Switch Theme:

Most Playtested Edition Ever, Now replace this entire datasheet  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Norn Queen






So the latest CSM errata came out and they have literally wholesale replaced the Horrors datasheet.

So much for most playtested edition amirite?

26 FAQ/Errata documents, 62 Pages of Errata/FAQ (that's 7.75 pages of errata per page of the core rules) and the fact they had to RELEASE AN ERRATA for their yearly errata document conclusively proves that GW simply are not hiring enough or competent enough people.

Does no-one else feel we deserve to have rules written by a decent team, or at least make it so our digital editions are always up to date? I genuinely feel sorry for anyone who fell for the scam of the printed codexes, considering half the rules in them are now incorrect.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/22 16:23:41


 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

"most playtested edition ever" translates to "we played it twice!" so yep its true, its still the most playtested Ed ever
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






1$ is infinite times more money than 0$.

It's a meme, but I believe them.

"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"

"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"

"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"

"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"  
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran




McCragge

I’m glad they quickly edit the rules now to address any problems. Expecting them to be perfect is silly IMO.

Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!

Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."

"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."

DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough. 
   
Made in us
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?


There is a difference between writing perfectly and not stopping to ask basic questions with rules

Example, the deep striking daemon strat. How is it that when they wrote that, in such a way that says any daemon may use it, did not one stop to say, "wait, mortarian is a daemon, we better clarify that." Which they did in the most recent faq. GW also fails to remember what was key words and what does not. On top of that, then entire edition has been filled with some of the most vague rules ever.

For example the greater unclean one with the flail, rules say it can still use this weapon even when it's one inch within an enemy, and has a 7 inch range. Does that mean it can fire over watch when it's in melee with another unit? Pistols don't get to but this one is not a pistol and has a bigger range, but you can't fire over watch in melee, but this weapon says you can use it if you are within an inch or an enemy. So which is it?

This whole edition has felt like we have been the play testers for it this whole time. Horrors are another example.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 16:39:18


To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Backspacehacker wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?


There is a difference between writing perfectly and not stopping to ask basic questions with rules

Example, the deep striking daemon strat. How is it that when they wrote that, in such a way that says any daemon may use it, did not one stop to say, "wait, mortarian is a daemon, we better clarify that." Which they did in the most recent faq. GW also fails to remember what was key words and what does not. On top of that, then entire edition has been filled with some of the most vague rules ever.

For example the greater unclean one with the flail, rules say it can still use this weapon even when it's one inch within an enemy, and has a 7 inch range. Does that mean it can fire over watch?

This whole edition has felt like we have been the play testers for it this whole time. Horrors are another example.


As opposed to 7th, where it felt like there were no playtesters at all and GW refused to acknowledge the possibility that anything they did could have been in error?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Thunderhawk Pilot Dropping From Orbit




AZ

I like 8th edition.... I know a lot of people who like it also. A lot more than those who dislike it.



 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




 BaconCatBug wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.

To be fair, games like DOTA and League are patched all the time, and often minor patches follow major updates. The obvious difference is that DOTA 2 is free to play, as are the "errata", while Warhammer 40K is not. The meta shifts, unexpected interactions happen, and abuses pop up. I don't have a problem with "patches" to 40K in general, however when the content is paid for I'd expect them not to miss the mark so dramatically the first time.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 BaconCatBug wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.


Unless you count any game that frequently releases patches to fine tune and update its content. I'm with Anomander on this one though. I'd much rather they address problematic rules than pretend they're perfect the first time. Also, 40k is an expensive game to playtest unless they switch to a "here are the beta rules, tell us what you think," approach. At which point people may feel less inclined to try and own the rules. It takes multiple hours to play a "standard" game of 40k. If you have in-house employees taking the time to play a bunch of games of 40k to thoroughly test every single unit, you're spending a lot of money to have people not generate content. Testing is important, sure, but an 8 hour work day spent playing four 2 hour games of 40k means you paid 8 hours worth of wages to basically get 4 data points.

Testing is important, and having to overhaul things from time to time is a little embarrassing, but I won't hold it against them for not getting something perfect the first time. Especially if they're taking steps to actively improve the rules based on feedback. Remember that you started this thread the next time you feel tempted to complain about GW not releasing a rules update for whatever unit you're peeved about.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






At least they did address it instead of the standard wait 2 years for a new book.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 greyknight12 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.

To be fair, games like DOTA and League are patched all the time, and often minor patches follow major updates. The obvious difference is that DOTA 2 is free to play, as are the "errata", while Warhammer 40K is not. The meta shifts, unexpected interactions happen, and abuses pop up. I don't have a problem with "patches" to 40K in general, however when the content is paid for I'd expect them not to miss the mark so dramatically the first time.


This. I think it might be in everyone's best interests for GW to make the rules portion of Chapter Approved a free living document. Most people I know aren't all that opposed to remembering a rules change so long as they don't have to pay for it each time.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Be honest BCB. When GW publish a FAQ you get a boner.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I don't feel like I "deserve" anything, because that's entitlement.

Well, okay, I "deserve" some things, but only because the rest of humanity collectively agreed in the Human Rights UN Charter.

Unfortunately, "well-written rules" is not a human right I deserve, but rather something that'd be nice to have. I'll accept the errata and whatnot, it's fine with me. *shrug*

"Ya pays ya money, ya makes your choices." as one of my favorite YouTubers parrots. If you don't like it, don't settle for it.
   
Made in us
Kid_Kyoto






Probably work

Paizo has errata listed for 11 of their products. I note that they're all "core" books, which means that it's likely that they just don't bother fixing splat books. If you play in their organized play, in addition to those erratas, there's a whole bunch of stuff that's just outright banned, because they realize that they themselves broke it hard. They still don't bother trying to fix it though.

I note that, of these 11 products they produced errata for, most of them appear to have multiple revisions. That's right, Paizo took six printings of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook to get it "right".

GW has issues. I totally agree, but let's not pretend this is singularly a GW issue.

Assume all my mathhammer comes from here: https://github.com/daed/mathhammer 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Prosecutor





I'm happy to see that GW is willing to address rules that aren't doing well in the meta. PP and otehr miniatures companies already replace entire 'cards' for figures as needed. PP as gone so far to focus on digital cards that can be updated at will.

They've been flexible, if it can be addressed via points it is. If it can be addressed via a FAQ tweak it is. If it requires an overhaul, they do it.

As for needing 26 separate documents that's largely because GW is the ultimate example of faction creep. It's why we have tools like Battlescribe. Short of burning down 3 out of every 4 SKUs you won't be able to get around that.

Can you name a miniature game this complex that was written well the first time out? Even the previous editions of Warhammer 40k attracted massive heaps of house rules in tournaments.

Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.


https://www.victorwardbooks.com/ Home of Dark Days series 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan





Denver, Colorado

 Formosa wrote:
"most playtested edition ever" translates to "we played it twice!" so yep its true, its still the most playtested Ed ever


quoted for truth - "most play tested edition ever" is potentially a very, very low bar.

"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by. 
   
Made in us
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





cedar rapids, iowa

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
...Wait, you're complaining that GW has figured out that they don't always write things perfectly the first time and are willing to go back and correct glaring errors?
No, I am complaining they didn't bother to write it correctly the first time. In no other game would TWENTY SIX errata documents be needed to play.


Lets compare here the main rulebooks of various games you can play today:
X-wing is 23 pages:
https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/fb/fb/fbfb6053-32de-4034-a0a4-c2829e190928/x-wing_faq_v431.pdf
Warmachine is 9 pages:
http://files.privateerpress.com/op/errata/Core-Rules-Errata-Sept2017v2.pdf
Dropzone is 15 pages:
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0159/4298/files/Dropzone_FAQs_2017.pdf?18272446409829110530


Warhammer 40k main rulebook is FIVE pages:
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/warhammer_40000_rulebook_ENG.pdf

Add on top of that 40k has vastly more factions than any other games system outside of Twilight Emperium, I'd say it's pretty damn nice they are doing as much hard work as they are.

Get one of these if you don't like it:

 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So the latest CSM errata came out and they have literally wholesale replaced the Horrors datasheet.

So much for most playtested edition amirite?

26 FAQ/Errata documents, 62 Pages of Errata/FAQ (that's 7.75 pages of errata per page of the core rules) and the fact they had to RELEASE AN ERRATA for their yearly errata document conclusively proves that GW simply are not hiring enough or competent enough people.

Does no-one else feel we deserve to have rules written by a decent team, or at least make it so our digital editions are always up to date? I genuinely feel sorry for anyone who fell for the scam of the printed codexes, considering half the rules in them are now incorrect.


Difficult - Previously their wilful ignorance of the need for FAQs was terrible, at least they are doing stuff. I don't like the Codex approach but can see why they do it - £25 books every week or two.

Having played Dropzone where the printed books are also pretty worthless for pretty much the stats of any unit - kinda used to it.

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.

You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during development.

So we have game where anybody trying to play raw is rather silly. Game just doesn't work without rai but that's never clear cut. So even witgout deliberate house rules there's tons of different 8th ed's being played

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 17:20:13


2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

tneva82 wrote:
Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.

You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during


This sums it up. The issue isn't them doing frequent errata; that's a good thing. It's that often, the errata is to fix/clarify wording on stuff that should have been done right the first time and should have been blatantly obvious. Deep striking primarchs is a perfect example. It's good that they clarified this. It's bad that it even got through the first printing because not one of the designers, nor anyone they got to playtest (do they still use FLG and co to playtest?) sat down and thought "Hey wait a minute, this says anything with Daemon. Mortarion and Magnus have the daemon keyword, so they can use that, and that would be bad". They let it slip, presumably because they never playtested anything where it would come up.

Which is, of course, the main problem to this day: GW's "playtesting" is like throwing some random junk together in a list and then testing it against someone else in the studio who does the same. There's no spam, there's no metagaming (e.g. daisy chaining, bubblewrapping, etc.), there's no comboing stratagems from a variety of factions together. So they never even SEE the potential problems, or if they do notice it it's "Nah, nobody would do this"

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






Can someone actually make a comparison of what changed between the new data sheet and the old one?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Be salty all you want. They've put out more codexes in 7 months than they previously would in 4 YEARS. I'm willing to give them slack especially since they've committed to addressing issues one week after release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 lolman1c wrote:
Can someone actually make a comparison of what changed between the new data sheet and the old one?


All they did was update the CSM book (from months ago) with the profile from the Daemon book. It's not a big a deal as people are making it out to be.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/22 17:32:57


 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Wayniac wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.

You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during


This sums it up. The issue isn't them doing frequent errata; that's a good thing. It's that often, the errata is to fix/clarify wording on stuff that should have been done right the first time and should have been blatantly obvious. Deep striking primarchs is a perfect example. It's good that they clarified this. It's bad that it even got through the first printing because not one of the designers, nor anyone they got to playtest (do they still use FLG and co to playtest?) sat down and thought "Hey wait a minute, this says anything with Daemon. Mortarion and Magnus have the daemon keyword, so they can use that, and that would be bad". They let it slip, presumably because they never playtested anything where it would come up.


You mean like playtesting a Death Guard primarch in a Daemons playtesting session?

Heres the thing, GW rules writers and playtesters likely don't play the game the same way people of a certain attitude do. Look at the FAQ. They had to answer the question of wether or not Miasma of Pestilence in the Daemon codex is the same Miasma of Pestilence in the Death Guard book.

Why the feth would that even be a question? Who thinks that two spells with the same name and rules are actually two different spells? Let alone try to argue that they weren't? Some things just don't occur to devs because that just isn't how their mind approaches the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 17:36:21



 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

 Sim-Life wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.

You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during


This sums it up. The issue isn't them doing frequent errata; that's a good thing. It's that often, the errata is to fix/clarify wording on stuff that should have been done right the first time and should have been blatantly obvious. Deep striking primarchs is a perfect example. It's good that they clarified this. It's bad that it even got through the first printing because not one of the designers, nor anyone they got to playtest (do they still use FLG and co to playtest?) sat down and thought "Hey wait a minute, this says anything with Daemon. Mortarion and Magnus have the daemon keyword, so they can use that, and that would be bad". They let it slip, presumably because they never playtested anything where it would come up.


You mean like playtesting a Death Guard primarch in a Daemons playtesting session?

Heres the thing, GW rules writers and playtesters likely don't play the game the same way people of a certain attitude do. Look at the FAQ. They had to answer the question of wether or not Miasma of Pestilence in the Daemon codex is the same Miasma of Pestilence in the Death Guard book.

Why the feth would that even be a question? Who thinks that two spells with the same name and rules are actually two different spells? Let alone try to argue that they weren't? Some things just don't occur to devs because that just isn't how their mind approaches the game.


Right, but the issue is that the players clearly do. And the players, at least a strong number, seem to be the type of fethers who will look for anything and everything to abuse to make a "killer combo", which is why you see crap like that question; the obvious reason is that IF they were different spells, they would then stack and/or not be affected by the rule of one. Something only a WAAC powergamer would even remotely consider doing because it's "optimal"

So yes, while GW never thinks like that, the issue is the players do. So it's this constant running around, GW fixing the meta which is always one step ahead because the people involved with the meta are always looking for the next loophole/poor wording/unintended combo to exploit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 17:41:55


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Painlord Titan Princeps of Slaanesh




Because occasionally 2 things have the same name in different books but have different effects. Then someone has to say that one version or the other is correct or change the name of one of the things.
   
Made in gb
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard



UK

 Primark G wrote:
I’m glad they quickly edit the rules now to address any problems. Expecting them to be perfect is silly IMO.


Given we are paying for these rules, more than we would for similar products from other companies it's entirely reasonable to expect a certain quality of writing.

   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






 Sim-Life wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Problem isn't gw making erratas. Problem is them not caring about balance or good rules writing resulting in silly long erratas with stuff like deep striking primarch they had to errata right away because they couldn't be bothered to even think for a second.

You could put pretty much any active poster from dakkadakka read through codex once and he would do more for clean rules than entire gw's paid staff during


This sums it up. The issue isn't them doing frequent errata; that's a good thing. It's that often, the errata is to fix/clarify wording on stuff that should have been done right the first time and should have been blatantly obvious. Deep striking primarchs is a perfect example. It's good that they clarified this. It's bad that it even got through the first printing because not one of the designers, nor anyone they got to playtest (do they still use FLG and co to playtest?) sat down and thought "Hey wait a minute, this says anything with Daemon. Mortarion and Magnus have the daemon keyword, so they can use that, and that would be bad". They let it slip, presumably because they never playtested anything where it would come up.


You mean like playtesting a Death Guard primarch in a Daemons playtesting session?

Heres the thing, GW rules writers and playtesters likely don't play the game the same way people of a certain attitude do. Look at the FAQ. They had to answer the question of wether or not Miasma of Pestilence in the Daemon codex is the same Miasma of Pestilence in the Death Guard book.

Why the feth would that even be a question? Who thinks that two spells with the same name and rules are actually two different spells? Let alone try to argue that they weren't? Some things just don't occur to devs because that just isn't how their mind approaches the game.


I forget who..i think james? one of the game devs did an AMA revealing that they do and want to do more actual playtesting but the bean counters always stop them. because there is always a diminishing return with redoing and cleaning up the rules to a point. they cannot push the deadlines further and further back and a game released at 80% good enough vs 90% good enough is no where near as bad as 50% good enough.

often times the devs have to use their own free time unpaid to do playtesting.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 17:42:20


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

If they had updated Horrors in the CSM book they would have done this same thing for the Index. Waiting for the Daemons book to drop before doing it only pushes the same exact update back to when the codex came out.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: