40k Chaos Space Marine FAQ, may qualify as shortest and most concise GW has ever done

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grey Templar**

Well, this may go down as the shortest FAQ ever

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710181a_Chaos_Space_Marines_v1.0a.pdf

5 errata and no FAQ

So you CAN take full units of Zombies now. Changed Typhus's wording.

Daemon Princes of Khorne can take the Axe of Blind Fury.

Terminators can take any options again.

And finally, the Hellbrute got his point cost changed.

**Valkyrie**

At least they've tidied up some of the more pressing issues we've found.

**dæl**

So, I take it the Scrolls of Magnus can be taken by Tzeentch Daemon Princes?

They changed points values!? That sets a nice precedent.

**Grey Templar**

Well, no. Nothing is mentioned about artifacts from other gods. Only Khorne.

Maybe someone hit the "Post" button on the FAQ before they were done

**ChiliPowderKeg**

Points reduction is rather interesting, even if the reduction itself isn't by much

**Macok**

The Hellbrute price change is puzzling at least.
Why change only this one when there worse units in the codex (including new shiny models).

**Grey Templar**

GW is obviously priming people for the new hybrid Plastic/Finecast Hellbrute model that will be announced shortly.

**oni**

Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane, it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.

**Grey Templar**

What, is it too cheap now?

**Swara**

Glad to see my zombie hoard being off the RAW/RAI chopping block. Not surprised though. I was surprised of the points reduction though.. strange.

**haroon**

I applaud gw for getting this out so fast regardless of how short it is.

**Stormfather**

I'm glad they changed the way Terminator options worked. I was planning on doing arm swaps on a few Terminators this weekend to make them 6e legal, and now I don't have to.

**H.B.M.C.**

Grey Templar wrote:
Terminators can take any options again.

Hahahah! Victory!

**MasterSlowPoke**

The Helbrute was costed differently depending on what edition of the CSM book you had (I think only the english was 105, and the foreign language versions were 100),

**mauzer**

The helbrute change isn't actually a change. The US version was misprinted at 105pts

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd...by slowpoke...

**H.B.M.C.**

oni wrote:
Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane...

Oh come on. There are rules changes, then there are things that are changed due to an obvious unintended consequence. Not being able to make hordes of Zombies was surely never Phil Kelly's intention. How can you be annoyed at that?

oni wrote:
it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.

Yes, I can hardly see now my vision is red with fury over that 5 point change. Wait...

Changing points costs is a good thing. It shows a major step forward in the way GW approaches FAQs/errata in that they can make significant changes post-publication. This is excellent news.

**Palindrome**

These changes were very obvious. To be honest this seems to have covered all the issues with the codex that are likely to be addressed.

The big question is why such obvious errors managed to find their way into a signed off Codex in the first place.

**alienvalentine**

Palindrome wrote:
These changes were very obvious. To be honest this seems to have covered all the issues with the codex that are likely to be addressed.

The big question is why such obvious errors managed to find their way into a signed off Codex in the first place.

Because Phil Kelly consistently underestimates the number of TFGs that play this game?

**blood reaper**

oni wrote:
Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane, it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.

Those five points really made a massive difference didn't they? They really meant allot in the meta, maybe he or she will use those five points to buy a minor upgrade! Oh noes!

Yes, because ten man Plague Zombie squads would really make sense.

**oni**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
oni wrote:
Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane...

Oh come on. There are rules changes, then there are things that are changed due to an obvious unintended consequence. Not being able to make hordes of Zombies was surely never Phil Kelly's intention. How can you be annoyed at that?

I look at it from a game play point of view equally as much as a fluff point of view. Zombie hoards should have been done at the expense of taking up FOC slots, not as much the case now. They're tough enough tar pit unit at 10 let alone 35. I'm not going to rail against this or discredit anyone for playing it, I just (calmly) disagree.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
oni wrote:
it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.

Yes, I can hardly see now my vision is red with fury over that 5 point change. Wait...

Changing points costs is a good thing. It shows a major step forward in the way GW approaches FAQs/errata in that they can make significant changes post-publication. This is excellent news.

**blood reaper**

oni wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
oni wrote:
Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane...

Oh come on. There are rules changes, then there are things that are changed due to an obvious unintended consequence. Not being able to make hordes of Zombies was surely never Phil Kelly's intention. How can you be annoyed at that?

I look at it from a game play point of view equally as much as a fluff point of view. Zombie hoards should have been done at the expense of taking up FOC slots, not as much the case now. They're tough enough tar pit unit at 10 let alone 35. I'm not going to rail against this or discredit anyone for playing it, I just (calmly) disagree.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
oni wrote:
it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.

Yes, I can hardly see now my vision is red with fury over that 5 point change. Wait...

Changing points costs is a good thing. It shows a major step forward in the way GW approaches FAQs/errata in that they can make significant changes post-publication. This is excellent news.

FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.

Plague Zombies are awful at 10 men, and useless. They are useful now.

**pretre**

You might be overreacting if H.B.M.C. Is taking GWs side...

**Drakmord**

oni wrote:

FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.

It was a correction -- someone pointed out that its previous cost was a misprint that did not line up with the other versions of the codex.

**Zappit**

Glad the Typhus issue got worked out. I can't wait to go up against my first zombie horde!

Point reduction (misprint or not) sees the wrong unit get a lower cost. It should have been Warp Talons, if for any other reason than to make them a bit viable in game.

**Cruentus**

oni wrote:

FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.

And the change to the helbrute is Errata, not part of the FAQ section, so its appropriate. It is also appropriate given that the non-english CSM codexes have the helbrute for 100 points. Kind of makes sense to have all the CSM codexes match.

I think this is great, particularly the points change. I also hope that they use this in the future when it becomes obvious that some things are woefully underpriced, or overpriced.

**Rakeeb**

Oh ho ho.

The FAQ updated a points cost, eh?

That is a very, very important precedent.

I do think it's a bit early to FAQ the Warp Talons' points cost. We need to see what the real in-game effectiveness of the Blind effect is before we judge that. I'm aware that folks are down on it, and not without reason, but only consistent play can really answer that.

**Breotan**

oni wrote:
FAQ is for clarification of rules, correcting poor wording and explaining how odd rule interactions should play out. The reason you think it's so good is exactly why I think it is so bad.

The "errata" part of the FAQ is for correcting typos and misprints. As has been stated previously, there apparently were differences in the points cost of the Hellbrute depending on which language the codex was printed. The FAQ corrected the erroneous value with the correct one. How else do you disseminate the correction if not through errata?

Rakeeb wrote:
The FAQ updated a points cost, eh?

That is a very, very important precedent.

When, exactly, has GW ever felt bound by precedent?

**Rakeeb**

oni wrote:
Even tho I disagree with the Typhus rule chane, it pales in comparison to how livid I am with the points change to the Helbrute. I don't disagree with the points change I'm just so fething pissed off that it did change. A points change in my opinion is a huge deal and is completely inexcusable.

You're right and yet I can't agree with your conclusion. You're right in that it's a huge deal to put a points cost mod into a FAQ. I think that's a very important precedent for balancing a metagame that changes over time.

Games-Workshop needs a method by which it can change undercosted or overcosted unit points allowances. I'm hoping this is an indication that they'll be willing to nerf certain undercosted units, e.g. Valkyries, and buff overcosted units respectively.

**pretre**

It isn't a precedent. It is them correcting a misprint as has been stated.

**Evil_Toast**

I'm just glad I don't have to attack my termie squad with a saw anymore .

So . In regards to the Hellbrute entry , what are the chances other points costs in this and other codices will be changed ?

[wishlist]Hell , will something radical happen to my Rubrics when the new shiney plastics get released ?[/wishlist]