[Errata] Bugs, misprints, omissions, et al

[Brother Vincentius]

L

[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?

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

 

But if they are meant to to be the only ones to get them than why aren't the just listed in their descriptions?

[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)

 

But if they are meant to to be the only ones to get them than why aren't the just listed in their descriptions?

 

Because that defeats the purpose of the armory. The armory is supposed to be a one stop shop for all the rules for weapons/equipment. It's really annoying to hunt and peck for different weapons/equipment throughout an entire codex. While the armor allows us to open to a handful of pages quickly.

[Tamwulf]

It disheartens me greatly that the Limited Edition Codex, the paper Codex, and the iPad Codex all have different entries for wargear. Of the three, the iPad version would be the easiest for GW to "clean up". Still, what do you do when you show up to a tournament with your iPad codex and the judge has the paper codex and says "Sorry, Azrael doesn't have a Bolt Pistol" or "Plasma Talons are only one shot". Grrrr

 

I don't know about you guys, but all it took was about a 30 minute skim of the book to catch the Azrael Bolt Pistol omission in the Army List, the omission of the Stealth rule on the RW Darkshroud army description, the lack of Rapid Fire on the Plasma Talons, the superfluous Straffing Run rule on the Nephilim... and I haven't even started in on most of the fluff yet! This is just from the paper copy. I don't own the iPad version, and my Limited Edition Codex hasn't come in yet. I can't believe it's this bad between all three sources. And why the heck does it seem like the Spanish one is the most correct one yet? Crazy!

 

GW has a group of editors- I just wonder what they were editing that they missed this kind of stuff? I mean, I can see a spelling or grammar mistake despite the prevalent use of word processors, but these are almost fundamental game play issues. You would think one of the editors would have looked at Azrael in the army description, then looked at the army list to confirm the entry was correct. I can't believe they messed up the Plasma Talons! That's a new weapon in the game. Wouldn't that merit some kind of extra care when editing to make sure it was correct in the Armory and on the reference page?

 

The book looks great, and has awesome content. I love the new artwork, and really look forward to reading the rest of the fluff. The editing... is just annoying. Who knows how long it's going to take GW to issue some kind of FAQ for the paper codex? If I buy the iPad version... wow. That'll be almost $200 in books alone! That's a lot of new models!

[Bryan Blaire]

It disheartens me greatly that the Limited Edition Codex, the paper Codex, and the iPad Codex all have different entries for wargear. Of the three, the iPad version would be the easiest for GW to "clean up".

Agreed.

 

the superfluous Straffing Run rule on the Nephilim

Why is it superfluous? It seems to match the fluff description of Avenger Mega Bolter-equipped Nephilims strafing Eldar ground targets well.

[MadDoc]

• Standard of Destruction - the rules for SoD say "all boltguns", which (in accordance with the p. 56 BRB weapon classification) means that everything from bolt pistol to Vulcan Mega Bolter (all of them listed under "boltguns" heading and described as such) becomes a Salvo 2/4 weapon in the SoD's range. Obviously, only bolters were intended (which also includes combi-bolters, but not storm bolters, heavy bolters, etc.).
  

Can anybody explain to me where this supposed mention of "all boltguns" is in the Standard of Devastation rules?

The rules in my Codex say no such thing anywhere, all they say is, and I quote - "In addition, all friendly Codex: Dark Angels units within 6" of the standard treat their boltguns as Salvo 2/4 weapons.". No mention of "all boltguns" in there at all.

I have yet to see any explanation for where this is supposedly coming from, its not from anywhere in the print version of UK/International English Codex, so unless the US English Codex has different rules to the UK/International English version I'm at a loss as to where this is coming from...

Edit - Its not the first time I've asked this. Perhaps this time somebody will actually be able to give an answer.

[Artemid]

People see "boltguns" and take it as the weapon family, not the specific weapon (which is still, in the army list, a "boltgun"). If the weapon family were "Bolt weapons" I don't think anyone would be confused at all, because then boltguns could only refer to bolters.

[MadDoc]

People see "boltguns" and take it as the weapon family, not the specific weapon (which is still, in the army list, a "boltgun"). If the weapon family were "Bolt weapons" I don't think anyone would be confused at all, because then boltguns could only refer to bolters.

If its such a simple/common mistake to make, its strange that myself and quite a number of others have no difficulty in realising that "boltgun" actually means what it says, i.e. "a boltgun", and not any weapon that happens to fire bolts.

 

All of which is entirely beside the point, as none of that explains where Kastor Krieg's erroneous claim that the Standard of Devastation's rules say "all boltguns" (which is patently false based on the printed rules) is coming from.

[Artemid]

People see "boltguns" and take it as the weapon family, not the specific weapon (which is still, in the army list, a "boltgun"). If the weapon family were "Bolt weapons" I don't think anyone would be confused at all, because then boltguns could only refer to bolters.

If its such a simple/common mistake to make, its strange that myself and quite a number of others have no difficulty in realising that "boltgun" actually means what it says, i.e. "a boltgun", and not any weapon that happens to fire bolts.

 

All of which is entirely beside the point, as none of that explains where Kastor Krieg's erroneous claim that the Standard of Devastation's rules say "all boltguns" (which is patently false based on the printed rules) is coming from.

 

Wishful thinking and misreads, incorrect remembrances, or hearsay I suppose. I don't think it matters particularly much.

[MadDoc]

Wishful thinking and misreads, incorrect remembrances, or hearsay I suppose. I don't think it matters particularly much.

When the entire issue of there being an ambiguity/problem/error seems to be based on that misreading/incorrect remembrance/hearsay, I would submit that it does.

[twopounder]

Some nagging issues:

 

The ravenwing command squad is limited to 3 models, but its picture shows 5 models in the squad.

 

What effect does blind have on vehicles? Nothing is specified in the codex or rulebook that I can see. Usually something that does not effect vehicles explicitly says it has no effect on vehicles. Do vehicles then automatically fail or is there a stock value that they always pass on?

 

The conversion field says "All units within 1d6" of the bearer must test as if they had been hit by a weapon with the Blind special rule." - Does this mean the the bearer's unit as well?

 

If its such a simple/common mistake to make, its strange that myself and quite a number of others have no difficulty in realising that "boltgun" actually means what it says, i.e. "a boltgun", and not any weapon that happens to fire bolts.

All of which is entirely beside the point, as none of that explains where Kas...

 

The standard of devastation says that "Codex: Dark Angels units within 6" of the standard treat their boltguns as salvo 2/4 weapon."

 

According to the rulebook, a boltgun is anything that fires bolts: "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barrelled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles."

 

As much as the rule may not have been intended to give heavy bolters and bolt pistols salvo 2/4, it just did. Until it's FAQ'd, you can legally do this. Whether or not you'll have any friends afterwards is up for debate.

[Harleqvin]

Some nagging issues:

The ravenwing command squad is limited to 3 models, but its picture shows 5 models in the squad.

What effect does blind have on vehicles? Nothing is specified in the codex or rulebook that I can see. Usually something that does not effect vehicles explicitly says it has no effect on vehicles. Do vehicles then automatically fail or is there a stock value that they always pass on?

The conversion field says "All units within 1d6" of the bearer must test as if they had been hit by a weapon with the Blind special rule." - Does this mean the the bearer's unit as well?

If its such a simple/common mistake to make, its strange that myself and quite a number of others have no difficulty in realising that "boltgun" actually means what it says, i.e. "a boltgun", and not any weapon that happens to fire bolts.

All of which is entirely beside the point, as none of that explains where Kas...

The standard of devastation says that "Codex: Dark Angels units within 6" of the standard treat their boltguns as salvo 2/4 weapon."

According to the rulebook, a boltgun is anything that fires bolts: "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barrelled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles."

As much as the rule may not have been intended to give heavy bolters and bolt pistols salvo 2/4, it just did. Until it's FAQ'd, you can legally do this. Whether or not you'll have any friends afterwards is up for debate.

What picture shows 5 in the RWCS? Edit - I see now. I believe the shot you are looking at is a 2nd RWCS or it's a Black knight squad next to it. That or they really screwed up.

Not sure about blind on a Vehicle. You would need to look at the BGB for that.

Conversion field says all units within 1d6" of the beaer. So, yes even the Bearers unit. Almost all times you do this roll his unit will be hit unless you space out more than 1" and roll a 1.

The SoD is most likely meaning Literal Bolterguns and not General Boltguns but as there is a clear clarification people are taking it as either. There is the Literal "Boltgun" 24" S4 AP5* rapid fire and then the BGB General "Boltgun". Currently, if you are really not sure on it, you should ask you opponent before hand or see if they are ok to roll for it. This being one of the RAW (rules as written) or RAI (Rules as intended) So far it appears majority is the intended which would be Bolter as Literal not General.

[twopounder]

Some nagging issues:

The ravenwing command squad is limited to 3 models, but its picture shows 5 models in the squad.

What effect does blind have on vehicles? Nothing is specified in the codex or rulebook that I can see. Usually something that does not effect vehicles explicitly says it has no effect on vehicles. Do vehicles then automatically fail or is there a stock value that they always pass on?

The conversion field says "All units within 1d6" of the bearer must test as if they had been hit by a weapon with the Blind special rule." - Does this mean the the bearer's unit as well?

If its such a simple/common mistake to make, its strange that myself and quite a number of others have no difficulty in realising that "boltgun" actually means what it says, i.e. "a boltgun", and not any weapon that happens to fire bolts.

All of which is entirely beside the point, as none of that explains where Kas...

The standard of devastation says that "Codex: Dark Angels units within 6" of the standard treat their boltguns as salvo 2/4 weapon."

According to the rulebook, a boltgun is anything that fires bolts: "There are many variations of boltguns, from the short-barrelled bolt pistol to the Vulcan mega-bolter often mounted on Titans and other super-heavy vehicles."

As much as the rule may not have been intended to give heavy bolters and bolt pistols salvo 2/4, it just did. Until it's FAQ'd, you can legally do this. Whether or not you'll have any friends afterwards is up for debate.

What picture shows 5 in the RWCS? Edit - I see now. I believe the shot you are looking at is a 2nd RWCS or it's a Black knight squad next to it. That or they really screwed up.

Not sure about blind on a Vehicle. You would need to look at the BGB for that.

Conversion field says all units within 1d6" of the beaer. So, yes even the Bearers unit. Almost all times you do this roll his unit will be hit unless you space out more than 1" and roll a 1.

The SoD is most likely meaning Literal Bolterguns and not General Boltguns but as there is a clear clarification people are taking it as either. There is the Literal "Boltgun" 24" S4 AP5* rapid fire and then the BGB General "Boltgun". Currently, if you are really not sure on it, you should ask you opponent before hand or see if they are ok to roll for it. This being one of the RAW (rules as written) or RAI (Rules as intended) So far it appears majority is the intended which would be Bolter as Literal not General.

Those 5 models look like they're in perfect formation. I'm pretty sure they're all in the same unit.

Blind - that's why I wanted some errata/faq on it. The rule book doesn't shed any light either (unless I'm missing something).

SoD - I really hate trying to play rules based on intention. During 3rd edition, I'd have laughed at you if you told me there would be 2 wound terminators (that could become scoring) or twin-linked plasma guns on 10 man bike squadrons. So who really knows what the intentions are? Maybe it really is that broken.

I haven't played with the SoD since 3rd, so I couldn't tell you if the present iteration is broken either way. It does seem a bit intense to have a pile of 4 shot storm bolters that twin-link on deep strike. Obviously I assume they didn't mean for it to work that way. Then again, 2 wound terminators.

While I'd advise not using the SoD RAW during a friendly pick-up game, I would advise using it that way during a buy-in tournament. Everyone there stretches their rules to the breaking point. No reason you shouldn't do the same.

[Harleqvin]

Normally in situations where something is done based on a specific stat where that model doesn't have said stat nothing happens.

Like when you make a model do a Leadership test and the model has no leadership value. nothing happens as it can not take a leadership test.

Same would would happen for initiative tests. So if it was an initiative based test it wouldn't work on vehicles unless said vehicle had an initiative value for it to make a test with, like most Walkers have initiative values so it would need to test them.

I hope that clears that up, Twopounder. Sorry it took so long as I have never used blind or had blind used against me so I didn't know what it did. So I looked up on the net as I don't have my BGB.

[Brother iKon]

 

 

The conversion field says "All units within 1d6" of the bearer must test as if they had been hit by a weapon with the Blind special rule." - Does this mean the the bearer's unit as well?

 

 

 

Pg 34 BGB "Should the attacking unit hit themselves, we assume they are prepared and they automatically pass the test."

 

So it does not matter

[JeffJedi]

This is not really a typo but it is an example of a mistake by GW that could mess up players.

 

The Deathwing Command Squad does not have a Sgt with Powersword in the squad, even though the box and the instruction sheet shows him pictured as part of the 5-man squad.

[MadDoc]

The conversion field says "All units within 1d6" of the bearer must test as if they had been hit by a weapon with the Blind special rule." - Does this mean the the bearer's unit as well?

The conversion field rules specify that friendly units can re-rolI failed rolls, which suggests that it does indeed effect them.

 

Pg 34 BGB "Should the attacking unit hit themselves, we assume they are prepared and they automatically pass the test."

 

So it does not matter

The conversion field rules specify all models and that friendly models may re-roll failed rolls. Which suggests they still have to test and also aren't auto-passing.

[twopounder]

The conversion field says "All units within 1d6" of the bearer must test as if they had been hit by a weapon with the Blind special rule." - Does this mean the the bearer's unit as well?

The conversion field rules specify that friendly units can re-rolI failed rolls, which suggests that it does indeed effect them.

 

Pg 34 BGB "Should the attacking unit hit themselves, we assume they are prepared and they automatically pass the test."

 

So it does not matter

The conversion field rules specify all models and that friendly models may re-roll failed rolls. Which suggests they still have to test and also aren't auto-passing.

 

Or that they auto-pass but other friendly units do not.

 

Hopefully GW is reading this and preparing a meaningful FAQ.

[Harleqvin]

Wow I missed that part of the Conversion Field. Take it like this, It is taking it in the stance that it is not really a weapon they used that has now hit them but more of a back firing of a generator that they aren't ready for.... So it's not really being considered as a weapon used by a friendly unit.

 

But still to most vehicles it won't do anything because most vehicles don't have an initiative value

[Dahawi]

Am I the only one who thinks the plasma talon is correct and not an error? Sure I was surprised at first but if you think about we have been given a unit equipped with twin linked plasma pistols with a 50% range increase. That's pretty decent.

[Harleqvin]

Plasma Talons has now been officially FAQ'ed. It is indeed RAPID FIRE Dakka Dakka Dakkka Dakka Dakka!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wait..... ..... Skooom Whoosh Skoom Whoosh Skooom Whoosh Skooom Whoosh Skooom Whoosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.games-wor...A_JANUARY13.pdf

[Dahawi]

I saw the post literally the second after writing that reply. Ninja'd!

[Aradiel]

well, it seems asmodai does not have a pistol after all. and there is the change in the vets from "up to 3" to "any model"

[FarFromSam]

Black knights technically still have twin linked boltguns. Not included in wargear, but under the codex's entry for "bike" it states that it comes with a bolter. Any who. Technically they have TLB.

 

 

[elphilo]

Black knights technically still have twin linked boltguns. Not included in wargear, but under the codex's entry for "bike" it states that it comes with a bolter. Any who. Technically they have TLB.