Balance Datalsate Leaks (and implications)

[Minsc]

I find the fact that the Hydra has Turret while the Wyvern doesn't to be quite annoying due to the complete lack of logic: It's literally the same vehicle with some longer barrels.

I do understand why GW didn't give Turret to the Basilisk and Manticore though. 

[Diagramdude]

I haven’t seen this mentioned yet, and it’s the most impactful change in the update for Guard bar none. Hidden in the core rule FAQ, abilities that disable ignoring wounds now also disable damage reduction. So the Final Nimrod is now S+++, easily the best relic in the galaxy. Plasma cannon sentinels and cadian shock troops with double plasma surrounding the banner now efficiently delete anything. 

[Emperor Ming]

It also means lascannon teams with the banner have potential, if they can ignore fnp, damage and wound caps

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

6 hours ago, Diagramdude said:

I haven’t seen this mentioned yet, and it’s the most impactful change in the update for Guard bar none. Hidden in the core rule FAQ, abilities that disable ignoring wounds now also disable damage reduction. So the Final Nimrod is now S+++, easily the best relic in the galaxy. Plasma cannon sentinels and cadian shock troops with double plasma surrounding the banner now efficiently delete anything. 

Double plasma CSTs isn’t valid so that’s not really an issue.

i know there’s been some confusion about the wording in the English codexes, but people have reported that in other languages it says one of each special weapon.

 

between that and the apparently pointless asterisks in the English codexes it seems very clear that one of each type of special weapon for CSTs

Edited January 8, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[The Pounder]

Quick question, can I run double Meltaguns in a DKoK squad? Or 2 different special weapons?
 

I’m planning on fielding my FW Krieg as Infantry Squads and my GW ones as actual Death Korps.

[Shamansky]

9 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Double plasma CSTs isn’t valid so that’s not really an issue.

i know there’s been some confusion about the wording in the English codexes, but people have reported that in other languages it says one of each special weapon.

 

between that and the apparently pointless asterisks in the English codexes it seems very clear that one of each type of special weapon for CSTs

Where is that stated? 
And what was the issue with "the same weapon no more than twice per unit"? 

[Diagramdude]

Lensoven is wrong. You can take double plasma or double melta on CST. People think that “more than twice” is a typo because it’s logically redundant, then they are extending their expectation that it’s a typo to claim that you can only take one of each special.

 

 Currently you can take 2 special weapons and cannot select the same weapon more than twice. Until GW changes that wording to “more than once” you can take two of the same, and there is no indication beyond a minor logical redundancy that they would change it.

 

if people are claiming there’s other languages that say more than once, let’s see some sources

[sairence]

Even if other languages say something else, the English version is generallly the reference version.

 

You can argue that when building stuff you want to keep in mind that there is a discrepancy between the languages that will be cleared up. But as it currently stands, doubling up on specials for Cadians is absolutely legal.

 

I think for the Krieg you could get an extra Plasma, but only if you don't bring a Vox. Can be worth it, but I would generally prefer the radio, personally.

[The Pounder]

Thanks Seirence, I understand that you replace the Plasmagun for a vox (I’ll be going with the vox)

 

My confusion comes from the fact it says “you cannot take the same weapon more than twice per unit”

 

So my reading of that is that I could potentially take 2 Meltaguns and a Plasmagun is that correct?

[Shamansky]

10 minutes ago, Jud Cottrell said:

Thanks Seirence, I understand that you replace the Plasmagun for a vox (I’ll be going with the vox)

 

My confusion comes from the fact it says “you cannot take the same weapon more than twice per unit”

 

So my reading of that is that I could potentially take 2 Meltaguns and a Plasmagun is that correct?

looks like you're correct. You get 1 plasmagun from the box. And it sais that you can swap 2 lasguns for 2 other specials, which you can take no more than twice of a kind. The "starter pack" plasmagun is not goinig anywhere until you decide to swap it for vox.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Shamansky

[Emperor Ming]

Not being able to select the same weapon twice, when the option is two, has to be wrong, that sentence makes no sense

 

If you look at the codex, I believe its a copy and paste job from the kasarkin datasheet, where that sentence does make sense

 

Would gw typing servitors, just copy and paste wording without reading it so it fits with another unit? ofc they wouldn't

 

I would advise caution, until the FAQ is out for anyone building two of the same weapon for cadian squads or dkok

 

 

[sairence]

The sentence makes perfect sense in the context of consistency across the book. But I'm not going to explain again why, done that at least a dozen times since the book came out. 

 

All that's really relevant is that it's definitely legal now, because the EN version is the reference that everything else follows, but there's an inconsistency between different languages that should be cleared up once the book is fully released and the FAQ has dropped.

[Santaclauswitz]

1 hour ago, sairence said:

The sentence makes perfect sense in the context of consistency across the book. But I'm not going to explain again why, done that at least a dozen times since the book came out. 

 

All that's really relevant is that it's definitely legal now, because the EN version is the reference that everything else follows, but there's an inconsistency between different languages that should be cleared up once the book is fully released and the FAQ has dropped.

It's the old RAW vs RAI debate. RAW is king! It's not up to us to try and work it out. If people need further clarification then contact GW. That way they'll know that it's an issue that is needing to be addressed in the upcoming FAQ.

 

So for the time I'll happily play with 2 plasma per squad for my not so cadian sock troops. If an FAQ changes that I'll change my load out. If anyone I play against challenges this I'll point to the book and ask to see an FAQ.

[Minsc]

RAI is fine as long as you're not actively buffing yourself. I'm all for using RAI in an uncertain situation to make your own army worse (I often do).

For Cadian Shock Troops, it's no denying that RAW you can use 2 of the same special, but I'm pretty sure that RAI you're not supposed to.
With that said, I'm not gonna call out anyone for using 2 of the same, nor will I say someone is wrong for not using 2 of the same. 

To be fair, RAI or not, this is an "issue" I can easily see GW forgetting or ignoring.

[sairence]

I don't even see it a RAW vs RAI conflict. There is no ambiguity in the sentence, it very clearly says you can take two of the same special weapons. It's not willfully or accidentally misinterpretating a sentence that isn't entirely clear in what it says.

 

You can argue that it's possibly a typo, but again that needs to be confirmed by GW, first of all, and then fixed in an FAQ if needed. "What's in the kit" is also a bit of a weak argument, because the shock troops kit hasn't been individually released.

 

The only ambiguity that exists at this moment in time is because some people decided they know better than what is written down in their book.

 

 

 

 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

8 hours ago, Shamansky said:

Where is that stated? 
And what was the issue with "the same weapon no more than twice per unit"? 

Like I said people who have non-English versions of the codex have posted what it says in their first language, and the asterisks in the codex that would be unnecessary if they actually meant to allow CSTs to double up on special weapons heavily support that.

8 hours ago, Diagramdude said:

Lensoven is wrong. You can take double plasma or double melta on CST. People think that “more than twice” is a typo because it’s logically redundant, then they are extending their expectation that it’s a typo to claim that you can only take one of each special.

 

 Currently you can take 2 special weapons and cannot select the same weapon more than twice. Until GW changes that wording to “more than once” you can take two of the same, and there is no indication beyond a minor logical redundancy that they would change it.

 

if people are claiming there’s other languages that say more than once, let’s see some sources

People with codexes written in other languages have stated in their language it’s limited to one each, but ok.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

19 minutes ago, sairence said:

I don't even see it a RAW vs RAI conflict. There is no ambiguity in the sentence, it very clearly says you can take two of the same special weapons. It's not willfully or accidentally misinterpretating a sentence that isn't entirely clear in what it says.

 

You can argue that it's possibly a typo, but again that needs to be confirmed by GW, first of all, and then fixed in an FAQ if needed. "What's in the kit" is also a bit of a weak argument, because the shock troops kit hasn't been individually released.

 

The only ambiguity that exists at this moment in time is because some people decided they know better than what is written down in their book.

 

 

 

 

 No the ambiguity exists because what the codex says makes no sense.

if you can only take 2 special weapons, and are allowed to take doubles, then the asterisk is completely unnecessary.

that combined with the fact that other languages do not allow for doubling up means it’s extremely questionable.

 

also do you have a statement from GW that says the English version trumps what other versions say? Because it’s a weird idea that people who don’t read or speak English would have refer to the English codex if they have questions instead of ya know a FAQ in their own language.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Emperor Ming]

Indeed

 

I'm waiting for the faqs to see what happens

 

I would expect heavy weapons teams to get Vox rule as well, since the new models clearly have Vox casters on them

[Minsc]

Yeah, the asterisk is completely superfluous as it currently stands. If it wasn't there there would be no debate.
Since it is there however, the whole "you can take two - but you can only take two of the same" makes no sense which is what's causing the RAI/RAW-debate. 

RAW is clear: take 2 of the same if you want.
RAI can go either way; maybe the whole asterisk is a typo (Kasrkin have the exact same wording), maybe "two of the same" should be "one of the same".

In the end, the asterisk either shouldn't be there at all, or the wording should be different - because the current wording makes no sense as it's telling you that you can do something that you already knew you could do. 

[sairence]

If the asterix wasn't there, you'd be missing the clarification on that datasheet, while every other datasheet with multiple specials has it. That would represent an inconsistency within the book, where some datasheets have a clarification and others don't.

 

And with GWs approach to rules writing these days, there really is no such thing as "this information shouldn't really be needed, so it shouldn't be there". GW at this point writes out pretty much everything they can, in the hopes that people don't end up scratching their heads at what they mean. I guarantee you, if the sentence wasn't there, we would be having the exact same debate about whether CST can double up on special weapons or not.

 

All that's really needed now is the FAQ that clarifies whether the typo is in the English version or some translations. Until then, you work with what's written down. It's really not that complicated. Will this create a situation where players in the english speaking world and players in France etc temporarily have a different rule to follow? Yup. Still doesn't change anything about the above. Until the FAQ, both things are valid, depending on where you play. 

 

Btw, that this approach to rules writing often leaves us with convoluted and hard to read paragraphs in various texts really says more about the people reading the rules than GW in my view.

[jarms48]

20 hours ago, Diagramdude said:

Lensoven is wrong. You can take double plasma or double melta on CST. People think that “more than twice” is a typo because it’s logically redundant, then they are extending their expectation that it’s a typo to claim that you can only take one of each special.

 

 Currently you can take 2 special weapons and cannot select the same weapon more than twice. Until GW changes that wording to “more than once” you can take two of the same, and there is no indication beyond a minor logical redundancy that they would change it.

 

if people are claiming there’s other languages that say more than once, let’s see some sources

 

This. Basically RAW you can take 2 of the same special weapon currently, but many people (myself included) don't believe this matches RAI. So we expect a FAQ to fix it at some point. 

 

Then again, could be like free scion sergeant plasma pistols that existed for an entire edition basically. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

56 minutes ago, jarms48 said:

 

This. Basically RAW you can take 2 of the same special weapon currently, but many people (myself included) don't believe this matches RAI. So we expect a FAQ to fix it at some point. 

 

Then again, could be like free scion sergeant plasma pistols that existed for an entire edition basically. 

again the problem comes in that RAW is different in other languages, so sure if we're all in english speaking countries playing with english speakers at home or in a shop, you can RAW it if you want, but how do event organizers, especially in europe deal with the situation before a FAQ? in spain or france, the codex may explicitly disallow doubling up on specials (never asked what languages the people posting that their codexes say differently are in so these are just example languages.) a tournament in france may very well expect to get a good number of players from the UK or other english speaking nations outside of the UK.

it would be a pretty big F-you and feel bad moment for an english player to show up at an event in france with double plasma or double melta, then have the TO tell them their army isn't legal, and can't be used as is.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Shamansky]

This bag of grox feces about CST specials reminds me another bag of the same substance about how many lasguns HWT had in previous codex. All you need to get clear is just read what is written. Some very imaginative folks start talking about what is not exist in rules and Oh, HOLY EMPEROR! here we go again! A holy war can start, the war more bloody and fearsome than ancient 'AK-47 is\is not Stg44 rip off'-war, which was started because of illiterate gungeeks.

The rule of the thumb always was "if in a doubt pray to The Emperor (or whatever other false gods you like, you filthy heretic) and read English codex". The english original is pretty clear about how many weapons of the same kind you can take in CST squad. I do remeber russian Codex: Black Templars with messed up points values. Never used translated rules since those times. 

 

However you might now understand why i do not like the codex. It looks like was not proof checked, tested or at least read by someone outside of the authors group. Authors created patterns in units' dataslates by (plausible) copy-pasting which led some people to wrong conclusions, and than authors broke thier own patterns themselves which made those conclusions even more wrong. And traditional irresponsible translation to other languages just added up the wrongness of the book.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

3 hours ago, Shamansky said:

This bag of grox feces about CST specials reminds me another bag of the same substance about how many lasguns HWT had in previous codex. All you need to get clear is just read what is written. Some very imaginative folks start talking about what is not exist in rules and Oh, HOLY EMPEROR! here we go again! A holy war can start, the war more bloody and fearsome than ancient 'AK-47 is\is not Stg44 rip off'-war, which was started because of illiterate gungeeks.

The rule of the thumb always was "if in a doubt pray to The Emperor (or whatever other false gods you like, you filthy heretic) and read English codex". The english original is pretty clear about how many weapons of the same kind you can take in CST squad. I do remeber russian Codex: Black Templars with messed up points values. Never used translated rules since those times. 

 

However you might now understand why i do not like the codex. It looks like was not proof checked, tested or at least read by someone outside of the authors group. Authors created patterns in units' dataslates by (plausible) copy-pasting which led some people to wrong conclusions, and than authors broke thier own patterns themselves which made those conclusions even more wrong. And traditional irresponsible translation to other languages just added up the wrongness of the book.

Again the problem is, what is there in English and what is there in other languages say different things.

 

how do you know the translations were wrong exactly?

 

i agree that there are some major flaws in the way the codex was written, but from a gaming perspective I have no issues with it.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

The removal of AoC I just realized makes a lot of our weapons sooo much better.

 

my autocannon love and leaning into multilasers i feel will now really pay off against marines.

Also against marines the malleus launcher now out shines the bombast even more.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven