Switch Theme:

Errata for Chapter Approved 2019?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Halandri

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.
You seem to be moving the goal posts... previously i perceived you were arguing no two opponents could possibly agree on how to change any rules.

Like literally the situation
“i love what you did with those models, lets say they are just 5 points each so we can see them on the battlefield”
“that sounds great” couldn’t ever occur according to you.

You were arguing because everyone has different rules they would want changed meant they couldn’t see past their differences to see common ground, especially as ~a player would never give up a rule without getting something in return~.

The only sense you made to me was if both players couldn’t agree on any changes then they can just use the printed rules. You said it would be fair, but really it is only fair in a loose sense as 55 points per model just effectively deletes a chaff unit entry from the game.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.


No, but you think what you want. Society wouldn't exist if it followed the rules in your head.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Gordoape wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.

I don't understand how this level of semantic trolling is even allowed on this forum. It's incredibly toxic and mostly just lame. You're play-acting that you are completely unable to understand nuance.


We should probably stop feeding the t... thread derail though. 55pts per Neophyte is an obvious typo. If BCB is assuming his intractable myopic mantle as per, and pretending nuance doesn’t exist, well then that’s his loss.

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 JohnnyHell wrote:
[55pts per Neophyte is an obvious typo.

What should they cost instead?
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nareik wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.
You seem to be moving the goal posts... previously i perceived you were arguing no two opponents could possibly agree on how to change any rules.

Like literally the situation
“i love what you did with those models, lets say they are just 5 points each so we can see them on the battlefield”
“that sounds great” couldn’t ever occur according to you.

You were arguing because everyone has different rules they would want changed meant they couldn’t see past their differences to see common ground, especially as ~a player would never give up a rule without getting something in return~.

The only sense you made to me was if both players couldn’t agree on any changes then they can just use the printed rules. You said it would be fair, but really it is only fair in a loose sense as 55 points per model just effectively deletes a chaff unit entry from the game.
I never said it couldn't ever occur, I am saying that more often than not it won't because most people will say "You get to ignore rule A? Then I want to ignore rule B".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordoape wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
You know that picture disproves you, not me? The book very clearly states 55 points. You're claiming it says 5 when it says 55.

I don't understand how this level of semantic trolling is even allowed on this forum. It's incredibly toxic and mostly just lame. You're play-acting that you are completely unable to understand nuance.
Disagreement is not trolling, nor is it toxic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/12 19:56:00


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Lord Damocles wrote: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?

Because they were 5 points before the obvious error made them 55 points. If the error made them 44 points, we have an argument for the correct value being 4 points, but that's not what we have.

BaconCatBug wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
These are very different things.

We dont just throw out the "social contract", because our army isn't cutting edge.

Take obliterators. They went up in cost massively, but their stats also changed a lot. If they're not good then they dont get used. Now they're down in points.

Neos were 5 points. They went to 55. Their stats did not change. This is very clearly a case of someone accidentally hitting a key twice. There is no basis for such a wide point change.
So by that logic 4 point conscripts are clearly a case of someone hitting the key to the right of the key they intended to hit. Why is my subjective opinion invalid but yours is valid?

Because it's orders of magnitude different. A difference of 1 point per conscript is negligible compared to 50 point per neophyte.
So what's the limit for what is and isn't considered a typo? 2 points? 3? 10? And who gets to decide that limit? I am just trying to figure out what the criteria are for being able to ignore rules you don't like.

To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice, "I can't define when it is a typo, but I know one when I see one".
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






 alextroy wrote:
Because they were 5 points before the obvious error made them 55 points. If the error made them 44 points, we have an argument for the correct value being 4 points, but that's not what we have.
Thunder Hammers used to be 21 points before the obvious error made them 40 points. If the error made them 24 points, we'd have an argument for the correct value being 20 points, but that's not what we have.

My reasoning is just as valid as yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 alextroy wrote:
To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice, "I can't define when it is a typo, but I know one when I see one".
I am glad we fully agree! I don't see a typo.

The irony of this discussion is, of course, that when GW do errata it all it will do is prove me right, because if it was so obvious that no-one would follow it there would be no need for errata.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/12 20:02:26


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 alextroy wrote:
Lord Damocles wrote: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?

Because they were 5 points before the obvious error made them 55 points. If the error made them 44 points, we have an argument for the correct value being 4 points, but that's not what we have.

But how do we know that whoever was typing in the points didn't miss the key they were aiming for entirely? (they clearly weren't paying much attention)
How do we know that the points value wasn't supposed to change like loads of other values in the book did?
Why are we assuming that things like Ogryns reverting to old costs is a copy-paste error, but Neophytes apparently weren't copy-pasted?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Halandri

I thought errata existed to revise mistakes?

What if it gets FAQd?

Is neophyte point value meant to read 5?

Yes, replace 55 with 5.
   
Made in us
Swift Swooping Hawk





 Lord Damocles wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Lord Damocles wrote: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?

Because they were 5 points before the obvious error made them 55 points. If the error made them 44 points, we have an argument for the correct value being 4 points, but that's not what we have.

But how do we know that whoever was typing in the points didn't miss the key they were aiming for entirely? (they clearly weren't paying much attention)
How do we know that the points value wasn't supposed to change like loads of other values in the book did?
Why are we assuming that things like Ogryns reverting to old costs is a copy-paste error, but Neophytes apparently weren't copy-pasted?


Right. All this debating around the neophyte is pointless. Let's ask a harder question like the Ogryn question. Or, IMO, an even harder one, like the Bonesinger. Is it in Legends or not? Is it an HQ or an elite? What's its point cost? The whole point of BCB's argument (and yours, which is a much better-expressed argument) is that this stuff matters, and you get the really grey areas like the Ogryn or the Bonesinger and you wonder "what the feth is the answer"? This is the crap that makes me justified in my decision to not buy another piece of print media from GW again.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Klickor wrote:
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.


We are playing Dante with the correct chapter master wording. RAI, baby.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







I have to say, I'm looking forwards to if GW do a seminar at UKGE this year - "So, WTF happened with the MFM?" is going to be a fun question to ask...

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Dysartes wrote:
I have to say, I'm looking forwards to if GW do a seminar at UKGE this year - "So, WTF happened with the MFM?" is going to be a fun question to ask...

That would be comedy gold. I hope there's a recording. Do they allow cameras?
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Ask them why they haven't fixed the damn assault weapons rules at the same time.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ask them why they haven't fixed the damn assault weapons rules at the same time.

Nah, we need to have something to keep BCB from being able to play a game

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

 Dysartes wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ask them why they haven't fixed the damn assault weapons rules at the same time.

Nah, we need to have something to keep BCB from being able to play a game

Ok ask them why my fething fellblade is 740 points without wargear and a fething castellan is less than that WITH wargear.
   
Made in nl
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Cozy cockpit of an Imperial Knight

If we could kindly stay on topic and not devolve into the same old petty antic shenanigans, that would be great.



Fatum Iustum Stultorum



Fiat justitia ruat caelum

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


Right. All this debating around the neophyte is pointless. Let's ask a harder question like the Ogryn question. Or, IMO, an even harder one, like the Bonesinger. Is it in Legends or not? Is it an HQ or an elite? What's its point cost? The whole point of BCB's argument (and yours, which is a much better-expressed argument) is that this stuff matters, and you get the really grey areas like the Ogryn or the Bonesinger and you wonder "what the feth is the answer"? This is the crap that makes me justified in my decision to not buy another piece of print media from GW again.


No. The problem isnt that problems exist. The problem is they believe that these issues create a false dichotomy that places everyone in a no win situation, because they act in bad faith.

So you guys want the answer? What happens if I say the neos are 5 points and then you use that as justification to say thunderhammers are 20?

Then you dont get to play the game. which is great for BCB, because he doesn't play and gas lighting forums is his hobby.

   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Ok in what faith did they have when they wrote the Inari book and the GK codex at tthe same time, because they were finishing one, when they were doing the other. How can one explain other then either bad faith or some intern being made to write the GK stuff alone, them being so different. The whole GK codex feel as if it was not writen with 8th ed in mind. It has non of the thing even the first 8th ed sm codex had.

And what options do people that have a bad codex have, if their armies aren't fixed by GW? Worse thing is that this is affecting non tournament players the most. A tournament player won't care. If army is bad, he will buy the best one. Same way a sportsman switchs from baned substance to a legal or a non illegal one. But a casual player who wants to play his army? What is he suppose to do? Army doesn't work, fixs don't happen. And the only anwser seem to be buy another army. But how the hell can this be put on the same scaled as the supposed play what you want ?

But again we are going in circle. Some people think GW errors are just something they do for what ever reasons, why others think it is random and GW has nothing to do with the errors. Doubt people will ever get to agree about it, unless someone goes wired and works at GW for 6 months.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
Ok in what faith did they have when they wrote the Inari book and the GK codex at tthe same time, because they were finishing one, when they were doing the other. How can one explain other then either bad faith or some intern being made to write the GK stuff alone, them being so different. The whole GK codex feel as if it was not writen with 8th ed in mind. It has non of the thing even the first 8th ed sm codex had.

And what options do people that have a bad codex have, if their armies aren't fixed by GW? Worse thing is that this is affecting non tournament players the most. A tournament player won't care. If army is bad, he will buy the best one. Same way a sportsman switchs from baned substance to a legal or a non illegal one. But a casual player who wants to play his army? What is he suppose to do? Army doesn't work, fixs don't happen. And the only anwser seem to be buy another army. But how the hell can this be put on the same scaled as the supposed play what you want ?

But again we are going in circle. Some people think GW errors are just something they do for what ever reasons, why others think it is random and GW has nothing to do with the errors. Doubt people will ever get to agree about it, unless someone goes wired and works at GW for 6 months.


Jesus, Karol. For once stop trying to make everything into an effigy of GK. The points they have are what they have. If something is WILDLY out of bounds - great, let's discuss that. Ogryns going up seems totally wrong?

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"
"Sure."

But if you want to pull the sword from the stone, then what if the GK points are too low? What if MY meta has GK wining a LOT? How are you going to disagree with that? From my perspective GK are GREAT! See what a bs premise this logic is?

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
Ok in what faith did they have when they wrote the Inari book and the GK codex at tthe same time, because they were finishing one, when they were doing the other. How can one explain other then either bad faith or some intern being made to write the GK stuff alone, them being so different. The whole GK codex feel as if it was not writen with 8th ed in mind. It has non of the thing even the first 8th ed sm codex had.

And what options do people that have a bad codex have, if their armies aren't fixed by GW? Worse thing is that this is affecting non tournament players the most. A tournament player won't care. If army is bad, he will buy the best one. Same way a sportsman switchs from baned substance to a legal or a non illegal one. But a casual player who wants to play his army? What is he suppose to do? Army doesn't work, fixs don't happen. And the only anwser seem to be buy another army. But how the hell can this be put on the same scaled as the supposed play what you want ?

But again we are going in circle. Some people think GW errors are just something they do for what ever reasons, why others think it is random and GW has nothing to do with the errors. Doubt people will ever get to agree about it, unless someone goes wired and works at GW for 6 months.


Jesus, Karol. For once stop trying to make everything into an effigy of GK. The points they have are what they have. If something is WILDLY out of bounds - great, let's discuss that. Ogryns going up seems totally wrong?

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"
"Sure."

But if you want to pull the sword from the stone, then what if the GK points are too low? What if MY meta has GK wining a LOT? How are you going to disagree with that? From my perspective GK are GREAT! See what a bs premise this logic is?

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.


Fine and dandy even without the balance aspect however their rules were and still are in a Bad state.
Spoiler:
Page 81: Chaos covenant of nurgle. an ability which at the time was absolutely useless due to it's conditions and even now is useless. not to mention the keywords weren't propperly handled, making it f.e. impossible technically for R&H infantry to use chimeras, valkyries etc.

page 83: An HQ printed without the <charachter> Keyword, is something that should've caught the eye at release not half a year later.

Page 86: Mutants. Mutation table was broken upon release

Page 86: Chaos Spawn beeing consistently ignored in the FW part over the last two CA cycles. Seems as if R&H just get forgotten by the rules team like most FW rules and ignored leading to the hillarious situation that the price tag never changed.

Page 87: Nobody checked what a renegade command squad was and how to transfer it over into 8th edition it seems, needed to be expanded 6 months later by the first FAQ to the propper squad size. Further nobody checked what the Command Vox Net does and how it interacts, it to this day doesn't work. BTW entry for chaos sigil still missing.

Page 88: The chaos sigil is now changed again? Infact even more nerfed then it was? Reason beeing?

Page 89: Enforcer did again miss the <Charachter> keyword upon release, still misses combat stimm injector piece of equipment, because reasons (Oh on that front i will give out a completly second paragraf). Balefull judge interaction with marauders still broken.

Page 90: Marauder Squads lost seemingly energy weapon options in the transitions, yet still were murder cultists as a speciality possible? Further, Hereteks gives the squad Krak greneades, yet the squad allready had krak grenades? Also lost the ability for a "Demolition charge" (which entry exists in the weapons list but nobody can equip it?), also rules interaction between the enforcer as allready mentioned.

Page 91: The squad size needed to be adjusted on the ogryn brutes. Limted at 5 at the start of 8th upon release. Also avalanche of muscle needed changing, i.e. was written to stack per charge permanently.

Page 92: Same as above, further,covenant of nurgle does not give the Nurgle keyword, meaning that what supposed to happen when a plague ogryn detonates is more likely to damage yourself. Congratulations.

Out of 12 core pages (without points even really regarded as other balance aspects) there are and were 10 pages with faults in them. of which the majority remains not fixed. Does a 83, 3 % fault/ Page rate not scream issue?





Even funnier , csm dex 2.0 not adapted stratagems according to faq's.

Etc
And co kg.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/12 21:38:49


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

I mean the issue is that you can't just treat every instance as its own thing.

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"

"Sure."

okay, now what about something else that may be off? Ask that too? And then the next? And the next?

That's why a precedent exists and has to exist. So you DON'T have to address everything which seems like it's a mistake or feels "off" without any clarification from GW.


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

All this comes back to the OP's original question, when's the faq coming out? Why is it taking so long to address some typos when they've already issued faqs for both the pa releases that came out in December but not ca?
   
Made in us
Swift Swooping Hawk





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:


Right. All this debating around the neophyte is pointless. Let's ask a harder question like the Ogryn question. Or, IMO, an even harder one, like the Bonesinger. Is it in Legends or not? Is it an HQ or an elite? What's its point cost? The whole point of BCB's argument (and yours, which is a much better-expressed argument) is that this stuff matters, and you get the really grey areas like the Ogryn or the Bonesinger and you wonder "what the feth is the answer"? This is the crap that makes me justified in my decision to not buy another piece of print media from GW again.


No. The problem isnt that problems exist. The problem is they believe that these issues create a false dichotomy that places everyone in a no win situation, because they act in bad faith.

So you guys want the answer? What happens if I say the neos are 5 points and then you use that as justification to say thunderhammers are 20?

Then you dont get to play the game. which is great for BCB, because he doesn't play and gas lighting forums is his hobby.



But nobody's answered the question. How about this; you play Neos at 5ppm. What is the confidence level you rate that choice at? That is, what percentage sure are you that you followed the rules as GW intended? I'd give myself a 90% there if I ran them at 5 points. But what about in the case of the Ogryn? GW have nerfed things weirdly before. And what about the case of the Bonesinger!? I don't think I could pick anything that was over 50%. That's screwed up, and that's the problem with this slowAF FAQ here. I'm not asking any of this in bad faith; I have 2 Bonesingers and I'd love to use them but *I don't know how right now*.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Not Online!!! wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
Ok in what faith did they have when they wrote the Inari book and the GK codex at tthe same time, because they were finishing one, when they were doing the other. How can one explain other then either bad faith or some intern being made to write the GK stuff alone, them being so different. The whole GK codex feel as if it was not writen with 8th ed in mind. It has non of the thing even the first 8th ed sm codex had.

And what options do people that have a bad codex have, if their armies aren't fixed by GW? Worse thing is that this is affecting non tournament players the most. A tournament player won't care. If army is bad, he will buy the best one. Same way a sportsman switchs from baned substance to a legal or a non illegal one. But a casual player who wants to play his army? What is he suppose to do? Army doesn't work, fixs don't happen. And the only anwser seem to be buy another army. But how the hell can this be put on the same scaled as the supposed play what you want ?

But again we are going in circle. Some people think GW errors are just something they do for what ever reasons, why others think it is random and GW has nothing to do with the errors. Doubt people will ever get to agree about it, unless someone goes wired and works at GW for 6 months.


Jesus, Karol. For once stop trying to make everything into an effigy of GK. The points they have are what they have. If something is WILDLY out of bounds - great, let's discuss that. Ogryns going up seems totally wrong?

"Hey can we both agree that they messed up on Ogryns and we use the previous cost until the FAQ?"
"Sure."

But if you want to pull the sword from the stone, then what if the GK points are too low? What if MY meta has GK wining a LOT? How are you going to disagree with that? From my perspective GK are GREAT! See what a bs premise this logic is?

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.


Fine and dandy even without the balance aspect however their rules were and still are in a Bad state.
Spoiler:
Page 81: Chaos covenant of nurgle. an ability which at the time was absolutely useless due to it's conditions and even now is useless. not to mention the keywords weren't propperly handled, making it f.e. impossible technically for R&H infantry to use chimeras, valkyries etc.

page 83: An HQ printed without the <charachter> Keyword, is something that should've caught the eye at release not half a year later.

Page 86: Mutants. Mutation table was broken upon release

Page 86: Chaos Spawn beeing consistently ignored in the FW part over the last two CA cycles. Seems as if R&H just get forgotten by the rules team like most FW rules and ignored leading to the hillarious situation that the price tag never changed.

Page 87: Nobody checked what a renegade command squad was and how to transfer it over into 8th edition it seems, needed to be expanded 6 months later by the first FAQ to the propper squad size. Further nobody checked what the Command Vox Net does and how it interacts, it to this day doesn't work. BTW entry for chaos sigil still missing.

Page 88: The chaos sigil is now changed again? Infact even more nerfed then it was? Reason beeing?

Page 89: Enforcer did again miss the <Charachter> keyword upon release, still misses combat stimm injector piece of equipment, because reasons (Oh on that front i will give out a completly second paragraf). Balefull judge interaction with marauders still broken.

Page 90: Marauder Squads lost seemingly energy weapon options in the transitions, yet still were murder cultists as a speciality possible? Further, Hereteks gives the squad Krak greneades, yet the squad allready had krak grenades? Also lost the ability for a "Demolition charge" (which entry exists in the weapons list but nobody can equip it?), also rules interaction between the enforcer as allready mentioned.

Page 91: The squad size needed to be adjusted on the ogryn brutes. Limted at 5 at the start of 8th upon release. Also avalanche of muscle needed changing, i.e. was written to stack per charge permanently.

Page 92: Same as above, further,covenant of nurgle does not give the Nurgle keyword, meaning that what supposed to happen when a plague ogryn detonates is more likely to damage yourself. Congratulations.

Out of 12 core pages (without points even really regarded as other balance aspects) there are and were 10 pages with faults in them. of which the majority remains not fixed. Does a 83, 3 % fault/ Page rate not scream issue?





Even funnier , csm dex 2.0 not adapted stratagems according to faq's.

Etc
And co kg.



Did any fw stuff that didn't pertain to loyalist marines get a change? The only csm that I'm aware of that got changed was stuff we share with loyalists. Did any xenos stuff change? Honest question.
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Not to my knowledge. Actually yes some smaller daemonengines and weapons got some minor adjustments but that is it.

And that was just stuff i bothered to bring up as exemples.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/12 22:25:41


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




The dark hollows of Kentucky

Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Halandri

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.

The internet: GW is hurrying out products, making too many mistakes.

Also the internet: Why won’t GW hurry out the product?
   
Made in ch
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Gadzilla666 wrote:
Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.


I mean theorethically attempting to fix up what would that be? 2-3 lists..
And about 1-2 lists worth of additional models?

Yeah could be if they also would add in tests for beta stratagems etc.

But i assume that they just have deleted the file and now searched/ had to rewrite it

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units."
Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?"
Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?"
GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!"
Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.  
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






nareik wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
Could that be what's taking so long? Actually addressing the stuff they outright ignored? Because changing typos shouldn't take over a month.

The internet: GW is hurrying out products, making too many mistakes.

Also the internet: Why won’t GW hurry out the product?
More like "GW promised FAQs would be issued after two weeks, why have they lied?"
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: