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.

 catbarf wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
3. Rules, such as Chapter Traits and Stratagems for the various Forgeworld forces. Might include Death Corp of Kreig and Eylsians (or they might be in Legends).

Both Elysians and DKoK have some very substantial differences from the codex army lists, not least of which are unique units that don't have codex equivalents, such as DKoK Engineers or Elysian sniper teams. There are also subtle differences, like both DKoK and Elysian sergeants having lasguns as standard rather than laspistol+CCW. They'd need more than just army traits/stratagems- unless they're gutted into a poor imitation of what they currently are.

Optimistically, I'd expect the units to be Legends while the traits might make it into the book. They could easily ignore or add in options like DKoK sergeants with Lasguns. With OOP models, they really don't have to do anything they don't want to.

 alextroy wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
3. Rules, such as Chapter Traits and Stratagems for the various Forgeworld forces. Might include Death Corp of Kreig and Eylsians (or they might be in Legends).

Both Elysians and DKoK have some very substantial differences from the codex army lists, not least of which are unique units that don't have codex equivalents, such as DKoK Engineers or Elysian sniper teams. There are also subtle differences, like both DKoK and Elysian sergeants having lasguns as standard rather than laspistol+CCW. They'd need more than just army traits/stratagems- unless they're gutted into a poor imitation of what they currently are.

Optimistically, I'd expect the units to be Legends while the traits might make it into the book.

That would be a good way to handle it, which means I cynically doubt that will be the case

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Let's hope that Step 1 was a keyword sweep...

In what context?
Missing keywords? Interactions?

There have been a lot of missing ones for those IA indexes i had but that was hardly the worst of the problems i have seen within the IA books.

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other - make sure that units are consistent with keywords and abilities. Last I checked, for example, an IA Leman Russ didn't get Grinding Advance, while Codex ones did. I'm sure there are keywords missing from IA units which are present on Codex versions when they should be consistent.

Equally, review abilities which call out keywords (outside of [FACTION], anyway), and make sure they're affecting the FW units they're intended to. If not, do something about it.

And, frankly, when developing "core" material moving forwards, they should be looking for interactions with FW units at the time when they're writing rules. In theory, this is where you'd have such things in a database - "I want an ability to affect [DREADNOUGHT] units - which units would this currently affect?" *runs search* "Hmm, having it affect Leviathans would be too powerful, I'd best write this so the W cap rules that out..."

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Let's hope that Step 1 was a keyword sweep...

In what context?
Missing keywords? Interactions?

There have been a lot of missing ones for those IA indexes i had but that was hardly the worst of the problems i have seen within the IA books.

Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other - make sure that units are consistent with keywords and abilities. Last I checked, for example, an IA Leman Russ didn't get Grinding Advance, while Codex ones did. I'm sure there are keywords missing from IA units which are present on Codex versions when they should be consistent.

Equally, review abilities which call out keywords (outside of [FACTION], anyway), and make sure they're affecting the FW units they're intended to. If not, do something about it.

And, frankly, when developing "core" material moving forwards, they should be looking for interactions with FW units at the time when they're writing rules. In theory, this is where you'd have such things in a database - "I want an ability to affect [DREADNOUGHT] units - which units would this currently affect?" *runs search* "Hmm, having it affect Leviathans would be too powerful, I'd best write this so the W cap rules that out..."

GW can't even br bothered to not nerf Forgeworld Imperial Knights because of strategums and abilities only in the Choas Knights codex. And they still haven't adjusted the points for the models despite losing about 1/4 of their actual playability through these rules rewrites.
What your talking about is so far beyond the capability of any of the codex writer's, it's no even funny, heck GW has now got two different wordings of the same rule with an FAQ declairing them both valid.

At a certain point you have to hope they can manage to just update the weapons to match their codex versions or atleast be better than them where they should be and fix the points. Without making any more units unplayable trash.