit and add in a whole lot of additional sources you have to check to  make sure your rules are up to date.

Be Careful What You Wish For

So it seems we’ve got of a case of getting what we wished and not liking it. I mean we’ve always asked for more/faster FAQs. Now that we’ve got them a lot of players seem pretty unhappy. This may seem inconsistent or ungrateful, but I think at heart it’s not. You see I don’t think it’s that players just want fast FAQs or more FAQs, its that really what they have been asking for is better or more consistent rules. If you gave players a tight rule set with no or very few FAQs they’d be happy. The perception that many people get from the rapid fire FAQs is that in fact the current rules are less consistent, and with more loopholes. To many it feels like a lack of consistency and rushed editing is behind the quick FAQs rather than a real push to address players concerns.

FAQ Your Problems Away

It’s heather than drinking

 

To make matters more complicated a lot of players are still arguing for more, or more updates too, FAQs. They see erratas as not just a way of cleaning up messy questions or fixing unintended consequences be fixing any problem that shows up. Pretty much any time a unit or combo gets power in the meta we now hear players calling for GW to FAQ the issue way, change the rules, adjust the points, do something but fix it! Just look at my friend Goatboy’s latest article and you can see how he, as a tournament player is looking for an FAQ to fix some of these issues.

Legion of the Damned if You Do, Legion of the Damned if You Don’t

So what’s an Old GW supposed to do in this kind of a situation? If they don’t put out FAQs they get accused of ignoring players not fixing issues with the game. If they put out a bunch of FAQs they get accused of writing bad rules and bloat. So what can they do? Well first off, the easy answer is, tighter rules. Or at least give the editors/proofreaders more time. GW could really benefit from giving the rules just a smidge more time under an editor’s nose being being booted off to the printers. A lot of the issues the FAQs have addressed so far are pretty basic mistakes that could have been caught. But beyond that it really is a hard choice.

They are of course going to keep putting out FAQs. And FAQs are good of the game. But I do think they need to have some restraint. I think adjusting point costs every few months in FAQs is too much. I think changing rules to try to mess with a meta that is ever changing anyway is too much. Leave these things for a yearly publication last Chapter Approved. Keep FAQs for rules questions and minor tweaks. And maybe find a way to cut down on the number of books/documents I need, because 17 for one army is a bit much.

So what do you think about the current state of FAQs? Too many?Too little? Just enough? And is 17  documents too many for one army to need? Let us know down in the comments! 

  • X078

    How about GW just updates their digital books a bit faster.

    • thelilviking

      wouldnt it be better if they just drop all of the book formats and simply go for a “free” tablet app companion thing? really annoying how gw insists on paywalls that splits the player-base AND kinda sorta competes with their own mini sales

      • vlad78

        Some people want books. If they decide to go all digital, I would just download a pdf and print it.

        • Suicidemaniac

          Why not just do both. Offer barebones free rulesets, but physical books with gorgeous artwork? Doesn’t do anything to help this FAQ situation though.

          • thelilviking

            gorgeous art, eavy metal pics, and fluff

          • Charon

            I can live without that in a book to be honest. Fluff has been recycled over and over anyways and you can find most of it online. Same with artwork – with the added benefit you can put it as desktop background. Eavy metal WAS gorgous in the past but nowadays they get surpassed by other painters which you can easily find… online.

          • vlad78

            Indeed, why not?

            They could also begin with bare bone material online, let the community playtest it for a month and then send the improved version to the printer and to the apps.

          • zeno666

            Hahaha, GW, playtesting! Hahaha, funny guy! 😉

        • ZeeLobby

          Shhhh. Printers are rare!

      • Sleeplessknight

        I don’t own a tablet or smartphone. Should I lug my desktop computer, monitor and keyboard around to play a tabletop game? Perhaps you would like to buy me a tablet to put the app on. I prefe good old fashioned real books.

        • thelilviking

          can’t argue against what u personally want in the end, but printing a list from a program (like battlescribe) that has ur dudes + their special rules is still much more convenient for players than having several books to carry and skim through

          just saying that maybe the rules should be separated from the fluff/art, printed or not

        • Tshiva keln

          Plus books are easier and quicker to flick through and find what you want. I have a couple of digital codexes and I find I never want to play those armies as it’s too much hassle compared to a lovely paper codex.

          • David

            The old codex books with the back page summaey were and a good book should be but have you seenjoy the main rulebook it’s horrendous thereally is so much annoting fluff

            Also the separation of pts weapon rules and unit entries make it quite difficult

          • stinkoman

            yeah, they are faster to flip through, no doubt. but i also have to tab them all. man i hate looking up demons in index chaos. then i got to look up thier points cost for the unit, then the cost for the weapon….. then the rules because im new….

        • ZeeLobby

          Just make them printable? Or do you lack a printer?

          I personally like books more, but the lugging the desktop was just silly.

        • Mike Forrey

          So you don’t own a cell phone at all? I find it hard to believe you can survive in todays society with just a land line. FYI: You can get smart phones for less than the old dumb flip phones these days as well.

          The majority of people have at minimum a smart phone so there is no reason they cannot have purely digital everything. It’s the one and only thing PP has ever done correctly.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Yey! Trying to squint and read a A4 rule page on a 2″x4″ screen. Whoopie….what fun…

          • Sleeplessknight

            My cell phone is a Sony Ericsson Z550a. I’ve had it since 2007. I use it to take and receive calls. I do all my web browsing and email on a desktop computer at home and a desktop computer at work. I don’t take public transit and drive where I need to go so I couldn’t use most of the smartphone features on the go anyways. My cellphone plan is dirt cheap. I simply have no need for a smartphone.

          • Porty1119

            I’m about ready to ditch my cell phone and most other electronics.

          • Muninwing

            i have a Kindle Fire, an older model that was on sale for like $40. i get battlescribe there.

            but it’s not easy to go searching for stuff.

            i have a work-issued chromebook that would work well. but i don’t want to take that with me all the time, since it’s for work.

            i do have a printer. and i did print — for personal use — the relevant pages i will need for my SM army.

            but that’s 50+ pages.

            and now, a FAQ too.

            and what about detachments?

          • Cordova

            Hard as it may be to believe, some people just don’t like smart phones – they’re too large to reasonably fit in any of my clothes’ pockets, yet the screen is too small to use for anything other than short/basic tasks, they have poor battery life, and suffer from poor longevity (most people I know say their smart phone is basically knackered after 2 years* – one of them are on their 3rd warranty replacement [power switch failure]), and you get the fun of vendor lock-in from app stores. Then there’s people like my boss, whose eyesight is not good enough to be able to use a smart phone …

            Tablets are better, but largely suffer from the same screen size-related issues (albeit to a lesser extent, making them OK for a quick check).

            Having said that, whilst I do prefer the “book format”, it’d be nice if GW made the non-pointed data-slates available as a PDF (I’ve printed my AoS warscrolls at A5 size, and just line them up along my side of the table as an aide-memoir, which works rather well).

            *all of them have “premium brand” ones, so it’s not like they’re buying el-cheapo knock-offs.

        • stinkoman

          you can get a table cheaper than 1 big rule book an index and a codex. if the rules were free, your backpack would be lighter.

          • Ryan Miller

            I miss my motorolla bag phone… much better call quality and a battery that lasted all day.

    • ZeeLobby

      This has always been odd to me, why there is such a long delay.

      • I_am_Alpharius

        Only so many staff working on the e-publications. It likely has to be planned into production schedules as so not to delay upcoming releases.

        • ZeeLobby

          Yeah. I mean even just providing purchasers with new download links to PDFs though. I don’t know. I feel like there’s gotta be some way to speed up the process for digital content. I’d take a 40K AoS app at this point if it was updated in a timely manner.

          • stinkoman

            because copy write pirates.

  • Anthony Ellison

    This is a crazy idea. How about releasing a product that doesn’t need an FAQ and Re-Write 2 weeks after it has been released. I can understand needing to tweak things as other publications are released. But within 2 weeks of release?! these books are expensive and I buy them only to be told two weeks later there are whole parts that have had to be re-written because they didn’t get it right.

    • Fergie0044

      You give that a go and come back to us when you’ve got it sorted sure.

      • vlad78

        Why being so sarcastic, he’s right.

        I can understand GW using the player base to fix glaring issues (that’s what we wanted them to do for years when no playtesting was done at all) but why don’t they publish a working document first and then after some months of playtesting don’t they release the real deal?

        • Antoine Henry

          Money dude and if they do, nobody would pay 😀

          • vlad78

            Of course we would. Release a shiny book with a fixed rulseset and geeks scream like little girls. The free document would be obsolete by then.

        • memitchell

          Because…
          1) They want to sell you a finished product at full price. Not a half-finished product at any price.
          2) They do not want you to substitute models until the book is finished. Or, build an army based on a book that is going to change. Sure to change. You want to see folks complain if that happens.

          • Charon

            1) They do not do that anyways. Grave editing errors that should never have passed QA, unlecar rules, dysfunctional rules, balancing issues,…
            2) They do that all the time. Remember Vect? Doomrider? You are not even save with official models from getting invalidated. Half of my Renegades army is now basically invalidated. So this argument is completely invalid.

          • vlad78

            1) they wouldn’t sell the first one.
            2) that is exactly what they are doing with their FAQs. Lots of WAACs players invested heavily in stormravens lists.

          • Nyyppä

            They can still use those ravens, just not automatically win with them.

          • LankTank

            Agreed. And no-one’s heart bleeds for the player who bought a bunch of ravens in 8th just to win. They knew it required no skill/tactics and not fun to play against. GW just basically gave them what they deserve but if they got the skills, they can still win.

          • Fergie0044

            more fool them then. anyone spending serious money chasing the flavor of the month purely for cheesing it has no sympathy from me.

          • David

            But 1) if you need 30 pages of faq it is half finished
            2) because of 30 pages of faq it does change

        • Munn

          This still doesn’t solve the ‘players are idiots who can’t/don’t read’ problem that GW has wasted literally half of every FAQ they’ve put out on.

          • Nyyppä

            Remember 7th edition grenades?

          • David

            Yes they took up 2 pages defining grenades the different type of grenades and how they worked. This was a problem of over complexity

          • Nyyppä

            It took literally one clear sentence to make a rule and the WAACs still got it wrong.

          • Muninwing

            what’s worthy of note is that they have all these writing problems… but then claim they are making systemic changes to help hook younger players.

            like the younger ones are going to have any idea what to do with crappily-written rules.

            and yeah… their FAQs are often a disaster, but that’s nothing new. the 5th ed FAQ had a whole page devoted to not giving a straight answer about stormshields.

            they’d moved from 4++ to 3++ in the SM codex, but not in the SW, DA, BA codexes. they could have said “change a stormshield to a 3+ invulnerable in X, Y, and Z” or “no, there is no change to the stormshield’s value or stats.”

            instead, it was a “well, it is important to remember that this is a game, and people want to have fun, and you should allow people to have fun, meaning that you should let them use it how they want to… but technically the rule is this, and you have no obligation to use anything else, and you should respect a store or event that requires you to use this value, but maybe you should play it the other way for fun…”

            for over a page.

        • Fergie0044

          Maybe I’m was too harsh but I’m sick of this attitude that a balanced 40k is super easy to do and GW are just lazy/bad at their jobs.

          How many units are there? How many combinations? And who do you balance for; the fluffy players, the hardcore WAAC crowd? 40k is just too huge now, there will always be problems. The fact that they’re doing so many FAQs etc at least shows that GW are committed to managing the issue, but it will never be truly balanced.

          • vlad78

            I think every reasonable GW customer aknowledge perfect balance is not possible but it should be something to aim for.

            I also think things can always be improved. I ‘m happy GW is now publishing faqs quite quickly. I’d like them to care just a little more about the books they release.
            BTW introducing different ways of playing is not a bad idea when addressing different kinds of players.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            It’s not aimed for, for a reason and that’s to accommodate new releases every month.

          • ZeeLobby

            Well said. It’s as if now that they’ve agreed to let us help fix things, they’ve decided they no longer really need to. I’m a huge fan of beta rules.

          • David

            Except when the over simplify matched play (cover/model placement/directonal firing/simplicity/allies) so tournament/complexity loving players don’t get what they want.

            While they make power levels crazily unbalanced Death company with every model takeing a power fist is no more power than them all having chainswords. That doesn’t give fluff bunines what they want.

            Open play should be power levels, no special characters, no relics, CADS, (brigade/regiment)only with additional restrictions on unit compositions. 1 weapon upgrade per 5 models.

            Don’t like giulliman storm ravens – no special characters don’t like assassins doesn’t work in a CAD don’t like guard conscripts well (you could change the balance but also no straken, no Harker, no yarrick would weaken it’s options)

            As to narrative they don’t care they never have. Because narrative isnt about balance, quickness, or a vague version of fluffiNess it’s about a story.

          • SYSTem050

            Normally I sit in the if folk just read the rules properly the faq wouldn’t be such an issue camp.

            The csm codex faq though was simply full of f*** we just missed that. Legion tactics applying to deamon princes, bezerkers and noise marines as troops for world eaters and emps children.

            That’s simple stuff that just should not be missed.

          • LankTank

            Actually I heard that the whole Berserkers and Noise Marines not being Troops was initially intentional. The view was not all members of these splintered legions are now those specific units but the back lash (understandably) was so strong that they changed it back.
            And they ALWAYS forget the Daemon Prince =)

          • Nyyppä

            It’s a lot easier than it looks. The WAAC crowd because the rest of us get a good product that way too. It does not have to be perfect as long as it’s not bad.

            When WB legion focus was released they got a proverbial tidal wave of reclamations for their laziness and the fact that the reroll does nothing to help playing with the big units that really do suffer because of the current rules. They have not addressed the issue in any way, not even a hint of a possible upcoming fix. To me that is proof that they are not listening their customers.

            What the FAQs do however is that they clarify unclear rulings, fix typos and add forgotten pieces of information. That is something, but it is not them addressing rule problems.

          • Fergie0044

            “The WAAC crowd because the rest of us get a good product that way too.”

            Disagree. I’d rather be able to do fun and fluffy allies based lists without leaving it open for abuse. Sadly the only thing stopping that at the minute is player restraint which is not something that can be easily applied via rules.

            I loved the depth and complexity of 8th as it allowed chapters/legions etc to be played like the fluff describes. For example my mate’s raven guard used all their own formations etc for a real fluffy army. Since his actual list wasn’t min/maxed to the extreme it made for fun games. But the more of these options you add the harder it gets to balance and leaves it open for abuse.

            It’s best for the game that all that has been stripped back now, but part of me still misses all the options. Sorry, I’m waffling now and clearly this is all based on my own limited experiences.

          • Nyyppä

            How is that disagreeing with what I said. The result would be exactly what you want. 😄

          • euansmith

            Does the game really need to be so complex though? Maybe if GW could look at rationalising the factions and combos and options?

          • ZeeLobby

            You mean like troops, heavy support, fast attack, etc all having some mechanics or contributions that are shared across factions? That’s awesome, but I just don’t know if they have it in them, haha.

          • euansmith

            Indeed. They always seem to take some fairly simple basic ingredients and then smother them in special sauce. This is fine for their beloved Narrative Play (the way it is meant to be played), but seems to make balance an impossible dream from competitive play.

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. Totally agree.

          • zeno666

            Amen!

          • Muninwing

            a counterpoint, by replacing some key words:

            “maybe i’m too harsh but i’m sick of this attitude that a balanced personal budget is super easy to do, and people who spend ore than they make are just lazy/bad with money.

            “how many bills are there? how many expenses? and who do you budget for? money is so tight now, there will always be problems. the fact that they are paying some bills sometimes shows that they are committed to managing the issue, but their budget will never truly be balanced”

            if 40k is just too large to balance, then the people who have allowed it to grow are the ones who bear the blame there.

            they can cut back. AoS axed the TK and Bretts. it can be done. though “should it?” is another question.

            honestly, a straightforward analysis of their points algorithm and tweaking that to really reflect current value would do wonders there. or, you know, having an actual points algorithm instead of winging it. but if you balance points, you balance the game.

          • euansmith

            I would love to how they actually come up with points for things.

          • Fergie0044

            Now now, that’s not fair. I treat this game we play with our plastic toys very differently from personal finances.

          • Muninwing

            don’t we all?

            i think, though, that we have a belief that swings two ways.

            balance is a hard ideal to reach
            but… not bothering to improve is less likely to get you anywhere close to it.

            GW is notoriously bad at improvements. they also often do little on the leading end to improve quality before release. as a result, while “perfect” is not ever going to be reached, “not as bad as this” would really just be professional action.

          • Fergie0044

            I guess I just have lower expectations than you.
            I also think there should be a measure of player responsibility. Not like making up your own FAQs but rather the game can be played a number of ways – so do whichever makes you happy. So if, like me, all assassin lists make you want to vomit – maybe avoid the tournament scene?
            I’ve posted earlier this week about how I thought 7th could be a lot of fun with all the possible formations etc as long as some player restraint was used to not push them to breaking point.

          • Muninwing

            it’s conceptual for me.

            i’m good at certain things, bad at others. i tend to do well at strategy games like these, even if i’m hopeless at RTS games on a computer.

            i’m also not terribly compeittive with others. with myself is another story…

            i’m good enough, when i’m playing regularly, that i get bored if it is too easy to win. playing an army that is too optimized, or whose points are notably imbalanced in their favor, means not getting satisfaction out of the game. losing because a badly-written unit or army has advantages that i cannot counter with a reasonable TAC list is not fun either — i’m not relevant if the army and the list (instead of the tactical decisions made during play) win the game — it could be on autopilot against a robot in that case.

            i want fair and accurate balance because then i can have an idea of how well i should do, how much i should expect to win or lose by, and how good or bad my decisions were during play.

            if you get ten free razorbacks with your double-demi, and you win because of that added firepower/numbers that you didn’t pay for… not only is that boring because it’s the same army everyone else will bring, it’s also irrelevant data if i’m trying to get better at my own playing. how do i know that i’m doing well if i play against a bad player with a good army and lose?

            as with any system, counting on those who benefit to show restraint without motivation to restrain is… foolish. if you have a fun group that self-monitors, that’s one thing. not everyone will be like that. it’s better to incorporate some form of monitoring or motivation — like comp scores in tournaments, for example — in order to force the issue to be considered.

          • zeno666

            Not too harsh at all.
            I might be harsh when I state that I do think that GW are bad at their jobs. But that is my opinion.
            And we’re both allowed to have one 🙂

            And with this edition I really think they outdid themselves.
            Its amazingly bad.
            They did get vehicles right though.
            But shooting is way to strong due to bad rules.
            But I think its a part of their plan…

          • Muninwing

            i’m actually both pleased and disappointed with the rules.

            it was like they looked at everything, and tried to figure out what could be cut, and what could not.

            but they didn’t consider the effects of those cuts, or they didn’t compensate for other effect.

            example:
            data-wise, i think they did a reasonable job making blast shooting represented without the extra tools… but they took away a lot of the fun of using them, and revealed just how ineffective they could be by making us analyze the math.

            firing arcs is a great example of this. not too hard to include, but now we have flyers who don’t need to make strafing runs to hit things. and vehicles are beasts — literally and figuratively.

          • Mira Bella

            Have you ever played any other tabletop wargame outside of those produced by GW?

          • Fergie0044

            Yes but not recently.

        • zeno666

          Yeah, I would like them to go the same route as Wyrd Games. First an open beta stage, then final release.

      • Muninwing

        most publishers do this.

        most gaming companies do this.

        video games don’t need to — and some have gotten downright sloppy because of that — but they have a method of delivering a patch to you.

        there are certain considerations that GW has uniquely — the volume of players looking to break the game, the ease with which they can communicate, etc. but GW has also let the quality of their product dwindle — for various reasons — over a ten year stretch, and are just now trying to crawl out of that hole.

        we can cut them some slack as they relearn how to be a game company. but that only goes so far when they keep releasing subpar product. especially in a market where nobody else’s rules have the same volume of problems (for whatever reason).

    • Son_of_Corax_XIX

      They aren’t that expensive when you think of the use they get. I bet you’ve paid a lot more for a half completed video game in the past 3 years that only lasted 20-30 hours. Put things in perspective.

      • Muninwing

        this was the exact sales pitch my old manager used on parents that came into the GW store…

        he’d compare the flyer from the Target next door that was selling a PS2 and games… then compare it to assembly, painting, and playing.

        when GW figured prices out (circa 3rd ed), they accounted for the hobby-time spacing our purchases. if you buy a new box only after you paint the last one, you spend a reasonable amount of money on your purchases.

        • Son_of_Corax_XIX

          Not a sales pitch at all, it’s the cold hard truth. Value for money equates to how much usage and time you get for that money.
          You think nothing of buying sat Mass Effect Andromeda a half complete game or No Mans Sky a game nothing like promised and live with it. But ohh spend £30 on a book that will last you a minimum of 8 months that you use regularly when you play.
          Hobbyists really have a hard life, don’t we? You only get what you put in, in this hobby

          • Muninwing

            it’s still a pitch. just not an untrue or dishonest one.

            buy a console and a game, drop $250. playing that one game without addons like DLC or extra peripherals or an account of some sort is hard enough. but that game will eventually run out. or you will get bored of it.

            games that have lots of replay value often also have more DLC or require accounts.

            if i was given $250 in credit at a gaming store or GW-online, and i was most interested in setting up a new army to play, i could do that pretty well.

            then i’d take a month or two to slowly build my forces, paint them, and start playtesting. assembly and conversion alone could clock in at 10-20 hours… painting easily just as much. how long is the average game now — if it’s less than 50 hours, i get more out of my first month of playing than i do out of the game console… and then i still have that army to use and keep playing with.

            in the amount of time i’d need to want to buy more — if i actually carried through my intentions instead of getting distracted by “project adhd” — i could spend months on that one army. i’d go through 2-3 other games.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            So if it’s not dishonest or untrue then by definition it’s true.
            I’ve been in the hobby for over 20 years and still use some on the models I first bought back then, even going so far as to strip them and reprint and convert them as my skills grow. That is what you can’t do in a video game.
            Ergo from this and knowing it’s what most hobbyists do the hobby is far better value for money and so not that expensive if you have the ability to see the big picture and play the long game.

          • Muninwing

            to be clear… a “pitch” is not a trick, it’s an opener. many sales pitches are 100% true. including this one.

            what i find even funnier about money and this game is just how cheap it is, comparatively.

            on one hand, one army of decent size is not cheap. add in FW and it’s downright expensive. but… it’s not in comparison.

            my uncle is a car guy. he built a ’68 camaro from scratch. he currently has one of the two most exact deuce coupe replicas from American Graffiti (and he has the actual photographs of the undercarriage of the original to prove it). he’s spent far more money on tools than i have on armies.

            one of my coworkers is big into golf. he got his first set of clubs at a yard sale, but ten years in got a nice set of semipro clubs. greens fees, a golf pro to help with his swing, the trip he took last year to play at a famous course in Florida… he’s spent far more than i ever will, even though his trajectory mirrors my own in 40k. i bought used (ebay), have recently improved my materials (my Iron Hands are 100% conversion pieces/bits with FW shoulderpads and some Immortals for fun), have played casually and in tournaments… if i did national tournaments it’d be just like his Florida trip.

            i could go on. gaming, bass fishing, supporting a team, even drinking — there are cheap and expensive ways of doing each hobby. and in comparison to most of them, 40k is actually on the cheaper side.

    • Mike Forrey

      I’m pretty sure we all knew as soon as we saw just indexes only and no codex at release that this was going to be a beta test for the game for the next year. A smart move on their part considering how badly rules have been in the past in all their systems and their unwillingness to be flexible and fix the problems.

    • CrosisDePurger

      You will always need FAQ’s no matter how clear the rules are because people try to twist the wording can use it in ways that we’re not intended

      • stinkoman

        FAQs … yes. Errata? not if given a good once over before shipping. most of the things that matter in the “FAQs” are the Errata, or rules/points adjustments. FAQs are to put the rules layers minds at ease.

    • stinkoman

      what?! you didn’t agree to pay to beta test?

    • zeno666

      You won’t see that from this company 😉
      But I agree. I refuse to buy their rulebooks since they are often very poorley written, have re-used art and fluff, and the rules will need correction further along the road.

    • Anthony Keen

      From working in publishing, I can say that the process is long. The codexes were most probably written months ago, when they didn’t have players testing the game en masse. There may not have been an issue with how the meta is developing when it was written.

    • Son_of_Corax_XIX

      How many video games have day one patches despite these errors been known before production? It’s different with a game where you can’t predict everyone’s thought process or accurately simulate it to see exploits.

  • Ryan Williams

    Can’t have your cake and eat it, kid…

    • Anthony Ellison

      Ahh yes the old “Kid” reply. Used usually when trying to validate your own point by invalidating someone else based on they must be a child.

      But to give you a well formed and thoughtful response. This is not about having cake and eating it too. This is about buying a completed product. Like I said FAQs and errata being used when following publications cause rules conflict, but a set of designers notes and two FAQs for the initial 8th edition release shows a lack of a finished product

      • Ryan Williams

        Which still skirts the problem: moaning about them not doing something, and moaning when they do it.

        Or, put simply, having your cake and eat it.

        • ZeeLobby

          The two aren’t identical though. There’s definitely a scale between “release it to make this quarter look good, and we’ll just FAQ any problems later” and “let’s wait and playtest this for a bit longer, and get some more of the links out, then FAQ the odd outlier”. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for the latter.

          • stinkoman

            “perfect balance is impossible” – it’s like my kid saying, aww it’s too hard, ill never do it!

    • Heinz Fiction

      As a non native speaker i’m always confused by this phrase. Why would I have a cake if not for eating it?

      • Thadd Replogle

        Once you eat your cake you no longer have it, if you still have it then you haven’t eaten it yet.

        • Heinz Fiction

          Ok, so basically it means i can only eat it once. That way it makes sense…

          • euansmith

            It is more, “You have a hard and clearly defined choice to make. You can either have your cake, or you can eat your cake.” So Bob’s your uncle and Fanny’s your aunt.

          • Heinz Fiction

            Yeah but I mean just having a cake for the sake of it seems pretty pointless. Of course I will eat it because thats the sole reason I have it.

            Would be clearer to say: “you can’t sell your car and drive it” or something like this where you have to decide between to benefits 😉

          • euansmith
          • Heinz Fiction

            At least I know where that saying comes from 😉

          • Muninwing

            it actually makes more sense as “eat your cake and have it too”

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Buy a printer and the e-books?

  • Fergie0044

    More FAQs are only a good thing IMO. Much better than the past where there was hardly any. But yes, we do need a way to keep on top of them. Three ideas;
    -As the article says putting it all in chapter approved would be good. I really hope they include the current FAQs in it as a nice way of putting them all in one place.
    -Website. Put up a section on Warhammer Community dedicated to FAQs and keeping track of updates etc. Maybe have a function where you can input your army list and it tells you exact what rules/FAQ sources you need?
    -An App. Same as the website but in app form. Bonus points if you can put in your army list and it then cherry picks all the FAQ rules you need rather than having to read through each list of them.

    • Anthony Ellison

      No one disagrees with that FAQs and errata are a good thing. However, like I said when in the space of a couple of weeks there is designer’s notes and two FAQ/errata.
      When future publications it is inevitable that there will be some clashes within rules. That’s where the FAQ/Errata process should be used.
      But when you are re-writing whole sections of rules before a full pay cycle has occurred then there is something wrong. That shows a clear lack of preparation.

      • Fergie0044

        Eh. In my job I prepare documents and drawings for outside clients. These are checked by me, then by someone else (in detail) then reviewed by someone else. And yet still sometimes mistakes get through. Sometimes serious mistakes. it happens.

        • vlad78

          But does it happen with every document your prepare? ;p

          • David

            How can they be understaffed when they have a community of thousands of players only too willing to beta test for free

          • Graymantle

            Has no one on this site played a video game in the last decade? Day one patches are a given for even the most lauded and experienced publishers. Do you think these weren’t thoroughly play tested? Do you think these games are poorly coded and terrible products? No. GW is doing what we want them to: getting us our content as quickly as possible and course correcting based on our feedback. The majority of complaints are of minor imperfections in a grand undertaking. Sure, I would have liked to see a few things done differently, but this a vastly improved, very playable game that is still in its infancy. Give it some time to be fully released and let the dust settle before continuing to bite the hand that feeds you. Look at the edition as a whole and try to fathom the work that went into bringing it about. They will tidy it up, and articles like this will be moot (if they even have merit now).

          • Muninwing

            day one patches are now in the industry.

            they are also a good sign that quality is lacking. they rushed the release.

        • Son_of_Corax_XIX

          Don’t make a valid point with real life examples to show how easily a mistake can happen by GW. Everyone near enough here will hate you for it as GW is the big evil and most people here are keyboard warriors
          I on the other hand understand and accept your point as it’s obviously what does happen.

          • I know, poor plucky GW is just doing the best they can and the customers just keep picking on them. If it weren’t for the dedicated backing of their fans I’m sure that the corporation would just quit making money for it’s share holders and stay at home. Seriously, people need to think about the corporation’s feelings more.

          • zeno666

            Haha, well spoken indeed 😉

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            Not a case of feelings, its a case of facts of life.
            Just funny all the Keyboard warriors jumping on people for explaining these things happen in all industries every day but you dont all get in arms about that.
            Easy to hide behind a computer screen and criticise.

          • Mira Bella

            Aren’t you the guy who claimed that being on the NewYork times best sellers list is “the gold standard of all literacy awards”?
            😀
            Yeah…
            Tell us more about your “facts of life”

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            It is a gold standard that a lot of others are proud to achieve and set out for.
            Oh this is the same person who thought they knew the lore of 40k but didn’t know a thing.
            Try again please….
            Better yet run a business and see how easy mistakes are to make.

          • Mira Bella

            I actually run a Business.
            I do mistakes ALL THE TIME. 😀
            Making mistakes is pretty normal as a human.
            It’s only a Problem if you fail to acknowlege the mistakes you made. That my friend is a serious character flaw.

            Im also pretty sure that you know 40k’s Lore much better then me. (See it’s so simple) 😉

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            It’s not a mistake to not see something you can’t possibly fathom as you don’t think that way.
            Some exploits are missed as you can’t test every possible scenario even when using outside testers like HeW did this time.
            Obviously you don’t as you’d have a more sympathetic viewpoint to the dilemma GW are put in by giving power to make lists for games to their customers

          • It’s true that far worse things happen in industries everyday. It’s also irrelevant. If you think for a second I wouldn’t say any of this to Kevin Rountree or any GW employee’s face then you have quite a complex going. Do you know what would happen if I did say it to their faces? Nothing. Nothing would happen. Because my criticism doesn’t harm them in the slightest and they are, I assume, normal rational people. So I don’t know who you think I am hiding from or why you think I would need to.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            You wouldn’t say it to the people that matter like everyone else here. Because when you do get in front of the game designers you all become Fanboys, I’ve seen it plenty of times and it hilarious

          • Your assumptions on the character of those you have not met speak more about you than any of us.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            Not really, your morning thinking and poor excuses at sarcasm say more about you

        • zeno666

          So how was it working on 8th edition then? 😛

  • Darren Mills

    What is the point of this article? The entire thing boils down to FAQs (like literally everything) have trade offs. This article serves no other purpose that to start arguments and get clicks.

    • Munn

      Why ask a question and answer it in the same sentence.

    • Son_of_Corax_XIX

      Isn’t that the point of BoLs now GW has pulled the plug on rumours with the community site?

  • Nyyppä

    Nah. You need a codex and a faq to play the game. Just as always. It’s your own fault if you need to bring 8 books to a game.

    • MarcoT

      This. They even included basic daemons in the heretic book, to save you a book to carry around. Only if you start mixing creatively you run into issues.

      • Antoine Henry

        Indexes were a good idea, the Codices being back is the worst pile of trash they made. They could make two books : one with the fluff, the other with rules for all faction (not free for paper but get a free or 1€ digital book with it). Its just a question of money here, people are stupid to buy codices so they continue this way. Also the game is starting to look worse than 7th already (stratagems, rules errata, special rules, multiple re-rolling etc). Randomness and lot of dice rolling does not make a good game.

        • memitchell

          It’s a hobby, guy. Not an instruction manual. Background, pictures, artwork. It’s all an integral part of the hobby.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            Don’t make a valid thought on here like that people won’t like it as your not towing the party line here

          • ZeeLobby

            But having the fluff in the same book as the rules is not a requirement. When’s the last time someone read the fluff behind each unit before they moved them while playing?

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            You read it to get a feel for the army and decide what units to add etc if you don’t want that use battlescribe or another tool along those lines. You have to remember the Codex isn’t just for the experienced hobbyist its for the new ones as well

          • ZeeLobby

            Oh. I totally agree. But they could provide separate books for that. Let’s be honest, new or old, many people would buy the fluff book for their faction. Heck, put in some extra rules and some wargear. AoS got this right IMO, which is why it’s so odd 40K didn’t follow through. Provide the unit rules free and separate, easily printable, etc. And then provide faction books with tons of fluff, lore and events. I mean they can throw the current unit rules in there if they want, but you wouldn’t have to own it to play the army.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            Rules were never going to be free for 40k as it was a huge mistake doing that with AoS as it’s impacted the sales of Battletomes.
            40k is the perfect mix and £25 or £30 for a codex that you will get hundreds of hours use from isn’t expensive at all

          • A giant swathe of players I know have no idea what the background is and don’t care about it. They only care about rules.

          • ZeeLobby

            I know several as well. They really don’t HAVE to go together, and separating them would solve complaints, IMO. They’d no longer have to reprint expensive books with art and bindings, etc. to fix the rules. Pamphlets in a WD would be sufficient.

          • Honestly IMO if they were to separate them they might as well not bother making them in the first place. I know with AOS here NO ONE was buying the books while the rules were free and available elsewhere.

          • euansmith

            Its a bit like life in that respect then 😉

          • Muninwing

            hah. rules?

          • MarcoT

            No one is saying it isn’t. But during a game you only need the rules, not the fluff and pretty pictures. In fact, GW themselves realised this when they introduced the three core books for 7th edtion; one for rules, one for background and one for heavy metal.

            And keep in mind many of us have had the same stories and images half a dozen times in the various codexes, to the point that we know it by heart. New codexes really are just about the rules in that case. It’s a sensible request.

          • ZeeLobby

            They could have definitely divorced them though. Rules in index, hobby fluff books. But then you don’t get the people who only care about the rules to pay for the fluff and vice versa.

  • memitchell

    Raise your hand if you think the insane release schedule of 10 codices by the end of the year will yield 10 flawless books. No one? Thought so.

    Now, knowing that’s gonna cause FAQ’s to bust out, raise you hand if you would rather they release a code a quarter, instead? No, you Space Marine and Chaos Space Marine players don’t get a vote, you already have your codices. I’m talking to us bottom dwellers like Genestealer Cult. If you have to have an couple of pages of free-to-download FAQ so that I don’t have to wait years for my codex, then, FAQ you, dude!

    • ILikeToColourRed

      i play csm, daemons, de, and deathwatch

      im happy to wait for my codexes – im a little peeved at having to buy one for csm so soon after getting the index

      having had the previous csm codex i didnt need the same fluff and images reprinted either

      • memitchell

        Well, I got my FIRST and ONLY GSC codex a few months ago (only a 27 year wait!). And, it was obsolete a few months ago (40k V8!). When I get the new GSC, I think I will probably also need both the AM and Tyranid codices to use those forces. The AM is pretty much necessary. It’s no big deal, but puts things in perspective..

        • ILikeToColourRed

          i think i used my deathwatch codex around 5 times in 7th, so i empathise

          • memitchell

            Those were the days, were they not?

  • Pacer

    I don’t mind FAQs. I just don’t want to have the same situation as the last edition where the number of books and date sheets in circulation became overwhelming. It would be better though if they made the rules free with updates worked in. People still buy the books (as I’ve seen from other games). The people that don’t buy them tend to get digital versions for free via piracy.

    • AOS has shown us that very few will buy the books if they can get the rules for free. And that experiment ended with AOS now requiring the books as well.

      I know in my area there were two of us buying books. Everyone else were fine using the free rules.

      • Muninwing

        see, having looked at their first couple of book releases, i don’t think that the experiment actually went like that for many consumers.

        because those books were utterly terrible.

        had they released a decent product with a fully coherent setting, and had much of the writing not been the kind of ott nonsense i’d expect from a middle school creative writing class, maybe we could blame the lack of sales on the free-ness of the rules. but i don’t think the actual data supports that idea.

        • Practically every single player that I know that chose to opt out of ever buying books said they did so because they could get the rules for free and didn’t need the books.

          None of them mentioned the writing quality.

          And this is something that I heard en masse from all kinds of contacts across the United States.

          • Muninwing

            i have no doubt that many people — especially the most vocal “why do i have to pay $X for a book full of art and fluff when i just want the rules” people — were probably the loudest.

            maybe i’m an outlier. as annoyed as i was at the new direction of the game, i looked into picking up a copy. i didn’t buy it because it was embarrassingly bad.

            but if you just look at it as a game, then yeah… the lack of coherent background and bad fluff writing aren’t necessary. so why buy a book for that?

          • I think they’d have done the same thing in past versions of 40k or whfb as well if they could have. Very very very few people I know (i can count them on one hand) care about the narrative and would opt out of having to have the narrative in their book if they could just get rules and nothing but rules.

          • Muninwing

            there’s always been two camps. GW has magnified the problem by upping the content and quality of the books, and with that upping the prices. but plenty of people would surely just buy a $15 rules-only book like what came in AoBR.

            there are people who love the lore, the stories, or the painting-pictures. maybe less in your area, but they exist.

  • YetAnotherFacelessMan

    Again: If it’s a concern of yours, take 20 minutes and type yourself up a little rules booklet of your own. You could make datacards for your units in powerpoint, you could type out the relevant rules in word… show up to the game of a three page paper of only the stuff that matters. Maybe keep the books in the car if you’re going for a pickup game and you haven’t yet earned the trust of the folks at your store/club.

    • euansmith

      Even back in 5th, I used Excel to make myself a cheatsheet with all the info for my force.

    • Fergie0044

      Shush now. no need for common sense here…

      • ZeeLobby

        Lol. Rewriting a product you paid money for to make it easily workable isn’t common sense. That’s called a bad product. Not saying that people can’t or shouldn’t do such things, but it definitely highlights a flaw to their system.

        • Fergie0044

          Its not re-writing, just collecting all the rules/FAQs that matter to your army and keeping them in one easy to read document. So more like condensing the existing stuff.
          Would be nice if we had an app or something that could do this for us though…

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah. I’d love an app. I really was shocked they didn’t go the AoS route and provide free updated unit rules. I thought for sure we’d see that with 8th.

    • I’d love to sell you a car. “Look, I know this car is expensive and the starter doesn’t work, but hey, you look handy. Failing that you can always just give it a push to start. I mean, why would I discount such a lovely vehicle just because of something you can easily deal with.”
      I’m more of an Excel guy myself. I have done pretty much exactly what you’ve said, but I don’t think it reflects particularly well on GW that this is necessary. However, to be fair, I also prefer a car that starts itself. GW charges more for rules than any other game. I don’t think it’s too much to expect them to work with little effort from me.
      As an aside, do you know how many Infinity spreadsheets I have? Not one. I don’t need them and those rules are free.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        You are literally describing the used car market. If I thought I could get the car fixed, I’d take my perceived value of the fixed car, subtract the amount I think it would take to get the car fixed, and make you an offer slightly below that. That is literally how used cars get sold.

        Now, I don’t know too much about Infinity because the game has never appealed to me. However, I have played a fair bit of Warmachine, and I carried a binder full of cards with me, along with a dry-erase marker. It never struck me not to.

        I’ve played countless hours of D&D and, in addition to the core rulebooks, I carred several splatbooks and expansions to games. After a while, I realized that since I was pulling from several different rulebooks, it made more sense to just take the parts I needed in a sort of document-of-use, but keep the other reference books as reference.

        If that’s too much work, fine. No one will make you play 40k. If you think the rules aren’t worth the money, don’t pay it. However, if you think the amount of value you’d get out of it is worth the sum of the amount of work you’d put into fixing it and the amount you’d have to pay… congrats, friend; that is how thousands and thousands of people happily buy used cars.

        • Look, if the business model works for you, that’s great. What GW is selling isn’t a used product, they are selling a new product that needs work and they are selling it at a higher cost than anyone else in the industry. It’s working for them, I’ll give you that.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            Yes, they are selling miniatures that require assembling, converting, and painting; new products that need work before you can use them. They also have rules that they put out that you can play with just fine by themselves. 😉

  • euansmith

    I do wish there was some way of making the Legion of the Damned look as cool as the dude in that illustration.

  • Heinz Fiction

    Well if you chose to play a list with Marines, AdMech and Astra Militarum in it I’d say thats your own problem. No one is forcing you.

    Concerning the frequency of FAQ releases I’d say: as often as necessary as seldom as possible. Meaning every FAQ you can avoid by testing the rules beforehand is a win. But as someone who had to deal with a 5th edition tyranid codex which was unplayable as written for about half a year, I still consider a FAQ as the second best option…

  • I think the simple answer is to create a living rulebook of sorts that exists online or as a tablet/phone app. The books can still be made available for people that like hardcopies and all of the art and fluff, with an added bonus of a unique unlock code sealed inside to unlock the book in the app. The app could be simple yet extremely powerful, and allow for the updates and FAQs to instantly alter the rules as written there.
    .
    Strip all of the fancy graphics from the margins and just keep the basics. If they added in an e-reader section and put the entire Black Library up for purchase as e-books(back to the beginning novels) they could really entice people to pay more than they would otherwise.
    .
    A single, catch-all style app could be amazing and a must buy for anyone interested in the game or universe.

  • defensive

    First people complain that rules aren’t updated enough
    Now people complain that rules are updated too much.

    You guys would be running the exact opposite article if they had let all these imbalances fly by without an update.

    • ZeeLobby

      First GW playtested their rules, but wouldn’t FAQ the rare glaring game breaking issue.
      Now they don’t playtest anything and provide massive FAQs to fix all the issues.

      Probably a more accurate representation.

      • defensive

        “Rare”
        Yeah, no, it was pretty common.
        That’s why Eldar dominated every other army, and standouts like Chaos, Tyranids, and orks, were completely unviable trashheaps of codexes.

        So far, this has been the most balanced edition of the game so far.
        People pointing out typos and off points cost is nothing compared to the mess that 7th ed was as a whole, due to never fixing rules.

        • ZeeLobby

          That was balance issues primarily though, not game issues. What I was referencing was issues with the core or army rules, not how powerful units are. Eldar had underpriced OP units, that’s why they were top dog.

          5th Editions rules (which were basically 6th and 7th with garbage on top) were actually a solid ruleset. They really only needed a fix to wound allocation, and it would have been a great edition. Sadly they decided to add LoW, fliers and all types of crap on top at the same time.

          I also find it hard to believe that this is “the most balanced edition of the game so far”. The reality is that factions that were just horrible before are better (or in some cases the best). Case in point, Dark Eldar. Was bad through most of 6th/7th. Still bad in 8th. Again it wasn’t the rules of 7th which made it a bad edition, it was the imbalances between factions. It’s too early to even comment on 8th, as the index rules are just a shallow copy of what each faction will eventually have.

          • defensive

            Dark Eldar are considered to be one of the better factions in this edition though. As a dark eldar player myself, I wouldn’t call them bad by any stretch.

        • Mira Bella

          “So far, this has been the most balanced edition of the game so far.”
          How exactly did you measure that?
          Or is that just your opinion?

          • defensive

            It’s my opinion
            And of pretty much anyone that has played 7th and 8th
            Ever read through the 7th ed codex for chaos or tyranids? Or Eldar?

  • David

    Follow simple process

    1) Write rules

    2) Post rules publically

    3) Give player Base up to 2 months to test.

    4) if rules creates confusion/different interpretations rewrite rule
    If rule contradicts itself or other rule rewrite rule
    If rule is missing information eg definition of HWT in AM infantry squad rewrite rule.
    If rule creates overpowered problems rewrite
    If rule makes unit almost unplayable see fortifications rewrite

    If rule rewritten go back to 2) if not rewritten for 2 months forward for publication.

    Once published only faq if a newer publication causes difficulties or errata for balance but only errata for balance if a list wins
    Consistently wins for 3-6 months or if a unit features in no lists over the same period.

    Ignore all feedback featuring the words WAAC – if you use this term as criticism either you don’t understand balance or you are the sort of person who handicap’s yourself because of how you think the game should be played and 1 it’s a game and 2 people won’t all play it your way most will push the rules if they can

    Also ignore any criticism about fluff. Because 1) the fluff changes necrons ally with BA whoops we got carried away with those bids so we will save the BA with a khorne demon. 2 you have the power to rewrite fluff as you see fit and have done so for years 3 most of it isn’t about fluff it’s about a disle of competitive play and 4 because if you follow the above rules eventually you will get a rules which is balanced, cohesive, understandable and lists will become fluffier and more varied as a result.

  • ZeeLobby

    I hate to say it, but theirs only 2 solutions: write rules good enough to not need many FAQs using good playtesting prior to release (GW lol) or go digital and force it (PP). I’m not a huge fan of either. That said, I would gladly have GW provide beta rules and let us fix things before we buy the books.

  • Spacefrisian

    Next marine faq/ errata (in magenta) add the option a Primaris captain may take a plasma pistol and or a powerfist…Cause in there planning they didnt forsee that they would release that model…

    • ZeeLobby

      Is that true? If so that’s cringe worthy… Definitely still a case of models first company.

  • thereturnofsuppuppers

    seems to be ok with AoS after a couple of years, should be fine.

    • ZeeLobby

      But AoS offers the rules for free digitally and updates them when FAQs are dropped right?

      • I_am_Alpharius

        I don’t think GW update the PDF downloads – I could well be wrong though.

        • ZeeLobby

          Which just seems like insanity to me :/

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            They seem to keep them relatively up to date.

      • thereturnofsuppuppers

        Yeah, that is a point.

        Though practically speaking you’d probably pick up the generals handbook and a battletome.

    • vlad78

      is AOS how things should be? I prefer to be blind than to read this. Well AOS is not a wargame anymore. ^^ I’d like 40k not to follow the same path even if it has already begun unfortunately with the oversimplification.

      • ZeeLobby

        Eh. The way they handle rules in AoS is better, regardless of how good the actual system is.

      • thereturnofsuppuppers

        I guess you don’t play it, you wouldn’t know.

        Its fun, strategic and flavourful.

        If anything you’re being oversimplistic

        • vlad78

          Haha, here we are again.

          I tried it several times.

          I don’t like it because it is completely disconnected fom what a real medieval battle would look like. People through the ages used ranks for a reason and no tactic used IRL made it into that game.

          I don’t like it because the point of this game is just to maximise your attacks, the tactics of the moving phase are reduced as much as possible just like in 40k, but what works in a sci-fi skirmish games does not imho in a fantasy one.

          I don’t like it because it is gamey. It ‘s a game which happens to use miniatures, it’s not a game trying to be a wargame while using fantasy troops which wfb was.

          I don’t like it because I find the fluff to be just awful, any other company publishing such a thing without GW ability to force it down through our throats would just sink.

          I don’t like ity because I find the sigmarines and the fat dwarves and the sado masochist cultists and the haunted trees to be awful. Only the tzeench new armies are quite nice and of course most of the squats but squats belong to 40k (but even they have some ridiculous miniatures ; their boss for instance with his big ballon on his back) and the orks too.

          You are oversimplistic by assuming people who loathe AOS just know nothing.

          Quick, fun, maybe, but it’s not enough to meet my expectations.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            its a sci fi fantasy game about gods and monsters, what were you expecting, to accurately recreate the siege of Constantinople using orcs?

            You seem thoroughly uninformed about the gameplay, with your summation of it being about ‘massing attacks’.

            When is the last time you had a game, what army did you use, who did you play and what scenario?

          • vlad78

            It’s not sci-fi. It’s extremely high fantasy with a touch of steam-punk here and there. No technology explains how sigmarines crossbows work.

            Who spoke about constantinople? Even if orks are bigger and meaner than the average human, if they have a spear, they fight all the same and historical tactics should work against them.

            ‘You seem thoroughly uninformed about the gameplay, with your summation of it being about ‘massing attacks’.’

            lol
            That’s a cheap attack. AOS system is similar to what 40k has become. There is no reward for attacking an ennemy from the rear or the side, the key word is saturation hence massing attacks and choosing carefuly which units should strike first is the core of all tactics in AOS. Differences between both systems are few like the possibility to change the player having the initiative and of course the type of troops.

            The manoeuvering options are few compared to a real wargame or even compared to what WFB 6th was. It’s basically a mobfight.

            There no problem if you like it, for me the immersion is impossible. (I already find it difficult with 40k 8th but being a sci-fi setting with guns, it helps)

            And for your information, I used the Empire battlescrolls agains orcs (they are orcs, not alan merret fantasy stupid names) with the battle plans of the general handbook when it was released.

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            It has space, and space craft. Its got lazers and rifles and all sorts of magic tech.

            It is sci fi fantasy.

            In regards to the xbows. they are pretty much normal crossbows that auto refill until the chap gets tired, worn down, or ventures outside of their god’s power.

            Attacking in the rear or flank has no bearing on skirmish games. Why would you be looking for it in Age of Sigmar?

            It seems pretty arbitrary what you call a real wargame. Is saga a wargame? Is Pig Wars a wargame?

            I’m sure you realise the empire has really silly joke names. They are
            just germans with a few letters switched around.

            So you haven’t played any of the new armies?

          • Mira Bella

            There are skirmish games where being in the flank or back has a bearing.

            “So you haven’t played any of the new armies?”
            What are you implying there? That you need to play it with the newest army’s? Only then you will understand the tactical complexity???
            😀

          • thereturnofsuppuppers

            yeah. The older armies don’t tend to have as many tools to play with.

          • vlad78

            I don’t like the new armies, I like the old world. ;p Don’t try to convince me, I liked warhammer because it was a low fantasy world compared to ADD, and I won’t try to convince you you can’t have fun with AOS because obviously you do. 😉

            About space, spelljammer had it, and it wasn’t sci-fi fantasy. Sci-fi is defined by the use in the story of technologies which do not exist yet. I’m sorry if that seems a bit pedantic.

          • NNextremNN

            From what you are describing you are looking for a war simulation. I’m not sure if this can be sufficiently done with a boardgame in a decent amount of time at the scale of AoS/40K. I think this complexity can better be handled as a computer game. People wanted faster games and a lot of what you want has been sacrificed for this goal.

            So I kinda get your point but your chances of GW changing warhammer fantasy into something you want are near zero. You should either look for a different game or at least a different set of rules.

            Also this argument will lead nowhere because none will suddenly change his mind.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Hahahaha -who could see this debate coming a mile off? GW: dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.

    Sadly misprints/editing errors is a continual battle any publishers deal with. Last minute editorial changes, copy and paste errors, formatting/proofreading errors etc… are all par for the course in publishing and boils down to human error. Heck, I have bought recently published editions of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, to replace battered copies, and thats still has several errors and different errors to my previous editions! Now, that book has been in print for 60+ years and still the publishers can’t get it right.

    As for rules writing. To an extent you have to a rules writer the benefit of the doubt that, when a rule was written, it was considered clear and succinct . Alas, when that rule then reaches Joe-public, with a breadth of comprehension skills, that rule has huge potential to be misconstrued; or, indeed, certain gamers intentionally twist the wording to suit their narrative advantage. This of course leads to the need for FAQ’s and Errata.

    As for carrying round umpteen codex’s try to use some common sense. Need the rules for one or two models from a index? Then use some initiative and photocopy those entries or take a photo on your phone/mobile device. FAQ’s, generally aren’t too long. So print them; print them double sided; print them A5 so you can get 4 pages of FAQ on one sheet of A4. Its not hard. Oh of course at the end of the day with FAQ’s use that magical tool we all have called a brain and memorise it!

    • ZeeLobby

      They could have solved a lot of this with beta rules testing. Just saying. If they won’t fix the rules prior to release themselves, there are alternative methods which would definitely cut down on the amount of FAQs. I mean heck, the FAQs are generated from poorly written rules, they would definitely be brought up in an open forum. It would just require investment from them, and I don’t think they see investing in rules as a profitable endeavor.

  • Damistar

    Ironic to see BoLS criticizing GW for rushing out things without proofreading. 🙂

    • ZeeLobby

      A free blog vs required paid-for printed books? I mean kind of ironic i guess, lol.

  • Carey_Mahoney

    Seriously BOLS, invest some minutes in proof-reading. Sure, the author’s points are expressed sufficiently, but still…

  • Larry Gervella

    All these bloggers do is cry. Hardly any of them post positive articles. It’s getting old. None of you are happy with anything GW does, so why still play?

    • Mira Bella

      Why does that bother you?

      • Larry Gervella

        Because these bloggers are never happy with what gw does. Old gw ways they cry, new gw ways, they still cry. It’s gets old and does nothing for the hobby except bring it down.

        • Mira Bella

          Honest question mate.
          Why do you care what someone who you never met and will most certainly never meet thinks about your chosen hobby?

          • Larry Gervella

            Because these bloggers are what outside people see when first thinking about starting the hobby. They give a bad impression.

          • NNextremNN

            Because the job of a journalist is to criticise and inform about problems and current situations, not to advertise? That’s something many journalists don’t understand anymore.

            I wouldn’t go so far to call BolS journalism in general but if I wanted just to read how great and happy everything is and with what wonderful things GW blesses us the official community page would be enough.

  • Chaosrex

    There’s never gonna be an ideal solution, and no one will ever be totaly satisfied, you can only use the method that works best.

  • CrosisDePurger

    Ummm, or just use battlescribe.

    • stinkoman

      is that updated for 8th? i used to use my army builder, you can put the rules for the units in the entry. then you just bring that and the quick start rules.

      • nope none

        from Day 1 battlescribe was updated for 8th. And is getting updated all the time

        • stinkoman

          website says the last update was jun 16 for the release of 8th.

    • NNextremNN

      Not really GW legal and similar to pirating each book but yeah the app is great.

  • stinkoman

    “more time under an editor’s nose being being booted off to the printers” – just sayin….

    • Graymantle

      Seriously. So many errors in this article, I lost count.

  • nope none

    There is an ideal solution. They, GW, buy battlescribe and provide customers with an official app that gets updated with every new book / errata / FAQ. The lets you build lists and provides you with all the correct rules for said list.

    Charge people something like 2GBP / 2.50EURO / 3 USD / 3.25 CAD per month.

    • stinkoman

      how about not per month, but one time purchase please. i’d like to not have to subscribe to play my war game hobby with relative ease.

      • nope none

        you think they will give up the revenue from book sales so you can pay $10 upfront once? Highly unlikely

        I’m Canadian. $39 a year is actually less than purchasing a codex per year. I paid 25$ for each index I had to buy and $50 for rules. I think it’s a great deal and probably my suggested price per month is a little low.

  • E65

    Wa, wa, wa

  • Nick Linc

    What if players all sign honorifics and pledges that they’ll spend the money from various codexi on moar models instead, could then GW cast aside this paper shackled albatross of analog gaming?

  • Randy Randalman

    The FAQ’s are only going to be rapid-fire while the codices are coming out. By some point early next year, every army will have their books and there won’t be a nerd for them. Then GW can switch to models. Don’t need FAQ’s for plastic kits.

    Furthermore, have you read the FAQ’s? About 95% of the questions are not adjustments, or vague rules. It’s people simply not reading the plain-as-day text already in the rulebook. Most sensible people read them and wonder if there’s really people out there asking the questions GW had to publish answers for.

  • Thomas

    Yeah, I kind of resent the fact that, in an age where digital content could easily be patched and updated on the fly, GW relies on a scattershot approach where you need a rulebook, Codex, possibly an Index, Chapter Approved and several pages of FAQ.

    I also resent that the expensive rulebook I bought has already been rendered an incomplete product by the existence of Chapter Approved. Another expensive reference book.

    I remember when the usual faces were all praising GW to the heavens because “8th will eliminate the cumbersome book-keeping of 7th!” Now that cumbersome book-keeping is still a feature, they’re all screeching about how wonderful GW are for giving all these updates in typical scattered, decentralised fashion.

  • marxlives

    Why do you need books? Can’t you just go online and print your unit information with the special rules detailed in the back and download any sort of theme requirements too. I know Dark Age does this and I know PP just has the cards available online. Why are so many books necessary? AS far as FAQs there shouldn’t be too many core rule changes. I know with Dark Age, Malifaux and Warmachine the FAQs mostly revolve around unit rules not core rule changes. And these should be automatically updated in Battle Scrolls or whatever. Right?

    • NNextremNN

      Well yeah you could think that but sadly no you can’t GW wants to make money by selling rules so they sell a lot of rules and create situations (allies / missing units from codex that are in the index) so people want/have to buy even more.

  • DoctorBored

    They’re putting all of the FAQ material in the Chapter Approved. Once that comes out, you can chuck all the old FAQ material that you were carrying around and then you just need the rulebook and that.

    What would be really nice is if they released a version of the rulebook that was really small, paperback, and compact with only the important rules and none of the fluff and pictures. Then, it wouldn’t be such a chore to carry all those rules around.

    Or better yet, RELEASE THE RULES FOR FREE and have them on digital that gets updated with each FAQ. It’s 2017, GW, let’s start acting like it.

    • Mr.Gold

      if you are lucky then maybe you can locate a copy on reseller sites e.g. ebay – sometimes they split up and sell on the mini rulesbooks separately from the collectors edition.

  • davepak

    “See my list includes a Chaos Lord on a Steed of Slaneesh, whose rules are not in the Codex, so …”
    I see the start of your problem right there.

    If most xenos players can stick to one book, so can you.

    • Muninwing

      nope. not an acceptable answer.

      the multi-book lists are actively pushed by gw. that’s what keywords do.

      and if i was playing a chaos list i’ve played for literally a decade, and i need to retrieve rules from other books because GW has made some questionable decisions, i’m going to do that without being shamed by an ork or necron player who cannot do the same.

      • Coltcabunny

        We’ll see if they magically change their tune when the various characters on bikes fail to show up in the codex.

  • Vladamyr

    If there was a GW sanctioned program like battle scribe, that worked as well as battle scribe. this wouldn’t be a problem. All rules updates, point updates, or restrictions would be semi instant just as they are in the ibook editions.

    I personally have moved on to iBook editions, for ease of list building by hand, and the fact that I can easily check if it is up to date with FAQs just by checking the date on it. However its format does make it hard while playing an actual game, and flipping between the main rulebook and a codex is a time waster.

    I understand not everyone has tablets or smart phones, but I am sorry you are a minority here, so if everything is kept up to date digitally, then you cannot complain. The burden of wanting physical books is on you for wanting physical books, not on the growing majority of the hobbyists who have access digitally.

    • Muninwing

      they tried that. theirs was terrible.

      • euansmith
      • Vladamyr

        yeah, they did try and it was terrible. But it was also a half ass’d try. If they legit put resources to it, it could be really nice.

      • Ucheny .

        They have an exellent one for Age of sigmar (also a free list builder on community site)

        So eventually we get that for 40k – but it would be s little more complicated

        • Vladamyr

          I havent tried using the AoS one since its launch, there were many issues with it at the time.

    • NNextremNN

      Why not both? Make a good digital app and Books which are updated with FAQs.

  • Muninwing

    WAAC aside…

    i want to play a daemon-summoning Chaos army, like it did in 3rd onward. do i need two books now despite needing one when i wrote the list?

    or…

    GW hasn’t given my army attention in forever. i want to run it wit a FW unit. now i need another book?

    or…

    i want to run a super fluffy army that combines Alpha Legion and IG (lost and damned). now there are two books?

    it goes on and on…

    i love assassins. not as much as some people (like recent tournament winners), but i like the idea and the models. should i not field them because they are in a different book?

    i mean, i plan on just printing a copy of the datasheet so i have it on hand, but it’s not hard to have that one extra book on hand either.

  • Bootneck

    I don’t know why there is so much QQ about this.

    I’m going to a tournament soon, and I plan on just photo copying the relevant units in my army and there specific rules, coupled with the rule book and a tiny FAQ thats it.

    Ok my entire collect might need more but you dont need them for every game. The datasheets take most of the requirement away.

    • NNextremNN

      Because people maybe just want to enjoy a game without spending hours of planing and copying before … or maybe they want to save a tree by producing less trash.

      • Bootneck

        Impossible when your playing a game with 28 factions and growing all the time.

        Plus half the fun of playing 40k imo is planning, creating lists and reviewing the other units in the game even ones i don’t own.

        Its all in the detail, else you might as well go play chess or snakes and ladders.

  • LankTank

    Prior if a unit was removed from a codex, that was it. You could not use it. GW has allowed you to use Index to try and ensure that your old favorite conversion is not invalidated (My Chaos Lord on Bike for example). However you are not obligated. Same goes with cross codex allies or even FW. If you have a problem obtaining all these books then keep to the latest codex alone. Players make a decision to make their list with units not included in the codex for either competitive or thematic reasons, but if the amount of books’ required is too much of a barrier, then they do not have to.

    • NNextremNN

      They excluded units from codices so people would not be mad that their index is now worthless … or so more players are forces to buy more books … it’s not like GW likes selling as much books and rules as possible to make money.

      • LankTank

        Utterly wrong. The index is and always waa a proxy set of rules between codex. leaving out units was never to increase the life length of the index it was to match rules against existing kits. Allowing people to use units ommitted from the codex unlike previous editions might be to keep the index relevant but I dont really see how that was the primary intention

        • NNextremNN

          What you say makes no sense.

          A Librarian with a jumppack has no kit but is still in the codex. If you want one you have to convert one. The same goes for a Librarian on a bike. If you want one convert one. But that one was left out from the codex and can only be found in the index.

          So where is the match from rules to existing kits?

          The primary intention from GW is to make money. Well they have a business to run. But don’t treat them like some saints that do you a favor.

          • LankTank

            I was surprised they kept jump pack Librarians. I assumed it was due to the strong Blood Angels line for models that can be used.
            And obviously their goal is to keep the company profitable and shareholders happy. But your claim they intentionally kept units out of codex to keep the Index usable is nonsense as a) the Index is still useable for factions without codex’ b) once all codex are out I would struggle to see tournaments still allow units from Index c) Units from Index will not have all the rules availble to units in codex. New codex’s have ALWAYS removed units.

          • NNextremNN

            Even Blood Angels have no Librarian with a jumppack kit.

            a) Yes of course because they don’t have one yet.
            b) This is just your assumptions anything they said and done so far says something else.
            c) Again an general assumption which is not true eg. 6th/7th edition Tau Codex.

            GW doing this intentionally is the only logical explanation … or they are really stupid and do this accidentally.

          • LankTank

            a) They have alot more Jump Pack character models that Bike character models so that’s likely why they kept them b) Why would majority of tournaments allow players to use rules that have been replaced? GW approved the rules in the interim but we have all lost rules for units we had (Nazdreg/doomrider/Marbo/ for example) Do they allow these units from prior codex’s? No c)How does 6th and 7th come into a discussion regarding differences between 8th index and codex? It doesn’t. But for example of changes Chaos Lord on bike can only use the Index wargear, 20pt power fist for example.
            You are saying that keeping units out of the codex was a cash grab. It was not. They have ALWAYS taken units in and out of codex. The INdex is purely an interim for all armies until all codex are out in full

          • NNextremNN

            a) Unique characters have unique rules and don’t need generic ones.

            b) Because those index units weren’t replaced and GW said they are still valid.

            c) You sad that new codex have always removed units. You even repeated and put it into Caps. But I can’t use an example from 6th/7th edition to prove that this statement from you is wrong???

            The whole Index thing is a cash grab. Otherwise they would have at least put faction relics, strata gems and Rules into it. But then they couldn’t release new codex with no new models in it.

          • LankTank

            I said that units in codex may have additional rules or changes from the index. You said “a general assumption which is not true eg. 6th/7th edition Tau Codex.” How is that relevant to a difference between index and codex?
            And why would you make an interim index 2 times bigger with all stratagems/relics & more expensive to buy to then immediately start replacing them with codex’? That is why the index has limited rules in comparison. You seem to have forgotten YOUR point was that they deliberately left units out of codex that was in index in a deliberate attempt as a cash grab. Yet we have pointed out they have always done this. You THEN recommend they make the index (what you said is a cash grab) more expensive and bigger? Do you want to dig that hole deeper?

          • LankTank

            And in further to that, they have announced codex’s months ahead so you do not need to buy the index if your codex is around the corner. But if you need to game NOW then the index is there. ADDITIONALLY if they were trying to maximize the amount of books, they would no introduce daemons into both DG and CSM codex for updated and readily available rules, they would keep them seperate.

          • NNextremNN

            That’s why I didn’t bought the Index and now they are jokes on you 😛 you still have to buy the index $.$

          • LankTank

            I was happy to pay $50 NZ to have rules for my Chaos, DG, Daemons and Renegade Knight while I waited for their codex. I did not want to wait more than 3 months to play so why wouldn’t I buy it? Especially as it was cheap. And by the look of it I will not have to buy a Daemons codex as the rules for Nurgle Daemons are in both CSM and DG. You seem to be the one upset by the “cash grabbing GW”, not me.

  • J Mad

    There is only FAQS right now b.c the game is so new and its being adjusted till all codex’s are out, at that time the Chapter Approve will be the only updates and those will be only once or a few times a year at most.

    • NNextremNN

      Do you seriously believe that? Also it won’t fix the original problem of too many books.

      • J Mad

        This isnt 7th, so far we can see 1 army is 1 book, some armies had 3-4 books in 7th just for that 1 army (not allies). If you want to ally in a different army then thats your deal, but at least we only have 1 army rule book. “hopefully it stays that way”

        • NNextremNN

          1. Rulebook
          2. GW Index (because missing units form Codex)
          3. GW Codex
          4. FW Index

          That’s already 4 for a single faction more if you use allies from other factions.

          Upcoming books:
          (5.) GW Chapter approved (already announced)
          (6.) FW Fires of Cyraxis (announced for a long time with unknown release).
          (7.) Further GW campaign books later do you really think this was the only Primaris release this edition? Just take a look at Sigmarines in AoS

          This game is always new, there are always new things, this is never done, this is how GW makes money. Expect to see at least a new FAQ every two months even if it not always will affect your or your opponents army.

          • J Mad

            Oh wow… your counting the main rulebook… ok…. and your counting fw? again if i dont play with FW models i dont need that. Also if i dont need rules out of index i dont need that either.

            The difference is that some armies had 3-5 rule books OTHER than BRB and FW.

            Ynnari for example, Eldar, Harlequins, DE, and Ynnari book. That 4 right there without FW/BRB.

            Thats the point i was making, you had Faresight/tau/WD’s rules for them, etc.. etc…

            Play Necrons right now you will only need 1 Codex (when it comes out), same for tau, Orks, and many others.

            PS: You can just play with the Index and BRB with your friends and dont care about other rules. You can even play Narrative and make up your own rules if you really wanted too. Nothing is saying to buy all the rules unless you wanted to get games more easily with others.

  • sethmo

    Or use battlescribe or army builder like everyone else.

  • Kevin Lantz

    You could play Tau or Orks since they have no allies

  • NNextremNN

    And your example doesn’t even include any Forgeworld units so you can even add some books.

    The problem is that GW still thinks they are a Game company and that selling rules is a good idea. Instead they should become a model company that focus on models, paint and lore.

    Step 1: Make the rules free.
    Step 2: Make a good list building/rule app and update it frequently make versions that can be chosen so rules don’t change mid tournament.
    Step 3: Make profit with more sold models.

    Many like me would still buy Codices for lore and pictures. People wouldn’t spend less money for the hobby they would only spend it for different things like more models if they don’t have to buy all that rules. They could even get more customers by not scaring them away due to the amount of rules.

  • James Regan

    I don’t think FAQ’s contribute to too many books- they’re free, and for the ‘updated last minute’ I’d suspect TOs will start cememnting the faq edition they are using with the rest of the rules pack, so people who will really care about this can keep planning lists on stable rules (if i haven’t noticed an FAQ for a pickup game, chances are we’ll either go ‘meh, just use the one you have’ or forget it entirely). I still think some of the people complaining about FAQs solving overpowered units are just bitter they can’t game list building as much as they’d like, as fixing unintentionally overpowered units is one of the good points of errata- most of these ARE rules functioning in a way that isn’t intended, as no game designer wants stupidly unbalanced units in the game.

  • Josh Felstead

    This is so simple. FAQs will always be needed because people will always misunderstand written rules. FAQs being pumped out at a fast rate is unbelievably good, I don’t know how people are complaining about it. It’s not like you need every part of every FAQ to play every model in your army, it’s just a tiny bit of extra work.

    GW should spend more time on rules writing to eliminate the errata component, and cut down on what people either don’t understand or can’t tell if it’s allowed, but FAQs in general? Quit whining about such an amazing move by GW.