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.

Leaks have been sighted for Eisenhorn in Killteam, and he's... Garbage.
70 points for a statline like that? Lmao.

Their work is a total mess, however, the official corrected data sheet is up.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Their work is a total mess, however, the official corrected data sheet is up.

Oh? Where can I find it?

I don't know that power he has seems really good.

His stats are pathetic for an inquisitor. 1W and a worse armor save than a guardsman? With what 70 points can buy you in kill team this is a bad joke.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Their work is a total mess, however, the official corrected data sheet is up.

Oh? Where can I find it?

This is from the digital version someone showed me, and apparently there has been a free pdf released, but I haven’t seen it.

That makes a LOT more sense. When I first saw it unedited, I was like "Ld7, 1 wound, 6+ save? WUT?", the Ld7 was especially crazy since it basically means almost nothing for his unquestionable wisdom aura.

 Grimskul wrote:
That makes a LOT more sense. When I first saw it unedited, I was like "Ld7, 1 wound, 6+ save? WUT?", the Ld7 was especially crazy since it basically means almost nothing for his unquestionable wisdom aura.

From what I heard, it was a copy paste error from when they were putting the format onto the page, and for some reason they didn’t finish it.

Well, at least he's not a toughness lower case "l" model, unlike another which I could name...

Updated PDF is up.

GW in general has been doing a really bad job at remembering what they gave units for rules. Proof is that chaos knight by RAW can summon daemons

 Backspacehacker wrote:
GW in general has been doing a really bad job at remembering what they gave units for rules. Proof is that chaos knight by RAW can summon daemons

So?

They have been able to do so since their index, which GW said yes they are able to so in the errata. Why is this all of a sudden a revelation now?

Because people have agendas to grind?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
GW in general has been doing a really bad job at remembering what they gave units for rules. Proof is that chaos knight by RAW can summon daemons

So?

They have been able to do so since their index, which GW said yes they are able to so in the errata. Why is this all of a sudden a revelation now?

I just find it really funny that here we have this unit, who to be god honest lore wise has no reason to be able to summon, some how is able to now because of the summoning rule and the fact GW still has not addressed it.

Ha... proofreaders... Good one!

GW addressed the problem quickly and have provided a free PDF.

Frankly this topic looks really stupid and premature now.

 Ishagu wrote:
GW addressed the problem quickly and have provided a free PDF.

Frankly this topic looks really stupid and premature now.

GW should be competent enough to not make the mistake in the first place.

There are six incorrect stats on there. That's not a playable set of rules without the corrected PDF.

I will say, GW did correct their mistake, but to pretend there was no mistake to start with or that we should accept mistakes like that is asinine.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW addressed the problem quickly and have provided a free PDF.

Frankly this topic looks really stupid and premature now.

GW should be competent enough to not make the mistake in the first place.

There are six incorrect stats on there. That's not a playable set of rules without the corrected PDF.

I will say, GW did correct their mistake, but to pretend there was no mistake to start with or that we should accept mistakes like that is asinine.

It's actually a boon for us. They corrected the mistake by giving the rules out for free to non-subscribers.

Win-win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


I just find it really funny that here we have this unit, who to be god honest lore wise has no reason to be able to summon, some how is able to now because of the summoning rule and the fact GW still has not addressed it.

They addressed it in the renegade knights index FAQ, a set of rules that have been available for over a year.

Q: Can a Renegade Knight Character summon units of
Daemons using the Daemonic Ritual ability?
A: Yes.

Pretty much resolved now, eh? You gonna be okay ?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
GW addressed the problem quickly and have provided a free PDF.

Frankly this topic looks really stupid and premature now.

GW should be competent enough to not make the mistake in the first place.

There are six incorrect stats on there. That's not a playable set of rules without the corrected PDF.

I will say, GW did correct their mistake, but to pretend there was no mistake to start with or that we should accept mistakes like that is asinine.

^ This.

It's not like a typo writing teh instead of the. Getting the stats wrong like this means it's un-usable until fixed. For the amount GW charges for its printed media, I expect stuff like that to be correct. And regardless of whether it's fixed in an additional document, that book will always be wrong.

I mean, I take more care than this over any documents I write at work, when the intended audience is a maximum of half a dozen people. And that's not my full-time job and I'm not trying to sell anything I write.

Actually the mistake is incredibly easy to make. Someone dragged over the wrong profile into a box. The proof reading didn't spot it because there is actually nothing wrong in terms of spelling or formatting.

The fix was free and available to everyone. To complain makes people look entitled and unreasonable.

If they didn't address it in a timely manner than yes, it's grounds to complain. Lots of spoilt children on the forum

The worst thing is that Deathwatch can't take him. How stupid. I haven't read the books so there might be a reason for this but it just seems daft. He should be able to be taken by all imperial sides.

 Ishagu wrote:
Actually the mistake is incredibly easy to make. Someone dragged over the wrong profile into a box. The proof reading didn't spot it because there is actually nothing wrong in terms of spelling or formatting.

The fix was free and available to everyone. To complain makes people look entitled and unreasonable.

If they didn't address it in a timely manner than yes, it's grounds to complain. Lots of spoilt children on the forum

Games rules should be proof-read by someone capable of spotting mistakes in games rules.

Don't proof readers concern themselves with the grammar, spelling, format and the like? They don't second guess the rules writers. I'm not excusing them for when they do make a mistake, but this particular example is a 'rules' issue, not a 'proof-reading' issue.

I think sometimes people forget GW rules come out of a studio with like 20 people working there.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I think sometimes people forget GW rules come out of a studio with like 20 people working there.

Even more of a reason that they should hire a competent editor.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Actually the mistake is incredibly easy to make. Someone dragged over the wrong profile into a box. The proof reading didn't spot it because there is actually nothing wrong in terms of spelling or formatting.

The fix was free and available to everyone. To complain makes people look entitled and unreasonable.

If they didn't address it in a timely manner than yes, it's grounds to complain. Lots of spoilt children on the forum

Games rules should be proof-read by someone capable of spotting mistakes in games rules.

Awww, how little you know.

If this is the worst thing that happens to you today, it will have been a pretty fething great day.

 Fifty wrote:
If this is the worst thing that happens to you today, it will have been a pretty fething great day.

Then I guess it's a shame that absolutely nobody has said that.

So an unofficial leak showed a draft that was then corrected and now the official release is correct. That sounds like a win for proof readers there to me???

I'm more concerned why they think he is worth 14 -25 Guardsmen, with a basic power that requires him to get within 12 inches and line of sight, will fail more than 50% of the time, backed up with a bolt pistol.

Granted if the power goes off, doesn't get negated by an enemy psyker and manages to hijack a big gun like a reaper cannon or plasma caliver, that could be fun, but it would be very hard to pull off and be unlikely to succeed. Also, the bigger the gun, the more risk involved in standing there, 12 inches away from it in LOS.