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.

As many of you know, the English codex: Space Marines has already leaked. Link: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2015/06/09/rumor-it-tired-reading-german-space-marine-rules/
Now, this no insane changes have been made. It seems like a copy with some buffing 7E FAQ's inside it. However, I am not here to share my opinion about it. I am here to discuss something: a strange typo.

Now, I would like to ask to check out the ranged weapon profiles. Not a specific weapon, but the ones described in the BRB, like flamers and bolters. It says that these profiles can be found at page 200 of the rulebook. Now go to page 200. The first thing you will see is the destroyer table, perils of the warp, etc. Wait hold on. Those aren't weapon profiles. That's odd, IMO. And before you start checking the melee profiles: yes, this is also the case with melee weapons. Now, let's not panic: there are more rulebooks. As mentioned, most of the new codex seems copy-pasted, which would refer to the 6th edition codex and rulebook. So I checked both of those: the codex only refers to the rulebook, no specific page number, and page 200 of the 6th edition rulebook is an image. No profiles. So no 6th edition reference. How about 8th edition? Would this mean that GW is working on 8th edition? Did one of the writers mess things up and accidentally leak a hint to the next edition rulebook? Or does this mean nothing, and was there some other kind of screw-up? To be honest, if they were to fit both melee and ranged weapon profiles, it would be a thing rulebook, but I see no other direct explanation to this typo.

/tl;dr/ GW referred to page 200 of the rulebook for the weapon profiles, but both the 6th and 7th edition have the weapon profiles on different pages. Is this a hint to 8th edition, or a strange typo?

Given that the Grav Cannon varies in points depending on where you live in the world, my money's on typo.

Could also be referring to any one of the digital copy, the hardback version, the condensed version, or the 6e versions of any of the above. Or a simple typo. What page are they actually on?

This isn't really news as such, so I'm going to move this to 40k gen.

I think it was page 200 and then content was added or removed, or the arrangement was changes and that changed the location. Is it nearby like page 205 or 197? In the papers I write, when I don't have a reference as a link (like "see section $\ref{sec:results}$" instead of see section 5") then it almost always ends up being wrong.

Currently, the ranged weapons can be found on page 176, melee on 178.

@reds8n Sorry, will post in the correct section next time

I was assuming a new edition was around the corner, given how many formations and Decurion-like detachments there are in the game. When people say that the newest codexes feel like a different game, I think that's because it IS. It'll all stay very much the same, as always, but I think a new edition isn't that far away.

EDIT: Note, the codexes after Necrons have all referred specifically to Daemonology. This has no in-game rules, since all psykers except those specifically listed have access to Daemonology. This is another thing likely to change in the new edition - the phasing out of daemonology as just a thing anyone can take, as all newer codexes specify whether or not they can take daemonology.

 Yarium wrote:
I was assuming a new edition was around the corner, given how many formations and Decurion-like detachments there are in the game. When people say that the newest codexes feel like a different game, I think that's because it IS. It'll all stay very much the same, as always, but I think a new edition isn't that far away.

EDIT: Note, the codexes after Necrons have all referred specifically to Daemonology. This has no in-game rules, since all psykers except those specifically listed have access to Daemonology. This is another thing likely to change in the new edition - the phasing out of daemonology as just a thing anyone can take, as all newer codexes specify whether or not they can take daemonology.

When was 7th, last year? That's ridiculous even for them if so.

 Yarium wrote:
I was assuming a new edition was around the corner, given how many formations and Decurion-like detachments there are in the game. When people say that the newest codexes feel like a different game, I think that's because it IS. It'll all stay very much the same, as always, but I think a new edition isn't that far away.

EDIT: Note, the codexes after Necrons have all referred specifically to Daemonology. This has no in-game rules, since all psykers except those specifically listed have access to Daemonology. This is another thing likely to change in the new edition - the phasing out of daemonology as just a thing anyone can take, as all newer codexes specify whether or not they can take daemonology.

Is this true?

7th Edition just came out LAST YEAR. ??

We can all hope 8th will soon be out.

 Hawkeye888 wrote:
We can all hope 8th will soon be out.

Why? So we can pay £50 (who am I kidding, it'll probably be £70 this time) for the exact same rules with a few minor changes? Sign me up!

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Hawkeye888 wrote:
We can all hope 8th will soon be out.

Why? So we can pay £50 (who am I kidding, it'll probably be £70 this time) for the exact same rules with a few minor changes? Sign me up!

Well with all the new formations, they will have to change the rules on how armies are built.
They need to remove PPM and single unit cost and make the entire army 'purchase by formation'. That way everyone will have to go out and buy new models to fill in the missing gaps from what they do have, and buy tons more models to build the formations they don't have yet.

 DorianGray wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I was assuming a new edition was around the corner, given how many formations and Decurion-like detachments there are in the game. When people say that the newest codexes feel like a different game, I think that's because it IS. It'll all stay very much the same, as always, but I think a new edition isn't that far away.

EDIT: Note, the codexes after Necrons have all referred specifically to Daemonology. This has no in-game rules, since all psykers except those specifically listed have access to Daemonology. This is another thing likely to change in the new edition - the phasing out of daemonology as just a thing anyone can take, as all newer codexes specify whether or not they can take daemonology.

Is this true?

7th Edition just came out LAST YEAR. ??

Note, by "around the corner" I mean probably by the end of this year, or maybe at the start of next. The writing seems to be on the wall that they're designing with a plan in mind.

I'm sure it's just a typo... the sort of thing that SHOULD be found by a proof reader.

Referring to specific page numbers is stupid anyway now that we have multiple sources for the rulebook. Page number is meaningless to someone using the epub version.

IMO they should just make sure all the necessary rules for the army are present in the codex so players don't have to go jumping around different books to figure out what's what.

 Yarium wrote:

 DorianGray wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
I was assuming a new edition was around the corner, given how many formations and Decurion-like detachments there are in the game. When people say that the newest codexes feel like a different game, I think that's because it IS. It'll all stay very much the same, as always, but I think a new edition isn't that far away.

EDIT: Note, the codexes after Necrons have all referred specifically to Daemonology. This has no in-game rules, since all psykers except those specifically listed have access to Daemonology. This is another thing likely to change in the new edition - the phasing out of daemonology as just a thing anyone can take, as all newer codexes specify whether or not they can take daemonology.

Is this true?

7th Edition just came out LAST YEAR. ??

Note, by "around the corner" I mean probably by the end of this year, or maybe at the start of next. The writing seems to be on the wall that they're designing with a plan in mind.

GW can occasionally seem like it has a plan in mind My money's on them changing their "tune" before the rest of the codices are updated to 7th

They wont release 8th before they have finished updating the last of the Codicies imo.
I'd wager next January for the codicies updates and Spring/Summer next year for 8th, making it about 2 years old and fitting in with current development cycles (i.e 2 years)

Do they mean page 200 of the codex... the last few pages of a codex usually have the weapon stats... i cant remember off hand how many pages are in a codex.. maybe 200 is to many.. cant remember

 Snoopdeville3 wrote:
Do they mean page 200 of the codex... the last few pages of a codex usually have the weapon stats... i cant remember off hand how many pages are in a codex.. maybe 200 is to many.. cant remember

That's MUCH more probable. It has been a lot of years since a codex referenced a specific page number in the BRB.

 Jambles wrote:
GW can occasionally seem like it has a plan in mind My money's on them changing their "tune" before the rest of the codices are updated to 7th

Quoted for truth!

I bet it is a canary trap. If they made that "typo" in one specific book, they now know exactly who is leaking stuff. Big companies and government organizations do this stuff all the time. It is the fastest way to find a leak, and the hardest for the leaker to get by with. With the constant flow of leaks coming out lately, I would not at all be surprised if they are making efforts to find and admonish whomever is doing it.

Hey, I hope 8th is right around the corner... but I certainly won't be buying it! I refuse to give GW any of my money for the utter crap they've been passing off on us with horrid balance, low quality, typos, etc and pricing it like gold!

 Ratius wrote:
They wont release 8th before they have finished updating the last of the Codicies imo.
I'd wager next January for the codicies updates and Spring/Summer next year for 8th, making it about 2 years old and fitting in with current development cycles (i.e 2 years)

SoB? They will never get a hard copy. If GW is pushing out 8th already, which it might not be, its a pretty conclusive death knell.

Why would anyone in their right mind buy 8th next year or even the year after that?

8th by december?

God I hope not.

God I wish 8th would come out. It'd be another spin on the "do the rules work well with my army" wheel, which I could definitely use.

Could get worse too. They might decide that fmc's aren't tough enough, or require a superheavy as your warlord in any game over 500 points. :/

I seriously doubt it will be out before summer of next year (2 year cycle I could see, not 1 year).

That being said, I have mixed feelings. There are a lot of things I don't like about 7th. If those were addressed, I'd be happy to see another edition already. Then again, they probably wouldn't be addressed. Lol.

 Ratius wrote:
They wont release 8th before they have finished updating the last of the Codicies imo.
I'd wager next January for the codicies updates and Spring/Summer next year for 8th, making it about 2 years old and fitting in with current development cycles (i.e 2 years)

I'd take that bet IIRC, I don't think 40k has EVER had an edition of the core rules where all the codices were current, except maybe pre-3rd ed. More likely we'll see 8th edition drop before they tackle the less-popular Xenos races again...

Mark down this date so

Even if they are on a 2 year schedule you guys would still buy a new brb?

That blows my mind. Sure I have 7th, but that was the first rulebook I got!

I can't believe that people would be so careless with their money.

hang on, let me go and ask Beerfoot

darkcloak wrote:
Even if they are on a 2 year schedule you guys would still buy a new brb?

That blows my mind. Sure I have 7th, but that was the first rulebook I got!

I can't believe that people would be so careless with their money.

Haha, I've been playing this game for 12 years and never have spent money on a BRB. And after 6th ed Tau and Eldar Codice(which I bought with Farsight Enclaves) I refuse to spend money on any rules put out by GW. And because they don't even attempt to fix the game, just break it further I am no longer even spending money on models from GW, instead I'm selling them.

GW needs to realize by putting out so many rules and charging a premium for them they are as much a game/rules company as they are a model company and they are selling a horrible product.