TheCrazyCaptain Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 This question is about the Chaos Space Marine Daemon Prince, and the use of wings. It's an arguement that's been kicking around for a long time (12 months?!) and not one I really want to open up here. So... a slightly different tack on the question. The 6th Chaos Space Marines codex came out in October 2012. The Basic Rule book came out a few months earlier than this. The first FAQ for Chaos Space Marines came out in July 2012 (4 months before the latest codex). The arguements generally kick off around the FAQ v1.0 stating that Wings being added make the Daemon Prince into a Jump Monsterous Creature, not a Flying Monsterous Creature. A friend of mine pointed out that the FAQs were released before the new codex, so must have been written for the previous (5th) Edition Codex. I was happy to accept this, up until I realised that we're currently on v1.4 of the FAQs. If the July FAQs were written for 5th edition codex, I would have expected a move to v2.0 for the next codex - to signify that the FAQs related to a newer version of the codex. So, without wanting to open the entire can of worms that is Chaos Space Marine Daemon Princes with wings, does FAQ v1.0 relate to the latest Chaos Marine Codex, released in October 2012, or the 5th Edition Codex (I think released in or around 2006)? I don't really mind which way the rule falls - but would like to know (believe) I'm playing the right rules. Your thoughts and input are both very welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolemai Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 The current FAQ for Codex CSM is v1.2 which was updated in April 2013. Shouldn't that take preference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrazyCaptain Posted June 20, 2013 Author Share Posted June 20, 2013 The current FAQ for Codex CSM is v1.2 Sorry - yes, my mistake. Not sure where I got 1.4 from! So, when 1.1 comes out, does 1.0 become defunct? If so - any amendments they made in 1.0 are revoked unless repeated in 1.1, and 1.2? Serious question - no bile, offence or sarcasm that may be implied is intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantras Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 The way the FAQ's and errata's are organised is that the new version will have all the changes that were in 1.0 and 1.1, but the additions will be marked in magenta. So to answer your question, if an amendment is make in 1.0 and is still present in 1.2, then yes, it does still apply, but if it has been taken out, then no it does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 The current Eldar FAQ was release before the Codex was. It was for the new Codex, as it was a FAQ answer for a profile form the new Codex, and contained none of the old answers for the previous Codex. Date of issue means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkGuard Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 As others have said, you use the FAQ out at the present time. New answers etc are in magenta. If something in an old FAQ is no longer in the new one, it's no longer official. By all means though, if you have an older FAQ lying around (why you would though, I have no idea, I throw mine out), and there's a rules question that was answered there but not in the new one, then suggest it as a possible solution. It wouldn't be official anymore, but your opponent may agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raeven Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Yes. If they remove something between versions of the FAQ, that rule or amendment or errata no longer applies to the current interpretation of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrazyCaptain Posted June 20, 2013 Author Share Posted June 20, 2013 Perfect - thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.