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.

http://files.privateerpress.com/op/errata/errata.pdf

Highlights include Side Step changing to Melee attacks only, Shield Guard RAW getting fixed to work the way everyone's always played it before, Backswing being made into two separate attacks, and several effects that specify base size including Burst Fire getting fixed to work with Huge bases.

And locking weapons can only be done to models on an equal or smaller sized base.

Castiel wrote:And locking weapons can only be done to models on an equal or smaller sized base.

Probably a direct result of Colossals. I know lots of folks on the Menoth boards were advocating throwing a vigilant under the boss to lock a colossal and shutting down it's ranged options and sucking at least two attacks for 4pts.

It's worse than that. There were a few combos where you could completely shut a Colossal down for a turn. They did over nerf it a bit though. Simply saying only a Huge base could lock another Huge base would have solved it.

Valander's checking the wording on the Backswing errata, too. Someone
asked if the second attack is a "may" or "must".

Not a fan at all of the changes to weapon Lock.

The one that most interests me is the change to siege's feat. Transfers no longer mean that the beast will not have it's base ARM halved next time it's damaged by an enemy. Nor will the bastion bond work.

The Weapon lock fix was needed. The ability to leap with a light warbeast and shut down a Collossal was stupid. A 4 point model beaing able to take an 18 to 20 point model out of the game was silly.

The fix to Seige was also a good one. I would rather play the game instead of playing the rules against my opponent.

yastobaal wrote:The one that most interests me is the change to siege's feat. Transfers no longer mean that the beast will not have it's base ARM halved next time it's damaged by an enemy.

The beast will, as it doesn't suffer a damage roll. The Warlock that transferred to it, however, won't take a second armor piercing attack.

That's what he was saying. The old ruling was that a transfer killed the feat for both the 'lock and the damaged beast.

The side step change was to prevent Vlad3 from breaking the game.

Yea, kinda a double negative thing going on there. Made sense in my head.

I will predict that they will come back and re-errata Locks to just keep non-Huge bases from locking Huge bases.

Am I correct in saying that it seems as though the rules for concealment seem to rule a bit more in favor of the defender?

grayshadow87 wrote:Am I correct in saying that it seems as though the rules for concealment seem to rule a bit more in favor of the defender?

How so?

I don't understand though why they made the change to backswing. It's been like that for years now.

Wording it as Simultaneous led Many people to think you had to declare the target of both attacks at once. This change clearly makes it known that is Not required. It also buffs it because now you get to know if your first target made it's Tough Check before you make the second attack, or you can kill a model to get LOS to the guy behind him for the second attack. They just need to clarify that you are not Required to make the second attack, as that is how it currently reads.

AduroT wrote:

grayshadow87 wrote:Am I correct in saying that it seems as though the rules for concealment seem to rule a bit more in favor of the defender?

How so?

It doesn't really, now that I've reread it. It was early in the morning when I was reading the errata, but from a non-sleepy perspective it makes a bit more sense now.