9th Edition Errata SNAFUs

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.

**chimeara**

I just noticed the Graviton Pulsar for the Moirax War Dog isn't in the book. I wonder if this is an oversight or on purpose?

**The Newman**

Here's a fun one, the distance a model moves is determined by the point on the model that moved the furthest along it's path, including rotation. The rule in 8th kind of implied that, but it's spelled out that because of the length of the gun barrel a Leman Russ Demolisher can rotate a lot further than a Leman Russ Conqueror now.

What's weird about that is that since facing is irrelevant it's actively punishing immersion for no reason: moving my models around without ever rotating them to face their targets makes a significant difference in how far they can move. Considering how big GW is on "crafting the narrative" it's a very strange thing for them to do.

**alextroy**

This is to prevent That Guy moves like having a tank hidden around a corner and then rotating the turret around the corner to gain LOS and claim the tank was Stationary.

**The Newman**

alextroy wrote:
This is to prevent That Guy moves like having a tank hidden around a corner and then rotating the turret around the corner to gain LOS and claim the tank was Stationary.

I suppose that makes sense. The whole thing can't help feeling like there was a better way to handle it, but some models not having round bases and some models not having bases at all makes it very difficult to handle without it feeling "gamey" one way or another.

**Nitro Zeus**

I feel like bases for all tanks would not be a bad thing

**Gadzilla666**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
I feel like bases for all tanks would not be a bad thing

All tanks? Including the super heavys? That would be a hell of a base, and make them pretty hard to maneuver through terrain, which they should be, but not that hard.

**kodos**

only if you make the base significant larger than the tank itself

look at the new Primaris Tanks about "right" Base size and Ork Buggies for the "wrong" size

**Insectum7**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
I feel like bases for all tanks would not be a bad thing

Yuck. I'm not putting any bases on any ground vehicles.

**Nitro Zeus**

Well it would improve the game

**Kitane**

The Tyranid drop pod Tyrannocyte can carry any non-titanic monster in the line.

Its disembarking rules weren't updated and most monsters can't fit wholly within 3".

It could be argued that we could use the same rules as for huge super-heavies arriving from the reserves, but the same exception would prevent those monsters from doing anything, even shooting or charging in the turn they arrived, making it ...well..useless.

**Vector Strike**

BaconCatBug wrote:

Bolt Sniper Rifle Executioner Rounds no longer ignore LOS.

feth no-LoS fire

**vict0988**

The Newman wrote:
Here's a fun one, the distance a model moves is determined by the point on the model that moved the furthest along it's path, including rotation. The rule in 8th kind of implied that, but it's spelled out that because of the length of the gun barrel a Leman Russ Demolisher can rotate a lot further than a Leman Russ Conqueror now.

What's weird about that is that since facing is irrelevant it's actively punishing immersion for no reason: moving my models around without ever rotating them to face their targets makes a significant difference in how far they can move. Considering how big GW is on "crafting the narrative" it's a very strange thing for them to do.

Rotate the models if it's not giving you an advantage. Getting free movement when rotating DE Raiders was worse and less intuitive.

**DarkHound**

Here's a fun, game breaking one from the Engine War FAQ:

Q: Can the Mechanicus Locum Stratagem be used to give characters other than your warlord one of the Holy Order Warlord Traits?

A: No. The Character is only considered your Warlord for the purposes of the Warlord Trait itself, not for what Warlord Traits it has access to.

Mechanicus Locum is a stratagem that lets you take additional Warlord traits. It is word-for-word the same as any other. The Holy Order entry states:

If an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model (excluding named characters) is your Warlord, you can select a Warlord Trait from below for them instead of using the Warlord Traits table from Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus.

This is exactly the same as any other Warlord trait section, such as the base AdMech traits:

If an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS CHARACTER is your Warlord, they can generate a Warlord Trait from the following table instead of the one in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

What this means is if Mechanicum Locus' language doesn't meet the requirements for Holy Order traits, then it also doesn't meet the requirements for the normal Warlord traits. If Mechanicus Locum doesn't meet those requirements, then nobody's stratagem can grant them additional Warlord traits. Whoooops!

**PenitentJake**

DarkHound wrote:
Here's a fun, game breaking one from the Engine War FAQ:
Q: Can the Mechanicus Locum Stratagem be used to give characters other than your warlord one of the Holy Order Warlord Traits?

A: No. The Character is only considered your Warlord for the purposes of the Warlord Trait itself, not for what Warlord Traits it has access to.
Mechanicum Locus is a stratagem that lets you take additional Warlord traits. It is word-for-word the same as any other. The Holy Order entry states:
If an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model (excluding named characters) is your Warlord, you can select a Warlord Trait from below for them instead of using the Warlord Traits table from Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus.
This is exactly the same as any other Warlord trait section, such as the base AdMech traits:
If an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS CHARACTER is your Warlord, they can generate a Warlord Trait from the following table instead of the one in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

What this means is if Mechanicum Locus' language doesn't meet the requirements for Holy Order traits, then it also doesn't meet the requirements for the normal Warlord traits. If Mechanicum Locus doesn't meet those requirements, then nobody's stratagem can grant them additional Warlord traits. Whoooops!

This makes sense to me; warlord is a rank, earned by experience, and accepted by the army the warlord leads. That is the thing that enables access to Holy Order traits.

A non warlord with a warlord trait is just some skilled dude. He has no trust, no authority, no right to lead. He is unworthy of that which is bestowed upon actual, battlefield warlords who have earned access to these traits through participation in hundreds of battles.

**DarkHound**

Yeah, you can justify the fluff, sure. I'm talking about the rules as written though. The exact text of the rules don't support that.

**alextroy**

This is not rule breaking in any way. A character with a warlord trait via Holy Order is not the warlord.

**yukishiro1**

His point is the logic they used would apply to anything.

But that's where he went wrong. Logic doesn't matter to GW. What matters is what they said. The fact that their hand-waving reasons for not allowing multiple holy order traits would invalidate every bonus warlord trait doesn't matter because they didn't apply to it to anything else, just to this one thing.

A lot of GW's FAQ answers make no sense and would break all sorts of other things in the game if you took their reasoning seriously. But GW doesn't take their reasoning seriously themselves, so that would be a mistake. Just read for the bottom line and try not to let it hurt your brain that it makes no sense.

**The Newman**

DarkHound wrote:
Here's a fun, game breaking one from the Engine War FAQ:
Q: Can the Mechanicus Locum Stratagem be used to give characters other than your warlord one of the Holy Order Warlord Traits?

A: No. The Character is only considered your Warlord for the purposes of the Warlord Trait itself, not for what Warlord Traits it has access to.
Mechanicum Locus is a stratagem that lets you take additional Warlord traits. It is word-for-word the same as any other. The Holy Order entry states:
If an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model (excluding named characters) is your Warlord, you can select a Warlord Trait from below for them instead of using the Warlord Traits table from Codex: Adeptus Mechanicus.
This is exactly the same as any other Warlord trait section, such as the base AdMech traits:
If an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS CHARACTER is your Warlord, they can generate a Warlord Trait from the following table instead of the one in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.

What this means is if Mechanicum Locus' language doesn't meet the requirements for Holy Order traits, then it also doesn't meet the requirements for the normal Warlord traits. If Mechanicum Locus doesn't meet those requirements, then nobody's stratagem can grant them additional Warlord traits. Whoooops!

Mechanicum Locus as you're reporting it does not grant a warlord trait to a model that isn't your warlord, it grants your warlord access to a different table of traits. If you had a strat that would grant another model besides your warlord a warlord trait then you could stack Mechanicum Locus on top of that.

**DarkHound**

yukishiro1 wrote:
His point is the logic they used would apply to anything.

But that's where he went wrong. Logic doesn't matter to GW. What matters is what they said. The fact that their hand-waving reasons for not allowing multiple holy order traits would invalidate every bonus warlord trait doesn't matter because they didn't apply to it to anything else, just to this one thing.

A lot of GW's FAQ answers make no sense and would break all sorts of other things in the game if you took their reasoning seriously. But GW doesn't take their reasoning seriously themselves, so that would be a mistake. Just read for the bottom line and try not to let it hurt your brain that it makes no sense.

Yup, pretty much. Obviously nobody is actually going to take the FAQ seriously, but that's also kind of my point. It falls to the community to figure out what parts to keep and what to ignore, which really defeats the point of the FAQ. They tried to use the FAQ as a balance correction instead of using an Eratta.

Same thing with the Ork workshop fiasco. Same thing with the 0 point guns on Kestallan Robots. Or whatever else is problem of the month.

The Newman wrote:
Mechanicum Locus as you're reporting it does not grant a warlord trait to a model that isn't your warlord, it grants your warlord access to a different table of traits. If you had a strat that would grant another model besides your warlord a warlord trait then you could stack Mechanicum Locus on top of that.

That is absolutely wrong.

Mechanicus Locum: Use this Stratagem before the battle, after nominating your Warlord. Select one <FORGE WORLD> CHARACTER model from your army that does not have a Warlord Trait and determine one Warlord Trait for it; it is regarded as your Warlord for the purposes of that Warlord Trait. Each Warlord Trait in your army must be unique (if randomly generated, re-roll duplicate results).

**The Newman**

I failed my reading comprehension skill check there. I thought he was quoting the wording of Mechanicum Locus instead of the Holy Order trait intro, hence the words "as you"re reporting it" in my post.

**The Newman**

Voss wrote:
An overlooked thing that needs to be FAQed:

The GSC Tectonic Fragdrill.

This is a 'sector mechanicus structure' that works as a 'terrain feature' The former is meaningless in 9th edition, and the latter is specifically not a building (which are units). It has special rules for movement on the terrain feature and cover that don't mesh with the 9th edition rules at all. For example, it simply provides 'cover' which is meaningless without a type of cover (light, heavy, dense) and talks about other models receiving cover if they're '50% obscured,' which is pure gibberish in 9th.

Underground Egress basically doesn't play nice with the movement step and reinforcement step of the movement phase, but I can't be bothered to try to unpack it at this hour.

The GSC FAQ mentions this thing zero times, despite being functionally incompatible with multiple areas of the 9th edition rules.

The rule book has an appendix for "rare situations", it says anything that grants cover without specifying what type should be assumed to be Light Cover. That still leaves several other issues, but at least part of it is covered in the base rules.

**Voss**

Here's a fun one: 'slain' no longer has any meaning in game terms.

9th exclusively uses destroyed, which removes a model from play (page 6 of the pdf, side bar for 'Starting Strength, Half-strength and destroyed units). (And Inflict Damage on page 18 finally gets around to telling you that 0 W means destroyed)

However in older 8th codexes, several weapons (including plasma weapons rolling 1, use 'slain.' Technically speaking, that does nothing.
Codex SM uses destroyed, but I'm not sure when the change happened. DG and TS use 'slain,' for example