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.

The problem with bad armies, is that in face of how good the good ones are, it is hard to decide what is an oversight or a miss print and what isn't. Sometimes not even that.
does the fact that the weapon table is identical for a Grand Master and a regular Dreadknight, mean that it is a copy paste error or did GW really think that GK masters should have worse stats, then other marine Lt?

This one was pointed out in YMDC, but a Gretchen unit is toughness 5 in melee, and that seems like it can’t be intentional, so might be a prime candidate for a day 1 errata.

Voss wrote:


The point of thread is to collect (and submit) oversights, obvious and otherwise, so they stop being overlooked

You'll notice that I didn't say Dysartes was wrong. I just added to it.

The Guard index and the codex that immediately preceded it were obviously rush jobs.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Imperial Guard - Heavy Weapon Teams (inc. Veteran HWTs, if it matters) - Count as two models when it comes to fitting in a transport, but not for 1-per-10-models upgrades. In the case of a 10 man Infantry Squad, that means the classic 2nd ed loadouts - with a HWT and a special weapon - are all invalid. Is this intentional, or an oversight?

It, and the missing voxcaster upgrade, are obviously oversights.

Same with Blast.

I just downloaded the new Warhammer The App with included Battle Forge List Builder.

It allows you to add Incursors one at a time. Same with Blade Guard Veterans and ablative Devastators. Storm Raven Gunships are 255 in the PDF download, 265 in the App.

I'm thinking we're actually meant to be able to take 5.6.7.8.9. or 10 etc and the 5 Models, 10 Models in the MFM is just poor wording. I figure that's at least slightly more likely than GW putting out yet another buggy and worthless army builder. Of course, there isn't a PC version on the Windows Apps Store that you can use to build on the big screen then send to OneDrive/etc on the small screen for a trip to the game board so it's going to be easy to be wrong on that one.


The Thunderhawk has a points cost but not a datasheet. As does the Astraeus which suggests they'll be the only two Forge World models not moved to Legends as they're the only two in a Red Text Forge World Point Values section.

Big Ups Daed for compiling all these! You are doing the Emperor's work here

Breton wrote:
I just downloaded the new Warhammer The App with included Battle Forge List Builder.

It allows you to add Incursors one at a time. Same with Blade Guard Veterans and ablative Devastators. Storm Raven Gunships are 255 in the PDF download, 265 in the App.

I'm thinking we're actually meant to be able to take 5.6.7.8.9. or 10 etc and the 5 Models, 10 Models in the MFM is just poor wording. I figure that's at least slightly more likely than GW putting out yet another buggy and worthless army builder. Of course, there isn't a PC version on the Windows Apps Store that you can use to build on the big screen then send to OneDrive/etc on the small screen for a trip to the game board so it's going to be easy to be wrong on that one.

Does it increase the cost individually for each model you add? Technically you can have a unit of 7 Incursors if you want, you just pay for 10, so the app would need to allow you to add individual models for that (stupid) reason.

Breton wrote:
I just downloaded the new Warhammer The App with included Battle Forge List Builder.

It allows you to add Incursors one at a time. Same with Blade Guard Veterans and ablative Devastators. Storm Raven Gunships are 255 in the PDF download, 265 in the App.

I'm thinking we're actually meant to be able to take 5.6.7.8.9. or 10 etc and the 5 Models, 10 Models in the MFM is just poor wording. I figure that's at least slightly more likely than GW putting out yet another buggy and worthless army builder. Of course, there isn't a PC version on the Windows Apps Store that you can use to build on the big screen then send to OneDrive/etc on the small screen for a trip to the game board so it's going to be easy to be wrong on that one.

You run into issues with this with units like Ork Boys who would be 8.5 points per model.

This could all just be a "what's the quickest and easiest way we can sort out all these datasheets" scenario though, and maybe they all get adjusted for adding individuals with the codexes.

The Warboss on Bike has leader abilities, but is unable to join any units.

The Colossus Siege Bombard lacks the [Indirect Fire] ability.

Necrons
Ghost Ark needs Firing Points.
Transcendent C'tan is the only C'tan without RP
Praetorians have no purpose at their price point, no leader interaction.
Ditto Ophydians.
Not really a FAQ issue, but I do wish Deathmarks could still use something like Aetheric Interception.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Warboss on Bike has leader abilities, but is unable to join any units.

The Colossus Siege Bombard lacks the [Indirect Fire] ability.

The Big Trakk also loses transport capacity if it takes a Kill Kannon.... Which it can't take. It can however take a Supa-Kannon

Is the War Dog Stalker supposed to have the CHARACTER keyword?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Is the War Dog Stalker supposed to have the CHARACTER keyword?

Yea, I believe this is to allow for an all war dog army.

I will update the main post this weekend. There's a few requests I've seen that are pretty wishlisty so I'll list those out, but they'll be separate section.

Minor ones:

Canis Wolfborne. His model has a pistol. He's historically had a bolt pistol. His datasheet gives the stats for a bolt pistol. He's NOT listed as having a bolt pistol.

Stormblade: It has a hull heavy bolter they forgot to put on its datasheet.

The Relic Contemptor Dreadnought has two Heavy Plasma Cannons as its default armament, yet the profiles for these weapons are listed no where in the document.

crazysaneman wrote:
Necrons
Ghost Ark needs Firing Points.
Transcendent C'tan is the only C'tan without RP
Praetorians have no purpose at their price point, no leader interaction.
Ditto Ophydians.
Not really a FAQ issue, but I do wish Deathmarks could still use something like Aetheric Interception.

I think we now call that Rapid Ingress stratagem. Would be nice if they could use it at 0 CP.

crazysaneman wrote:
Necrons
Ghost Ark needs Firing Points.
Transcendent C'tan is the only C'tan without RP
Praetorians have no purpose at their price point, no leader interaction.
Ditto Ophydians.
Not really a FAQ issue, but I do wish Deathmarks could still use something like Aetheric Interception.

None of those are really a FAQ issue.

The ghost ark isn't a gun platform for a unit, its a repair station/transport.
The transcendent c'tan is modelled more as unleashed energy, rather than a fully bound shard. (though its attacks and fluff don't match up at all. Its punching and shooting with basically powerfists or thunderhammers, not 'tearing reality asunder'

Points issues are going to be a process, rather than a quick fix of a typo or oversight.

Need to add to original OP (think it was missed when I posted it)

Wave serpent lists twin linked star cannon as 4 attacks. Base starcannon is 2 shots and all other twin linked weapons on platform have same number of shots as their singular version.

 bullyboy wrote:
Need to add to original OP (think it was missed when I posted it)

Wave serpent lists twin linked star cannon as 4 attacks. Base starcannon is 2 shots and all other twin linked weapons on platform have same number of shots as their singular version.

That may be intentional - the Big Gun on tanks that would have been TL in that way has been given double shots and Twin Linked - the Godhammer Lascannon sponsons on the Land Raider for example. It may be intentional simply because it's the "Big Gun".

Then wouldn't other similar guns also have double shots? And I'm not even talking Predator Annihilators or Macharius Vanqishers - just other weapon options in the Wave Serpent entey.

Deathwing Sarge cannot take TH/SS or Lightning claws, is this intentional or is it an oversight?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then wouldn't other similar guns also have double shots? And I'm not even talking Predator Annihilators or Macharius Vanqishers - just other weapon options in the Wave Serpent entey.

Maybe, maybe not. As near as I can reverse engineer its based on S and "Big Gun" capacity.

I'm not sure why the Starcannon is but the Bright Lance is not. The Bright Lance would have been more consistent but its possible they did it for the Starcannon for being more iconic (to them).

Y'Vahra and R'Varna both have weapon/battlesuit support systems listed on their datasheet with no way to take them. XV9s are completely missing from both legends and the new IA.

So on the subject of Leader’s sharing their Keywords, the rules for Fly say they get the benefit if the Unit has the Keyword. Does this mean a Technomancer with their Canoptek Cloak joining a unit of Warriors gives them all Fly?

Anyone bring up the issue with "Anti-fly" yet? Anything with the fly keyword is instantly destroyed by certain units with "Anti-fly" instead of "anti-aircraft".
I'll have to reread which gun but it's a space marine anti aircraft one.

Edit:
It's the Skyspear missle launcher on the Hunter.
It's got anti-fly 3+ with devastating wounds. It also hits monsters and vehicles on 2+.
So basically you shoot at anything with the fly keyword and it you deal D6+2 mortal wounds.
Edit #2: it's also heavy so it's getting +1 to hit when standing still.

Uptonius wrote:
Anyone bring up the issue with "Anti-fly" yet? Anything with the fly keyword is instantly destroyed by certain units with "Anti-fly" instead of "anti-aircraft".
I'll have to reread which gun but it's a space marine anti aircraft one.

Edit:
It's the Skyspear missle launcher on the Hunter.
It's got anti-fly 3+ with devastating wounds. It also hits monsters and vehicles on 2+.
So basically you shoot at anything with the fly keyword and it you deal D6+2 mortal wounds.
Edit #2: it's also heavy so it's getting +1 to hit when standing still.

I wish whoever wrote that had been writing the rules for the Skyray. It doesn't get Anti-Fly, or Devastating Wounds, or Heavy on its Missile Rack.

In fact, the only Anti- anything in the whole Tau index is Anti-Vehicle 4+ on the Pathfinder semi-auto grenade launcher when firing EMP, which is a single attack at BS4+, with S3, AP0 that deals 1 damage and has Devastating Wounds, and Anti-Vehicle 4+ on a Kroot weapon which has 3 attacks at BS5+ S7 AP-1 D1 that has Heavy and Devastating Wounds.

 AduroT wrote:
So on the subject of Leader’s sharing their Keywords, the rules for Fly say they get the benefit if the Unit has the Keyword. Does this mean a Technomancer with their Canoptek Cloak joining a unit of Warriors gives them all Fly?

They can be shot as if they fly. But they can't move as if they fly.

The models themselves do not fly, so they are susceptible to Desperate Escape Tests, Terrain, Enemy models, can't charge aircraft, etc. in other words they get all the drawbacks but none of the benefits.

Rhino isn't a gun platform for a unit either, its a troop transport, yet it has two firing points. The Ghost Ark used to allow the models within it to shoot out. Much like the Rhino did.

Doesn't matter how the Transcendent C'tan is modeled. The Obelisk is what houses the Transcendant C'tan shard, when it gets out or is released it becomes its own model. Doesn't change the fact that it's still a C'tan, and C'tan's apparently now get Reanimation Protocols. In the lore, all C'tans are housed in similar units until released, the only difference is the others have a name, and the TC is generic.

This thread is for FAQ/Errata. Exactly where issues like this belong. They need to be errata'd with a points fix/utility fix. The Ghost Ark and C'tan issues need FAQ'd.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Then wouldn't other similar guns also have double shots? And I'm not even talking Predator Annihilators or Macharius Vanqishers - just other weapon options in the Wave Serpent entey.

Maybe, maybe not. As near as I can reverse engineer its based on S and "Big Gun" capacity.

I'm not sure why the Starcannon is but the Bright Lance is not. The Bright Lance would have been more consistent but its possible they did it for the Starcannon for being more iconic (to them).

I don’t think there is anyway it’s intentional. The serpent can take twin linked of any of the following:
Shurican cannon, scatter laser, missile launcher, bright lance and starcannon. All of those weapons have the same shots as single version with twin linked rule, except the starcannon. Has to be an error.

 bullyboy wrote:

I don’t think there is anyway it’s intentional. The serpent can take twin linked of any of the following:
Shurican cannon, scatter laser, missile launcher, bright lance and starcannon. All of those weapons have the same shots as single version with twin linked rule, except the starcannon. Has to be an error.

Yeah I would have doubled the Bright Lance to 2 shots and left the Starcannon at base. Consistency would have too.