Talk Fantasy Football

Milo wrote: I think it's less confusing, in the long run, to have another week or so go by to get it right than to release Errata B to fix Errata A, and then another Errata C to fix stuff that's left in Errata B, etc.

This leads me to another question: Will we at some point get a Living Rulebook available online?

Milo wrote:

Darkson wrote:Well, they haven't errata'd it yet, along with the stuff Tom says Andy says is a misprint.

Maybe if they get given a "all-in-one" list they'll pull their fingers out and get it updated, because they're clearly not in a rush to do so at the moment.

It's being worked on. The first errata was a rush job to try to get something in place for release day. It clearly wasn't sufficient/completely accurate, so before releasing an update to the errata, there's a need to make sure it is as clear, concise and correct as possible. I hope people can understand that. I think it's less confusing, in the long run, to have another week or so go by to get it right than to release Errata B to fix Errata A, and then another Errata C to fix stuff that's left in Errata B, etc.

In other words, please be patient.

So you shouldn't have a problem with people asking this questions, which while obviously wrong, need to be in the errata. If no-one brings it up to them, it might get missed, needing your errata C etc.
You've just argued away your own comment to Babs.

I don't feel like I've argued away anything. I don't have a problem with people asking questions about the genuinely confusing and unclear items, of which there are/were plenty. I think the wood elf Lineman cost falls into the clear and obvious typo area, especially with the separator comma in the wrong location.

My post was trying to assure people like yourself who are mistaking "no communication" for "not doing anything".

My question, possibly a silly one, is what sized bases are the Big Guys supposed to be on now? Has this already been answered?

Whatever size you want to put them on/the model fits on.
Base size is unimportant in BB, other than ease of use in the pitch.

Darkson wrote:Whatever size you want to put them on/the model fits on.
Base size is unimportant in BB, other than ease of use in the pitch.

Yeah, I'd remembered this about an hour after I posted.

Especially in light of the issuance of a multi-part rulebook, riddled with inconsistencies, misprints and outright mistakes, why doesn't your professional game company issue a complete and widely publicized apology to the game community, and beg the forgiveness of the former BBRC members while offering them lucrative jobs to rewrite and rules-proof this Royal male chicken-up you'be foisted upon the gaming world?

Digger Goreman wrote:Especially in light of the issuance of a multi-part rulebook, riddled with inconsistencies, misprints and outright mistakes, why doesn't your professional game company issue a complete and widely publicized apology to the game community, and beg the forgiveness of the former BBRC members while offering them lucrative jobs to rewrite and rules-proof this Royal male chicken-up you'be foisted upon the gaming world?

Sorry, are you addressing that to me?

<inflammatory comment removed>

Milo wrote:

Digger Goreman wrote:Especially in light of the issuance of a multi-part rulebook, riddled with inconsistencies, misprints and outright mistakes, why doesn't your professional game company issue a complete and widely publicized apology to the game community, and beg the forgiveness of the former BBRC members while offering them lucrative jobs to rewrite and rules-proof this Royal male chicken-up you'be foisted upon the gaming world?

Sorry, are you addressing that to me?

Not that I know of, Milo, just addressing the original post.... The recipient being games workshop/Andy Hoare.... The best thing said for either is that AH is a nice guy that listens, yet the gaming community is paying for a sub-standard product from a supposedly premier gaming/miniatures company... and certainly what/whoever he IS listening to is channeling static at the best....

Digger Goreman wrote:

Milo wrote:

Digger Goreman wrote:Especially in light of the issuance of a multi-part rulebook, riddled with inconsistencies, misprints and outright mistakes, why doesn't your professional game company issue a complete and widely publicized apology to the game community, and beg the forgiveness of the former BBRC members while offering them lucrative jobs to rewrite and rules-proof this Royal male chicken-up you'be foisted upon the gaming world?

Sorry, are you addressing that to me?

Not that I know of, Milo, just addressing the original post.... The recipient being games workshop/Andy Hoare.... The best thing said for either is that AH is a nice guy that listens, yet the gaming community is paying for a sub-standard product from a supposedly premier gaming/miniatures company... and certainly what/whoever he IS listening to is channeling static at the best....

Sorry, there were just a lot of "YOU"s in your message, which made it feel like it was being personally addressed: "YOUR professional game company", "male chicken-up YOU'BE [sic] foisted". The original post was just asking for confusing parts which needed clarification.

I think the idea of a multi-part rulebook is:

• to be expected, in light of previous GW releases (2nd Ed rulebook, plus Star Players book plus Companion; 3rd Ed rulebook plus Death Zone plus compendium, et al.);
• a tool to extend the lifetime of the game, from a sales perspective; and
• allows for the addition of new rules and content beyond just the CRP.

In that light, I think it can be seen as a good thing, although -- like many others -- I hope there will be periodic compendiums which gather the various content into single documents.

You're completely right about the substandard quality of the first released rulebooks. The good news is that Andy Hoare HAS made a public apology, and they have recruited experienced players to proof read future releases, so they are learning from their mistakes. What more would you ask for?

[mod hat on]
Removed Digger's comment and the subsequent comments to his comment. Digger ... you are fully allowed to hate/dislike GW ... but personal vulgar attacks will not be tolerated
[/mod hat off]

Milo wrote:I don't feel like I've argued away anything. I don't have a problem with people asking questions about the genuinely confusing and unclear items, of which there are/were plenty. I think the wood elf Lineman cost falls into the clear and obvious typo area, especially with the separator comma in the wrong location.

However, until errata'd, people that don't know the game (the newbies they want to bring in) will be prone to confusion, especially if they don't have experienced players to hand.

Also, and I know this from personal experience of reffing at GW events, the rule of thumb they use is "RAW unless an errata [includung the rulepack] says otherwise".

My post was trying to assure people like yourself who are mistaking "no communication" for "not doing anything".

A "quick & dirty" word document, converted to a pdf, would take little time to get sorted, half hour tops. In fact, it would be better than having a fancy graphics version as they can update it quicker.
Personally, if they're waiting around while someone does some nice background etc that I class that as "doing nothing".

I agree with darkson. If this was an issue I had at work, I think if it wasn't sorted in a day I would be sacked. Although to be fair the first errata came up pretty quick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TomB wrote:Although to be fair the first errata came up pretty quick.

Yep, it's been here even before the game itself!