Thommy H:
Thommy H is trying to throw his weight around again, I see - whether correct or not.Excuse me?
Khan!:
Thommy, are you really offended? When you enter into a disagreement, whether you are correct or whether it is a matter of opinion (and in this case, what I meant was ‘whether I agree with you or not’) you give terse responses that could be understood as outright denying the validity of other individuals’ perspectives. You and Tarrakk have butted heads before when he has asked a question or expressed an opinion, and you have responded with a message to the effect of 'no, you are wrong, period.'
Now, the brevity of your messages could also be understood as ‘blunt,’ or ‘matter-of-fact.’ That’s fine, I get that that’s how you express your opinions. But if we’re going to be blunt, then let’s be blunt. When you disagree with something that someone says, you frequently respond in such a way that shuts down discussion.
I’m not trying to insult you. Most of the time I agree with what you’re saying. In this case, I found it worthwhile to observe that just because you wrote ‘no’ doesn’t mean that the discussion is worthless. In fact, in this case, both you and Tarrakk have points worth taking.
Thommy H:
I never said anyone’s opinion was worthless. I just said what I believe to be the case. Tarrakk and I have no problems with each other, as far as I know, and while we may have disagreed on some issues before, I’m not aware of it ever escalating beyond a simple difference of opinion. Certainly I wouldn’t describe any of that as “butting heads”.
You’re more than welcome to read more into my tone than is meant but, I assure you, if I say something is the case, it’s simply because I believe it to be so. I tend not to preface my opinions with “IMO” or add platitudes like “of course, you might not agree!” because I assume these things are implied. This is an open discussion board, so of course anyone can continue the discussion - you don’t need my permission to disagree with something I say. Nor does anyone need to be told it’s just my opinion: I’m self evidently not infallible, and it’s me saying it, so it must just be my opinion.
Please don’t mistake my brevity and particular brand of bluntness as arrogance - I mean precisely the opposite. I don’t add disclaimers because I think of doing so as unnecessary. I assume that everyone knows I might be wrong!
However, I apologise if anything I said was offensive or in any way felt to have stunted the discussion on this topic. I just happen to think the Rulebook is a nice piece of work and that there’s nothing wrong with requiring Errata. As always with a game, some things are not going to come to light until thousands of people all over the world start playing it.
At least, in my opinion, anyway.
Khan!:
Cool, yeah I figured that that was the case. Similarly, I neglected to put a ‘wink’ at the end of my comment because I assumed that everyone knows that Thommy has strong opinions and that that’s ok! So I also apologize for making a comment that was unclear and obviously unnecessary.
Ironically, it seems that I need an editor too 
And I think that altho the new rulebook might be very nice and a commitment to errata and faqs is generally laudable, the apparent fact that each ruleset is not a ‘finished’ version suggests that GW should be charging less for them…
Thommy H:
No harm done 
Personally, my feeling is that the rules do actually “work” fine (you can play Monstrous Beasts without them getting the Monstrous Supporting Attacks rule, you can interpret how ASF plus higher Initiative is supposed to work, etc. etc.) and the Errata is just covering stuff that wasn’t immediately obvious. The reason I cited the percentages in my first reply to Tarrakk was to illustrate the point that we’re only counting what they did wrong - and cheerfully ignoring all the mistakes they probably caught before the thing hit the printers.
The “you screw one goat…” principle applies, I guess.
cornixt:
Writing rules is horrendously difficult. I write similar documents all the time (requirements of electronics) and a mistake means the devices don’t work properly. It doesn’t matter how many people look over the requirements, they will always have mistakes in them even after publishing. The only thing you can do is try as hard as you can the first few times - they get through several drafts before the end, and it is hard to remember what has changed since you first started writing and therefore what conflicts still exist - and if you are heavily involved in the writing then it is very hard to see the wood for the trees.
slev:
Indeed, designing a rule set or game is easy.
Writing the rules in an easily understandable manner, that interacts with the other rules fine, is easy to understand and impossible to misinterpret is hard.
This is why contracts and other legal stuff is so long winded.
Fallen246:
So really, what GW needs is proof-reading lawyers?
Da Crusha:
Indeed, designing a rule set or game is easy.boy, imagine if the GW rulebook was written like that. we'd have a 500 page book to describe every phase :s.
Writing the rules in an easily understandable manner, that interacts with the other rules fine, is easy to understand and impossible to misinterpret is hard.
This is why contracts and other legal stuff is so long winded.
slev
Grimstonefire:
The warhammer game is too complex I think. I doubt there is another wargame out there that is nearly as complex (40k aside).
Sure there is a place in the market for the ‘most complex’, but it brings with it all the errata and FAQ issues.
Thommy H:
Sounds like you’ve never played Starfleet Battles, Grim.
Tarrakk Blackhand:
Hope I didn’t start a war here. I was simply saying that it seems to me that if GW had looked through the rule book maybe one last time, that they could have caught some of the spelling mistakes.
As for play testing, I can see Thommy’s point. Once the game got going around the world, the faults would come through. I just wonder if they’ll correct these in a second printing?
As for the Erratta for the army books, it makes sense that they would contain many pages as the entire system for them has changed. At least all the errata has brough the armies up to the modern age, especially Tomb Kings, who were stuck in 6th edition for the longest time. (They’re still riddled with spelling mistakes though! :D)
As for Thommy H, yeah, at times he seems blunt, but I preferr his comments because at the end of the day, I learn things that I wouldn’t have known. I have no animosity towards him. But if I was a Hobgoblin, I might.