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.

So I just noticed this looking at CA rumours and leaks, and I noticed

The discounted plasma cost is for units with BS4+

The normal cost is all other

Therefore, Militia at BS5+ get the regular plasma instead of the cheaper plasma technically...

I'm not reading this wrong, am I? I get the RAI, but it just seems silly if it works that way RAW.

If that's what the Forgeworld index says, that the discounted plasma is only for BS 4+, then yes Milita don't get that price.

 Stux wrote:
If that's what the Forgeworld index says, that the discounted plasma is only for BS 4+, then yes Milita don't get that price.

Not even just FW, its in CA.

That's amazingly terrible, thanks GW.

obviously they meant the higher price is for models that hit on better than a 4+ naturally.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
obviously they meant the higher price is for models that hit on better than a 4+ naturally.

Who knows what Forgeworld are thinking at this point! A lot of poorly worded rules in their indexes.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
obviously they meant the higher price is for models that hit on better than a 4+ naturally.

If that is what they meant then they would have said that. They didn't say that, so that isn't what they meant. What you're doing is no different to claiming "Space Marines are 'meant' to have 40 wounds."

FWIW this has been the case since CA'17 anyway, so nothing has changed.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
obviously they meant the higher price is for models that hit on better than a 4+ naturally.

If that is what they meant then they would have said that. They didn't say that, so that isn't what they meant. What you're doing is no different to claiming "Space Marines are 'meant' to have 40 wounds."

FWIW this has been the case since CA'17 anyway, so nothing has changed.

Once again, you assume people always only say what they mean, when fifteen minutes interacting with the general public will prove otherwise. I generally agree with your rules stance, but your insistence that GW is infallible (while at the same time decrying them as terrible rules writers) is confusing, contradictory, and belligerent. It does nothing to help the general conversation. Please reconsider using this position in the future.

Thanks.

Is this in CA18? Haven't seen R&H in the leaks so far. It sorely needed fixing, so trolls cant get kicks pointing out obvious mistakes.

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
obviously they meant the higher price is for models that hit on better than a 4+ naturally.

If that is what they meant then they would have said that. They didn't say that, so that isn't what they meant. What you're doing is no different to claiming "Space Marines are 'meant' to have 40 wounds."

FWIW this has been the case since CA'17 anyway, so nothing has changed.

Once again, you assume people always only say what they mean, when fifteen minutes interacting with the general public will prove otherwise. I generally agree with your rules stance, but your insistence that GW is infallible (while at the same time decrying them as terrible rules writers) is confusing, contradictory, and belligerent. It does nothing to help the general conversation. Please reconsider using this position in the future.

Thanks.

It's not contradictory at all. They are terrible rules writers, that's why not a single book in 8th hasn't needed errata. However, the fact they issue errata at all means that anything they do not change must be intentional, or they would have changed it. If at a later point they change their mind as to what the rule is meant to say, fair enough, they will issue an errata. But until then IMHO we have to assume they intentionally wrote the rules they did because otherwise the entire game breaks down into 50 Wound Marines and TMIRing TMIR. Reductio ad absurdum also no longer applies to 8th edition because there are so many absurd things that have been categorically enforced as both RaW and "RaI" via FAQ (Re-rolls before modifiers, Plasma Exploding more at Night, being able to Heroically Intervene into flyers, etc) that we no longer have a baseline to decide what is and isn't "intended".

The fact they have errata'd things like no longer forcing Single Use Weapons to fire the first time you fire shows that "silly" things are important enough to errata, thus anything not errata'd must be that way for a reason, IMHO.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum also no longer applies to 8th edition

Then stop using it as an argument.

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum also no longer applies to 8th edition

Then stop using it as an argument.

I am not using it as an argument.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Is this in CA18? Haven't seen R&H in the leaks so far. It sorely needed fixing, so trolls cant get kicks pointing out obvious mistakes.

Yep, looks like it assuming all the leaks arent fake. And, unless they get a major datasheet change were still in the gutter with em.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Reductio ad absurdum also no longer applies to 8th edition

Then stop using it as an argument.

I am not using it as an argument.

Shall we remind you of that the next time you trot out the 20 wound Guardsman or 20 wound Space Marine argument?

“It hasn’t been errataed so it must be intended” is just straight-up wrong, and has been discussed as being wrong in more threads than I can count. Please stop trotting this out. It’s boring and gets threads locked.

As a side note the moderators’ current approach to stopping threads spiralling when dragged off-topic by nonsense and fallacies is fantastic and much appreciated. Long may that continue, but it would be better that certain folk stop making such statements and derailing threads in the first place.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Is this in CA18? Haven't seen R&H in the leaks so far. It sorely needed fixing, so trolls cant get kicks pointing out obvious mistakes.

Yep, looks like it assuming all the leaks arent fake. And, unless they get a major datasheet change were still in the gutter with em.

Just to check here, because I don't have all the books to hand:

Is this definitely a change to the wargear list that militia use? Do they definitely use the same wargear list as Astra Militarum for instance?

 Stux wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Is this in CA18? Haven't seen R&H in the leaks so far. It sorely needed fixing, so trolls cant get kicks pointing out obvious mistakes.

Yep, looks like it assuming all the leaks arent fake. And, unless they get a major datasheet change were still in the gutter with em.

Just to check here, because I don't have all the books to hand:

Is this definitely a change to the wargear list that militia use? Do they definitely use the same wargear list as Astra Militarum for instance?

Its the wording directly on the RnH wargear list, not the AM wargear list in CA 2018.



I'm pretty sure it isn't intended, unless Milita get a datasheet change? But I dont think anyone will care playing with them as 7 point plasma.

 Sir Heckington wrote:
I'm pretty sure it isn't intended, unless Milita get a datasheet change? But I dont think anyone will care playing with them as 7 point plasma.

This is where I disagree on a fundamental level. What you're saying is like saying "I don't think anyone will care playing my Devastator Squad with 7 point Plasma Cannons", IMHO.

Assuming Militia didn't get bumped up to BS4+, the rules say Renegade Militia pay 11 points for Plasma Guns, so they pay 11 points for Plasma Guns. Perhaps GW will errata their book of errata to fix it, perhaps not. It's no surprise since GW have a 0% success rate with their books, and I don't just mean points changes. Every book, even their book of Errata, has needed errata.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Is this in CA18? Haven't seen R&H in the leaks so far. It sorely needed fixing, so trolls cant get kicks pointing out obvious mistakes.

Yep, looks like it assuming all the leaks arent fake. And, unless they get a major datasheet change were still in the gutter with em.

Just to check here, because I don't have all the books to hand:

Is this definitely a change to the wargear list that militia use? Do they definitely use the same wargear list as Astra Militarum for instance?

Its the wording directly on the RnH wargear list, not the AM wargear list in CA 2018.



I'm pretty sure it isn't intended, unless Milita get a datasheet change? But I dont think anyone will care playing with them as 7 point plasma.

Of course no-one will be playing them as 11 point plasma. No-one includes obvious mistakes when playing a social game !

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Of course no-one will be playing them as 11 point plasma. No-one includes obvious mistakes when playing a social game !

And who gets to decide what is an "obvious mistake"? You? Me?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Of course no-one will be playing them as 11 point plasma. No-one includes obvious mistakes when playing a social game !

And who gets to decide what is an "obvious mistake"? You? Me?

Yes.

Here's the really mind-blowing part - unless the two of you are playing each other, you don't even have to agree!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Of course no-one will be playing them as 11 point plasma. No-one includes obvious mistakes when playing a social game !

And who gets to decide what is an "obvious mistake"? You? Me?

Yes actually. The two players playing the game.

If you can’t spot copy/paste errors I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but trying to force my opponent to use plasma priced for BS3+ on models who can’t hit a barn door ain’t one.

Also, standard warranty period caveat: EMAIL GW.

The book isn’t out yet, so make sure this error is on their radar for the two-week hot fix FAQ (though with Christmas don’t be surprised if the FAQ drops after festivities and the forum eats itself in salty rage before then, like a nerdy Orobourus). Forum threads don’t highlight anything to GW, so email the FAQ Hotline so they are aware.

 JohnnyHell wrote:


The book isn’t out yet, so make sure this error is on their radar for the two-week hot fix FAQ (though with Christmas don’t be surprised if the FAQ drops after festivities and the forum eats itself in salty rage before then, like a nerdy Orobourus). Forum threads don’t highlight anything to GW, so email the FAQ Hotline so they are aware.

Sadly this mistake is from LAST YEARS chapter approved.
And they wonder why R&H players are bitter.

It isn't a mistake, it's 'thematic'.

Why would you want to give a Plasma Gun to a BS5+ soldat who couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo from arms-length in any case? That's what Marauder/Disciples are for.

Also, the price has been changed. They were 13pts for non-BS4+ in CA 2017.

It's very intentional.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
It isn't a mistake, it's 'thematic'.

Why would you want to give a Plasma Gun to a BS5+ soldat who couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo from arms-length in any case? That's what Marauder/Disciples are for.

Also, the price has been changed. They were 13pts for non-BS4+ in CA 2017.

It's very intentional.

(considering why even field troops when our elites actually get a decent squad size and can hit stuff aswell as shank stuff )

but yeah we must run the bf3+ version price on all of them RAW.
However most people i tend to face are lenient enough since if they aren't the matches are over before we even started playing so theres that.

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


The book isn’t out yet, so make sure this error is on their radar for the two-week hot fix FAQ (though with Christmas don’t be surprised if the FAQ drops after festivities and the forum eats itself in salty rage before then, like a nerdy Orobourus). Forum threads don’t highlight anything to GW, so email the FAQ Hotline so they are aware.

Sadly this mistake is from LAST YEARS chapter approved.
And they wonder why R&H players are bitter.

No, no it isn’t. It’s from this year’s, so can be two-week FAQ’d regardless of any errors last year.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


The book isn’t out yet, so make sure this error is on their radar for the two-week hot fix FAQ (though with Christmas don’t be surprised if the FAQ drops after festivities and the forum eats itself in salty rage before then, like a nerdy Orobourus). Forum threads don’t highlight anything to GW, so email the FAQ Hotline so they are aware.

Sadly this mistake is from LAST YEARS chapter approved.
And they wonder why R&H players are bitter.

No, no it isn’t. It’s from this year’s, so can be two-week FAQ’d regardless of any errors last year.

actually they had the same fault in the CA 17 version also, time to send em some mails i guess?

Crazy thought, but perhaps the fact they didn't change it for a year and in fact kept it that way in CA18 is because it's... intended?

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:


The book isn’t out yet, so make sure this error is on their radar for the two-week hot fix FAQ (though with Christmas don’t be surprised if the FAQ drops after festivities and the forum eats itself in salty rage before then, like a nerdy Orobourus). Forum threads don’t highlight anything to GW, so email the FAQ Hotline so they are aware.

Sadly this mistake is from LAST YEARS chapter approved.
And they wonder why R&H players are bitter.

No, no it isn’t. It’s from this year’s, so can be two-week FAQ’d regardless of any errors last year.

Is it tho? It's been in none of the leaks.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Crazy thought, but perhaps the fact they didn't change it for a year and in fact kept it that way in CA18 is because it's... intended?

at this point we can be happy that something like the R&H list exists, else there would not even be the fodder for csm armies left, after their cultist nerf. then again i don't think it is intended but rahter just coppy pasted over from the DKok section since R&H have no mainline bs4+ unit with acess to special weaponry.