[Errata] Bugs, misprints, omissions, et al

[Dread]

Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread. It has helped me a bunch with questios I had abut the new dex.

[Harleqvin]

It needs to say if you can take more than one relic on a company master. Same with melee weapons. big debate on another topic.

Well it states in the codex currently that items taken from the chapter relic section aer one each and they replace a weapon on the model, except the Shroud it has an "*" but is still only one allowed per army like the rest. So currently your limited by the number of weapons on them to replace to take a relic.

So at the most any model can take is the shroud and two other different relics. then you have 2 relics left over to decide where they go on possible candidates, being Int-Chap, Libby and Company Master. Normal games you can only have 2 HQ guys (barring Techmarines but they can't have relics anyways.) 2k+ you can have more HQ but you are still limited on how you can puy them as they are only able to be used each once.

Also kinda funny. I had listed typos and such and things of note I noticed (all the typos you guys had already found here were ones I found so i wasn't any help for finding more issues ) on a Forum for a local store i payed at and I was told by one of the guys who are kinda head guys with rules there that "I read things too fast and miss things that are stated and then i say they are typos when they aren't" and that the Company Master can have Bikes. another person on the forum and I pointed it out to him that the Bike has a clause # attached to it that didn't allow Company Masters to take it.

[Bunta]

Not sure what the go is here and perhaps someone with a digital copy of the codex can help out, but allegedly the company veterans in the digital copy can take more or less what ever weaponry they want (like the command squad) where as in my print copy they are relatively limited. Like I said I am not sure if the digital copy actually says this and if it does I am not sure which one is correct!

 

I am hoping the veterans can take more stuff (because it fits the models I have better! lol) and I am hopefull due to the veterans description where it says " Equip themselves exclusively with plasma weapons" but if you go by the army list entry they cant!

 

Anyway would love for some one with the digital copy to shed to light on this!

 

Cheers, Andy

[AmCjkh]

I have seen the digital copy and you're right, for company veterans the entry allowing any number of veterans to switch bolters for chainswords is combined with the entry below allowing up to three veterans to switch bolters for assorted weaponry. So it says that any number of company veterans can get special CC weapons, combi weapons, and storm bolters. Seems like a pretty huge mix-up to me, unlimited combi weapons is an option that I imagine people would actually use if that's the case.

[Kastor Krieg]

Guys, if you could please take the discussion about the digital / non-English / limited copies of the dex to another thread, I'd appreciate. I keep coming back in hopes someone found something new for the errata and I see stuff about the iPad copy. It's not what this thread is about, gents :)

[shintuhadoken]

The only one that I've really noticed is that command squads can't take jump packs, which just seems to be missing. Commanders, Chaplin's and Librarians all have the option to take one, but there command squads are just going to have to run along side.

[Bunta]

What I bought up IS an error with the codex....which is what I thought the thread was about!

[cielaq]

Kastor Krieg, pointing out differences between different versions of the codex is, in my opinion, very valuable in this thread. If the same rule is different in two versions of the same book, one must be wrong - and we do not know which one. While sometimes it's quite clear which one is correct (like with Nephilim Missile lock) the others are not clear at all (Company veterans number of special weapons - 3 or any number you want?).

[Kastor Krieg]

What I bought up IS an error with the codex....which is what I thought the thread was about!

Kastor Krieg, pointing out differences between different versions of the codex is, in my opinion, very valuable in this thread. If the same rule is different in two versions of the same book, one must be wrong - and we do not know which one. While sometimes it's quite clear which one is correct (like with Nephilim Missile lock) the others are not clear at all (Company veterans number of special weapons - 3 or any number you want?).

The point of this thread is an errata to the basic, English print version of the codex, not any digital or non-English variant of it. The reasons are twofold:

• The "deadtree" version and its FAQ is in 99% percent cases considered the one "standing" by all tournaments and leagues, FLGS games and such.
  
• I do not have access to an iPad and the digital copy, nor do I speak Spanish and have access to that copy.
  

Thus, unfortunately, I am forced to disregard any other versions of the dex than the main one. If you wish to, please feel free to start a separate thread with a digital errata or Spanish errata. If you put work into confirming the discrepancies and crossreferencing the main book, I will gladly put work into bringing the references into my thread, too. As it is now, I have no means to do that.

Please understand and respect the work being done here. Thank you

[Harleqvin]

I also noticed that the back pullout on the C:DA, for USA-English, the Plasma talons have Rapid Fire listed on their weapon trait on the pullout in the back of the Codex.

Also most of the people who have said things dealing with Spainish version and iPad version have put in form with what you put. You could put all three up there with a listing of what English Codex, iPad codex, Spainish. All separate like seeing who at least two of the people have done the work showing it all ready

If you want it limnited to only dealing with the DEADtree English version you should change it in an edit on the first post and change the title to reflect it. Seeing how this above post has been the first time i have seen you state that it is only english deadtree version.

[cielaq]

Kastor Krieg, I agree with your arguments, but sometimes the only way to know there is (potential) error in printed English codex is to compare it to other versions.

[Bryan Blaire]

The point of this thread is an errata to the basic, English print version of the codex, not any digital or non-English variant of it. The reasons are twofold:

• The "deadtree" version and its FAQ is in 99% percent cases considered the one "standing" by all tournaments and leagues, FLGS games and such.
  
• I do not have access to an iPad and the digital copy, nor do I speak Spanish and have access to that copy.
  

Please understand and respect the work being done here. Thank you

While I completely understand your point, the concept of "the dead tree version" being the most official is one that is probably going to have to be adjusted somewhat quick, seeing as GW is pushing out the FAQs/updates/adjustments more quickly to the digital version at this time. Seeing as GW has made these products official, they are just as valid (and possibly more so) than any paper 'Dex, if the paper 'Dex has not been updated recently but the digital 'Dex has.

I greatly appreciate your work on this Kastor Krieg, but it seems unnecessary to cut out those that want to help simply because you can't verify something.

If the purpose of this is to send in a list of questions/suggestions from the public B&C forum, then adjustments or differences from other versions are, as cielaq said, one way to know that something should probably be questioned.

[Isiah]

 

The point of this thread is an errata to the basic, English print version of the codex, not any digital or non-English variant of it. The reasons are twofold:

• The "deadtree" version and its FAQ is in 99% percent cases considered the one "standing" by all tournaments and leagues, FLGS games and such.
  
• I do not have access to an iPad and the digital copy, nor do I speak Spanish and have access to that copy.
  

 

Then let's rely on the community effort here to verify the digital version please. The goodwill is there let's tap into it while it remains :yes:.

 

As for consistency reasons digital and printed items should be identical obviously-- if they're not then confusion arises. Thus faults in both need to be listed individually, as do any differences where they exit between the two.

 

Foreign language versions are of course harder to reconcile -- I'm guessing the English version was produced first and then translated. It's not uncommon for non-English items to be either mis-translated, or translated from a slightly older (possibly) version due final tweaks to the English one are being made too late in the day.

 

Let's get the English one sorted first, then see where we go from there. But by all means someone could keep a tab on any foreign inconsistencies for reference at a later date?

 

Cheers

I

[Harleqvin]

The point of this thread is an errata to the basic, English print version of the codex, not any digital or non-English variant of it. The reasons are twofold:

• The "deadtree" version and its FAQ is in 99% percent cases considered the one "standing" by all tournaments and leagues, FLGS games and such.
  
• I do not have access to an iPad and the digital copy, nor do I speak Spanish and have access to that copy.
  

Then let's rely on the community effort here to verify the digital version please. The goodwill is there let's tap into it while it remains .

As for consistency reasons digital and printed items should be identical obviously-- if they're not then confusion arises. Thus faults in both need to be listed individually, as do any differences where they exit between the two.

Foreign language versions are of course harder to reconcile -- I'm guessing the English version was produced first and then translated. It's not uncommon for non-English items to be either mis-translated, or translated from a slightly older (possibly) version due final tweaks to the English one are being made too late in the day.

Let's get the English one sorted first, then see where we go from there. But by all means someone could keep a tab on any foreign inconsistencies for reference at a later date?

Cheers

I

Most of the posts from people talking about the foreign one shows them being better so far. Except on Digital which seems to have better on a lot more.

Without knowing what the others say you won't know which parts are truly wrong.

You kinda need all.

[elphilo]

So maybe not an errata, but definitely an FAQ.

 

When an IC in terminator armor wants to Deathwing Assault, at what point is it able to join another squad also doing a Deathwing Assault?

[Isiah]

The point of this thread is an errata to the basic, English print version of the codex, not any digital or non-English variant of it. The reasons are twofold:

• The "deadtree" version and its FAQ is in 99% percent cases considered the one "standing" by all tournaments and leagues, FLGS games and such.
  
• I do not have access to an iPad and the digital copy, nor do I speak Spanish and have access to that copy.
  

Then let's rely on the community effort here to verify the digital version please. The goodwill is there let's tap into it while it remains .

As for consistency reasons digital and printed items should be identical obviously-- if they're not then confusion arises. Thus faults in both need to be listed individually, as do any differences where they exit between the two.

Foreign language versions are of course harder to reconcile -- I'm guessing the English version was produced first and then translated. It's not uncommon for non-English items to be either mis-translated, or translated from a slightly older (possibly) version due final tweaks to the English one are being made too late in the day.

Let's get the English one sorted first, then see where we go from there. But by all means someone could keep a tab on any foreign inconsistencies for reference at a later date?

Cheers

I

Most of the posts from people talking about the foreign one shows them being better so far. Except on Digital which seems to have better on a lot more.

Without knowing what the others say you won't know which parts are truly wrong.

You kinda need all.

Yes, as I said.

But one needs to be done first -- and as the English is considered the prime source that seems the most sensible place to start surely?

[Harleqvin]

@elphilo - During a time that a unit or model can DWA assault as it says in the Terminator Armor section on page 65. The model gets DWA and Vengeful strike. DWA is done directly after Determine Warlord Trait section but before Deploy Forces section (Deploy Forces is when you do Reserves.) as stated on pg. 44..... Wait you're asking when said IC who is DWA joins the other unit that DWA? I would imagine that would be done in the Deploy Forces section like it would normally be done for deciding when an IC joins a unit before units deploy.

@Isiah - Also true. But we already seem to have all the info for what is wrong with the English version. No one has found any other problems. Taking that we knoe discrepancies. Now we need to look at other sources to verify this. That's why we need the other ones. We can show where issues are and differences between them. But you would still kinda need people looking at the others. Saying one regions codex is better than others kind makes it look like one region is better than others when that is not the case. Also not saying you were saying that

[elphilo]

During a time that a unit or model can DWA assault as it says in the Terminator Armor section on page 65. The model gets DWA and Vengeful strike. DWA is done directly after Determine Warlord Trait section but before Deploy Forces section (Deploy Forces is when you do Reserves.)

I mean yeah I'm assuming that the IC that is being DWA will eventually be held in reserves and then able to join another squad that is also doing a DWA. But since the last edition specifically mentioned IC attaching to it before a game, I didn't know if anything changed.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

There's already thread going about DWA, so please take any DWA discussion to that thread.

[Harleqvin]

During a time that a unit or model can DWA assault as it says in the Terminator Armor section on page 65. The model gets DWA and Vengeful strike. DWA is done directly after Determine Warlord Trait section but before Deploy Forces section (Deploy Forces is when you do Reserves.)

I mean yeah I'm assuming that the IC that is being DWA will eventually be held in reserves and then able to join another squad that is also doing a DWA. But since the last edition specifically mentioned IC attaching to it before a game, I didn't know if anything changed.

Yeah. I edited just a few seconds ago. The TDA IC that is DWA would join another DWA DW unit during the Deploy forces section i am pretty sure like you would do for any other unit and IC normally. Just that the IC in TDA would also have to be chosen to be DWA just like the DW unit that is chosen for DWA.

Sorry if that was a little confusing there.

Sorry, Chaplain Lucifer!

[cielaq]

One more thing occurred to me that can be potential error that would be nice to have clarified - is Sammy in speeder Character or not?

We already have precedence of Bjorn being Vehicle(Character).

[Djulius]

Had spotted some of these anomalies while reading the book, very useful, thank you all. With these new editions (inc CSM) GW have altered their meta-model (e.g. referencing whether units/models can take items from wargear lists etc. rather than listing explicit options under each entry) and so some inconsistencies are bound to creep in. As a part-time technical author I reckon they've done remarkably well for a first print.

 

IMHO: I suggest that with ref to other language versions, referencing elements such as whether the Spanish Codex includes an item/rule or not for someone is clear, unambiguous and a useful indicator of an errata/omission. What we shouldn't include in this thread are possible nuances of interpretation in other languages and treat the English as the highest precedence.

[Brother Vincentius]

Why are teleport homers and locator beacons mentioned in the descriptions of special issue wargear and vehicle upgrades but not in the armory points section?

[elphilo]

Why are teleport homers and locator beacons mentioned in the descriptions of special issue wargear and vehicle upgrades but not in the armory points section?

Because some entries come with teleport homers (Ravenwing) and IIRC there is only one vehicle that can take a locator beacon (Drop Pod)

[Tiger9gamer]

Also on the topic of company masters: why can't they take Thunder hammers whilst in terminator armor? I thought that termie armor was the ideal platform for that.