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.

I believe that the general consensus is that the List entry is the misprint. The problem is GW is terrible about their accuracy in the summary of an army. Most gamer just use it as a rough reference, and confirm with other parts of the book. This alone seems to dis-credit the Summary.

Now we just have the Unit entry in the army list and the entry in the forces area. This makes it all boil down to a toss of a coin as to which is the correct entry.

The summary is only incorrect when it goes against the rest of the codex.

It doesn't go against the rest of the codex, the rest of the codex doesn't agree.

So the summery doesn't go against the Unit Entry? If the Summery Says 1 and the Unit Entry says 2, how is that not the summery going against the unit entry?

It only goes against one of the profiles, it agrees with the other.

The summary is only disregarded when there is a clear incompatibility with the rest of the codex. There is not a clear incompatibility with the rest of the codex in this instance, the rest of the codex says two different things.

(Also, did you see my post on the bottom of page 1? It would appear the misprint is in the army list, not the unit entry.)

Does GW have an editor or proof-reader? I mean, seriously, do they? I could understand the initial typo of the Nob Bikers being W1, but how do you create another mistake by correcting one? Wow.

This is just a thought, but don't Deffkoptas have 2 wounds? They're just Orks on bikes. This may be intentional to make up for the loss of Fearless. Remember, most other bikers have access to better weaponry or support options. Warbikes are quite pricey for what they do now.

A deffkopta is larger than a warbike. It also costs 10 points more and doesn't get a cover save.

Ork bikers are more useful than space marine bikers. They have better guns, a cover save all the time, Access to a powerklaw nob (superior to a powerfist sergeant) and are cheaper on top of that.

They went down in cost 10 points with the new codex, and gained +1 to their cover save, that made up for losing Fearless.

Furthermore, only one of the three profiles has it as 2 wounds, and only the nob is errata'd to have 2. It's a misprint, nothing more.

Actually, I retract my drivel. I was under the impression the 2 Wounds was in the Unit entry. it is not, so, my bad :(

<3 you orky!

No problem, I was all confused at first too.

I had to go look at all the Warseer pictures.

(Um.. <3 you back? )

Hee ! Good one there fo sho !

G

Gwar! wrote:Well OK, my Old Space Wolf Codex says my Grey Hunters are Weapon Skill 5, lets bring that into consideration...

Yeah, I didn't think so.

When I wrote Old I meant the 1 Print of the new codex. There thay are 1W in all 3 Places.
In the new print of the same codex thay are ( as Saurus pointed out ) 1W in 2 Places.

Soooo

How exactly can someone claim they are 2W each ?

Thay are in 5 places 1W and in 1 place 2W - Isnt that quite obvious that its a missprint ?

And another thing I've asked few times - do we have ANY guidelines from GW on what is more valid in codex ? What entry should we refer to when thay are diffrent - If so where ( source page number ). If not I say 5 to 1 leaves NO room for ANY argument.

Mahanon wrote:Thay are in 5 places 1W and in 1 place 2W - Isnt that quite obvious that its a missprint ?

Actually, wrong. In the most recent codex (i.e. The one that MUST be used) it is listed as 2w in the army list, and 1 wound in the Summery and Unit Entry. Now, as I said in my previous Posts, I was mistaken. I thought the 2w printing was in the unit entry, not the army list. I was wrong (yes even I can be wrong sometimes). They are listed as 1w in the Unit Entry, and that is what the actual rules for the unit are. The army list and summery are just summaries, and where they contradict the unit entry, the unit entry should be used (ala Dakkaguns from the first printing of the codex). So, therefore, they have 1 wound.

Glad to see you catch up with the rest of us.

::

Gwar! wrote:

Mahanon wrote:Thay are in 5 places 1W and in 1 place 2W - Isnt that quite obvious that its a missprint ?

Actually, wrong. In the most recent codex (i.e. The one that MUST be used) it is listed as 2w in the army list, and 1 wound in the Summery and Unit Entry. Now, as I said in my previous Posts, I was mistaken. I thought the 2w printing was in the unit entry, not the army list. I was wrong (yes even I can be wrong sometimes). They are listed as 1w in the Unit Entry, and that is what the actual rules for the unit are. The army list and summery are just summaries, and where they contradict the unit entry, the unit entry should be used (ala Dakkaguns from the first printing of the codex). So, therefore, they have 1 wound.

Two thigs that will let your doubts go away.

Yes the newer printing is the one that should be used.

BUT tell me where do GW states that ? Where I can find a line wrote by GW that I MUST use the newest printing ? ( Source , Page Number ? )

Even when we agree on thet. The thing is that the new codex has 3 Values one of them is diffrent. What should we do ? Dettermine if it's a missprint and what is a missprint. The only way of doing it is to establish the number of mistakes ( it is easier to make one mistake then to make 2 of the same kind - so if it would state 2W in 2 places I would be inclined to say that it was intentional change ). The number of mistakes should be counted with the old codex ( the 1 printing of the same codex I mean ) in mind because WHY should we assume that GW changes unit entrys betweent printings IF thay werent 1 errated ? ( any similar cases ? )

As for the Dakkaguns - did GW stated - as with the case of Dakkaguns the unit entry is always more valid then summary ?

I think you runed this argument based on false assumption that there is ANY official ( agin Source , Page number ? ) order of significance in the codex.

Simply there is not - If you would face PG on a GT he would ask - if there is such order - show me where GW stated so ? This would end argument in the giffy

Mahanon wrote:BUT tell me where do GW states that ? Where I can find a line wrote by GW that I MUST use the newest printing ? ( Source , Page Number ? )

It's called common sense, if we didnt use the newest printings, we could claim that we could use 2nd edition Codex's if we wanted, which we know is not true. To play with anything OTHER than the newest codex's breaks the game.

dietrich wrote:Does GW have an editor or proof-reader? I mean, seriously, do they? I could understand the initial typo of the Nob Bikers being W1, but how do you create another mistake by correcting one? Wow.

It's really not that difficult to catch this kind of error. In my current job, I have no difficulty spotting 99%+ of all errors; all you have to do is to get two competent proof-readers to read every document, and you increase that to 99.99%+ (since they'll generally not miss the same errors). Given that GW only employs GW fans anyway, how hard would it be to have all the editorial & creative team take a quick look at each new codex printing? They're going to be reading the books anyway, after release, when gaming -- so why not get them to read them pre-release too?

Just don't get me started on the typos & grammatical errors in Black Library novels.

Question: of the 3 listings, Unit entry, Army listing and summary, only the Army listing is complete. It gives all rules and wargear including points cost. How is this not the "definitive" listing of a unit? The summary is just short of being useless and the unit entry only gives unique rules for a unit. I'm not saying Ork Bikers should have 2W, just trying to understand which of the 3 listings is the primary one.

Homer

There is no primary one, from a GW stand point.

Most long time gamers have learned the hard way that the Summary page is rife with errors and we generally move past it to find out about a unit.

Homer S wrote:Question: of the 3 listings, Unit entry, Army listing and summary, only the Army listing is complete. It gives all rules and wargear including points cost. How is this not the "definitive" listing of a unit? The summary is just short of being useless and the unit entry only gives unique rules for a unit. I'm not saying Ork Bikers should have 2W, just trying to understand which of the 3 listings is the primary one.

Homer

The army listing is complete? So they army listing gives us what all the special rules do? Oh wait, it doesn't. The Army List section is just there for the Points costs and weapon options. The actual Stats and Special Rules of a unit are in the Unit Entry.

Homer S wrote:Question: of the 3 listings, Unit entry, Army listing and summary, only the Army listing is complete. It gives all rules and wargear including points cost. How is this not the "definitive" listing of a unit? The summary is just short of being useless and the unit entry only gives unique rules for a unit. I'm not saying Ork Bikers should have 2W, just trying to understand which of the 3 listings is the primary one.

Homer

I think the answer depends on context. If Ork Boyz had a Toughness of 10 (or a Toughness of 1) in one of their entries, I would argue that the context supports the notion that this is a typo regardless of whether the "error" appeared in the Army List or the Unit Entry.

I also think that the Summary Entry is relevant to this debate. It's a place where typos traditionally are more likely to appear, and should never overrule the main entry. But when the main entries contradict each other, the Summary is probably a good tiebreaker.

Just curious, is there any RaW for which entry has precedence? If not, I'm gonna have to go dig up some particularly nasty Gwar! quotes...

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:Question: of the 3 listings, Unit entry, Army listing and summary, only the Army listing is complete. It gives all rules and wargear including points cost. How is this not the "definitive" listing of a unit? The summary is just short of being useless and the unit entry only gives unique rules for a unit. I'm not saying Ork Bikers should have 2W, just trying to understand which of the 3 listings is the primary one.

Homer

The army listing is complete? So they army listing gives us what all the special rules do? Oh wait, it doesn't. The Army List section is just there for the Points costs and weapon options. The actual Stats and Special Rules of a unit are in the Unit Entry.

Hey... backup the Gwar! truck a second. (couldn't find the laughing or just kidding Orkmoticon)

When I said complete, it requires no additional information to know what a unit has or can get via options. Any special rules are defined in it's unit entry which is referenced in that army listing. It was not my meaning to say that all of the rules were there, obviously they are not since the entire 40K rulebook is not listed.

Homer

The difference between the Army List and the Unit Entry is easy.

When you build a list, which is best to use? The Army List.

When you play, which is best to use? The Unit Entry. The Army list doesn't have special rules or unique wargear.

When does a model take wounds? During play. You don't need stats to build a list (you need to know them to build a good list, maybe, but that's another issue), you do need stats to play a game. Thus, it does seem like the stats in the Army List are a summary of those in the Unit Entry, in the same way the names of the unit's special rules and unique wargear are given a summary but not text describing what they do.

I don't think one is necessarily greater than the other, but the final Summary page shouldn't be discounted any more than the Army List.

I agree, the army list is a tool for building your army to a certain points limit, the unit entries are what define what a unit actually does and are the most official source of information.

Of course, I will only agree until they put a typo in a unit entry at which point I will flip flop without question and claim that it's foolish to take the unit entry as the final ruling and that the army list is a better source of information.

coredump wrote:Sorry Gwar, you are pushing a point that is obviously false. Worse yet, you know it is false, and are pushing it anyway. The worst type of 'devils advocate'.

Do you *really* think they intend for normal ork bikers to have 2Ws? Really?

Deffkoptas have 2W so sure...why not

I don't buy it. If a unit has a bunch of rules that are in the BRB, or only basic wargear, they are listed in the army list, not the unit entry that is mostly fluff. The definition of a rule is typically only needed when playing someone not familiar with the army... "Your HQ has Master of Disaster, hmmm what does it do?" For me, I look to the Army List entry then at the unit entry if there is a rule there that I do not remember.

Homer

Homer S wrote:I don't buy it. If a unit has a bunch of rules that are in the BRB, or only basic wargear, they are listed in the army list, not the unit entry that is mostly fluff. The definition of a rule is typically only needed when playing someone not familiar with the army... "Your HQ has Master of Disaster, hmmm what does it do?"

You mean like someone who doesn't know how many wounds a model has?

For me, I look to the Army List entry then at the unit entry if there is a rule there that I do not remember.

How you read it is irrelevant. How the codex is formatted is all that matters.


Regardless, the summary proves it. 1W. End of story.

Conclusive proof above me right there. My codex says they have one wound in every instance where they list biker stats. it doesn't matter what other codexes say, they should not have two wounds. Following the rules and disregarding logic and fair play ruins the game, to take such an obvious mistake and use it to your advantage is rediculous, and annoying.

It was never my intention, and I said as much before, an Ork Biker has 1 wound. My question is which listing is intended to be primary. Since the summary is basically useless and the Unit Listing has only unique information how can either of these be primary? Only the Army List has all of the rules and where to go look.

Note that any of these 3 listings could have a GW-po for the same information.

Homer

Common sense would show its a fethed up print.

if it only states 2 wounds in 1 place out of 3, then go with the flow
the one before that print also states 1, so 1 it is