Jump to content

am I the only one surprised no demon errata today?


Recommended Posts

Well I think Ill do just that and get a list of FAQ and email them myself.

 

First has to be the burning chariot which is completely useless if brought in by deepstrike and too week to get across the board with only AV10.

 

Second, why didnt GW allow a unit upgrade for horrors (pyrocaster) or heralds to upgrade their attack to either pinkor blue flames?  That would make sense and I know I would use my flamers much more readily if at least one of them had the ability to cause wounds with ap3 or ap2.

  • 2 weeks later...

Is anyone else getting kind of tired of logging into GW's site a few times a day just to check if the FAQ went up? sad.png

I've even sent several FAQ things to GW's email hoping to spur them on :|

James.

Glad to see I'm not the only one checking so regularly...

Is anyone else getting kind of tired of logging into GW's site a few times a day just to check if the FAQ went up? sad.png

I've even sent several FAQ things to GW's email hoping to spur them on :|

James.

Glad to see I'm not the only one checking so regularly...

That's me on faeit 212 for rumours! ;)

Is anyone else getting kind of tired of logging into GW's site a few times a day just to check if the FAQ went up? sad.png

I've even sent several FAQ things to GW's email hoping to spur them on :|

James.

www.changedetection.com

That's what I use for FAQs and Army Builder datafiles. You get some false positives, but it's better than checking multiple times a day. Change happens to the page, you get an e-mail and a description of what was removed/added.

Is anyone else getting kind of tired of logging into GW's site a few times a day just to check if the FAQ went up? sad.png

I've even sent several FAQ things to GW's email hoping to spur them on :|

James.

www.changedetection.com

That's what I use for FAQs and Army Builder datafiles. You get some false positives, but it's better than checking multiple times a day. Change happens to the page, you get an e-mail and a description of what was removed/added.

Cunning! I've subscribed now, too.

I also have been sending regular "requests" for info about the FAQ...

 

it just seems very odd to leave such a large loophole in so many important models/rules in a new codex...

 

and they aren't hard questions...

 

heck, they can change their minds and FAQ an FAQ later on...

 

has anyone tried using the Burning Chariot as is and going flat out one turn to get a 4++ jink save to get behind the enemy then opening up on them and if you survive, going flat out on turn 3 to get antoher 4++ jink save and get to another juicy target?  maybe it isn't going to be FAQd (in which case they should tell us!) and it is a wierdly non-mobile glass canon...

 

to me the -5 initiative question is more interesting as since it is a psychic power too, it can come into play pretty frequently (as opposed to just when you take fiends of slaanesh)... oh well... GW's loss and our frustration...

Randomly, I actually got a different response this time from GW... maybe it was the email address I used for customer service vs just the FAQ people.. but this reply (automated mind you, not from a real GW rules lawyer) was to my email as opposed to previously I didn't get any reply stating they'd gotten the email... maybe they are fine tuning their FAQ queries protocol?

The answers are in the brb faq, new segments stating you can never reduce a models I below 1, and that allies of convenience are targets for random effects like the warpstorm table..... Sucks to be us...

I sent in a laundry list no more than a week after the book came out of legitimate questions and problems. None of them were addressed, bar the Fiend issue, though that was resolved in a different manner than I asked. 

 

What a waste of time.

I sent in a laundry list no more than a week after the book came out of legitimate questions and problems. None of them were addressed, bar the Fiend issue, though that was resolved in a different manner than I asked.

What a waste of time.

It was addressed in a way that still leaves the codex > brb argument so it was not really answered at all. sad.png

I sent in a laundry list no more than a week after the book came out of legitimate questions and problems. None of them were addressed, bar the Fiend issue, though that was resolved in a different manner than I asked.

What a waste of time.

It was addressed in a way that still leaves the codex > brb argument so it was not really answered at all. sad.png

Wait, where is the argument now? The rules are not in conflict, so the codex does not supersede the rulebook.

Yep, very disappointing update - my concern is that we won't see anything further now for a month or so at least, as if they were close to resolving the answers surely they would have held the FAQ back?

 

Fingers crossed I'm wrong...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.