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.

Source that errata inherits the effective publishing date of the material it alters?

Maethbalnane wrote:
Source that errata inherits the effective publishing date of the material it alters?

Let me reconstruct the question. Source that indicates that Errata (i.e. corrections) to a value of ‘a thing’ listed in Book 1, but produced after book 2 has been produced itself supersedes the values given for the same thing in Book 2, when Book 2 clearly states it supersedes earlier published values (i.e. those provided values in Book 1) for that thing?

The Saga of the Best FAQ document was not published before the MFM and therefore the point values contained in it are clearly not replaced by it.

 Jidmah wrote:
The Saga of the Best FAQ document was not published before the MFM and therefore the point values contained in it are clearly not replaced by it.

The FAQ for the Munitorium Field Manual was published after the FAQ for The Saga of the Beast FAQ, however, and makes no correction to the cost in that FAQ. That would be the most recent publication, and would indicate that the cost in the MFM stands.

No, because there are no point listed for the KFF in there. The instructions in that document are quite clear that they add or replace specific values. None of them reads "ignore changes from the SotB FAQ".

 Jidmah wrote:
The Saga of the Best FAQ document was not published before the MFM and therefore the point values contained in it are clearly not replaced by it.

The correction (i.e. errata) overwrites any values within SotB (e.g. you could take a writing implement of choice, cross out 55 and write 75).

The MFM supercedes SotB as a source (e.g. you ignore anything and everything that has gone before and simply look at the MFM), and as such will act as the definative source for points until such time as it too is superceded (e.g. when a new Codex is released the MFM is superceded as the source for that factions points by the codex released). If corrections for previous publications are issued after the publications of MFM then all this does is correct the value in the source publication (i.e. correct the value within SotB, which is totally ignored for pts purposes as you use MFM). The overall precendence of documentation is effective unless additional statements to that affect are provided within the SotB errata.

Being GW it is entirely possible they do intend for 75pts to be correct, however how they've implemented this doesn't make this the case.

As doctortom points out, the corrections for MFM have been released do not include a changed value to the Big Mek, so implicity showing that the value as stated within the MFM is (thought/held to be) correct.

 Jidmah wrote:
No, because there are no point listed for the KFF in there. The instructions in that document are quite clear that they add or replace specific values. None of them reads "ignore changes from the SotB FAQ".

It doesn't have to. The MFM reports the costs for 9th edition, as stated, and the FAQ did not make any changes to the cost in the MFM. The FAQ for the MFM is the most recent publication. If we were meant to go by the SotB cost, they would have been included in the MFM FAQ.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Contrary to your argument, we already know from 8th edition that a CA publication's FAQ doesn't automatically invalidate all the FAQs of books released until that books release.

As long as you need to take extra steps besides simply sorting all FAQs and books by date and applying them in chronological order, you would have to have something by GW to back up that claim.

GW not properly updating the MFM FAQ with the new value is a clear failure.

Arguments pro SotB:
1) 75 points is the most recently released points value for the Big Mek with KFF
2) 75 points make more sense than the 60 found in the MFM
3) KFF mek going from 55 to 75 in 8th and then going back down to 60 in 9th would not match their other changes.
4) There would be no point in releasing a point value inside a FAQ after MFM if they didn't mean to change it

Argument pro MFM:
1) GW did not explicitly confirm the value in both FAQs.
2) You are supposed to read FAQs in an order that is not documented or supported by any official sources

Half this thread is people inventing new steps and bending rules just because it's about an ork model. It's hilariously common thing here on YMDC, seems like lots of people absolutely hate/are buthurt by orks.
It reminds me of the relic discussion about da boomer, there was four pages of vitriol about how da boomer couldn't possibly be considered the same as a killkannon, while the exact same question for another faction was answered by pointing to the guard FAQ and accepted to work the same within 5 posts.

 Jidmah wrote:
Contrary to your argument, we already know from 8th edition that a CA publication's FAQ doesn't automatically invalidate all the FAQs of books released until that books release.

We do? ...there's a story to be told here, what happened?

Nothing really, GW just didn't delete all old FAQs because they released a new FAQ, while they tend to edit older documents and remove things that no longer apply.

For example the CA2019 FAQ didn't make any parts of the BRB FAQ obsolete, just because they weren't mentioned a second time.

 Jidmah wrote:
Nothing really, GW just didn't delete all old FAQs because they released a new FAQ, while they tend to edit older documents and remove things that no longer apply.

For example the CA2019 FAQ didn't make any parts of the BRB FAQ obsolete, just because they weren't mentioned a second time.

It's a different case for FAQs of the book that's supposed to be representing the point costs for models in 9th edition. They have a point cost listed, and any FAQ they have would represent any changes to that. There's a reason for having the point costs consolidated with one book.

There is no proof of it "being a different thing". You are just making that up.

Either a FAQ of a newer publication invalidates all FAQs of books released prior to that publication or it doesn't. If you need to cherry-pick based on yet another rule that isn't written anywhere, that is just a clear sign of you being wrong.

Since you(and others) have failed to provide any proof of the printed MFM superseding a FAQ published *after* its release, despite me specifically asking multiple times for it, you clearly don't have any.

Therefore you are not only in violation of the tenets of YMDC, but have also conceded that this interpretation of how FAQs work is clearly wrong.

 Jidmah wrote:


Since you(and others) have failed to provide any proof of the printed MFM superseding a FAQ published *after* its release, despite me specifically asking multiple times for it, you clearly don't have any.

Would the 'proof' be the case that Book 1 (say SotB) is published. Book 2 (say MFM) is later published that explicitly states that it's contents supersede any previously published (for a variety of reasons).

Thus if we ignore the errata (for a minute). The situation is really plain and simple. If Book 2 contains the information you are after the values contained within it should be used.

Now let us consider the case that corrections for both Book 1 and Book 2 are issued. Those corrections including amending something in Book 1, but doesn't change that something in Book 2. What value do you? Easy, the corrections by themselves don't change anything other than the values as should be contained within the two books (you could implement the errata by crossing out the old, and writting the corrections in). The precedence of the two books remains unchanged, thus those in Book 2 continue to be used.

With respect to the latest document argument: the MFM errata was last updated on 24/08 and the SotB errata 12/08.
Thus, by this reasoning the newest document is the MFM errata which doesn’t contain any changes to the Big Mek with KFF, thus implicitly shows that the value contained within the MFM is correct.

Is it confusing? Yes

Is there a RAI case for 75 pts? Yes. However, there is a RAI counter argument.

I’ll happily admit the RAI case has some interesting points such as 'why include this in the SotB errata if they didn’t intend for this to be the current value to used?', that the Big Mek with KFF got relatively small increase from 8E to 9E seems, and that 60pts/P 5 seem out of place (but neither does 80pts match PL 5 ~20 pts/PL).

Equally GW aren’t renowned for their editing finesse, so just as there is the case that it’s included to be used, there is the (counter)argument that GW intended to put out the SotB errata before 9E, but certain global events got in the way of that… and though nolonger required (superseded by MFM) it wasn’t ever edited out.

It would appear that 75 pts can only be achieved based on RAI arguements, whilst 60 pts has a clear mechanical and logical basis.

So going back to

 Jidmah wrote:


Since you(and others) have failed to provide any proof of the printed MFM superseding a FAQ published *after* its release, despite me specifically asking multiple times for it, you clearly don't have any.

Please provide the proof that the corrections to SotB superceades both the MFM, and the (lack of) corrections to MFM when the most up to date corrections to MFM have been published *after* those for SotB (there by implicitly proving the the values within MFM are correct)?

Cornishman wrote:
Please provide the proof that the corrections to SotB superceades both the MFM, and the (lack of) corrections to MFM when the most up to date corrections to MFM have been published *after* those for SotB (there by implicitly proving the the values within MFM are correct)?

Easy:

Munitorium Field Manual, page 3 wrote:The points values listed in this book replace any published previously

The points value in the SotB FAQ was not published previously, therefore you have no permission to replace it.

Cornishman wrote:


With respect to the latest document argument: the MFM errata was last updated on 24/08 and the SotB errata 12/08.
Thus, by this reasoning the newest document is the MFM errata which doesn’t contain any changes to the Big Mek with KFF, thus implicitly shows that the value contained within the MFM is correct.

Why do you say so? Big mek with KFF isn't a MFM unit, it's a SotB unit. MFM is only about temporary points values for 9th edition.

KFF got fixed by the FAQ, both in points and rules, so there's no need to re-print the same correction in another document. Ork player still needs the FAQ document as MFM doesn't have updated rules. RAW there shouldn't be any confusion, really.

Cornishman wrote:
Now let us consider the case that corrections for both Book 1 and Book 2 are issued. Those corrections including amending something in Book 1, but doesn't change that something in Book 2. What value do you? Easy, the corrections by themselves don't change anything other than the values as should be contained within the two books (you could implement the errata by crossing out the old, and writting the corrections in). The precedence of the two books remains unchanged, thus those in Book 2 continue to be used.

This is not a rule and has never been communicated by GW in any way. Therefore it is not relevant to the discussion.

With respect to the latest document argument: the MFM errata was last updated on 24/08 and the SotB errata 12/08.
Thus, by this reasoning the newest document is the MFM errata which doesn’t contain any changes to the Big Mek with KFF, thus implicitly shows that the value contained within the MFM is correct.

By that logic all and ever single word written in any codex errata is invalid, because it has not been repeated in the FAQ of the book most recently released.
Furthermore, the entire MFM FAQ will be invalidated for all armies as soon as the inevitable FAQs Codex:Marines and Codex:Necrons are released unless both repeat the point values of each and every model that has ever received points.
As this clearly is not the case, this is wrong.

Is it confusing? Yes

I'd like to point out that this kind of rhetoric is used by populists right before they tell lies. It's the same here, either you can explain it clearly in a non-confusing way, or you whatever you are claiming is not true and you are trying to obfuscate that fact.

The non-confusing explanation is this:
Use the most recently published points cost.

That would be the one in the SotB FAQ.

Blackie wrote:

Cornishman wrote:


With respect to the latest document argument: the MFM errata was last updated on 24/08 and the SotB errata 12/08.
Thus, by this reasoning the newest document is the MFM errata which doesn’t contain any changes to the Big Mek with KFF, thus implicitly shows that the value contained within the MFM is correct.

Why do you say so? Big mek with KFF isn't a MFM unit, it's a SotB unit. MFM is only about temporary points values for 9th edition.

KFF got fixed by the FAQ, both in points and rules, so there's no need to re-print the same correction in another document. Ork player still needs the FAQ document as MFM doesn't have updated rules. RAW there shouldn't be any confusion, really.

This isn't about needing to reprint or duplicate, it's about location. If the rules where corrected in the SotB documents and the pts adjusted in the MFM then there'd be no ambiguity. Given these days points are at least annually reviewd any and all points are 'temporary'.

Jidmah wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
Now let us consider the case that corrections for both Book 1 and Book 2 are issued. Those corrections including amending something in Book 1, but doesn't change that something in Book 2. What value do you? Easy, the corrections by themselves don't change anything other than the values as should be contained within the two books (you could implement the errata by crossing out the old, and writting the corrections in). The precedence of the two books remains unchanged, thus those in Book 2 continue to be used.

This is not a rule and has never been communicated by GW in any way. Therefore it is not relevant to the discussion.

With respect to the latest document argument: the MFM errata was last updated on 24/08 and the SotB errata 12/08.
Thus, by this reasoning the newest document is the MFM errata which doesn’t contain any changes to the Big Mek with KFF, thus implicitly shows that the value contained within the MFM is correct.

By that logic all and ever single word written in any codex errata is invalid, because it has not been repeated in the FAQ of the book most recently released.
Furthermore, the entire MFM FAQ will be invalidated for all armies as soon as the inevitable FAQs Codex:Marines and Codex:Necrons are released unless both repeat the point values of each and every model that has ever received points.
As this clearly is not the case, this is wrong.

Not at all, when C:SM and C:Necrons drop, they'll supercede MFM as the listings for those factions costs, and the previous codexes for the rules for those units. It's not about the book or FAQ to a book that most recently releaed, its about which book is currently the source for that information (which pretty much to book,{or correction to that book} that has been most recently released with contains that information). The datasheet for Big Mek with KFF is most recently described in SotB, however the points are most recently published in MFM. Only when a codex (or other book containing new/revised units) is released and before the points for those units are consolidated in MFM is a single book both the definative source of a units abilities and cost.

Errata are simply corrections issued after the fact, they modify something in a previously produced thing.In order to make use of that corrected something you still need to judge the context of that something based on the original material.

For example if after a Codex drops (before it's re-syned with the MFM) which point value do you use if the Codex lists 1 value, and a current correction to the MFM lists another (n.b. this means the MFM is precodex)? Easy - The value in the codex is the current source for the ponts for that factions units. This situation is no different then if once the points values for a Codex is re-syned with the MFM in the evenr that a Codex errata and the MFM (or errata) contain different values the MFM value is used.


SotB has a an updated data sheet and pts listing. This is published. This becomes the datasheet and pts to use.
NFM is published this provides a pts listing instructions to replaces previously published values as the pts to use (as it tells us to replace previously published values). The Datasheet from SotB remains the one to use.
Corrections to SotB are issued, so you treat the value within SotB as this value, however the value is still replace by NFM as all the corrections do is tell us what something should be to start with. Corrections to the datasheet remain valid as SotB remains the source for that datasheet.

Jidmah wrote:

Is it confusing? Yes

I'd like to point out that this kind of rhetoric is used by populists right before they tell lies. It's the same here, either you can explain it clearly in a non-confusing way, or you whatever you are claiming is not true and you are trying to obfuscate that fact.

The non-confusing explanation is this:
Use the most recently published points cost.

That would be the one in the SotB FAQ.

Erm....

I don't see the relevence of comparing an in the factual comment of it being confusing (it obviously is, otherwise we wouldn't still be typing) with comparision to lies and propogander.

Similarly larger text doesn't add any weight to what you say.

If you are having to resort to personal attack, and the the text equivilent of shouting this suggests that you don't have much of a case.

Cornishman wrote:
The datasheet for Big Mek with KFF is most recently described in SotB, however the points are most recently published in MFM.

Wrong. The points are most recently published in the SotB FAQ. This is where you entire argument falls apart.

Unless you can prove that MFM overrides point costs released after it itself has been released, or you provide proof for a FAQ taking on the release date of the original book, you do not have an argument.

And don't worry, it's not confusing.

 Jidmah wrote:

Cornishman wrote:
The datasheet for Big Mek with KFF is most recently described in SotB, however the points are most recently published in MFM.

Wrong. The points are most recently published in the SotB FAQ. This is where you entire argument falls apart.

Unless you can prove that MFM overrides point costs released after it itself has been released, or you provide proof for a FAQ taking on the release date of the original book, you do not have an argument.

And don't worry, it's not confusing.

You have yet to provide the evidence that the corrections for SotB overide the MFM.

Yes, the most recently released document that explicitly contains a points cost for the Big Mek with FKK is the SotB errata. However the corrections for SotB must be viewed within the context of the document they are correcting, which in this case is SotB. Does SotB tell us to use those point instead of 2020 MFM? No? Does MFM tell us to use their values instead of SotB (or any previously published value)? Yes

Whilst I can see your arguement, you are taking the SotB Errata, and viewing it as a standlone, discrete document (which as the most recent you take presedence) thus you are taking it out of context. You are treating the SotB errata as if it says this replaces any early published values when neither SotB nor it's errata contains such a comment in relation to those values published in 2020 MFM.

Going back to some examples how would you answer the following?

A new Codex drops, and before it's re-syned with the MFM which point value do you use if the Codex (or it's errata) lists a value, and a current correction to the MFM (which is the most recently released document) list another? Does it matter if the points change is new or existing (thus pre-dating the codex, but is still present)?

The points values for a Codex have been re-syned with the MFM. In the event that a Codex errata (which is the most recently released) and the MFM (or errata) contain different values which value do you use. Does it matter if the points change is new or existing (thus pre-dating the codex, but is still present)?

More of this. And still zero proof.

Cornishman wrote:
You have yet to provide the evidence that the corrections for SotB overide the MFM.

Unlike you, I have provided proof. The only official instructions on how to handle a conflict between the MFM and other publications is by date, as detailed inside the MFM.

Yes, the most recently released document that explicitly contains a points cost for the Big Mek with FKK is the SotB errata. However the corrections for SotB must be viewed within the context of the document they are correcting, which in this case is SotB.

Provide proof for this.

Exact wording from MFM: "The points values listed in this book replace any published previously"
The points value in the FAQ was not published previously. End of story.

Whilst I can see your arguement, you are taking the SotB Errata, and viewing it as a standlone, discrete document (which as the most recent you take presedence)

Irrelevant. Even if I were to view it as pink unicorn with a points value for KFF big meks tattoed on its side, it would not be published previously and therefore unaffected by MFM's content.

You are treating the SotB errata as if it says this replaces any early published values when neither SotB nor it's errata contains such a comment in relation to those values published in 2020 MFM.

I'm treating SotB as a document published on the 12th of August 2020, which is 18 days after the release date of the MFM.
Source release date SotB FAQ: https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/#warhammer-40000
Source release date MFM: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/07/01/indomitus-pre-order-date-revealed/

Going back to some examples how would you answer the following?

A new Codex drops, and before it's re-syned with the MFM which point value do you use if the Codex (or it's errata) lists a value, and a current correction to the MFM (which is the most recently released document) list another?

The most recent one.

Does it matter if the points change is new or existing (thus pre-dating the codex, but is still present)?

No. You use the most recent one.

The points values for a Codex have been re-syned with the MFM. In the event that a Codex errata (which is the most recently released) and the MFM (or errata) contain different values which value do you use.

The most recent one.

Does it matter if the points change is new or existing (thus pre-dating the codex, but is still present)?

No, you use the most recent one.

See? Not complicated.

I have to agree with Cornishman. Creation of errata to a published work does not change the publication date of that work. MFM was published after SotB, therefore its points values take precedence over those in SotB or any errata of SotB. Otherwise, the points value for Ragnar Blackmane in SotB would take precedence over those in MFM because SotB is the most recently published document.

 alextroy wrote:
I have to agree with Cornishman. Creation of errata to a published work does not change the publication date of that work. MFM was published after SotB, therefore its points values take precedence over those in SotB or any errata of SotB. Otherwise, the points value for Ragnar Blackmane in SotB would take precedence over those in MFM because SotB is the most recently published document.

If that's the case, it costs 60 points.

Because it doesn't have KFF as wargear, it just has a KFF as an ability.

Guys, this has been resolved. THE OFFICIAL APP LISTS IT AS 75. It's a mess, it's a matter of 15-20 points.

tulun wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I have to agree with Cornishman. Creation of errata to a published work does not change the publication date of that work. MFM was published after SotB, therefore its points values take precedence over those in SotB or any errata of SotB. Otherwise, the points value for Ragnar Blackmane in SotB would take precedence over those in MFM because SotB is the most recently published document.

If that's the case, it costs 60 points.

Because it doesn't have KFF as wargear, it just has a KFF as an ability.

Guys, this has been resolved. THE OFFICIAL APP LISTS IT AS 75. It's a mess, it's a matter of 15-20 points.

That's like, a whole 3 to 4 grots!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tulun wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I have to agree with Cornishman. Creation of errata to a published work does not change the publication date of that work. MFM was published after SotB, therefore its points values take precedence over those in SotB or any errata of SotB. Otherwise, the points value for Ragnar Blackmane in SotB would take precedence over those in MFM because SotB is the most recently published document.

If that's the case, it costs 60 points.

Because it doesn't have KFF as wargear, it just has a KFF as an ability.

Guys, this has been resolved. THE OFFICIAL APP LISTS IT AS 75. It's a mess, it's a matter of 15-20 points.

That's like, a whole 3 to 4 grots!

Watch it, I might shoot you with str 3 pistols

Definitely worth those 5 points.