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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Dimachaerons have a weapon that becomes double strength on 6+ to wound. Yep.

That genuinely made me burst out laughing at work. Ha!

On the upside, I just saw this posted on another forum:

From: Forgeworld [mailto:forgeworld@gwplc.com]

Sent: 28 June 2017 11:08

To: Mauler

Subject: Re: Scythed Hierodule Feedback



Hi xxxx,


Thanks for the email, currently your rules team have requested we gather as many questions as we can related to the new index books and rules that may not be present, clear or need addressing in future FAQ's.

As such we are not able to answer individual questions as they come in but rather add them to our list to send over to the designers as requested to address at a later date.



Rest assured, we will tag and categorize your email and forward it on and soon we should see an FAQ for the new data sheets and units that we have had questions about.



Our rules team have already made an FAQ for the Dimachaeron which is as follows

Rule should be:



When Targeting Infantry units, each hit roll of a 6+ made with the weapon is resolved at Strength x2 and Damage D6.



Thanks again

I was like "why are FW sending you hugs" and then I realized "oh, he censored it..."

The FAQ should simply be a second print run with free copy for those that paid for the first.

 Imateria wrote:

Thats not to excuse the problems though, this complete and total lack of proof reading absolutely should not have happened.

My favourite part is how they're not bothering to comment on it at all.

They seem pretty inconsistent about answering emails too: I'm still waiting on one I sent ten days ago about no version of the Contemptor having rules for the missile launcher part they sell, and didn't get anything back at all when I asked some questions about Custodes when Inferno came out.

I'm thinking I'll do a follow-up email this time around rather than let it pass though, probably about the three week mark.

 Imateria wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Dimachaerons have a weapon that becomes double strength on 6+ to wound. Yep.

That genuinely made me burst out laughing at work. Ha!

MaxT wrote:
But there's 4 FW indexes, so the only way to take it is hyperbole bs

There's another way to take it: The truth.

You're just nitpicking what they said "Well if it's not exactly 4/5ths of the rules, then it's hyperbole" and basically ignoring the growing litany of problems with the book. Just look at the Chaos Renegade and Tyranid problems. You think those armies are alone in having issues?

To be fair the problems aren't as extensive as some people are making them out to be. For the the Xenos factions there seems to be only one or two problems at most, Renegades and AM seem to be the only lists that have really suffered here (well, and Corsairs since they're no longer an army at all now). Most of the entries still work fine and there's quite a few things that I intend to add to my armies from Forge World now.

Thats not to excuse the problems though, this complete and total lack of proof reading absolutely should not have happened.

One or two problems at most? You are joking right?

Can't tell about necron or eldar, but about half the tau slates have obvious mistakes, inconcictancies or unclear rules (and not "lawyer trap" unclear, full blown "I honestly don't know if it has X or not, or if I pay points for Y, or what Z even does, with rare cases of rules from 7th that 8th got away with being referred)
And that's before going into" why on earth you did it this stupid way" cases like the high intensity markerlight, rules not given to things that are actually on the model, units losing things they used to have (while that thing still very much exists) mismatch between points and power levels (two models with no options, one is more expensive in points, but in power its the other way around), or really dumb overpricing of a few things

The xenos index is really poorly made.
As in, single employee spent a day, tops, quality level.

 BoomWolf wrote:

And that's before going into" why on earth you did it this stupid way" cases like the high intensity markerlight, rules not given to things that are actually on the model, units losing things they used to have (while that thing still very much exists) mismatch between points and power levels (two models with no options, one is more expensive in points, but in power its the other way around), or really dumb overpricing of a few things

Almost all of these "problems" are subjective problems rather than objective quality issues, though. "Really dumb overpricing" has always been an "issue" with Forgeworld units due to them erring on the side of caution, High Intensity Markerlights work as intended(they're just not GOOD), and units losing previous things is a GW edition change symptom since forever.

Once you take out the subjective issues like these that not everyone sees as problems, the amount of actual issues isn't as many as is being stated, barring the Renegades by volume.

For Necrons at least I can't see any obvious errors: I guess the death ray option on the Sentry Pylon is really obviously useless at a glance and that might be a misprint, but it'd hardly be the only unit to have a gun option no right-minded person would take when an obviously better profile or two is below it.

Other than that the Flyer and Terrain Piece are wimpy, but I think those are just genuinely poor units rather than a n FAQ requiring mistake.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

And that's before going into" why on earth you did it this stupid way" cases like the high intensity markerlight, rules not given to things that are actually on the model, units losing things they used to have (while that thing still very much exists) mismatch between points and power levels (two models with no options, one is more expensive in points, but in power its the other way around), or really dumb overpricing of a few things

Almost all of these "problems" are subjective problems rather than objective quality issues, though. "Really dumb overpricing" has always been an "issue" with Forgeworld units due to them erring on the side of caution, High Intensity Markerlights work as intended(they're just not GOOD), and units losing previous things is a GW edition change symptom since forever.

Once you take out the subjective issues like these that not everyone sees as problems, the amount of actual issues isn't as many as is being stated, barring the Renegades by volume.

HIM might work as intended, but they way its intended looks as if they didn't even read how markerlights work in 8th, because it honestly makes no sense.
Dumb pricing can be just bad, but at some point it goes beyond bad

And that's why I said half have obvious issues BEFORE you go into these kind of oddities.

I'm talking half have issues when you count ONLY things like missing rules, or obvious point oddballs/errors/omissions.

Ralai missing a pulse submmunition shot on his pulse submmunition rifle, or the XV9's photon casters), his marker drones lack the stable platform rule (so does heavy gun drones)
Ralai also have different T value from XV9, despite sharing the same suit, for no apparent reason. (the only char i know of that has the same armor and different T from his corresponding unit)
Speaking of XV9s, they don't take a support system, they take "one of the abilities listed", so, is it a system you pay for or not?
R'myr upgraded shield generator is identical to a regular shield generator.
Turrent drones immobile repair rule just makes no sense when referring to vehicle repair/ rendering immobile/forcing to move, its not even a vehicle. Also they can't be taken as compulsory troops. except they are no longer troops.
Hammerheads that are identical to GW index but cost WAY different (and even different from each other despite being identical)
Swiftstrike railgun-its exactly like a HRR, except shorter range, and costs more. one the flipside, a long-barrled ion cannon has longer range, it's extra hits ability on large units works on overcharge too (unlike the regular), and it costs less.
Y'Vahra does not say if it can or cannot move after using his "leave table then come back" rule, as unlike most thing that come from off table, he does so at the begining of the move phase, rather than the end.
Railshark has a macro gun, except it's not titanic, and can't stand still, so legally it can never fire.
Remoras referring to the target lock, despite never being mentioned they actually have one-do they have it? do they pay?

These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

 Verviedi wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
Is Fires of Cyraxus supposedly going to provide us Mechanicus players rules for our Heresy era stuff and/or rules for fielding a true Dark Mechanicus army?

Yes on the first part. Unknown on the second.

Uh, no. It's known.
Fires of Cyraxus was going to be a campaign book with rules for the Heresy stuff for the Cult Mechanicus/Skitarii forces fighting against the Tau.

Dark Mechanicus were never going to play a part.

I leave this here for the malantrophe.

thank you for your email. We can provide you with our interpretation of the rules, but any official ruling would come as part of an Errata or FAQ from the Forge World Studio.
We would suggest using it as per the Venomthrope rules as a unit rather than a model. With regards to the flyer keyword as it is not included in its rules currently, it doesn't get it, but we have put it forward as a question to the Forge World studio team with regards to any future FAQ etc.


How would you rate my reply?
Great Okay Not Good

If there is anything further we can do to assist you, or if you have any queries about the information we have requested or provided, please telephone us.


Regards,
Forge World

Nice to see them responding.

Has anyone asked about the Stonecrusher Bio-Flail?

 BoomWolf wrote:
The xenos index is really poorly made.
As in, single employee spent a day, tops, quality level.

Okay, I think the indexes are junk, too. But seriously, I can't tell if this stuff is hyperbolic, rude, or just uninformed.

Any volume of writing like that takes time, and, as others pointed out, one of their lead creators died recently and was sick before.

This job was clearly rushed and poor, but as insulting as it is to consumers for such a poorly proofed product to reach us, it's also I think pretty rude for you to suggest that the work they did took no time.


Personally, I'm irritated that it's so obviously a rush job, and that they should have taken the time to get it right, but I expect that there was a lot of pressure from inside the company to get everything up at once.

I've noticed a few problems browsing through the eldar section.

Nightwing and pheonix are listed as fast attack they very clearly are flyers and have all the eldar flyer rules including a minimum movement. (Prevents them from being part of an air wing allows, you to take flyers 8n fast attack if you already exceeded your slots or to fill a minimum outrider slot).

Vampire Hunter and raider not as clear but almost certainly should have the new super heavy flyer rule that thunderhawk stormbird and manta have. The rule gives benefits but it also means you don't measure to it's non existent non compulsory base which isn't even close to the size of its over 1 foot wingspan and length.

Eldar scorpion Grav tank it's pulsar is dmg 3 but if it roles a 6 it says treat this as dmg 2d6 instead of d6. So either it's bonus rule is wrong and it's damage is different compared to both other pulsars. Or they messed up the damage there.

Nothing else seems glaringly wrong other than maybe the revenant max invulnerable should be attainable without having to advance and therefore not shoot.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
The xenos index is really poorly made.
As in, single employee spent a day, tops, quality level.

Okay, I think the indexes are junk, too. But seriously, I can't tell if this stuff is hyperbolic, rude, or just uninformed.

Any volume of writing like that takes time, and, as others pointed out, one of their lead creators died recently and was sick before.

This job was clearly rushed and poor, but as insulting as it is to consumers for such a poorly proofed product to reach us, it's also I think pretty rude for you to suggest that the work they did took no time.


Personally, I'm irritated that it's so obviously a rush job, and that they should have taken the time to get it right, but I expect that there was a lot of pressure from inside the company to get everything up at once.

It might be a little rude directly to their face, but it's perfectly acceptable use of conversational hyperbole to suggest a poorly made document is done in an afternoon by an intern or whatever.

It's frankly bizzare the basic communication tools that trip people up on the Internet at times.

changemod wrote:
It might be a little rude directly to their face, but it's perfectly acceptable use of conversational hyperbole to suggest a poorly made document is done in an afternoon by an intern or whatever.

It's frankly bizzare the basic communication tools that trip people up on the Internet at times.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I can't tell if this stuff is hyperbolic, rude, or just uninformed.

Nice going, attacking someone's comprehension skills because you failed to comprehend.

changemod wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
The xenos index is really poorly made.
As in, single employee spent a day, tops, quality level.

Okay, I think the indexes are junk, too. But seriously, I can't tell if this stuff is hyperbolic, rude, or just uninformed.

Any volume of writing like that takes time, and, as others pointed out, one of their lead creators died recently and was sick before.

This job was clearly rushed and poor, but as insulting as it is to consumers for such a poorly proofed product to reach us, it's also I think pretty rude for you to suggest that the work they did took no time.


Personally, I'm irritated that it's so obviously a rush job, and that they should have taken the time to get it right, but I expect that there was a lot of pressure from inside the company to get everything up at once.

It might be a little rude directly to their face, but it's perfectly acceptable use of conversational hyperbole to suggest a poorly made document is done in an afternoon by an intern or whatever.

It's frankly bizzare the basic communication tools that trip people up on the Internet at times.

Also, considering many units are variants of GW index units, they are a copy-paste then edit, and even THESE failed horribly at times (as in, forgot to copy an important rule, or gave a totally different point cost for no reason, or whatever)-I'm honestly not sure its not a one-day-job.

 Imateria wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 xttz wrote:
Dimachaerons have a weapon that becomes double strength on 6+ to wound. Yep.

That genuinely made me burst out laughing at work. Ha!

MaxT wrote:
But there's 4 FW indexes, so the only way to take it is hyperbole bs

There's another way to take it: The truth.

You're just nitpicking what they said "Well if it's not exactly 4/5ths of the rules, then it's hyperbole" and basically ignoring the growing litany of problems with the book. Just look at the Chaos Renegade and Tyranid problems. You think those armies are alone in having issues?

To be fair the problems aren't as extensive as some people are making them out to be. For the the Xenos factions there seems to be only one or two problems at most, Renegades and AM seem to be the only lists that have really suffered here (well, and Corsairs since they're no longer an army at all now). Most of the entries still work fine and there's quite a few things that I intend to add to my armies from Forge World now.

Thats not to excuse the problems though, this complete and total lack of proof reading absolutely should not have happened.

How are Corsairs no longer an army?

pm713 wrote:

How are Corsairs no longer an army?

There are about 3 units which have the keyword <COTERIE> or where they include the word CORSAIR (e.g. CORSAIR REAVER BAND), 2 jetbike and 1 infantry. There is no army list anymore, no princes and almost no special rules. You play Eldar (Craftworld or Dark) with a few corsair units now.

 Aenarian wrote:

pm713 wrote:

How are Corsairs no longer an army?

There are about 3 units which have the keyword <COTERIE> or where they include the word CORSAIR (e.g. CORSAIR REAVER BAND), 2 jetbike and 1 infantry. There is no army list anymore, no princes and almost no special rules. You play Eldar (Craftworld or Dark) with a few corsair units now.

I don't suppose there's any reason given...

pm713 wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

pm713 wrote:

How are Corsairs no longer an army?

There are about 3 units which have the keyword <COTERIE> or where they include the word CORSAIR (e.g. CORSAIR REAVER BAND), 2 jetbike and 1 infantry. There is no army list anymore, no princes and almost no special rules. You play Eldar (Craftworld or Dark) with a few corsair units now.

I don't suppose there's any reason given...

None, but the general feeling is that the books were rushed. If that was because Forgeworld were told about the new edition a week before they had to send the books for printing or something else, we don't know. I think they'll return when they are given a more comprehensive book, but that would be a least one or two years from now.

pm713 wrote:
I don't suppose there's any reason given...

No models. No rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I don't suppose there's any reason given...

No models. No rules.

A great third of my ork FW collection begs to differ...

"Even with models, no rules!!"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I don't suppose there's any reason given...

No models. No rules.

Incorrect seeing as there are things with rules but no model.

My Adeptus Mechanicus look upon your rulebooks with envious bionic eyes.

I just want to field my Ordinatus, dammit!

mortar_crew wrote:
A great third of my ork FW collection begs to differ...

Of those Orks, which ones are still being made?

pm713 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I don't suppose there's any reason given...

No models. No rules.

Incorrect seeing as there are things with rules but no model.

Which? FW put up couple old favourites but what models never had model and have rules?

tneva82 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I don't suppose there's any reason given...

No models. No rules.

Incorrect seeing as there are things with rules but no model.

Which? FW put up couple old favourites but what models never had model and have rules?

Half the Autarch profiles don't have rules for one.

tneva82 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

pm713 wrote:
I don't suppose there's any reason given...

No models. No rules.

Incorrect seeing as there are things with rules but no model.

Which? FW put up couple old favourites but what models never had model and have rules?

More than half the Marine characters(mostly from the Badab War) and Arkos the Faithless, to name a few.

Contrarily, at least one named character WITH a model got left out, Hamath Kraatos.

Dominus Bombard, as well.