Jump to content

Did YOU already write an e-mail to GW asking for an errata?


Recommended Posts

Well, have you?

 

Let's swamp them with those e-mails and who knows, maybe we'll get the errata we so desperately need right now.

 

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

 

Reply if you have so the thread stays on top so we can motivate even more people to do the right thing for the greater g... eerm, glory of Sanguinius!

*The air cracks and booms as a glorious figure approaches held aloft by mighty wings and spirited by a roaring jump pack.  The figure gracefully touches down, angelic iconography and regalia dancing amongst the jet wash.  Through the stunning visage of his artisan crafted ceramite battle helm, the angel intones a vox-augmented choir of righteousness*

 

I temporarily leave the hobby after our codex dropped a couple months ago and already we are beset by old age.  Ahh just like old times.

 

Sent a courteous email.  Hopefully something will come of it, but if not we still have a decent enough 'dex.  It can't get any worse than C:CSM(ha!) or orks...

Do we have a consolidated list of FAQ items we're requesting?

 

I don't think there is a consolidated list, it's just about those obvious discrepancies.

 

In my e-mail I wrote about 3 examples: scout stat lines, dreadnought attacks and terminator point costs.

I did however mention that there are many more things to address.

They made the codex, they know what they changed.

Sure, and then everyone will want the Baals we have...frankly, we should paint them gold. 

 

It is "known" that it is FAQ /errata time in GW's universe, and that GW sources have leaked that they are being internally developed/argued/approved.   I'm waiting.  Not expecting much other than clarifications / corrections.  

 

If you play BAs as intended - remember your "termites" can easily get furious charge, +1I, and even +1 WS or FNP.  We have pretty cool formations for added rule buffs.  About the only thing missing would be added attacks for dreads (although ours are unique and arguably better).  

 

I was reading the new C:SM last night, and so far the best things were the artwork.  There are a few other tweaks, but nothing in the basic unit details are too amazing.  They have some cool formations/detachments, but most of those require larger games to be of real value.  About the only one I'd use is the stormraven/stormtalon formation, since it is really generic and useable by anyone.  

Sure, and then everyone will want the Baals we have...frankly, we should paint them gold.

They've been wanting our Baals since they first appeared! Not sure what that implies about them tongue.png

Haven't received an answer to my e-mail yet. Off to the painting table then!

Snorri

To me, it seems like a FAQ/errata is needed to establish what is "baseline" for ALL Astartes. Otherwise, there needs to be a concrete reason as to why the BA/DA/SW DO NOT have those stats.

 

 

Being able to Squadron Tanks seems like an obvious one (why the heck would other Chapters not be able to do this?)

 

Does the BA recruitment/training process suck compared to other Chapters? Otherwise why would our Scouts be BS4 to EVERYONE else's BS4 (although it would be kinda cool to trade BS4 for WS4...). This should be especially interesting to see what they do for Space Wolves...

 

It also makes you scratch your head that the Chapter most renowned for CQC would have Dreadnoughts with 2x CQC weapons that still have LESS Attacks than a vanilla Dreadnought with an. assault Cannon and Missile Launcher.

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.