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.

Arioc is exactly right. I have the second and the third printing of the Chaos Codex and neither of them have a printing date on them. Thus, I do not trust the veracity of someones claim that a codex was printed April 2006. Unless of course this is some new 4th printing that now lists it's print date, doubtful but possible.

Darrian

To save us some time...

Here's a photo of the bottom half of the title page of my 3rd Printing of C:CSM. If your 'dex does not say "4th Printing" where I've circled in red, you do not have an updated 'dex unless GW has very recently changed their versioning standards.

C:CSM title page

I have all three of the first printings. A good friend of mine told me he saw a new copy with the date April 2006. He said the wording 'Reprinted on April 2006' appears where you circled third printing. The FAQs will be out soon so it won't matter either way much longer.

Oh, I definitely expect the FAQ's to be out soon. It's only been since 11/04 that the old ones were up.

Darrian

Posted By Green Bloater on 07/31/2006 8:04 AM
I have all three of the first printings. A good friend of mine told me he saw a new copy with the date April 2006. He said the wording 'Reprinted on April 2006' appears where you circled third printing. The FAQs will be out soon so it won't matter either way much longer.

So you haven't actually seen this new codex yourself and you don't have it available to cite for the rules discussion going on in this thread?

I'm not saying it's impossible that it exists or that it's impossible GW has changed their versioning standards, but...

1. I think it's very unlikely that this information hasn't cropped up anywhere else in a more concrete form (i.e. from someone who actually owns the "new" book) if a reprint with new wording was done 3+ months ago.

2. I'm not sure it's a good idea to interject an "official" opinion into a rules debate if the source of the rules can't be substantiated and/or cited for reference.

Why would my best friend lie to me about the codex? He was looking right at the codex when I asked him.

GB is being very honest that he's a troll ("I am troll... feed me!"). Arioc, I think you're deep in a trollpit. We get your point (I especially like your point about the FAQs being updated "soon").

If he's a troll (I was attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm inclined at this point to believe that you're right), he's the worst troll I've ever seen. Post #4 is much too early to reveal that your "official" source is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay. The "friend saw it" card shouldn't be played until an argument has started and gone on for at least two pages.

I am not trolling here. I am certain the FAQ will bear testament to this as well. If you would care to place a wager step up.

Hmmm...

Green Bloater...

Green Blow Fly...

Yet another incarnaiton of BloodyT?

Two trolls enter, one troll leaves?

Coincidence?


Perhaps...

@ blue loki

I am following the first rule here from now. So pls do not waste any energy trying to provoke me. All such efforts will be futile.

Fair enough.

But, and this is just a suggestion you are most definitely not required to follow, perhaps you should not claim that you are a Troll from Troll country begging for Troll food if you don't want people to think you are a Troll?

I don't know where I got that impression....

Posted By Green Bloater on 07/31/2006 2:57 PM
...If you would care to place a wager step up...

The avatar should have been a dead give-away, but now I'm convinced.

Ok i got the book and i cant find anywhere it says that,

but i do see this

In close combat a model with a doom siren will always strike in Initiative sequence even if attacking enemy in cover

were does it say the fist gets to go first?

HOLY THREAD-O-MANCY BATMAN!

@ aussie- go ahead and read through the rest of this post... you'll see what references there are to what editions and what not. This is a dead topic for a reason.

ARGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I fully conceed. I was making fun of GW and asking the redshirt (jokingly) if I could trade copies with him.

Lock down pls!

. . .so strikes with a power fist are always delivered at Initiative 1 (ignore any bonuses for special rules, cover, grenades or wargear, etc.)"

Yakface, I think this ruling under powerfist is what controls the situation. Simply put, it is more restrictive, it specifically states ignore special rules, cover, grenades, or wargear.

Doomsiren falls right under this clause. Even though Doomsiren does have more brevity, the most restrictive language has to be what takes precedence.

Just to get my head straight, doomsiren is wargear?

Doomsiren is wargear. Now, it is all clarified in the new codex. As I was playing at the local GW store I checked it. I was slightly incensed that it was the true that I had an "out of date" codex. I then, gently, berated the redshirt about how they need an upgrade policy for older still in use codexes.

Posted By the_trooper on 10/02/2006 6:58 AM

I then, gently, berated the redshirt about how they need an upgrade policy for older still in use codexes.

And then he no doubt agreed with you, at which point the two of you realized that your desires were to remain unfulfilled forever because of Mr. Kirby's bizarre business practices.

Oh he sat there and nodded kinda in an uncomfortable way. He then said "I play Chaos... I know."

Let this topic die. GW has let everyone know that loop holing is not going to be tolerated.

Again, I believe the following if you have to start with "I know this is a loophole BUT...." thats the end of the argument right there, you're wrong and it shouldn't be played that way. done and done.

i called the gw people and asked them about it and two absolutes you go by the latest rules so power fist always strike last

You called the GW people? Which GW people did you call?

Darrian

In the latest printing of the Chaos Codex it says that with the doom siren equipped the model always strikes at initiative. I have to remember to purchase a new codex and return mine in its stead.

I think that was a joke. It was, right Urlock?