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.

 alienvalentine wrote:

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?

What?
So going by the book and stating that only one upgrade (ranged or CC option) on terminators was being TFG even though the rule could not be clearer on the issue? This was not debatable, arguable or prone to misinterpretation. Same with 100 / 105 points on Hellbrute?
This FAQ has more answers than just zombies...

Edited by Janthkin

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, this may go down as the shortest FAQ ever

I'm pretty sure the Planetstrike FAQ still holds that title

As for the Helbrute cost, I think it actually makes sense. This change brings the 'brute's cost more in line with the Loyalist dreadnought, after you take into account the fact that the combi-bolter costs extra. It looks to me like the combi-bolter being optional was a last-minute addition and the points costs weren't changed properly across all versions. This being changed in an erratum is exactly what errata are for.

Regarding it being "inexcusable", I would say that being written by fallible humans is excuse enough for mistakes to happen. It's an expensive book, so I can understand an expectation for quality, but mistakes are still going to happen; the fact that they've acknowledged an issue and have promptly fixed it shows a higher quality of customer service than we've come to expect in the past. I, for one, am happy about this.

That said, the length of this document is a little disappointing. I like that they've fixed most of the major issues in just a few short errata, but I was expecting at least a few FAQ entries. It's still debatable as to whether Abaddon can join marked units, for example. My guess is that they want to wait a little longer (for those sorts of questions to actually be frequently asked) before coming out with FAQs.

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

Must mean there's a model coming

No no it's been cleared up as a erroneous printing in the English printings.

I think trying to educate people of that is going to be an exercise in futility.

I saw a rumor that GW wi have kickstarters that let people purchase different levels of point-costs in print-to-order codices. So they are testing the waters with this.

Could also be just a correction, not sure.

Add me to the rumor tracker I guess.

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

Agreed, I had to read his post two times.

Glad to see that I was right in my idea of GW's intention with the Zombie hordes.

I reiterate that anyone that thinks that they were strong at a 10 man limit hasn't played against or with them in their army. It's looking at one detail and making a conclusion instead of looking at that detail in context. Small picture thinkers. Then again, that's the internet way.

Glad about the change to the Terminators. People were complaining about this and the cost of the terminators, which CSM terminators are pretty much the cheapest Terminators out there when you look at the cost of a 5 man squad with combi-bolters/storm bolters and 4 power fists/1 power weapon for the sergeant. If you don't believe me, look at the numbers yourself.

Wow. Way to be gracious in victory. :(

At least you were right!

I was going to make updating my terminator weapons a weekend project so I am glad I checked dakka and saw the change.

I thought the hellbrute was ridiculously over-costed but 100 points changes everything. Don't even get me started on, "or Daemons of Khorne."

Im just happy for a quick update, GW seems to be changing some things with 6th edition, more faqs/erratas quicker. its a good step in the right direction.

As long as subsequent printings will have the errata incorporated into them (as they have in the past) it's all good. And I'll wait a few months before buying the Codex.

If you see a points change under amendments, that would be a precedent. I'm just suprised GW made it to 6th edition without an error in points cost.

I almost considered getting a hellbrute at one point until I realized it got the reaper autocannon not the hades. Fire frenzy + S8 Heavy 4 would've been fun. I am mystified about why the reaper autocannon exists other than to reduce the range of what a normal dread can get.

the changes all make sense, and I'm pleased they were released so quickly.

I'm less impressed that I'm going to have to scribble on my £30 book though :|

 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.

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

 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.

 d-usa wrote:
I saw a rumor that GW wi have kickstarters that let people purchase different levels of point-costs in print-to-order codices. So they are testing the waters with this.

Could also be just a correction, not sure.

Add me to the rumor tracker I guess.

Yes, I guess they've been waiting to launch it unitl kickstarters by UK companies were allowed

makes perfect sense to me

The thing I'd liked to have seen is a comment regarding vehicle close combat weapons, currently they're all listed as having powefirsts and therefore striking last. Am I the only one thinking that is just a bit odd given Dreadnaught Close Combat weapons have a seperate entry in the rulebook?

 oni wrote:
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.

Come on. What is a classic trope of zombies? The fact that they come in hordes. You don't have small elite units of zombies, you have a shambling mass. That was clearly the intend of these rules, so the fact that RAW stopped you from doing it was an obvious oversight.

Now it's fixed, and it makes sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Wow. Way to be gracious in victory. :(

It wasn't his victory. It was mine.

 Ravanar wrote:
The thing I'd liked to have seen is a comment regarding vehicle close combat weapons, currently they're all listed as having powefirsts and therefore striking last. Am I the only one thinking that is just a bit odd given Dreadnaught Close Combat weapons have a seperate entry in the rulebook?

Double check the "Unwieldly" USR, you may be pleasantly surprised

 Gorechild wrote:

 Ravanar wrote:
The thing I'd liked to have seen is a comment regarding vehicle close combat weapons, currently they're all listed as having powefirsts and therefore striking last. Am I the only one thinking that is just a bit odd given Dreadnaught Close Combat weapons have a seperate entry in the rulebook?

Double check the "Unwieldly" USR, you may be pleasantly surprised

*Gets his rulebook out, flicks through it a bit, puts it down... skips off into the distance crying out "Deffy!Deffy! Here boy!"*

Still no word on some bg issues, though.

- Abaddon joining units

- What exactly happens to models that turn into Daemon Princes (regarding gear, special abilities and so on)

-plenty of weird pricing (Chosen gear options, etc)

Good of them to respond quickly, but I hope there's more on the way.

 Sephyr wrote:
Still no word on some bg issues, though.
...
- What exactly happens to models that turn into Daemon Princes (regarding gear, special abilities and so on)

Page 29 tells us nearly all there is about the transformation: "retains none of the champion's special rules or wargear [apart from the] Mark of Chaos [and gets power armour]". It doesn't spell out precisely what happens to unmarked champions, since daemon princes "must" be a daemon of a specific god (pg. 94); just ignoring that bit is probably what was intended though.

Abaddon joining units and the Heldrake firing arc will probably have to be settled by stare down with your opponent prior to each game...

I'm just glad my Khorne Prince can use the Axe and that my Terminators won't have to be mutilated to become legal again.

I think GW may have realized they can update FAQs as they get answers to questions and don't have to wait till they have 2-3 pages of stuff

That is remarkably short.

Apparently they're rather happy about their codex, I suppose?

 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.

If it makes you feel any better, some people are arguing that because of the Plague Zombies rule change there is no longer any way to actually nominate a unit of Chaos Cultists as Plague Zombies, therefore no plague zombies in the first place.

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

Don't even joke about that. *shudder*

I'm sure they'll release more than this. Questions will arise and things will be challenged, and they'll have to do it again.

Pretty cool though.

 Cheexsta wrote:

Regarding it being "inexcusable", I would say that being written by fallible humans is excuse enough for mistakes to happen. It's an expensive book, so I can understand an expectation for quality, but mistakes are still going to happen; the fact that they've acknowledged an issue and have promptly fixed it shows a higher quality of customer service than we've come to expect in the past. I, for one, am happy about this..

Hm.

Quite the opposite. I'd love to see them change points in Errata more often.

I admit it would be tough to increase points (leading some people to have illegal armies if they didn't read the pdf).

But reducing points on under-utilized units? I think that should be a standard-feature. The worst that can happen is that someone could've spend a few more points. No risk there.

5 point drops for some rarely seen stuff? Tau Sniper Teams? Eldar Swooping Hawks? Etc.. Yes please. It'll hardly break the game, but it might just entice some people to dust-off some old minis.

Point drops on Vanilla Devastators to bring em in line with Blood Angels. Drop points on Black Templar Rhinos? Let's get it done!

They should have a unit of the month that looses 5 points ever month.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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.

That was my first thought. Every errata entry in this document is the type of thing GW would have just let stand for the lifespan of the Codex during 4th and 5th edition. This could be the start of something... significant.