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.

I was halfway though writing a rant about this, but found out Reddit got there before me. Thus I shall be shamelessly plagiarising be inspired by that post here.

Vigilus Ablaze

Mere Mortals
Chaos Cultists from Codex: Death Guard and Codex. Thousand Sons (derp) did not gain this rule. Or lose it. Whatever phrasing you find more agreeable.

Skull Altar
The rules mention an interaction when this terrain piece is summoned, but as it lacks the Daemonic Ritual rule, it cannot be summoned.

Chiropteran Wings
Flying Models with this Relic equipped deal mortal damage when they move over units in the Movement or Fight phase. Unfortunately, you can no longer move across models in the Fight Phase.

(Council of Traitors)
Not actually a rules-issue, so I am putting this one in brackets. If you Field Abaddon, a Black Legion Chaos Lord or a Black Legion Daemon Prince as your warlord, this Stratagem enables you to upgrade two more characters from your army with Warlord Traits. What I find funny about this, is that taking Haarken Worldclaimer as your Warlord does not allow you to use this Stratagem.

Codex Chaos Space Marines 2019

Forward Operatives
The Stratagem has the same wording as before the errata, meaning it's a scout-deployment rather than a pre-game movement.

Obliterators
Their points cost is reverted to their old value, meaning you get the updated Profile for almost half the cost.

Dark Apostle
To make even more obvious how little GW cares about Word Bearers, the Dark Apostle no longer carries a Power Maul, so Word Bearers Dark Apostles can no longer take the Cursed Crozius relic weapon.

Considering that until a further errata is posted new rules always overwrite old ones and the updated Chaos codex is sold for money, this is a little embarrassing.

Please post more of whatever you can find. I'm sure there is more.

To add my own two cents to the mix, while not a rules mistake per se, Fallen Sorcerers now are a thing, but three of the six powers available to them cannot be used to buff other Fallen. Furthermore Vigilus Ablaze doesn't even have the Daemonic Ritual rule printed in it, so the Skull Altar will need to cross-reference the CSM codex or errata in the full Daemonic Ritual rule so it has something to anchor to.

TREMBLE IN FEAR, MORTALS! You thought you had us beat with this conniving, underhanded cultist nerf, but the FOOLS at games workshop left my mighty Thousand Sons cultists untouched!

100% ALL the psychic powers I cast with my cultists shall have 6" increased range!!!!!!!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

I absolutely agree, but the reason Forward Operatives is the same is that it is currently a BETA rule for Matched Play. Also, I believe the rule that removes moving over enemies in the Charge phase might be either a Beta rule or a Matched Play rule, which could be why it's still there as those are meant for more than just Matched Play.

Do Thousand Sons cultists even get any use out of the Legion Trait? Pretty sure they don't benefit from it at all so probably why they didn't bother to add the line.

The rest though yeah, I'm getting sick and tired of their proofing being bs when a cursory glance would reveal the problems.

I think we need to start using the Riot meme "small indy company" when referring to this level of shoddiness.

The obliterator one though is top kek because per GW's facebook, as far as they know the codex is up to date, so by RAW until the FAQ you can field 65 point Obliterators but you MUST take 3 (unit size is 3).

Chiropteran Wings is just evidence of how old this book is and why Obliterators are the way they are.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Chiropteran Wings is just evidence of how old this book is and why Obliterators are the way they are.

Hahaha very good point. Yet more proof why their reliance on print is garbage. These books are designed with the rules from like 6 months ago.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I was halfway though writing a rant about this, but found out Reddit got there before me. Thus I shall be shamelessly plagiarising be inspired by that post here.

Vigilus Ablaze

Mere Mortals
Chaos Cultists from Codex: Death Guard and Codex. Thousand Sons (derp) did not gain this rule. Or lose it. Whatever phrasing you find more agreeable.

Skull Altar
The rules mention an interaction when this terrain piece is summoned, but as it lacks the Daemonic Ritual rule, it cannot be summoned.

Chiropteran Wings
Flying Models with this Relic equipped deal mortal damage when they move over units in the Movement or Fight phase. Unfortunately, you can no longer move across models in the Fight Phase.

(Council of Traitors)
Not actually a rules-issue, so I am putting this one in brackets. If you Field Abaddon, a Black Legion Chaos Lord or a Black Legion Daemon Prince as your warlord, this Stratagem enables you to upgrade two more characters from your army with Warlord Traits. What I find funny about this, is that taking Haarken Worldclaimer as your Warlord does not allow you to use this Stratagem.

Codex Chaos Space Marines 2019

Forward Operatives
The Stratagem has the same wording as before the errata, meaning it's a scout-deployment rather than a pre-game movement.

Obliterators
Their points cost is reverted to their old value, meaning you get the updated Profile for almost half the cost.

Dark Apostle
To make even more obvious how little GW cares about Word Bearers, the Dark Apostle no longer carries a Power Maul, so Word Bearers Dark Apostles can no longer take the Cursed Crozius relic weapon.

Considering that until a further errata is posted new rules always overwrite old ones and the updated Chaos codex is sold for money, this is a little embarrassing.

Please post more of whatever you can find. I'm sure there is more.

To add my own two cents to the mix, while not a rules mistake per se, Fallen Sorcerers now are a thing, but three of the six powers available to them cannot be used to buff other Fallen. Furthermore Vigilus Ablaze doesn't even have the Daemonic Ritual rule printed in it, so the Skull Altar will need to cross-reference the CSM codex or errata in the full Daemonic Ritual rule so it has something to anchor to.

I see your post about proof reading, and raise you a comment about your own proof reading.....
-
Thus I shall be shamelessly plagiarising be inspired by that post here. - Remove the second "be".

Some days I really think we should, as a community, just make up our own rules for our models, as they likely can't be much worse overall.

Today is one of those days.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I see your post about proof reading, and raise you a comment about your own proof reading.....
-
Thus I shall be shamelessly plagiarising be inspired by that post here. - Remove the second "be".

Oh woe is me, a single man, tired after the events of the day, made a typo in a free to read internet post. This is clearly analogous to a 40+ year old multi-million Pound Sterling corporation making a commercial product out of dead tree carcass.

Also, I don't think it's actually a typo? "Thus I shall be shamelessly be inspired by that post here." is a perfectly valid sentence, imho. I'm not an English Major.

 H wrote:
Some days I really think we should, as a community, just make up our own rules for our models, as they likely can't be much worse overall.

Today is one of those days.

We already make up our own missions (ITC missions are trash) so I suppose it can't really get that much worse.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I see your post about proof reading, and raise you a comment about your own proof reading.....
-
Thus I shall be shamelessly plagiarising be inspired by that post here. - Remove the second "be".

Oh woe is me, a single man, tired after the events of the day, made a typo in a free to read internet post. This is clearly analogous to a 40+ year old multi-million Pound Sterling corporation making a commercial product out of dead tree carcass.

Also, I don't think it's actually a typo? "Thus I shall be shamelessly be inspired by that post here." is a perfectly valid sentence, imho. I'm not an English Major.

You should be held to the same standard as GW. Afterall - we are paying you tons of money to not make mistakes.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I see your post about proof reading, and raise you a comment about your own proof reading.....
-
Thus I shall be shamelessly plagiarising be inspired by that post here. - Remove the second "be".

Oh woe is me, a single man, tired after the events of the day, made a typo in a free to read internet post. This is clearly analogous to a 40+ year old multi-million Pound Sterling corporation making a commercial product out of dead tree carcass.

Also, I don't think it's actually a typo? "Thus I shall be shamelessly be inspired by that post here." is a perfectly valid sentence, imho. I'm not an English Major.

Funny how you get so touchy when someone points out you made an honest mistake.

Lemondish wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I see your post about proof reading, and raise you a comment about your own proof reading.....
-
Thus I shall be shamelessly plagiarising be inspired by that post here. - Remove the second "be".

Oh woe is me, a single man, tired after the events of the day, made a typo in a free to read internet post. This is clearly analogous to a 40+ year old multi-million Pound Sterling corporation making a commercial product out of dead tree carcass.

Also, I don't think it's actually a typo? "Thus I shall be shamelessly be inspired by that post here." is a perfectly valid sentence, imho. I'm not an English Major.

Funny how you get so touchy when someone points out you made an honest mistake.

I mean there is a difference, he's not paid for it, he doesnt advertise it as all new updated rules to fit with the changes.


Even if it really shouldnt have two "be" in the sentence, one or the other in either place works.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I see your post about proof reading, and raise you a comment about your own proof reading.....
-
Thus I shall be shamelessly plagiarising be inspired by that post here. - Remove the second "be".

Oh woe is me, a single man, tired after the events of the day, made a typo in a free to read internet post. This is clearly analogous to a 40+ year old multi-million Pound Sterling corporation making a commercial product out of dead tree carcass.

Also, I don't think it's actually a typo? "Thus I shall be shamelessly be inspired by that post here." is a perfectly valid sentence, imho. I'm not an English Major.

Awww, are you getting a little triggered by someone employing extreme pedantry that ignores the commonly accepted paradigm of reality in order to gain intellectual brownie points?

Is that annoying and does it immediately put you in the stance of digging in your heels regardless of the content of what's being talked about?

Fezzik, in order to properly lock in your intellectual e-peen points, you now must copy/paste this example of a blatant BLUNDER in the eternal credibility of BCB in your forum signature, and change your portrait of andre the giant over to an animated gif that vibrates slightly from side to side.

 H wrote:
Some days I really think we should, as a community, just make up our own rules for our models, as they likely can't be much worse overall.

Today is one of those days.

My friends and I talk about this constantly - we worry about what will happen though. We don't want to be stigmatized as "house rulers".

I mean, BCB is not wrong. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. There are glaring mistakes, proofreading errors, copy/pasting and the like in "luxury" products that we are spending good money for.

At what point do we start expecting a multi-million currency international company to do basic editing and proofreading for a product they charge a fair amount of money for? This is like basic stuff too, the sort of gak that even the most junior person can catch before it goes to print.

Why do we keep making excuses for this gak and giving it a pass?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 H wrote:
Some days I really think we should, as a community, just make up our own rules for our models, as they likely can't be much worse overall.

Today is one of those days.

My friends and I talk about this constantly - we worry about what will happen though. We don't want to be stigmatized as "house rulers".

Just say it's part of the ITC rules and forge some documents to "prove it". That should get it accepted.

Wayniac wrote:
I mean, BCB is not wrong. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. There are glaring mistakes, proofreading errors, copy/pasting and the like in "luxury" products that we are spending good money for.

At what point do we start expecting a multi-million currency international company to do basic editing and proofreading for a product they charge a fair amount of money for? This is like basic stuff too, the sort of gak that even the most junior person can catch before it goes to print.

Why do we keep making excuses for this gak and giving it a pass?

Because apparently proofreading is hard and technical writers are too expensive?

I mean at this point why are GW sticking to dead tree carcass for their rules? People who buy the codexes can't use them properly without the online FAQs and Errata anyway. Oh, it's because 50p of paper can be sold for £40+. Never mind mystery solved!

Want my free advice? Keep making a Physical Codex. Include a coupon for the electronic version. Have a team dedicated to updating the electronic version every month until all the rules bugs are fixed. Stick with the 6 month balance change cycle. No more need to print out 400 pages of FAQs, your electronic codex is updated with all the errata. If you desire a physical object for reference during games, there is a screenshot function on pretty much any device.

Eesh. Stuff like this just shows lack of effort or caring on GW's part, which is really annoying and frustrating.

If we can stick/get back to the topic, rather than making pointless comments about other users.

I think it's quite fair to expect higher standards in a professionally produced book/similar than in a message board post.

deleted by me.

You haven't ever been able to give a named character a warlord trait. They use the one set for them. Why is the expectation that Council of Traitors was going to overturn that?

Reemule wrote:
You haven't ever been able to give a named character a warlord trait. They use the one set for them. Why is the expectation that Council of Traitors was going to overturn that?

That's not the issue-the issue is that Haarken Worldclaimer cannot be the Lord in a Council of Traitors.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 H wrote:
Some days I really think we should, as a community, just make up our own rules for our models, as they likely can't be much worse overall.

Today is one of those days.

My friends and I talk about this constantly - we worry about what will happen though. We don't want to be stigmatized as "house rulers".

Well, I mean, who cares what anyone else thinks though?

As in, you have the people you play with, you come up with what you see as reasonable rules and play those rules with the people who agree they are reasonable. Even better, you play a few games and see which rules seem reasonable and then you actually, using this data, work to make the rules better! A revolutionary concept by GW standards, an idea of a process almost akin to empiricism!

I guess the issue comes with what happens when you want to play with people who aren't in the group. In which case, you either agree with their "cannon" rules, they agree with your "made-up rules," or you just don't play.

Obviously I am not really talking about this as tournament play, of course, just something to do with a gaming club or something. Of course there will be people on the internet, and maybe even a few in real-life, who would lambaste your ideas or your work. But, lets be real. Someone in this thread already did that about a simple grammatical mistake. People do that every day about if the earth is round or flat, or a million other things. So, that some rando won't agree with you and might seek to stigmatize you and your work isn't really a knock on you or your work.

Think about it. Why is it, a priori, better to be slavishly tied to GW's sloppy and often nonsensical rules whims? There isn't any answer to that question, because there is no reason other than "convention." In fact, it is frankly nonsensical to tie one's self to GW frankly terrible rules that they are either incapable or unwilling to put even the most seemingly rudimentarty effort into making and checking. To boot, they have the audacity to actually charge you money for error prone documents! All so some rando on the internet doesn't lob a term "hose ruler" at you? As if you are the rube and they didn't just get taken to pay actual money for a half-baked rules document!

Of course GW will continue to put out ill concienved, poorly worded, error prone rules documents if people will slurp them up and then have the audacity to enforce some arcane, nonsensical call to "authority" as if GW is some beneficent steward, who out of the kindness of their heart, bestows rules documents that are akin to the Word of God. Except, you know, we all know they don't make any sense and barely even make for a coherent game.

Thanks, I'd keep my $40 and wear my "hose rule" hat all the way to the bank.

Maybe, you know, if I were in your shoes.

nothing wrong with house rules everyone does them and I know in somegames they are so dominant that they eventually end up in the rules themselves

Does it actually say mortal damage and not mortal wounds? Because mortal damage isn't a thing that exists in the game.

 Lance845 wrote:
Does it actually say mortal damage and not mortal wounds? Because mortal damage isn't a thing that exists in the game.

No, it says mortal wounds.

Lemondish 773643 10402570 wrote:

Funny how you get so touchy when someone points out you made an honest mistake.

I have seen this type of argument being used in politics and it is hardly a valid one, as others shown why. Not that it doesn't work on the public, but false adequation coupled with a jab at someone mental state is punching low.

GW delivers a product, it is not free. The product should pass certain standards.


It is funny , in a dark way, that they are missing their own errata and FAQ as others pointed out.

As a rule, players suck at balance. So House rules stereotypically make GW rules look smart and well thought out than something good and useful to the game.

Reemule wrote:
As a rule, players suck at balance. So House rules stereotypically make GW rules look smart and well thought out than something good and useful to the game.

Well, good thing all stereotypes are necessarily always true, so we can dismiss any such idea out of hand.

Wayniac wrote:
I absolutely agree, but the reason Forward Operatives is the same is that it is currently a BETA rule for Matched Play. Also, I believe the rule that removes moving over enemies in the Charge phase might be either a Beta rule or a Matched Play rule, which could be why it's still there as those are meant for more than just Matched Play.

This is a good point (assuming Wayniac's observations are correct - when there are amended rules specifically for one format of the game, should the codex reflect that or not? And, if so, how? Especially if a rule is only in beta when the book is written.

 Dysartes wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I absolutely agree, but the reason Forward Operatives is the same is that it is currently a BETA rule for Matched Play. Also, I believe the rule that removes moving over enemies in the Charge phase might be either a Beta rule or a Matched Play rule, which could be why it's still there as those are meant for more than just Matched Play.

This is a good point (assuming Wayniac's observations are correct - when there are amended rules specifically for one format of the game, should the codex reflect that or not? And, if so, how? Especially if a rule is only in beta when the book is written.

True, however alot of people treat the beta or matched play rules as gospel and use them anyways.

I think the book should represent the rule reality of the moment ergo exclude betarules. Or elevate former betarules into rules Status.