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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".

In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.

And this is what we call intellectual dishonesty.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".

In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.

And this is what we call intellectual dishonesty.

How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.

You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.

You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

Except there IS a precedent, especially in the context of a tournament. You may think it's not, but absolutely in a tournament, if a TO changes one thing, there will be requests to change something else on the same grounds that oh it MUST be a typo, it can't be right, so change this too. You act as though that won't happen, when you know damn well it will. There isn't your third option of oh well THIS has a be a typo, but this other thing isn't a typo, and this third thing well it might be so we'll change that too, but we aren't sure about the fourth so we won't change it.

You don't think that happens?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.

You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

I know no such thing. All I know is what GW have told us. And GW have told us they are 55 points. I don't actually care how people "take" me. I strive for objective truth and nothing else. To quote Konrad "Did nothing wrong" Kurze: "Death is nothing compared to vindication."

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.

You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

I know no such thing. All I know is what GW have told us. And GW have told us they are 55 points.

You aren't helping.

Anyway Daedalus you're focusing on the most extreme example, the 55 point acolytes which pretty clearly, barring some real stupidity, is actually a typo. But that's not the point. The point is selectively choosing what is a typo or isn't. That particular example is exceptional because it's so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly be true (but weirder things have happened with GW. I thought it would be ridiculous to let behemoths that are battle line ignore the limitations in AoS but they confirmed it).

What about any other example of something that could be a typo or not, rather than something that is almost certainly one.

Again, where do you draw the line? Or is your argument basically treat every potential "typo" on its own? So selectively apply thought to each potential situation? Who gets to determine that A must be a typo, B isn't, C might be so it gets changed and D seems close enough so it doesn't. How is that approach anything good?

So, turns out CA19 reverted the Cultists back to 4ppm. This was an error on my part.

How do we know this isn't a typo?

I fully agree that the Acolytes are probably not intended to be 55ppm, but until an errata is released we cannot know for certain. In my opinion, it is an all or nothing thing when it comes to ignoring rules or points costs, either it's all ok to ignore or none of it is. I understand not many people agree with this opinion but I feel it is the only way that the game can function without being bogged down in arguments over who gets to decide what is "intended" or not.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".

In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.

I wish it were the case where we could say that making models more than 10 times the original cost was unintended, but this is a game where flamers can hit super-sonic aircraft and Terminators can somehow charge three times what they normally can move while Valkyries somehow move slower when they charge.

Man has a point.

And leaving aside the game logic I totally agree, at least in principle.* 55 points for an Acolyte is blatently wrong, on the other had either 10 points for a Hurricane Bolter or 2 for a Stormbolter is also clearly wrong but I don't get to decide which one is the mistake. If I were playing GSC I wouldn't field Acolytes until they get the errata out, simple as that.

* - The exception would be something like Custodian Guard because they're the only Troop choice in the army if that was the only army I owned. Them suddenly being 400 points per model would make it impossible to build a legal list.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

That's a considerable leap in logic.

How so? Cultists being 5 points can also be argued as a ridiculous typo. Infantry Squads at 4 points can be argued as a ridiculous typo. Who decides which typos are ridiculous and which are legitimate?

It's a 900% increase. The previously largest increase is less than 200%. Acolytes used to be around 5 pts, clicking twice on 5 yields 55. I can deduce with great likelihood that 5 was the intent, as can everyone else.

Infantry Squads and Cultists could, but them staying the same price as before gives very little indication that is the case, GW has not indicated they wanted to change the costs, them staying the same is relatively reasonable to a 900% increase in cost. You are being silly and using the false equivalence fallacy.

Wayniac wrote:
It's clear you don't understand what setting a precedent means. Imagine a tournament setting. If the TO suddenly says well we're pretty sure 55 point acolytes is a typo so they are 5 points, now that means you can bring up other "maybe this is a typo too" situations as well. Common sense isn't a factor because the rules have to be applied equally. Take it upon yourself to decide that X is a typo, well why not Y or Z as well? After all, you aren't TOTALLY sure it's a typo, you're just making an educated guess based on the circumstances. So why not other things too?

Where do you draw the line?

Setting the precedent that you'll give it a quick look over and see if it's an obvious error is great TO practice. Who wants to play against 2 pt Dreadnoughts or with 55 pt Acolytes? The Ogryn change is debatable, but because it is not without precedent that GW goes back on a good change I'd personally let it stick, there is no good argument for why GW has made an input error with Infantry Squads or Cultists. If something is a huge clear input error you ignore it and use whatever the old value was, if something is a stupid change (or lack of change) you live with it.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Well see my friend that is why we get called hyperbolic, we would like some books maybe pretty clear, with perhaps just a typo here and there, and maybe some mess ups sinking in now and then.

Apparently, that is demanding utter perfection for all time.

Thing is, at least from where I sit in this hobby, that is the current case. Most of the 2-week later FAQ's have been clarifications to questions, not complete re-writes of rules (contrary to some posters beliefs). Yes there's been a few instances where that's not been the case (looking at Iron Hands/Salamanders) but for the vast majority of the currently released books they work with a 1-page addition clarifying a few points.

Daemons needed the Errata preventing their Stratagems and Relics being used on CSM.

Necrons vehicles needed to be measured to from the model as well as the base.

Drukhari Codex was missing the FLY keyword on Cronos and Talos.

GSC had infinite damage psychic power combo.

Dark Angels had formatting errors in the pts section.

Space Wolves got new WL traits.

AdMech wound table on Dunecrawlers was messed up.

Craftworld Autarchs had to have their shield.

Price absent for Deathguard DP w. wings.

Brayhorn was supposed to replace instrument of chaos for TS Tzaangor. TS DPs didn't have the PSYKER keyword.

SM replaced Stratagems released in Vigilus.

Salamanders had a stupidly written Stratagem and also got some nerfs, but if we added all the nerfs that should have been out quicker that other factions eventually got we could add Knights and Orks as well.

IH were super OP, but at least GW owned up to it really quickly, although they nearly made me give up the game when they released the wrong patch without any of the nerfs.

All these, without mentioning the things GW haven't but should've touched like the Necron Tomb World or poorly designed Craftworld and CSM traits (CSM is mostly a balance issue, while Craftworlds is mostly a fluff issue).

The Newman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
No. This is pure hyperbole. There is an order of magnitude difference (literally and figuratively) between a 55 point Acolyte being a typo and a 4 point Infantry Squad being a typo. Anyone with a functioning brain can tell they are highly unlike to have pumped up the cost on a single Acolyte to be more than a 10-man squad use to be. There is no comparison between that an "why didn't they increase the cost of Infantry Squad to 5 per model, the whole internet thinks they are undercoated".

In your opinion. In my opinion it's not a typo. Subjective opinions are all equally valid because they are subjective. Objective facts simply are. The objective fact is that the points cost listed is 55 points per model. What your subjective opinion is, or what my subjective opinion is, are utterly meaningless when it comes to what the facts state.

I wish it were the case where we could say that making models more than 10 times the original cost was unintended, but this is a game where flamers can hit super-sonic aircraft and Terminators can somehow charge three times what they normally can move while Valkyries somehow move slower when they charge.

Man has a point.

And leaving aside the game logic I totally agree, at least in principle.* 55 points for an Acolyte is blatently wrong, on the other had either 10 points for a Hurricane Bolter or 2 for a Stormbolter is also clearly wrong but I don't get to decide which one is the mistake. If I were playing GSC I wouldn't field Acolytes until they get the errata out, simple as that.

* - The exception would be something like Custodian Guard because they're the only Troop choice in the army if that was the only army I owned. Them suddenly being 400 points per model would make it impossible to build a legal list.

You could build lists without Troops if you wanted to remain consistent. I'm also consistent, if GW increases the cost of a unit by 900% I'll assume it is a mistake, if they decrease a unit's cost by 90% I'll assume it's a mistake.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, turns out CA19 reverted the Cultists back to 4ppm. This was an error on my part.

How do we know this isn't a typo?

I fully agree that the Acolytes are probably not intended to be 55ppm, but until an errata is released we cannot know for certain. In my opinion, it is an all or nothing thing when it comes to ignoring rules or points costs, either it's all ok to ignore or none of it is. I understand not many people agree with this opinion but I feel it is the only way that the game can function without being bogged down in arguments over who gets to decide what is "intended" or not.

False dichotomy. Take things on a case by case basis, not some all or nothing approach. You do not need all or nothing.

Lemartes didnt get black rage in BoB. Sanguinary Priest didnt get Angels of Death. All SM chaplains lost a litany in the FAQ. Fleshtearers got their chapter tactic removed from turn 3+.

This is things that got changed in the faq but what is even worse is what they didnt fix in BoB. They didnt fix Dante and Sanguinary Guard to reroll hits instead of failed hits when they updated the datasheets for BA. So now half our reroll abilities is reroll failed and half is reoll hits. They didnt bother with making sure we have the same wording and same general strats between BA and codex marines. Like taking extra relics and chapter master or have same wording on honor the chapter strat or fix cp cost for our stratagems to be more in line with what RG have.

This would have taken up at most 4 pages, 3 datasheets + strats, and could be done with a mostly copy and paste job in just a few minutes. Nothing new at all or unbalanced, just getting BA more in line with normal marines in wording. Would help them pad their super thin 83page book that costs 30€

I did not buy this piece of crap. It would have been so easy to make it a worthwhile addition if they just spent a few minutes doing that extra work. Took me one read through to notice what it lacked and what else could have been done to make it a better written rules compliment without really affecting the power of BA. Im more upset with their lack of care than the actual power increase. This just shows they are more interested in making new things than making good things.

Well there are small things that at least point at a possibility of rather lax proof reading. The twin psycannon on GK razorbacks was costed not as if it was two psycannon, as in the case of all other twin linked weapons. But as if it was a heavy psycannon.

This made it through multiple CA and FAQs. Now does this means it was an error or that the point costs were on point? Does GW have special twink linked rules point costs for GK units, that the person writing the rules thought GK had a hvy psycannon without looking at the actual rules.

And this is just one gear on one GK vehicle. Typos can happen, and always will. But stuff that contradicts general rulings is really confusing to me, specialy on top of bad rules. I just don't understand how the same group of people can write something like codex CSM and codex SM back to back, unless they were writen by two separate groups of people, and a gigantic lock out of designer happened at the company.

Wayniac wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
How is it dishonest? The book released by GW states they are 55ppm. I dislike this much the same way as I dislike cultists being 5ppm, but I don't get to ignore one but enforce the other.

You know god damn well they're not 55 points.

And to defend this you and Wayniac have established this absurd false dichotomy of "precedent" -- either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future. But *gasp* what is there is a third option? We can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.

No. No way. There is no chance a human could ever do this.

You want people to take you more seriously? Stop with this sort of bs.

I know no such thing. All I know is what GW have told us. And GW have told us they are 55 points.

You aren't helping.

Anyway Daedalus you're focusing on the most extreme example, the 55 point acolytes which pretty clearly, barring some real stupidity, is actually a typo. But that's not the point. The point is selectively choosing what is a typo or isn't. That particular example is exceptional because it's so ridiculous that it couldn't possibly be true (but weirder things have happened with GW. I thought it would be ridiculous to let behemoths that are battle line ignore the limitations in AoS but they confirmed it).

What about any other example of something that could be a typo or not, rather than something that is almost certainly one.

Again, where do you draw the line? Or is your argument basically treat every potential "typo" on its own? So selectively apply thought to each potential situation? Who gets to determine that A must be a typo, B isn't, C might be so it gets changed and D seems close enough so it doesn't. How is that approach anything good?

In fairness STOMPA is off by more points than acolytes. Clearly GW meant to reduce it by 500 points, not 50. 420 seems about right for STOMPA.

well bigger question is why the original point costs of the darn thing was as it was, and wasn't fixed in a post codex FAQ.

Wayniac wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
What's the major issue with CA, a couple of typos in unit costs and probably the wrong page inserted into the mix? Missions work, rules work, alternate play modes work?

Well, the linked campaign chapter is pretty much worthless outside of using it to prevent spills when painting models.
On top of that, there is confusion about datasheets being listed in CA, but the datasheets not being in codex, legends or FW index.
The issue with the mixed up points is that while some mistakes are obvious like 55 point acolytes, the existence of such errors imply that there might be more, less obvious errors. I had a guy wonder whether pox walkers really went down in points again, or whether it's just a copy&paste error.

Even then you can't be 100% certain 55 point acolytes is a typo simply because doing that would set a precedent for "Is this also a typo?" sort of things with any change that someone doesn't like. As ridiculous as it is, the 55 point acolyte thing needs to stay as it is until clarification from GW to avoid that.

I disagree with any sentiment that you shouldn't think about things in general, regardless of topic. There is no excuse for not using your own brain. You don't drive into a wall because of an incorrect traffic sign either.
The acolyte is clearly a mistake and we clearly know what it should be.

Karol wrote:
well bigger question is why the original point costs of the darn thing was as it was, and wasn't fixed in a post codex FAQ.

i guess quadrupling its max potential damage (and over doubling the expected damage) compared to index was hoped to bring it in line...

Karol wrote:
this maybe a stupid idea. But aren't we all acting as if CA was writen one day before printing, and the staff really had 1-2 days to fix it before christmas time starts? Don't they have the books ready 6 months before, and the prints before the premier too.

Could the staff then, read their own book, and seeing the errors write them down, before christmas time?

That is true. Multiple youtubers and fan pages had enough time to make 1 hour+ videos to launch a week before the release. They could just collect feedback from those people and release the first errata/FAQs on day 1 of the release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Again, where do you draw the line?

It's quite simple actually. If the error is blatantly obvious as the 55 points or the 25 bikers, you check if there is a clear solution to that problem and apply that. There is no honest way to argue that either is intended. If you can make an honest argument for either case (like the Obliterator issue), you just go with occam's razor and use what GW told us.
Obviously, there is some grey inbetween, but arguing GSC acolytes are such a case is never honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
well bigger question is why the original point costs of the darn thing was as it was, and wasn't fixed in a post codex FAQ.

In his pre-release review of the codex, Reece claimed that the stompa is one of the most powerful units in the ork codex. I guess they listened to him.

i mean, technically Reece was correct.
Stompa IS the most powerful thing in the codex. On a direct model comparison anyway

I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

I don't think for consistency you can look at each potential "maybe a typo" rule. It introduces arguments by rules lawyers who can then try to argue that X is a typo too. That's the problem. No amount of "55 points is CLEARLY wrong" changes the fact about taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a typo/copy and paste error. It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

The blame for that 100% lies with GW not properly proofreading the book to catch such a glaring error.

Wayniac wrote:
I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

Didn't he make a claim about Grey Knights being really powerful at release, too - and even before the changes to core rules that crippled them, they weren't overly strong.

The Newman wrote:

And leaving aside the game logic I totally agree, at least in principle.* 55 points for an Acolyte is blatently wrong, on the other had either 10 points for a Hurricane Bolter or 2 for a Stormbolter is also clearly wrong but I don't get to decide which one is the mistake. If I were playing GSC I wouldn't field Acolytes until they get the errata out, simple as that.

Why is it clearly wrong? Just you decided 6 x 2 should be the cost? Did you forget that twin-linked style weapons get discounts?

This is the sort of lapse in logic that these over simplified obtuse arguments create. People stop using their heads and just use their ass.

And you know what's worse? People keep referencing Acolyte. But it isn't the Acolyte. It's the Neophyte. And that tells me that the vast majority of people here haven't even looked at the book and are just pig-piling on with internet rage.

It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

Do any of you think any such logic would hold up in the court of law?

It doesn't "enable other things to be questioned" unless you're a disingenuous bellend incapable of interacting with other people.

TO releases mission packet. "Neophytes are 5 points for this tournament". Done. Wow. That's like on the level of creating the first atomic weapon it was so hard.

"But what if the stompa is a typo and it's supposed to be only 200 points now?"
"Here's a refund for your ticket"

It's the same bs logic that lead people to think Forgeworld was getting squatted in legends and that leads people to read into every sentence GW types to find the slant they want to apply.

Wayniac wrote:
I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

I don't think for consistency you can look at each potential "maybe a typo" rule. It introduces arguments by rules lawyers who can then try to argue that X is a typo too. That's the problem. No amount of "55 points is CLEARLY wrong" changes the fact about taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a typo/copy and paste error. It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

The blame for that 100% lies with GW not properly proofreading the book to catch such a glaring error.

To be honest I don’t have a problem house ruling points costs, or tournament packs doing so. I’m not sure why people saying ‘lets house rule acolytes (neophyte, whatever) to 5 points’ is such a cardinal sin, whether 55 points is ‘intended’ or not.

nareik wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

I don't think for consistency you can look at each potential "maybe a typo" rule. It introduces arguments by rules lawyers who can then try to argue that X is a typo too. That's the problem. No amount of "55 points is CLEARLY wrong" changes the fact about taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a typo/copy and paste error. It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

The blame for that 100% lies with GW not properly proofreading the book to catch such a glaring error.

To be honest I don’t have a problem house ruling points costs, or tournament packs doing so. I’m not sure why people saying ‘lets house rule acolytes (neophyte, whatever) to 5 points’ is such a cardinal sin, whether 55 points is ‘intended’ or not.

Because, and it's clear some people don't think this will happen, house ruling one thing that you THINK (however true it might be) is wrong just leads to house ruling other things which may or may not be intended but you "think" it's wrong so you change it. It's a slippery slope. I think X has to be a typo, so I'm reversing it. . But what about Y and Z? Ehh.. maybe they are okay, so not touching those. But A? A just seems wrong so I'm changing that too.

Slippery slope fallacies are always nonsense.

Wayniac wrote:
I wouldn't trust Reece about anything 40k related. He's pretty much GW's Minister of Propaganda at this point.

I don't think for consistency you can look at each potential "maybe a typo" rule. It introduces arguments by rules lawyers who can then try to argue that X is a typo too. That's the problem. No amount of "55 points is CLEARLY wrong" changes the fact about taking it upon yourself to decide what is or isn't a typo/copy and paste error. It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

The blame for that 100% lies with GW not properly proofreading the book to catch such a glaring error.

Reece is a clown, he called on Brandon Grant on "his" (GW own his and Pablos ass) Podcast for whining about SM. He actually asked him what was the problem to the current ITC champion....

 Emicrania wrote:


Reece is a clown, he called on Brandon Grant on "his" (GW own his and Pablos ass) Podcast for whining about SM. He actually asked him what was the problem to the current ITC champion....

Could you link the podcast so I can get the context? Or do you mean on Twitch?

 Jidmah wrote:

Karol wrote:
this maybe a stupid idea. But aren't we all acting as if CA was writen one day before printing, and the staff really had 1-2 days to fix it before christmas time starts? Don't they have the books ready 6 months before, and the prints before the premier too.

Could the staff then, read their own book, and seeing the errors write them down, before christmas time?

That is true. Multiple youtubers and fan pages had enough time to make 1 hour+ videos to launch a week before the release. They could just collect feedback from those people and release the first errata/FAQs on day 1 of the release.

Faith and fury released the same day and already has its faq. Blood of Baal released after it and already has its faq. That's what makes me think (hope) their addressing more than just the obvious mistakes. Something's causing the holdup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
well bigger question is why the original point costs of the darn thing was as it was, and wasn't fixed in a post codex FAQ.

The hellforged super heavys would like a word.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

It HAS to be a typo, but changing that enables other things to be questioned.

Do any of you think any such logic would hold up in the court of law?

It doesn't "enable other things to be questioned" unless you're a disingenuous bellend incapable of interacting with other people.

TO releases mission packet. "Neophytes are 5 points for this tournament". Done. Wow. That's like on the level of creating the first atomic weapon it was so hard.

"But what if the stompa is a typo and it's supposed to be only 200 points now?"
"Here's a refund for your ticket"

It's the same bs logic that lead people to think Forgeworld was getting squatted in legends and that leads people to read into every sentence GW types to find the slant they want to apply.

Okey how do you interact with other people when your stuff is clearly overcosted and doesn't work, but GW decides to not fix it. There is zero way to force other people to accept point or rule changes done by a non official source.

And I don't think there were many people playing w40k, who in the face of a castellan point costs, could claim that the stompa was costed right.

Precedence is not a straight jacket. It informs future decisions, it does not decide them. You can change the clear errors while leaving the 'questionable' decisions alone.

I am fully confident that the vast majority of people can tell the difference between the errors and the 'questionable' decisions in the Munintorum Field Manual. We all know that GSC Neophyte Hybrids are not supposed to be 55 points a model (the same cost as a Sanctus and nearly 3 times the cost of a Aberrant). The decision to take GW's errors as 'law of the land' is purely up to you, especially before an FAQ is actually published.

If Neophytes aren't supposed to be 55 points, what are they supposed to cost?
Why would we assume that GW intended them to be 5 points and not 4 or 6?