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.

 Vaktathi wrote:
EDIT: looks like they also got rid of the co-axial heavy stubber for Vanquishers, can only take it in the Armored Battlegroup list and only the Storm Bolter gets the Coaxial rule whereas the Stubber is just another gun.

On the troops tanks at least. Command and Commissar tanks still get the coax heavy stubber, and the upgrade costs less.

 yakface wrote:
The ranged profile is still in the book, they just put them all into a single summary in the back of the book.

Nice to hear that competence in actually laying out rules legibly and unequivocally is still a completely unknown skill at Forge World. It's not like their books are expensive, printed on high-quality paper or come in giant unwieldly hardback "premium" format, or anything...

The spirit of Warwick "Copypasta Disastah" Kinraid lives on at Forge World!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The spirit of Warwick "Copypasta Disastah" Kinraid lives on at Forge World!

He works at Warlord now and I can assure you, he hasn't lost his writing touch.

If this new book contains updated rules for what looks like all the Mean rus chassis as well as thigns like the Basilisk, will these new rules over-ride those found in the IG codex?

No. They don't override the Codex.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No. They don't override the Codex.

They would if they actually changed anything (newer rules replace older), but the codex units included are just there for the sake of completeness, the rules are still the same as in the codex. For example, the Basilisk is just a copy/paste of the exact same rules that are in the codex (including GW's published codex errata).

 Peregrine wrote:
They would if they actually changed anything (newer rules replace older)...

No they wouldn't, because:

A). Most people wouldn't own them.
B). Most people wouldn't even know about them.
C). GW's not about to go "Ok, the Basilisk entry in the Codex is invalid, so go and buy the IA book for the right one".
D). No IA book has ever overridden a GW book. Ever.

Ok, my IG playing friend can stop crying then.

Well, there are some entries that have additional weapon options for some vehicles. Options that have traditionally always been available in FW books.

For example, the Chimera has all the special FW turret options, as do the Sentinels (have the FW weapon options).

The Manticore is also still allowed to take its old Manticore Missiles too, which is a 7" blast despite the vehicle being marked for use in regular games of 40K. To my knowledge that makes it the only thing approved for regular games that uses the 7" blast. I think FW needs to be emailed about that one personally.


But yeah, the move towards putting all the weapon profiles into just a single summary at the back of the book makes it quite annoying to actually look something up, and since the goal of doing that I'm guessing was to cut down on potential typos and discrepancies, its kind of annoying since in a lot of cases it actually make things more confusing and/or critical information was omitted. For example, the Dominus Triple Bombard has two profiles listed with a note saying that you can use the 'mobile' or 'static' profile in certain situations...except that the note about which profile is 'mobile' and which one is 'static' was lost in the move of this profile to the summary format.

In addition, many weapon names in the actual unit entry are different than they are in the Summary. For example, in the unit entry for the Dominus, its weapon is simply called 'triple-barrelled bombard', so when you go to the summary page you start looking in the 'T' section for 'triple', but you can't find the weapon there, instead you have to figure out that it is a 'dominus triple-barrelled bombard' in the summary page! And this is not the only example of that issue (its quite rampant).

Also, the Trojan seems to have lost its rule for moving immobile artillery and vehicles, despite the fact that it is still an upgrade for some immobile artillery units presumably for this purpose.

Funnily enough, the Field Artillery Battery has the option to either take 'Trojan towing vehicles' or 'Centaur artillery tractors', despite the fact that these units are actually named 'Trojan Support vehicle' and 'Centaur carrier'.

And of course, the Heavy Artillery Platforms all have a rule called 'immobile vehicle' that tells you how the crew reacts to certain game situations...except that none of these platforms actually say that they come with any crew, and if they did the rules no longer support vehicle/infantry combo artillery units (all artillery gun models now have a Toughness).


So yes, plenty of errors still abound. I think anytime you have a book that is a giant summary of units crammed in, whose rules have just been copy-pasted from previous editions and then been updated, you're always going to have tons of these types of issues because they tend to be fairly hard to spot for someone who is knee-deep in doing all the writing for the book.

 yakface wrote:
And of course, the Heavy Artillery Platforms all have a rule called 'immobile vehicle' that tells you how the crew reacts to certain game situations...except that none of these platforms actually say that they come with any crew, and if they did the rules no longer support vehicle/infantry combo artillery units (all artillery gun models now have a Toughness).

That's weird as there is an update PDF on the FW website that deals with that:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

 Baragash wrote:

That's weird as there is an update PDF on the FW website that deals with that:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

That is the Heavy Artillery Carriage Battery.

I'm talking about the Artillery Platforms (Earthsaker, Hyrda, Manticore)...those are all just immobile vehicles, as opposed to the Heavy Artillery Carriages (which have wheels).

Its pretty confusing actually: If you're taking an Earthshaker platform its a vehicle with an armor value, but if its on a carriage then suddenly its an artillery piece with a Toughness.

And the Carriage is more than twice as expensive, for some reason.

And I need 9 of them, woe is me.

 Bobthehero wrote:
And the Carriage is more than twice as expensive, for some reason.

And I need 9 of them, woe is me.

Given that artillery is much, much, much harder to kill than a vehicle, I'd say it is definitely appropriate.

Money wise is what I meant, especially since you must buy crewmen.

An Earthshaker Carriage is only 75 pts

The idea of a Salamander horde is kinda of appealing on a silly level. Running a couple of mechanized platoons and CCS's with some hydras and a ton of Salamanders to net 20 tanks and 60 infantry in 1750pts sounds hilarious.

 yakface wrote:
But yeah, the move towards putting all the weapon profiles into just a single summary at the back of the book makes it quite annoying to actually look something up, and since the goal of doing that I'm guessing was to cut down on potential typos and discrepancies, its kind of annoying since in a lot of cases it actually make things more confusing and/or critical information was omitted.

On the other hand, once you've played IG for a while you probably have all of the weapon profiles memorized, and just need the point costs and not an endless repetition of the lascannon profile on every unit that has one. It's just like how every single codex just lists a unit's special rules in the army list section and you have to go back to the unit's page to figure out what they do. I'm not saying it's clearly the best option, but I can see why they'd want to save space and just move it all to a single reference sheet.

And of course, the Heavy Artillery Platforms all have a rule called 'immobile vehicle' that tells you how the crew reacts to certain game situations...except that none of these platforms actually say that they come with any crew, and if they did the rules no longer support vehicle/infantry combo artillery units (all artillery gun models now have a Toughness).

That's just for the sake of simplicity, because the "immobile" rule is also used on units that do have crew. There's just an implied "the crew, if any" in there. The artillery platforms are just immobile Basilisks/Hydras/etc.

Stop it Yak. You're making me regret my purchase and I haven't even seen the book yet!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Stop it Yak. You're making me regret my purchase and I haven't even seen the book yet!

Come on HBMC, we both know you're cynical enough that you were expecting this in a FW publication

I love the expansion of the range/army lists that FW brings to the party but the chaos of their version control is starting to reach the point where I don't want anything to do with them.

The book really is a convenience tool; aside from the Armoured Company, which looks amusing, it's all old reprints, and as has been said, there's a fair number of errors.

I particularly like how they list "Lumbering Behemoth" as a rule for Russes, with an asterisk stating that "They follow the rules for Heavy vehicles," well why not just bloody put that in the unit profile?

Minor gripes like that, otherwise lots of content, plenty of fluff on the vehicles, a decent AdMech background and a fun army list which is quite different than the old, but looks enjoyable, and a little less cheesy.

'Cause that might've required effort. That's why.


Anyway, yes, I expected errors, and even copypasta nonsense... but this is sounding worse. Is anything new?

Doesn't look like anything "new" but it does appear to consolidate in vehicles that didn't exist when the original was published.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
I particularly like how they list "Lumbering Behemoth" as a rule for Russes, with an asterisk stating that "They follow the rules for Heavy vehicles," well why not just bloody put that in the unit profile?

Probably to stop people from asking what happened to Lumbering Behemoth when they compare the profile to the one in the codex.

That's plausible.

 Peregrine wrote:

Probably to stop people from asking what happened to Lumbering Behemoth when they compare the profile to the one in the codex.

That was my take as well.

The last thing you want is the IA entry for a vehicle to have different special rules from the same entry in the codex, so since the codex Russes have 'Lumbering Behemoth' that basically makes them Heavy Vehicles (via the FAQ), that's what the IA entry does as well.

A plausible excuse for not having to put in effort yes.

I don't know what I always except FW to improve their editing process and try a lot harder to eliminate typos and mistakes with each new release, but I still do!

 Shandara wrote:
A plausible excuse for not having to put in effort yes.

If anything writing that Lumbering Behemoth means they're Heavy vehicles takes MORE effort than just copypasting the old rule.

You guys may not be thrilled with this book because I'm sure you have a lot of IA books. But I have none. I do have a lot of IG vehicles and 3 superheavies and I think I'm gonna love all of it in one book with the updated rules. I think this is FW way of re-baselineing their stuff. And with Necrons rumored to be coming next I might end up buying another AI book. I just think its a good idea to have all of the IG in one book instead of trying to buy and carry around 3 or 4 of them. So kudos to FW.

As far as proof-reading... Baby steps...

Oh, it's definitely nice to have everything in one book, the problem is the execution of combining all of it was rather awkward