Iron Hands + Raven Guard FAQS out

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.

**Tyranid Horde**

I think the nerfs are good and I don't feel sorry for the people who snapped up as many broken units as possible to spam them.

Now we have to worry about Imperial Fists!

**small_gods**

Yeah having played the 3x executioners list and having no possible answer for it I also have zero sympathy for investing in something that clearly broke the game.

I think from the previews Imperial Fists aren't going to be in the same league. Yeah -2ap 2dmg heavy bolters will be rough but harder to abuse.

Lets just hope that there isn't another ironstone hidden in the supplement.

**blaktoof**

Quasistellar wrote:
Indeed I do. I also own a grand total of zero executioners, and many of my Dreads (deredeo + leviathan + contemptor relic) don't benefit at all in the first place from the (now defunct) invuln bubble, and are almost completely unaffected by the nerfs. In fact I have advocated in the past (on other forums) that Leviathans get targeted nerfs to ranged invuln and stormcannon # of shots to make them easier to balance.

I'm not saying they didn't need nerfs. They did. And honestly probably still might, which is what I'm afraid of.

It also makes me sad that the first and only unique Iron Hands character model ever got nerfed in a manner that's hard to undo after 2 weeks, when they could have definitely gone about the problems differently. If they were going to nerf Feirros they could have just given him a price bump, but making the vehicle invuln go away completely really stings when combined with the other nerfs to ironstone and other repair abilities.

I will survive, though. The vehicles didn't have invulns before, so meh.

They don't need to nerf leviathans at this point with the rumored incoming legends which will include all FW units and will remove them from competitive play at events more or less.

**Not Online!!!**

All fw?
Oof

**JohnnyHell**

The fewer units the easier to balance. Making all FW Legends is a route I can see them taking as all the wombo combos seem to include FW units that Codex rules/buffs make disproportionately powerful.

**Shovi**

All Forgeworld will be relegated to a legends style book? Seems highly unlikely, since we just got green lit custodes rules. I think it would upset more people than it would do good, since most stuff is not exactly competitive at the moment anyway. Can you give the source of that rumour? What would be the reasons for such a change?

It would make me a very sad guard / tau / custodes player.

**tneva82**

blaktoof wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
Indeed I do. I also own a grand total of zero executioners, and many of my Dreads (deredeo + leviathan + contemptor relic) don't benefit at all in the first place from the (now defunct) invuln bubble, and are almost completely unaffected by the nerfs. In fact I have advocated in the past (on other forums) that Leviathans get targeted nerfs to ranged invuln and stormcannon # of shots to make them easier to balance.

I'm not saying they didn't need nerfs. They did. And honestly probably still might, which is what I'm afraid of.

It also makes me sad that the first and only unique Iron Hands character model ever got nerfed in a manner that's hard to undo after 2 weeks, when they could have definitely gone about the problems differently. If they were going to nerf Feirros they could have just given him a price bump, but making the vehicle invuln go away completely really stings when combined with the other nerfs to ironstone and other repair abilities.

I will survive, though. The vehicles didn't have invulns before, so meh.

They don't need to nerf leviathans at this point with the rumored incoming legends which will include all FW units and will remove them from competitive play at events more or less.

You have any reason to believe so? Official announcement about legends didn't even mention FW...

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/08/29/breaking-news-sisters-psykers-and-skeletonsgw-homepage-post-4/

Sounds more like it contains rules for models not in sale(so following GW's no models, no rules in codex format). You know what are on sale? Leviathan. And other FW models.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnnyHell wrote:
The fewer units the easier to balance. Making all FW Legends is a route I can see them taking as all the wombo combos seem to include FW units that Codex rules/buffs make disproportionately powerful.

Except biggest offenders were, surprise surprise(not), fw models...

**Red Corsair**

small_gods wrote:
Yeah having played the 3x executioners list and having no possible answer for it I also have zero sympathy for investing in something that clearly broke the game.

I think from the previews Imperial Fists aren't going to be in the same league. Yeah -2ap 2dmg heavy bolters will be rough but harder to abuse.

Lets just hope that there isn't another ironstone hidden in the supplement.

Keep telling yourself that, I hope your correct, but it sure doesn't look like it. An intercessor can swap to a stalker boltgun for free. That's 1 less strength then a HB but an additional -1AP and it does flat 2 to everything and 3 to vehicles.

So an army of dudes that shoot 36" ignoring cover at ap -2/-3 exploding more hits on 6's from the troop section. Oh, who also happen to be able to snipe with a strat lol. Active start of the game. Yet another example of a total lack of play testing, which creates a lazy uninteresting style army that just sits there scrubbing the other side. Oh, and if I am not mistaken, exectioner bolt guns count as a bolt weapon too.

Any army that can make it's bacon from the troop section is automatically ahead. You gain CP easier, you ignore the rule of 3 and your always super scoring lol.

**bullyboy**

Red Corsair wrote:
small_gods wrote:
Yeah having played the 3x executioners list and having no possible answer for it I also have zero sympathy for investing in something that clearly broke the game.

I think from the previews Imperial Fists aren't going to be in the same league. Yeah -2ap 2dmg heavy bolters will be rough but harder to abuse.

Lets just hope that there isn't another ironstone hidden in the supplement.

Keep telling yourself that, I hope your correct, but it sure doesn't look like it. An intercessor can swap to a stalker boltgun for free. That's 1 less strength then a HB but an additional -1AP and it does flat 2 to everything and 3 to vehicles.

So an army of dudes that shoot 36" ignoring cover at ap -2/-3 exploding more hits on 6's from the troop section. Oh, who also happen to be able to snipe with a strat lol. Active start of the game. Yet another example of a total lack of play testing, which creates a lazy uninteresting style army that just sits there scrubbing the other side. Oh, and if I am not mistaken, exectioner bolt guns count as a bolt weapon too.

Any army that can make it's bacon from the troop section is automatically ahead. You gain CP easier, you ignore the rule of 3 and your always super scoring lol.

So what you're saying is, it's horrible that one list can make use of spamming marines in bolters.......which is about as iconic as it gets!! They still have to get out and grab objectives so can't win with that tactic alone.
Yes, Stalker IF intercessors will be good, but it will also be awesome to see lots of marines with bolters on a table (I'm not an IF player).

**MadMekRoff**

bullyboy wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
small_gods wrote:
Yeah having played the 3x executioners list and having no possible answer for it I also have zero sympathy for investing in something that clearly broke the game.

I think from the previews Imperial Fists aren't going to be in the same league. Yeah -2ap 2dmg heavy bolters will be rough but harder to abuse.

Lets just hope that there isn't another ironstone hidden in the supplement.

Keep telling yourself that, I hope your correct, but it sure doesn't look like it. An intercessor can swap to a stalker boltgun for free. That's 1 less strength then a HB but an additional -1AP and it does flat 2 to everything and 3 to vehicles.

So an army of dudes that shoot 36" ignoring cover at ap -2/-3 exploding more hits on 6's from the troop section. Oh, who also happen to be able to snipe with a strat lol. Active start of the game. Yet another example of a total lack of play testing, which creates a lazy uninteresting style army that just sits there scrubbing the other side. Oh, and if I am not mistaken, exectioner bolt guns count as a bolt weapon too.

Any army that can make it's bacon from the troop section is automatically ahead. You gain CP easier, you ignore the rule of 3 and your always super scoring lol.

So what you're saying is, it's horrible that one list can make use of spamming marines in bolters.......which is about as iconic as it gets!! They still have to get out and grab objectives so can't win with that tactic alone.
Yes, Stalker IF intercessors will be good, but it will also be awesome to see lots of marines with bolters on a table (I'm not an IF player).

I think people just need to vilify someone.

Now the Iron Hands have been nerfed... scratch that slightly de-powered, we need to find someone else to complain about. It's half the hobby right?

**Red Corsair**

bullyboy wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
small_gods wrote:
Yeah having played the 3x executioners list and having no possible answer for it I also have zero sympathy for investing in something that clearly broke the game.

I think from the previews Imperial Fists aren't going to be in the same league. Yeah -2ap 2dmg heavy bolters will be rough but harder to abuse.

Lets just hope that there isn't another ironstone hidden in the supplement.

Keep telling yourself that, I hope your correct, but it sure doesn't look like it. An intercessor can swap to a stalker boltgun for free. That's 1 less strength then a HB but an additional -1AP and it does flat 2 to everything and 3 to vehicles.

So an army of dudes that shoot 36" ignoring cover at ap -2/-3 exploding more hits on 6's from the troop section. Oh, who also happen to be able to snipe with a strat lol. Active start of the game. Yet another example of a total lack of play testing, which creates a lazy uninteresting style army that just sits there scrubbing the other side. Oh, and if I am not mistaken, exectioner bolt guns count as a bolt weapon too.

Any army that can make it's bacon from the troop section is automatically ahead. You gain CP easier, you ignore the rule of 3 and your always super scoring lol.

So what you're saying is, it's horrible that one list can make use of spamming marines in bolters.......which is about as iconic as it gets!! They still have to get out and grab objectives so can't win with that tactic alone.
Yes, Stalker IF intercessors will be good, but it will also be awesome to see lots of marines with bolters on a table (I'm not an IF player).

Where did I say it was horrible, and where did I imply it wasn't thematic? I think it will look cool, I am also preparing for the extreme. GW's rules encourage that characteristic not me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MadMekRoff wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
small_gods wrote:
Yeah having played the 3x executioners list and having no possible answer for it I also have zero sympathy for investing in something that clearly broke the game.

I think from the previews Imperial Fists aren't going to be in the same league. Yeah -2ap 2dmg heavy bolters will be rough but harder to abuse.

Lets just hope that there isn't another ironstone hidden in the supplement.

Keep telling yourself that, I hope your correct, but it sure doesn't look like it. An intercessor can swap to a stalker boltgun for free. That's 1 less strength then a HB but an additional -1AP and it does flat 2 to everything and 3 to vehicles.

So an army of dudes that shoot 36" ignoring cover at ap -2/-3 exploding more hits on 6's from the troop section. Oh, who also happen to be able to snipe with a strat lol. Active start of the game. Yet another example of a total lack of play testing, which creates a lazy uninteresting style army that just sits there scrubbing the other side. Oh, and if I am not mistaken, exectioner bolt guns count as a bolt weapon too.

Any army that can make it's bacon from the troop section is automatically ahead. You gain CP easier, you ignore the rule of 3 and your always super scoring lol.

So what you're saying is, it's horrible that one list can make use of spamming marines in bolters.......which is about as iconic as it gets!! They still have to get out and grab objectives so can't win with that tactic alone.
Yes, Stalker IF intercessors will be good, but it will also be awesome to see lots of marines with bolters on a table (I'm not an IF player).

I think people just need to vilify someone.

Now the Iron Hands have been nerfed... scratch that slightly de-powered, we need to find someone else to complain about. It's half the hobby right?

Oh sure, complain about complaining *facepalm*

Had the community not reacted and just accepted that garbage then nothing would have changed. Apparently the lesson you took away from this was to sit and be silent rather then hey we better vet all that unbalanced trash they are dumping out at an accelerating pace lol.

**MadMekRoff**

Red Corsair wrote:

Oh sure, complain about complaining *facepalm*

Had the community not reacted and just accepted that garbage then nothing would have changed. Apparently the lesson you took away from this was to sit and be silent rather then hey we better vet all that unbalanced trash they are dumping out at an accelerating pace lol.

I get what you're saying, but there is a difference.

There is constructive complaint as we've seen with the Iron Hands. It was broken and the community complained. That is fine.

My issue is the elements who complain because the always have. The ever belligerent who dislike a faction simply because it is IMPERIAL and thus must be over powered or the same. For the most part, people complain about things because everyone else is. Most of the local gamers I know that were so outspoken about the Iron Hands had never even faced them.

My concern is that all it takes is a few people whinging (and I'm not saying without reason) about the latest thing and suddenly every Imperial Fist player is a cheesey net lister "because of what I heard on Spikey Bits"

**oni**

I'm by no means a fan of FW, but...

The Leviathan was what it was well before the IH book came along.

So... Who's to blame for OP rules? Not FW, not this time anyway.

Thankfully we have Chapter Approved that can re-balance things when these issues inevitably arise.

**Not Online!!!**

oni wrote:
I'm by no means a fan of FW, but...

The Leviathan was what it was well before the IH book came along.

So... Who's to blame for OP rules? Not FW, not this time anyway.

Thankfully we have Chapter Approved that can re-balance things when these issues inevitably arise.

Sure, if you don't mind paying for a balance patch that could easily be handled for free online.
Imagine the good will that would create.

But alas, it wouldn't be GW if they weren't trying to nickle and dime you for rules aswell as models (CSM terminator sprue f.e.)

**Stevefamine**

My 7+ Dreadnought list wasnt hit that hard - I still feel like I can field a nasty list and do alright at a local event. Nothing too over the top and I'm okay with the balancing.

They still need to hurry up and get the other codexs in line. My Tyranids are struggling to do anything to the newer dexs

**Lemondish**

Stevefamine wrote:
My 7+ Dreadnought list wasnt hit that hard - I still feel like I can field a nasty list and do alright at a local event. Nothing too over the top and I'm okay with the balancing.

They still need to hurry up and get the other codexs in line. My Tyranids are struggling to do anything to the newer dexs

We clearly just need to bring back the seven flying hive tyrants

**Lord Damocles**

oni wrote:
Thankfully we have Chapter Approved that can re-balance things when these issues inevitably arise.

Chapter Approved will have gone to print before the release of Iron Hands, so good luck with that.

**small_gods**

Red Corsair wrote:
small_gods wrote:
Yeah having played the 3x executioners list and having no possible answer for it I also have zero sympathy for investing in something that clearly broke the game.

I think from the previews Imperial Fists aren't going to be in the same league. Yeah -2ap 2dmg heavy bolters will be rough but harder to abuse.

Lets just hope that there isn't another ironstone hidden in the supplement.

Keep telling yourself that, I hope your correct, but it sure doesn't look like it. An intercessor can swap to a stalker boltgun for free. That's 1 less strength then a HB but an additional -1AP and it does flat 2 to everything and 3 to vehicles.

So an army of dudes that shoot 36" ignoring cover at ap -2/-3 exploding more hits on 6's from the troop section. Oh, who also happen to be able to snipe with a strat lol. Active start of the game. Yet another example of a total lack of play testing, which creates a lazy uninteresting style army that just sits there scrubbing the other side. Oh, and if I am not mistaken, exectioner bolt guns count as a bolt weapon too.

Any army that can make it's bacon from the troop section is automatically ahead. You gain CP easier, you ignore the rule of 3 and your always super scoring lol.

Yeah but they're single shot and heavy. So basically a 170ish point unit gets 10 shots. They can't move and shoot well and would only kill 4 boyz or do 7 wounds to a rhino. They're only any good as snipers and primaris.

Fire raptors and deredeos are more likely to be problems but still not game breaking.

**VladimirHerzog**

Not Online!!! wrote:
oni wrote:
I'm by no means a fan of FW, but...

The Leviathan was what it was well before the IH book came along.

So... Who's to blame for OP rules? Not FW, not this time anyway.

Thankfully we have Chapter Approved that can re-balance things when these issues inevitably arise.

Sure, if you don't mind paying for a balance patch that could easily be handled for free online.
Imagine the good will that would create.

But alas, it wouldn't be GW if they weren't trying to nickle and dime you for rules aswell as models (CSM terminator sprue f.e.)

i mean, the biggest thing that is changed in chapter approved are points costs, which are all available on battlescribe anyway. Or just get one copy of CA for the group if you want to play the new missions, thats what my LGS does.

**ClockworkZion**

Red Corsair wrote:
I have to laugh at anyone that ran out and purchased triple repulsers because of that supplement lol. They are still really strong in IH though, but this is much less auto pilot.

It is funny to me though, that folks were telling people not to worry about the Leviathan being broken, and after the errata it's the Leviathan that is still left standing lol.

He can still have his WLT, reduce damage, halve damage and he already has an invuln lol. The strats did go up though, I do find it very ironic though

And if you charge him he loses a lot of his value.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Damocles wrote:
GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

Books go to print at least 6 months before they're released. It's entirely possible that GW got playtester feedback, made changes and sent the books off to print while giving the updates back to the play testers as a way of seeing if there were any day 1 Q&A they'd need to do (aka the 2 week FAQ thing) and the feedback resulted in this FAQ, but they held off to see the community reaction first and see if it was as big of a problem as the playtester feedback said.

And as a reminder, the FLG group aren't the only playtesters GW uses. There are narrative playtesters as well, but we don't hear them running podcasts and telling us how to break the game again this week.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

small_gods wrote:
Yeah having played the 3x executioners list and having no possible answer for it I also have zero sympathy for investing in something that clearly broke the game.

I think from the previews Imperial Fists aren't going to be in the same league. Yeah -2ap 2dmg heavy bolters will be rough but harder to abuse.

Lets just hope that there isn't another ironstone hidden in the supplement.

You can make a pretty good tank buster unit with heavy plasma Hellblasters (average 6-7 wounds on overcharge while in the devastator doctrine before re-rolls or other bonuses are applied), but I'd only take a squad of 5 or a unit of 10 and split their fire.

**tneva82**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
I have to laugh at anyone that ran out and purchased triple repulsers because of that supplement lol. They are still really strong in IH though, but this is much less auto pilot.

It is funny to me though, that folks were telling people not to worry about the Leviathan being broken, and after the errata it's the Leviathan that is still left standing lol.

He can still have his WLT, reduce damage, halve damage and he already has an invuln lol. The strats did go up though, I do find it very ironic though

And if you charge him he loses a lot of his value.

Unless IH gave him warlord trait at which point unless you can quarantee actually surrounding him you have just given free round of fire for him.

**ClockworkZion**

tneva82 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
I have to laugh at anyone that ran out and purchased triple repulsers because of that supplement lol. They are still really strong in IH though, but this is much less auto pilot.

It is funny to me though, that folks were telling people not to worry about the Leviathan being broken, and after the errata it's the Leviathan that is still left standing lol.

He can still have his WLT, reduce damage, halve damage and he already has an invuln lol. The strats did go up though, I do find it very ironic though

And if you charge him he loses a lot of his value.

Unless IH gave him warlord trait at which point unless you can quarantee actually surrounding him you have just given free round of fire for him.

You just need a few models to lock him into combat, and you can always charge from outside of LoS, or with something heavier (like an Impulsor) followed by the unit that'll be locking him in combat.

**tneva82**

That assumes he lets you get close enough. And that he doesn't use say one impulsor behind it to keep path always clear. Can't be over impulsor and once impulsor moves away(handy fly) there's pathway away

**Lord Damocles**

ClockworkZion wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:
GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

Books go to print at least 6 months before they're released. It's entirely possible that GW got playtester feedback, made changes and sent the books off to print while giving the updates back to the play testers as a way of seeing if there were any day 1 Q&A they'd need to do (aka the 2 week FAQ thing) and the feedback resulted in this FAQ, but they held off to see the community reaction first and see if it was as big of a problem as the playtester feedback said.

You say that like GW knowingly putting out a product which they haven't finished development of, and must at least suspect - if not know - is unbalanced is all fine and dandy because they release an FAQ for it.

It's not!

**Not Online!!!**

Lord Damocles wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:
GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

Books go to print at least 6 months before they're released. It's entirely possible that GW got playtester feedback, made changes and sent the books off to print while giving the updates back to the play testers as a way of seeing if there were any day 1 Q&A they'd need to do (aka the 2 week FAQ thing) and the feedback resulted in this FAQ, but they held off to see the community reaction first and see if it was as big of a problem as the playtester feedback said.

You say that like GW knowingly putting out a product which they haven't finished development of, and must at least suspect - if not know - is unbalanced is all fine and dandy because they release an FAQ for it.

It's not!

It's the game industries Throw it out broken and fix it later attitude all over again.

**aka_mythos**

People want to call the Iron Hand FAQ a nerf, and while that may be a consequence, I think these first FAQ's after the codex publish are mostly about making rules and errors align with intent. At this point we know the pattern, so if you care so much about what might happen, you gotta wait, or its on you.

**ClockworkZion**

Lord Damocles wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:
GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

Books go to print at least 6 months before they're released. It's entirely possible that GW got playtester feedback, made changes and sent the books off to print while giving the updates back to the play testers as a way of seeing if there were any day 1 Q&A they'd need to do (aka the 2 week FAQ thing) and the feedback resulted in this FAQ, but they held off to see the community reaction first and see if it was as big of a problem as the playtester feedback said.

You say that like GW knowingly putting out a product which they haven't finished development of, and must at least suspect - if not know - is unbalanced is all fine and dandy because they release an FAQ for it.

It's not!

No, I'm saying they likely fixed a worse problem and only found out after they sent it off to the printers that there were other possible problems and were waiting for confirmation from the community if it's actually true or not.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Lord Damocles wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:
GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

Books go to print at least 6 months before they're released. It's entirely possible that GW got playtester feedback, made changes and sent the books off to print while giving the updates back to the play testers as a way of seeing if there were any day 1 Q&A they'd need to do (aka the 2 week FAQ thing) and the feedback resulted in this FAQ, but they held off to see the community reaction first and see if it was as big of a problem as the playtester feedback said.

You say that like GW knowingly putting out a product which they haven't finished development of, and must at least suspect - if not know - is unbalanced is all fine and dandy because they release an FAQ for it.

It's not!

No, I'm saying they likely fixed a worse problem and only found out after they sent it off to the printers that there were other possible problems and were waiting for confirmation from the community if it's actually true or not.

I think thats giving them too much credit.

**aka_mythos**

Lord Damocles wrote:
GW wrote:DESIGNER’S COMMENTARY
While we always strive to incorporate every scrap of
feedback we can into our rules, whilst working on Codex
Supplement: Iron Hands, we received some additional
feedback after we had gone to print.

'So we were working on the rules after we'd already sent them to the printers - because that's a totally normal thing to be doing, and in no way an obvious lie - when the darndest thing happened...'

You seem to think the alternative to these fixes is a crafted and perfected book, when the alternative is everything stands as written and nothing is ever fixed. Do you think a business can thrive without deadlines?-Because that's driving this.

These books all rely on a context derived from the collective 40k rule books, and that context shifts with every new book. Short of it being digital and just finding things fixed for you and short of just accepting problems that may arise from something printed several months in advance and written a half a year before that... in this ecosystem the ideal of an issue free book is something of a moving goal post.

**NinthMusketeer**

While I am glad GW acted the whole mess still makes them look incompetent. I jumped back into 40k with 8th then slid towards the "not playing 40k right now" spot that I am in. Every time a codex/supplement release like this hits it pushes me further towards the "sell my 40k models and forget about it" point. I already deal with the balance issues of AoS, and at least on that side I don't need 5-odd books/documents from GW plus whatever the hell ITC is to play a dam game.