Chalx the grey Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Hi all, just got a copy of the new shiny dex and this months WD and I'm still shocked by what I've read in the description of the new army of Robin Cruddace... Since I'm from Barcelona my WD is in spanish but I don't think the translation can be THAT bad, here is what it says translated back into english: "Mi favourite is the Wolf Guard with Mark of the Wulfen, able to unleash 7 potential thunder hammer attacks a turn". I thought the consensus was that MotW just gave 1+D6 rending attack regardless of any other special CC equipment, but unless someone really screwed up the translation it seems that a GH with mark of the Wulfen and a PF can pack a bit of a punch for his squad... or am I getting something wrong? Can someone check the same report in an english WD?? This could explain why the PF is more expensive for the GH than for a WG, to avoid abusing the PF+MotW combo (which doesn't come in cheap at 55 points) in regular GH squads. I don't post much but I keep track of most discussions here at the Fang, sorry if this has been discussed already! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freman Bloodglaive Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 The writer in the article got it wrong. Not an uncommon situation for White Dwarf. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/#findComment-2135325 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalx the grey Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share Posted October 3, 2009 Yeah, after re-reading the rules for MotW in the codex it seems that it is so... It's a pity that GW keeps such careless writers in staff!!! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/#findComment-2135361 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rao Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 There are many instances of writers in WD "getting it wrong", and most of those mistakes have to do with spelling and grammar. This particular mistake, however, is probably due to the fact that the batrep was played long before the rules were finalised - not an uncommon thing for GW games design. But it's something you can't really fault the writer for. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/#findComment-2135376 Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 You can fault the editor for it though. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/#findComment-2135386 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Rao Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 You can fault the editor for it though. Technically, yes, and that's probably what happened in this case. However, even then it's quite difficult to have EVERYTHING be exactly right during a process that has been going on during several months - design, playtesting, batrep, tweaks, and then publishing in WD. There are bound to be things that go wrong, and this is one of 'em. There are many, many instances of details being wrong (pts values, names, stuff missing from the army photograph and/or the army list in the batrep, etc.), especially in inaugural batreps, precisely for these reasons. I work as a final editor myself, and I'm continually surprised by how easy it is to have faults slip in between writing, checking, and publishing, which is invariably done by different people. And whatever I make is usually done and published within three days (I work on the internet). In fact, I'm surprised they only got this one thing wrong. In the end, simply don't trust inaugural batreps! The rules are in the dex, and those are final - even if they are mostly far, Far, FAR from perfect; hence the plethora of FAQs. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/#findComment-2137156 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temprus Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 We also do not know how finished the SW codex was when the game was played. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/#findComment-2137536 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WG Vrox Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Battle reps could be useful tools to explain certain rules of the game. Such a waste of a medium. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/#findComment-2137564 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrathnar Flintfang Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Yeah, after re-reading the rules for MotW in the codex it seems that it is so... It's a pity that GW keeps such careless writers in staff!!! If GW fired all of the sub-par writers on staff, they would have nothing but sculptors and painters. Sadly this seeems to be the norm for GW. A new dex comes out, and NOW we need an FAW to help shore things up, heck we needed one BEFORE it came out. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/180328-stacking-motw-and-hammers/#findComment-2137574 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.