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://privateerpress.com/files/WM%20MKII%20Rules%20Errata%20Jan%202013.pdf

Updated George Spigott's sticky in YMDC, too.

Looks like mostly trample clarification. This is really the sort of thing where they could diversify their terminology. Trying to explain to my local trollblood player about why this (doesn't) interact with snaking the way it does is more headaches and potential bad blood than it would be worth.

Tramples should still snack. Where are you seeing that?

 malfred wrote:
Tramples should still snack. Where are you seeing that?

Snacking triggers on Melee Attacks. Trample no longer makes melee attacks, only melee attack rolls. It won't trigger on anything that triggers on on "Melee Attacks". This is because a "Melee Attack" is a very specific game terminology while a "Melee Attack Roll" is just one step typically used in resolving one. Before, trample made multiple melee attacks.

EDIT: Nvm. Looks like Power Attacks have a qualifier that makes them melee attacks regardless. This should carry over through the trample's rolls. Still, this seems like an odd change to make. Wonder what inspired it.

The biggest change here was that pThagrosh received no change at all. He may feat a gargantuan back to life.

 Chongara wrote:

 malfred wrote:
Tramples should still snack. Where are you seeing that?

Snacking triggers on Melee Attacks. Trample no longer makes melee attacks, only melee attack rolls. It won't trigger on anything that triggers on on "Melee Attacks". This is because a "Melee Attack" is a very specific game terminology while a "Melee Attack Roll" is just one step typically used in resolving one. Before, trample made multiple melee attacks.

EDIT: Nvm. Looks like Power Attacks have a qualifier that makes them melee attacks regardless. This should carry over through the trample's rolls. Still, this seems like an odd change to make. Wonder what inspired it.

Instead of a Mauler trampling over 10 models, boxing 10 models, and then snacking 10 times, the Maulter gets to trample over 10 models, box 10 models and then snack once. At least that is how i'm reading it.

Edit: after reviewing more information, i am incorrect

 Chongara wrote:

 malfred wrote:
Tramples should still snack. Where are you seeing that?

Snacking triggers on Melee Attacks. Trample no longer makes melee attacks, only melee attack rolls. It won't trigger on anything that triggers on on "Melee Attacks". This is because a "Melee Attack" is a very specific game terminology while a "Melee Attack Roll" is just one step typically used in resolving one. Before, trample made multiple melee attacks.

EDIT: Nvm. Looks like Power Attacks have a qualifier that makes them melee attacks regardless. This should carry over through the trample's rolls. Still, this seems like an odd change to make. Wonder what inspired it.

They're errataing their errata basically. Originally it said what it says in the new errata (attack ROLL and all), except it said 'contacts' instead of 'moves through' for which enemy models you affected. So to stop the 0" trample shenanigans and so on, they changed that sentance, but unfortunately forgot the original 'attack roll' part, and just put in Attack. This was an obvious oversight, so it was changed back to be in line with the rest of the Trample rule.

To be clear: There is no practical difference now between how the rule was first written in the book and how it is now, except that you have to move through models to hit them with a trample, rather than just 'contact' them.

Also, Snacking will still work on multiple models - trample 5, snack 5 times - as it has from the start.

In fact, all the errata this time are excessively minor, and won't make a huge difference to anyone, even those with rules directly errata'd, as they're rare or corner case things for the most part.

 Dais wrote:
The biggest change here was that pThagrosh received no change at all. He may feat a gargantuan back to life.

I thought he couldn't because his Feat "places" a dead warbeast back within a certain distance from him. And you can't place colossals/gargantuans.

edit: just read the Infernal on this issue. Wierd.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dais wrote:
The biggest change here was that pThagrosh received no change at all. He may feat a gargantuan back to life.

I thought he couldn't because his Feat "places" a dead warbeast back within a certain distance from him. And you can't place colossals/gargantuans.

edit: just read the Infernal on this issue. Wierd.

Difference between placing a model in play and placing a model INTO play.

don't understand the need of re-wording Reznik's Witch Hound ability.
In both instances it seems clear to me that both the hit model and the retailating one must be in Reznik's battlegroup and control area...

Gabbi wrote:
don't understand the need of re-wording Reznik's Witch Hound ability.
In both instances it seems clear to me that both the hit model and the retailating one must be in Reznik's battlegroup and control area...

The new wording stops witch hound from activating multiple times from a single magic attack (eg blast/sprays) by specifying if *one or more* models are hit.

Wow, pretty significant change, indeed. I still have to learn to anticipate every consequence while reading a rule.

[edit]
Thanks!

Gabbi wrote:
Wow, pretty significant change, indeed. I still have to learn to anticipate every consequence while reading a rule.

[edit]
Thanks!

Potentially significant, though in practice people almost never cast blast/spray spells at a witchhound battle group anyway, as even one free move/attack is usually enough to discourage it. It'll make a difference in a few corner cases though.