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.

WARHAMMER 40,000 – IMPERIAL ARMOUR INDEX: FORCES OF THE ADEPTUS ASTARTES Official Update Version 1.3 wrote:Q: Can a Stormraven Gunship transport a Relic Deredeo Dreadnought or a Relic Leviathan Dreadnought?
A: No. For the purposes of determining what Dreadnoughts a Stormraven Gunship can transport, compare the Wounds characteristic of the model to that of a Redemptor Dreadnought (13): a Stormraven Gunship cannot transport a Dreadnought that has a Wounds characteristic equal to or higher than this.

What in the name of the Manperor of Mankind is this nonsense? Why are they making up stuff in FAQs when they should errata the two Relics to have a rule saying they can't be transported. Why is Forge World changing the rules of something found in the GW SM Codex? Why are they making up a blanket rule?

Well, that makes sense. Why should it be able to carry a vehicle that has more hit points than it? To put it another way, why wouldn't there be size restrictions on a what a transport can carry? Perhaps i'm missing something, though.

Another issue with this edition, they find the need to make the simplistic thing complicated as hell.

"Refer to this dread naught we have, if it has less wounds then this, you can take it."
Vs just saying
"It can carry ironclad, venerable, regular, contemptor and redemptor dreads."



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Well, that makes sense. Why should it be able to carry a vehicle that has more hit points than it? To put it another way, why wouldn't there be size restrictions on a what a transport can carry? Perhaps i'm missing something, though.

I mean you can do that with a Rhino or razor back pretty easy.

Another issue with this edition, they find the need to make the simplistic thing complicated as hell.

"Refer to this dread naught we have, if it has less wounds then this, you can take it."
Vs just saying
"It can carry ironclad, venerable, regular, contemptor and redemptor dreads."

Well this way means they are better covered for future models - FW does like making Dreadnoughts?

 Mr Morden wrote:

Another issue with this edition, they find the need to make the simplistic thing complicated as hell.

"Refer to this dread naught we have, if it has less wounds then this, you can take it."
Vs just saying
"It can carry ironclad, venerable, regular, contemptor and redemptor dreads."

Well this way means they are better covered for future models - FW does like making Dreadnoughts?

IT just makes it a round about way of just saying, you can take these models. Gw has been doing this all 8th ed making up really annoying ways of quantifying something.

BCB can you just keep all you're moaning to a single thread or something? Or are you going to start a new topic every time you want to bitch about some aspect of the game.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Another issue with this edition, they find the need to make the simplistic thing complicated as hell.

"Refer to this dread naught we have, if it has less wounds then this, you can take it."
Vs just saying
"It can carry ironclad, venerable, regular, contemptor and redemptor dreads."

Well this way means they are better covered for future models - FW does like making Dreadnoughts?

IT just makes it a round about way of just saying, you can take these models. Gw has been doing this all 8th ed making up really annoying ways of quantifying something.

And players have been doing this all 8th edition, whining about GW "making up really annoying ways of quantifying something" while at the same time asking ridiculous questions like "Can I take a Relic Deredo or Leviathan Dreadnought with a Stormraven?".

They made a definitive qualification. If the Wounds value is equal to or greater than a Redemptor Dreadnought(which is in the Codex that has the Stormraven rules, so no excuses for you "not having the profile available"), the Stormraven can't carry it.

 Sim-Life wrote:
BCB can you just keep all you're moaning to a single thread or something? Or are you going to start a new topic every time you want to bitch about some aspect of the game.

Well unfortunately he is not breaking any rules. While i dont think it is necessary to drop thread for each and every issue he finds with the game. Each thread is of its own validity and topic. Would I rather see them all consolidated? Yes, but hey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Another issue with this edition, they find the need to make the simplistic thing complicated as hell.

"Refer to this dread naught we have, if it has less wounds then this, you can take it."
Vs just saying
"It can carry ironclad, venerable, regular, contemptor and redemptor dreads."

Well this way means they are better covered for future models - FW does like making Dreadnoughts?

IT just makes it a round about way of just saying, you can take these models. Gw has been doing this all 8th ed making up really annoying ways of quantifying something.

And players have been doing this all 8th edition, whining about GW "making up really annoying ways of quantifying something" while at the same time asking ridiculous questions like "Can I take a Relic Deredo or Leviathan Dreadnought with a Stormraven?".

They made a definitive qualification. If the Wounds value is equal to or greater than a Redemptor Dreadnought(which is in the Codex that has the Stormraven rules, so no excuses for you "not having the profile available"), the Stormraven can't carry it.

It would havae been far easier to just say, these dread naughts can go into it.

its actually a good clarification

 Backspacehacker wrote:

It would havae been far easier to just say, these dread naughts can go into it.

Except that giving a specific list of Dreadnoughts that can go into it means that when future releases are done, you have to add them into the list.

By giving a guideline, they've established a precedent for what can or can't go into it. Anything with less than 13W can be carried by it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

It would havae been far easier to just say, these dread naughts can go into it.

Except that giving a specific list of Dreadnoughts that can go into it means that when future releases are done, you have to add them into the list.

By giving a guideline, they've established a precedent for what can or can't go into it. Anything with less than 13W can be carried by it.

But why are Forge World changing a rule for a GW model? Just add the rule to their 14 wound dreads saying they can't be carried.

I mean the real question is.. who cares? Jesus a lot of people a lot of time on there hands to discuss the most pointless things on Dakka Dakka.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

It would havae been far easier to just say, these dread naughts can go into it.

Except that giving a specific list of Dreadnoughts that can go into it means that when future releases are done, you have to add them into the list.

By giving a guideline, they've established a precedent for what can or can't go into it. Anything with less than 13W can be carried by it.

But why are Forge World changing a rule for a GW model? Just add the rule to their 14 wound dreads saying they can't be carried.

They're not "changing a rule for a GW model".
They're putting out, in a FAQ asking about two Forge World models, a precedent for the future.

Quite frankly it seems like you just want to be upset.

By that "equal to or higher" wording, they're saying the Stormraven also cannot transport a Redemptor, right? That seems like a pretty big change for an obscure FAQ to a completely different book.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

It would havae been far easier to just say, these dread naughts can go into it.

Except that giving a specific list of Dreadnoughts that can go into it means that when future releases are done, you have to add them into the list.

By giving a guideline, they've established a precedent for what can or can't go into it. Anything with less than 13W can be carried by it.

Yeah I really don't see the issue its a bit of future proofing...

 AaronWilson wrote:
I mean the real question is.. who cares? Jesus a lot of people a lot of time on there hands to discuss the most pointless things on Dakka Dakka.

This entire hobby is pointless. Outside of Eating, Water, Reproducing and Defecating literally EVERYTHING ELSE is pointless.

 kadeton wrote:
By that "equal to or higher" wording, they're saying the Stormraven also cannot transport a Redemptor, right? That seems like a pretty big change for an obscure FAQ to a completely different book.

Was the entry for the Stormraven errated?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Was the entry for the Stormraven errated?

Nope, just misremembering, ignore me. The Index version didn't have the restriction on Redemptors, but the Codex version does.

In that context, I do think this is possibly the strangest way to go about restricting these Relic dreadnoughts from riding in it. But hey, whatever works I guess!

Considering how many of these he posts, I'd think that BaconCatBug is the real special snowflake here. xD

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Considering how many of these he posts, I'd think that BaconCatBug is the real special snowflake here. xD

The real question is where he finds the time to actually play the game.

In this case I think I agree, IMO this is just on the wrong side of too bespoke. It's true that there's a lot of this in the 8th FAQs: but that's not necessarily a bad thing, patch rules are what GW will do to attempt to fix things for now - the next edition (or maybe next CA?) is where I imagine they'll be properly taking stock and re-writing or replacing more of the core rules to fully account for the tweaks that are being added on as we go. I imagine it being similar to a software life cycle.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Considering how many of these he posts, I'd think that BaconCatBug is the real special snowflake here. xD

You win three whole internets, sir. And need to explain to thisbtrainful of people why I just snort-laughed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This entire hobby is pointless. Outside of Eating, Water, Reproducing and Defecating literally EVERYTHING ELSE is pointless.

You appear to have forgotten about breathing there buddy...

...but please, far be it from me to discourage you from continuing with that trend


With respect, the 'Forge World have changed a rule for a GW model' comment seems redundant also. They're two departments within the same company, writing rules for the same game. I get that on several occasions, it has looked like staff don't always communicate things fully with each other there, but do we really think that they literally don't talk, compare notes and agree on this stuff the *majority* of the time? O.o

 Jambles wrote:
The real question is where he finds the time to actually play the game.

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, about it on message boards."

- Probably not Sun Tsu

StrayIight wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This entire hobby is pointless. Outside of Eating, Water, Reproducing and Defecating literally EVERYTHING ELSE is pointless.

You appear to have forgotten about breathing there buddy...

...but please, far be it from me to discourage you from continuing with that trend


With respect, the 'Forge World have changed a rule for a GW model' comment seems redundant also. They're two departments within the same company, writing rules for the same game. I get that on several occasions, it has looked like staff don't always communicate things fully with each other there, but do we really think that they literally don't talk, compare notes and agree on this stuff the *majority* of the time? O.o

Actually we've had it from the horse's mouth that it's often the case that FW doesn't get much of a head's up about anything.

 Jambles wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Considering how many of these he posts, I'd think that BaconCatBug is the real special snowflake here. xD

The real question is where he finds the time to actually play the game.

I think you'd be hard pressed to prove any of Dakka's more prolific posters actually play 40k. Taking time to play would negatively affect their post count.

 WindstormSCR wrote:

StrayIight wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This entire hobby is pointless. Outside of Eating, Water, Reproducing and Defecating literally EVERYTHING ELSE is pointless.

You appear to have forgotten about breathing there buddy...

...but please, far be it from me to discourage you from continuing with that trend


With respect, the 'Forge World have changed a rule for a GW model' comment seems redundant also. They're two departments within the same company, writing rules for the same game. I get that on several occasions, it has looked like staff don't always communicate things fully with each other there, but do we really think that they literally don't talk, compare notes and agree on this stuff the *majority* of the time? O.o

Actually we've had it from the horse's mouth that it's often the case that FW doesn't get much of a head's up about anything.

I mean they literally just about finished Fires and were told to scrap because 8th was coming out in a few weeks maybe?

Clearly Hit Points are a sure sign of weight. I mean a space marine is only the fourth of a weight of a commissar.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 WindstormSCR wrote:

StrayIight wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
This entire hobby is pointless. Outside of Eating, Water, Reproducing and Defecating literally EVERYTHING ELSE is pointless.

You appear to have forgotten about breathing there buddy...

...but please, far be it from me to discourage you from continuing with that trend


With respect, the 'Forge World have changed a rule for a GW model' comment seems redundant also. They're two departments within the same company, writing rules for the same game. I get that on several occasions, it has looked like staff don't always communicate things fully with each other there, but do we really think that they literally don't talk, compare notes and agree on this stuff the *majority* of the time? O.o

Actually we've had it from the horse's mouth that it's often the case that FW doesn't get much of a head's up about anything.

I mean they literally just about finished Fires and were told to scrap because 8th was coming out in a few weeks maybe?

I'd heard that a lot of the issue with FW books/rules of late (Fires especially), was in great part the loss of Alan Bligh? He was certainly the heart of their writing team, and his death hit just prior to 8th launching.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Clearly Hit Points are a sure sign of weight.

Isn't that one of those Imperial units?

Was Alan Bligh one of those "Assault out of Deep Strike? Over my dead body!" posters?