Because they are human and people occasionally make mistakes.

Occasionally? Nearly every article they've released has rules issues in it. Issues that we catch within 5 minutes of the article being released. They've done the same but do have a better track record with the FAQ's.

The fact that they're human doesn't mean anything. Proper editing takes the human factor out of it, by having several people who ideally understand the subject read it and fix mistakes before the final release.

There is qutie frankly no excuse for the issue with the large ship MoV rules. First off they fixed something that was IMO at least not broken, and then in fact broke it. Something which we spotted almost instantly.

Because they are human and people occasionally make mistakes.

Occasionally? Nearly every article they've released has rules issues in it. Issues that we catch within 5 minutes of the article being released. They've done the same but do have a better track record with the FAQ's.

The fact that they're human doesn't mean anything. Proper editing takes the human factor out of it, by having several people who ideally understand the subject read it and fix mistakes before the final release.

There is qutie frankly no excuse for the issue with the large ship MoV rules. First off they fixed something that was IMO at least not broken, and then in fact broke it. Something which we spotted almost instantly.

Because I know a whole bunch of unemployed or under-employed properly trained editors who were all cut since they're not needed any more? Srsly, it's crazy how many of them have been cut after doing great work for 10+ years.

My only issue with this... Is why do they keep making things worse?

They tried to make the rules more clear and instead made them much, much worse. It's getting to the point I wonder if they wouldn't be better off picking a collection of people from these boards to run drafts by. Because we catch things pretty quickly that whoever is editing the rules doesn't.

Most likely, it's a copy paste issue. With the FAQ, it seems like they put out the wrong copy, the one not intended to be the final version.

Because they are human and people occasionally make mistakes.

Occasionally? Nearly every article they've released has rules issues in it. Issues that we catch within 5 minutes of the article being released. They've done the same but do have a better track record with the FAQ's.

The fact that they're human doesn't mean anything. Proper editing takes the human factor out of it, by having several people who ideally understand the subject read it and fix mistakes before the final release.

There is qutie frankly no excuse for the issue with the large ship MoV rules. First off they fixed something that was IMO at least not broken, and then in fact broke it. Something which we spotted almost instantly.

Those articles are not written by the rules people. The FAQ and tournament rules are. But the articles are by marketing. Give them a break.

But the articles are by marketing. Give them a break.

Then they need to run them past the rules people before they post them. I mean is that really such an outlandish thing to ask? That the people who know the rules best double check the articles to make sure they are correct?

How much time and confusion would of been saved if the article about bombs and SLAM was double checked by a rules person before it was posted?

Most likely, it's a copy paste issue.

But that's the whole point... Things like that should be caught before they're released because someone who wasn't involved in writing the document checks it to make sure it says what it's supposed to say.

The fact that is Marketing writing the articles is irrelevant. They should be proofed by the Rules department. There is no excuse for the constant stumbling that is happening now. If they were a bunch of people doing X Wing as a labor of love I would cut them some slack. They are not, they are a bunch of professional expecting me to pay for their products.

The fact that is Marketing writing the articles is irrelevant. They should be proofed by the Rules department. There is no excuse for the constant stumbling that is happening now. If they were a bunch of people doing X Wing as a labor of love I would cut them some slack. They are not, they are a bunch of professional expecting me to pay for their products.

First, I doubt there's a "Rules Department". The rules are almost certainly created by the Development Team, which is the same group of people who are working on making new expansions/products.

Second, from my own experience as an engineer, even if marketing sent their articles over to development for review prior to publishing, the following scenario is highly likely: Developer gets email from marketing. Developer groans. Developer puts it off as they have more important work to do. Developer then forgets about it. Gets another email from marketing asking for input. Tells them they'll get right to it once they're done with what they're working on. Marketing emails again saying article has to go live in a few hours, they need input NOW. Developer takes a quick glance over the article after getting the email then replies back with "looks fine" then gets back to their real work. Developer misses mistake because they didn't have time to go over every single sentence and parse it for possible inaccuracies like fans do.

Developer misses mistake because they didn't have time to go over every single sentence and parse it for possible inaccuracies like fans do.

Then that developer needs to be called into a meeting with management to discuss why he let the company look so foolish. When a company produces public facing material there is frankly no excuse for why it wasn't proof read by someone who understand the product better than the marketing people do.

Also it wasn't a single 'oh they got that wrong' thing. They completely screwed up a basic rule, and worse made the consumers believe something that wasn't true.

Developer misses mistake because they didn't have time to go over every single sentence and parse it for possible inaccuracies like fans do.

Then that developer needs to be called into a meeting with management to discuss why he let the company look so foolish. When a company produces public facing material there is frankly no excuse for why it wasn't proof read by someone who understand the product better than the marketing people do.

Also it wasn't a single 'oh they got that wrong' thing. They completely screwed up a basic rule, and worse made the consumers believe something that wasn't true.

While yes, the one instance you are referring to was bad, it was really not so bad as everyone is making it out to be, and the other mistakes I've seen are relatively minor. Freeptop's assessment is amusing, but probably close to the truth, especially given the devs were likely rushing to get the Force Awakens stuff ready on time for actual release if/when the article review hit their inbox. I'm totally fine with them missing a mistake on a preview article in order to have more time to release cool, not completely broken, actual product. Are the articles important, and am I indirectly paying the marketing team? Sure. But I'm not literally paying for their articles, I am literally paying for the product created by the devs, that's the one I care about.

Short answer: Yeah, it's annoying but not critically important, just buy more spaceships.

And back on topic: Yay! They didn't un-fix large ship scoring!

Freetop I have seen people fired for doing exactly what you explained.

Once again there is absolutely zero excuse for this to have happened twice let alone the fact that it is proving to be an epidemic problem for FFG. If they want to be professional then by God they better get a handle on this problem quickly. Or stop doing preview all together.

Developer misses mistake because they didn't have time to go over every single sentence and parse it for possible inaccuracies like fans do.

Then that developer needs to be called into a meeting with management to discuss why he let the company look so foolish. When a company produces public facing material there is frankly no excuse for why it wasn't proof read by someone who understand the product better than the marketing people do.

Also it wasn't a single 'oh they got that wrong' thing. They completely screwed up a basic rule, and worse made the consumers believe something that wasn't true.

I hate to burst your bubble on this one, but a minor mistake that required a clarification is not something that warrants a public shaming. Particularly since writing those articles is the province of another department. FFG is a small company that likely can't afford to pay people a great deal of money. Driving away your developers by tearing into them over a minor error in an article they didn't write sounds like a great way to lose employees, and then be unable to hire new ones.

Freetop I have seen people fired for doing exactly what you explained.

Once again there is absolutely zero excuse for this to have happened twice let alone the fact that it is proving to be an epidemic problem for FFG. If they want to be professional then by God they better get a handle on this problem quickly. Or stop doing preview all together.

Haven't worked at small companies much, have you? Small companies don't tend to have the luxury of firing good people for minor mistakes. Particularly when the mistake was made by someone else. It's hard enough for a small company to hire. Driving away the ones you do have tends to make it even harder. Despite the acquisition by Asmodee, I guarantee FFG is still a small company.

In any case, while you're certainly upset about it, have any of these minor mistakes in articles caused you to stop buying products from FFG? Considering you're posting here and getting worked up about it, I highly doubt it. Is it a bit embarrassing? Sure. But they do tend to fix things fairly quickly once they realize they've made the mistake, and their actual product is good, so sales keep climbing (and we know sales keep climbing because that's what they told everyone during their presentation at GenCon).

Seriously, though, I'd hate to work for either of you two. "Rambler! You spelled Freeptop wrong! You need to come have a talk with management now!" Sounds like a miserable place to work...

FFG was a small company. Now, they are quickly becoming a key part of the giants of the boardgame industry.

You are thankfully incorrect. Nothing has functionally changed, they are just saying that the half-point rule applies to every step in the MoV section of the tournament rules, which covers both scoring and MoV, if you consider those two things to be separate which they really aren't.

For proof that nothing has changed, please look at the unchanged example on the top of the right column of page 3. A large ship with less than half hp is "worth half his total squad point value" and there is no distinction made between MoV and scoring to determine the winner of the game. Additionally, there were no revised score sheets released to record both the game score and score that counts for MoV, because they are still the exact same thing.

Actually the half point large ship rules doesn't apply to Epic Tournament Rules, if you cared about that sort of thing.

You are thankfully incorrect. Nothing has functionally changed, they are just saying that the half-point rule applies to every step in the MoV section of the tournament rules, which covers both scoring and MoV, if you consider those two things to be separate which they really aren't.

For proof that nothing has changed, please look at the unchanged example on the top of the right column of page 3. A large ship with less than half hp is "worth half his total squad point value" and there is no distinction made between MoV and scoring to determine the winner of the game. Additionally, there were no revised score sheets released to record both the game score and score that counts for MoV, because they are still the exact same thing.

Actually the half point large ship rules doesn't apply to Epic Tournament Rules, if you cared about that sort of thing.

True and nice catch.

But as a "twist" they have applied a scoring for crippled ship sections which resembles the "half destroyed" large ships rule

While yes, the one instance you are referring to was bad, it was really not so bad as everyone is making it out to be, and the other mistakes I've seen are relatively minor.

Yes it really was that bad. People bought a K-Wing based on a faulty understanding of how the ship would work. It's also not the only time, pretty much every article that comes out has errors, simple errors that could easily be avoided if someone who knows the rules well would spend 5 minutes reading over the article first.

I quite simply can not understand how anyone can defend them, when it's such a simple issue to fix. Simply have someone who knows the rules spend 5 minutes reading the article before it's released.

My only issue with this... Is why do they keep making things worse?

They tried to make the rules more clear and instead made them much, much worse. It's getting to the point I wonder if they wouldn't be better off picking a collection of people from these boards to run drafts by. Because we catch things pretty quickly that whoever is editing the rules doesn't.

Most likely, it's a copy paste issue. With the FAQ, it seems like they put out the wrong copy, the one not intended to be the final version.

It is not even a copy/paste error. No compagny editing in serveral language write a text from top to bottom. A PDF look like this:

[Place Holder 1][Place holder 2][Place Holder 3]

[Place holder 4]

[Place Holder 5][Place holder 6]

Then every place holder point to a data base with the correct text that should replace the place holder depending of the language you want the pdf to be printed.

It just happens someone did a mistake and made the place holder about scoring point to the MoV text.

Simple as that.

The fact that they're human doesn't mean anything.

Sorry for taking it completely out of context, but I just love that sentence. It's poetry, nothing less.

It's poetry, nothing less.

Glad you like it...

The fact that there's these kinds of errors doesn't mean I'll stop buying X-Wing, or Armada, or Imperial assault, or the occasional SW LCG, or the L5R cards when that's released... (**** FFG gets a lot of my money)

But I can't excuse what is really easily fixed errors. The whole thing screams of a lack of basic proofreading by someone other than the author. It's like when you have a programer beta their own code.

It's not like I expect FFG to double their writing staff or anything, but there's really no reason why Frank, Alex or someone else who knows X-Wing well couldn't take 10 minutes to proofread an article before it's published.

It's poetry, nothing less.

Glad you like it...

The fact that there's these kinds of errors doesn't mean I'll stop buying X-Wing, or Armada, or Imperial assault, or the occasional SW LCG, or the L5R cards when that's released... (**** FFG gets a lot of my money)

But I can't excuse what is really easily fixed errors. The whole thing screams of a lack of basic proofreading by someone other than the author. It's like when you have a programer beta their own code.

It's not like I expect FFG to double their writing staff or anything, but there's really no reason why Frank, Alex or someone else who knows X-Wing well couldn't take 10 minutes to proofread an article before it's published.

Okay, amusing version aside, the reality is that things probably work more like this:

1. Writer sends draft of article to developer.

2. Developer tries to remember what the state of the game looked like a year ago when they were working on that particular release. Looks over draft, corrects a mistake or two with a brief note.

3. Article then gets proofread/edited. At this point, a clarification that was made by the developer that seems clear enough to the editor/proofreader and writer gets misinterpreted. No clarification is sought, because it seemed clear enough at the time. Mistakes get put into article.

4. Article goes live.

5. Complaints ensue.

6. Article gets corrected.

Now, step 2 probably still resembles a bit of what I posted before, because the developers certainly have plenty on their plate, with their own time pressures to deal with. But it really isn't as cut and dry as some folks around here are trying to make it out to be.

But it really isn't as cut and dry as some folks around here are trying to make it out to be.

I've written more than enough documentation to know that it really is that cut and dry. The kind of sloppy work people seem to be defending is fine for internal communications but is not acceptable with customer facing ones.

If it takes us 5 minutes to notice something as big as the issue with SLAM or many of the other rules issues that are in these articles, it would take people who work on the game the same amount of time. 5 minutes every month or so is not going to destroy anyone's deadline.

And again, it isn't like we're talking about the occasional 'oops' here we're talking about a systemic issue with nearly every article that involves actual mechanics that's been published for X-Wing in the last 3 years.

While yes, the one instance you are referring to was bad, it was really not so bad as everyone is making it out to be, and the other mistakes I've seen are relatively minor.

Yes it really was that bad. People bought a K-Wing based on a faulty understanding of how the ship would work. It's also not the only time, pretty much every article that comes out has errors, simple errors that could easily be avoided if someone who knows the rules well would spend 5 minutes reading over the article first.

I quite simply can not understand how anyone can defend them, when it's such a simple issue to fix. Simply have someone who knows the rules spend 5 minutes reading the article before it's released.

While I understand the frustration with the error, I also remember a lot of people being cautious because what was depicted in the article would require a FAQ one way or another because what was shown didn't make sense the way Slam was worded.

While I understand the frustration with the error

To be clear, my issue isn't with the error itself. It was clear the article had the rules wrong. My issue is that they are almost constantly getting it wrong. At some point if 95% of the items you produce are flawed in some way, you really have to consider looking at the process to see why it's failing.

It goes beyond simple human error when nearly everything produced is flawed in some way.