Space Marine and Chaos Forgeworld FAQs

Have not read them yet but can find them here (Space Marines) and here (Chaos). Will update post once have gone through them.

Have at thee until then.

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

20 Responses to “Space Marine and Chaos Forgeworld FAQs”

  1. Sister_Acacia says:

    Q. There is no datasheet for a Chaos Vindicator Laser Destroyer – is there a datasheet I should use for this model?
    A. Use the Deimos Pattern Vindicator Laser Destroyer datasheet on page 8 of Imperial Armour Index: Forces of
    the Adeptus Astartes. It gains the Hellforged keyword and must replace all of its Faction keywords with the
    following: Chaos, Heretic Astartes, (Mark of Chaos), (Legion).

    Okay sure, you COULD ask Chaos players to buy the Space Marine book for a single data-sheet you just forgot to include in the Chaos book. You can also scratch your head and ask why people pirate all your books.

    • Ish says:

      Man, GW just cannot win with some people.

      • Sister_Acacia says:

        Well they could with better organisation and management or, failing that, accepting their own failures and going "Okay, here's a free pdf to cover this thing we left out". I'm not going to join the *fascinating* debate in the other thread about what should or should not have been free with the basic release, but "I ordered this book specifically for what it was advertised for. It's not included." is basically getting into "defective product/not as advertised" territory, and warrants more effort on the part of the seller than recommending another purchase.

        As for GW (including FW) releasing their FAQs and errata so quickly, that bit IS good. It's not only faster than GW have done previously, it's faster than standard in tabletop gaming (wargaming and roleplaying).

        • Ish says:

          Sometimes it just feels like GW could give each and everyone of their players a briefcase containing £100,000 in cash and their would be people on the internet complaining that their bank charged a $5 fee to convert it into the local currency.

        • Prometheus says:

          Or they could release all their rules as a .pdf for free (especially since everyone can pirate those rules already), and then this wouldn't even be an issue anyway.

          • Ish says:

            “Sony could just put their next summer blockbuster on YouTube for free (especially since everyone can pirate the movie anyway).”

            “Bantam Books could just put the next A Song of Ice and Fire book on out as a *.pdf for free (especially since everyone can can pirate those ebooks already anyway).”

            “Tesco could just give me chocolate bars for free (especially since I can just shove them into my pockets).”

            Just because some (small) percentage of people will steal a product doesn’t change the fact that a business exists to sell a product for profit. Just because you CAN steal doesn’t make it RIGHT to do so. I don’t know what you do for a living, Prometheus, by I presume you offer some form of labor in exchange for a wage, yes? You then use that wage to purchase goods, services, and necessities?

            Well, why should your employer(s) bother to pay you a wage? Especially since (s)he could just point a gun at you and order you to do your work for free!

            • Prometheus says:

              Right, except that GW is "a model company, not a game company," yes? Supposedly they're there to sell plastic, not books. And oh look! Other gaming companies have free .pdfs of all their rules available online! Profitably!

              The irony is when this conversation devolves (which really it already has, actually, weeks ago) Puppy is going to pipe in and call me an asshole.

              Regardless, the argument that if they had the rules available for free, this exact issue would not occur is unassailable.

              • Alastores says:

                GW hasn't been just a model company since the new CEO took over.

                I realise that you haven't actually kept up with things, since you stopped playing before that happened, but it's changed a lot of its tunes.

                • Prometheus says:

                  Yes, I'm aware I'm using the quote of a former CEO, but I'm pretty sure their business model hasn't changed. The same business model as Privateer Press, who gives out free rules.

            • Kadeton says:

              Sorry, but using non-sequitur examples like these just makes it look like you don't understand economics or copyright law, and undermines your point rather than bolstering it.

          • Ish says:

            They are not a “model company,” they’re a model company and a game company… and a hobby supply company, a publisher, a paint company, a paint brush company, and so on and so forth. Bantam Books and Sony aren’t really non sequiturs, as GW competes directly in several areas with each of them: short fiction, novels, film and television, video games, roleplaying games, toys… Etcetera. GW is small fry compared to those whales, but, they’re still comparable.

            GW erred in leaving out a model in the Forge World Index. When that err was pointed out, they offered a very easy to implement fix for it… and people are complaining about the original error AND the fix. It’s ridiculous.

            • Prometheus says:

              I'm not talking novels, Ish, I'm talking the rules for the game they want to sell models for. Warmahordes, infinity, most other wargame systems, actually, those rules are free.

              And here GW wants to sell you ~$200 of rules? About $125 of which is going to be RAPIDLY obsolete over the next year? Fuck those guys. Fuck em so hard.

              And anyway, back to the point:

              "Regardless, the argument that if they had the rules available for free, this exact issue would not occur is unassailable."

            • Prometheus says:

              Oh and you're still responding to the wrong thread, and I'm doing this from my phone. Try chrome for mobile.

            • Kadeton says:

              The non-sequiturs are not due to the companies you're citing, but the products you're comparing and the legislative and economic frameworks those products exist in.

              You're on the safest ground with the movie, though a much closer comparison would be to a children's movie with heavy merchandising tie-in, like Minions or Frozen. Those movies, like game rules, are a vehicle for encouraging sales of physical product, and that's where they make the vast majority of their profit. They absolutely could afford to release those movies on YouTube for free, but they choose not to because audiences will tolerate the cost.

              (A summer blockbuster is also a poor choice of movie example because they're pushing the 'cinema experience', rather than a copy you can watch whenever you like. A closer example would be a straight-to-DVD release.)

              The book example is similar – if we were talking Black Library books, that would obviously be more closely comparable, but rulebooks are a different kind of product, as mentioned above. In addition, the ASOIAF/Game of Thrones properties are licensed to many different content and merchandise production companies, so the majority of any additional profits generated by Random House's release of a free PDF would be raked in by other companies. In comparison, GW's sales model is much better suited to positioning subsidised rulebooks as a loss-leading mechanism.

              The last two examples are just hyperbolic nonsense – pirating a book is nothing like stealing a chocolate bar or forcing someone into slavery, no matter how much content producers would like you to think it is. Copyright infringement is not treated remotely similarly to theft or slavery in any judiciary, and in almost all cases it's not even a criminal act. To assert that it's in any way comparable is ridiculous, and just makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about.

              • I agree. The term "Piracy" for digital theft is marketing genius that makes me throw up in my mouth a little each time I hear it. Economically, digital theft only causes monetary damage to the company involved if it prevents a sale. To equate this to larceny on the highest scale, not to mention slavery and murder, is ridiculous. Thanks to lobbyists though, it's become the way we talk about it now. I guess we should be glad they didn't appropriate "Terrorism" instead of "Piracy."

      • I don't remember you being like this before Ish, what's happened? Why is it cool to flippantly dismiss a complaint like this? Trolling doesn't suit you. If you'd made this comment to Prometheus I guess I could chalk it up to bad blood. This, though, is the type of comment I come here to get away from.

        As a business GW wins just fine. It's called profit. They aren't a poor schlep that is just doing the best they can and getting crapped on by people. They are a corporation with a history of cynical business practices. They are also the industry leader. So please, can we lay off the GW as a victim shtick? They aren't a person, while Sister_Acacia is a person. Her comment was reasonable and you were a dick, not to a corporation making millions, but to an actual person.

      • upsilonman says:

        Really? It doesn't seem even a little lacklustre to you that FWs answer is essentially "buy this whole other book to fix our screw up"?

  2. MindwarpAU says:

    Well, the fixed the Relic Lord of War issue, and fixed the Fire Raptors autocannons and the Contemptors cyclone. A bit of proof reading would have caught that before printing, but at least they're being nice and fast with FAQ's. Just have to see if they keep it up.

  3. Adam Vollrath says:

    The Mortis dreadnought can now take an additional Cyclone Missile Launcher. I think that makes it the most efficient heavy weapon platform for parking lot armies. 150 points of weapons on a 75 point model is a hell of a ratio. Azreal and a Dark Shroud can protect that investment.

    • hellgore says:

      That’s an interesting change as it introduces a new option while the other errata just corrected oversights.