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.

Been reading some amusing stuff on different sites about the new BA dex in WD.

With the army list in this month's issue, seems there are different lists in different countries.

Canadian one has Librarians with their Rites of Battle, Techmarines costing the same as an Honour Guard squad and no option for extra armour for the Baal. Seems the US WD list has the option to add extra armor for the Baal, cheaper techmarines, but their BA Librarians have to do without RoB.

 

Any other versions out there?

Who knows, wait for the FAQ

*boggle*

Who was it in last month's WD talking about how great an idea it was to publish the BA 'dex there?

.....

Posted By beef on 06/22/2007 6:44 AM
Who knows, wait for the FAQ

might be a long wait... 8 years or so....

Posted By Hexx on 06/22/2007 5:23 AM

Been reading some amusing stuff on different sites about the new BA dex in WD.

With the army list in this month's issue, seems there are different lists in different countries.

Canadian one has Librarians with their Rites of Battle, Techmarines costing the same as an Honour Guard squad and no option for extra armour for the Baal. Seems the US WD list has the option to add extra armor for the Baal, cheaper techmarines, but their BA Librarians have to do without RoB.

 

Any other versions out there?

Is that a  statement of proof or supposition from statements of others? It would seem odd that English language versions are not identical.

Read the US version last night. I cannot see anyway that allows you to take more than 5 terminators in a squad. Is that something that started with the DA?

Posted By beef on 06/22/2007 6:44 AM
Who knows, wait for the FAQ

Haha your funny. Yea DA and BA can only have 5 termies in a squad.

Posted By Hexx on 06/22/2007 5:23 AM

Canadian one has Librarians with their Rites of Battle, Techmarines costing the same as an Honour Guard squad and no option for extra armour for the Baal. Seems the US WD list has the option to add extra armor for the Baal, cheaper techmarines, but their BA Librarians have to do without RoB.

I have the PDF that leaked online May 4th/5th, and it has Librarians with Rites of Battle, Techmarines at 125pts (same as a basic Honor Guard squad), and no option for extra armor on the Baal.

Maybe it's just someone looking at the old PDF?

Worst case scenario, maybe one of the WDs published  the article using the old file.  That would stink.

I wouldn't get to worked up, its only official until the codex comes out, with luck this will be a chance to playtest the rules so that BA can end up being the best playtested codex to date. Now if only they had a form to collect the information in.

Ok, here is probably what happened. Each country gets the files for their edition of the magazine. They then make some minor formatting and editing and publish it. I know that the original BA files had some errors, and the studio sent out fixes to be made before the countries published (Like making Techmarines 75 points like they should be).

So it probably is various typos and errors that some countries fixed and others didn't, leading to different looking lists.

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff.



The truth scares me.

Posted By JHall on 06/22/2007 10:13 AM
Ok, here is probably what happened. Each country gets the files for their edition of the magazine. They then make some minor formatting and editing and publish it. I know that the original BA files had some errors, and the studio sent out fixes to be made before the countries published (Like making Techmarines 75 points like they should be).

So it probably is various typos and errors that some countries fixed and others didn't, leading to different looking lists.

Jeff

that makes sense but it also points to a glaring issue that needs to be resolved. an issue that has become alarmingly common. (proofreading)..  spellcheck just isn't good enough to catch what a proofreader should. and a proofreader can also point out inconsistancies such as this..

it's a shame that a document can end up like this..

You're giving them too much credit if you think they use spell check.

I've been proof-reading an article for my professor for publication (I'm an RA).

It's interesting to see the process. In particular, the typesetters make errors. Currently the draft it on its third proof and there's still tons of corrections that need to be made.

So, it's not surprising that errors slipped in. I doubt White Dwarfs gets more than one or two proofs before publication since that standards for that sort of thing are more relaxed than with academic articles.

It's still going to make things very strange. I wonder if we'll see tourney players in the US mail-ordering in the UK WD (as an example) because it has better rules for their army.

I would expect the PDF version that will be released at the end of August will end up being the default.

I would hope so.

I'm just kinda miffed (I really have to look that word up someday) that I actually went and bought a WD for the first time in years and it has these mistakes in them.

Posted By Hexx on 06/22/2007 3:28 PM
I would hope so.

I'm just kinda miffed (I really have to look that word up someday) that I actually went and bought a WD for the first time in years and it has these mistakes in them.

There is a sucker born every minute, eh?

£8 (the cost of two copies of White Dwarf) seemed a little steep to me for a work in progress codex. Even more so now I discover that its full of errors. It's a shame as the origional concept was a good idea.

Maybe the final version will have some real fluff reasons for removing the SHP.... cause there wasn't any. One or two sentances of sliding backward and *POOF* a very fluffy unit gets nixed.

If you're going to say, "it's because of the fluff" then actually WRITE SOME FLUFF! Incredibly frustrating.

Posted By Hellfury on 06/23/2007 12:26 AM

Posted By Hexx on 06/22/2007 3:28 PM
I would hope so.

I'm just kinda miffed (I really have to look that word up someday) that I actually went and bought a WD for the first time in years and it has these mistakes in them.

There is a sucker born every minute, eh?

I imagine that the birth rate was lower when that was first coined, so assuming the number of suckers per kid remains constant, we're producing suckers at a rate even faster than one per minute.

Posted By bigchris1313 on 06/25/2007 9:48 AM
I imagine that the birth rate was lower when that was first coined, so assuming the number of suckers per kid remains constant...

1:1. Same as always.

Posted By George Spiggott on 06/23/2007 9:27 AM
£8 (the cost of two copies of White Dwarf) seemed a little steep to me for a work in progress codex.

But you get roughly 60 pages of advertisements to go with that poorly written codex. and don't forget LOTR stuff!

Interrogator-Chaplain Severus