Login |  Register



Welcome
Welcome to <strong>Sons of Corax</strong>. Home of the 19th Legion of the Adeptus Astartes. We're small at the moment, but we are growing

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, <a href="/profile.php?mode=register">join our community today</a>!

After registering please feel free to discuss anything(provided they are in their right forums). Please Enjoy Your Stay!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: GW'S stance on errata / faq's
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:07 pm 
Reclusiarch
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:20 pm
Posts: 1811
Location: Germany
Encountered this post at dakka:


Quote Reds8n :

You all saw the new WD subscribers mini eh ?


..that'll come in handy eh ?

Picked up some info, ALL the staff were very guarded and cagey.

Spoke to Mr. Cruddace about the Guard codex, asked him about squad Serg. weapons, FAQS, and a few bits and bobs.

Then had a long chat with Matt Ward about playtesting, space marine codex, FAQs and all manner of stuff.

ALL the design studio guys were very pleasant and easy to chat to, i really got the impression they would love to talk about everything they are/plan to work on but their management says NOPE to that.

..so..Telion does not grant stealth to the rest of the unit and Vulkan's master crafting doesn't apply to allies/etc. I beseeched him to add these to the FAQ..guess we'll see. They have a very odd view of FAQs and errata, for example he viewed the Telion granting the ability to the squad and similar as deliberate misreading of the rules and, apparently, they don't feel this is in their remit to "fix".

Extraordinary. I think I, and the gents stood next to me ear wigging, were genuinely struck dumb at that/some of the responses.

more thoughts and things later.





What do we make of these positions of GW about Marines and rules?

discuss.

_________________
There is a reason why blue communist ants
should not rule the galaxy!

Jaspercation in Jan 09:
if youre gonna get terminators ,
get Raven Guard one.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: GW'S stance on errata / faq's
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:15 pm 
Reclusiarch
User avatar
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:20 pm
Posts: 1811
Location: Germany
And the pic of thwe new space dwarf.....

Image


Thought we have the space dawi already got at 3rd oct :P

_________________
There is a reason why blue communist ants
should not rule the galaxy!

Jaspercation in Jan 09:
if youre gonna get terminators ,
get Raven Guard one.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: GW'S stance on errata / faq's
PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:15 pm 
White Raven
User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 1340
Location: Hebburnium - Newcastle
hmmm the new mini is errrr *edited by the inquisition*

i strangely agree with GW on this one though, the vulken and telion rules stated are people deliberately misreading the news (i feel a flame war or is that just vulken :P)

Telion has the scout universal special rule but no where does it state that he gives this to the entire squad, hes an upgrade character so its feasable for him to have a special rule which makes him more in line for sniper units with camo cloaks (something he doesn't have access to)

Vulken and Allies.... dorry for sounding a bit agrivated about this but sometimes people just need to read the frikken codex. Vulken gives his abilities to those units with the combat tactics special rule as he swap them for his chapter tactics. a sister of battle for example doesnt have combat tactics so she cant have the special rules regarding meltas and flamers, Simple as that.

That to me is deliberately misreading the rules.

_________________
Its easier to ask for forgiveness then permission

Check out my Geekly/weekly Blog @ http://jaspercation.blog.co.uk/

Victorus aut Mortis = i.e glory to the black dudes with jump packs and pointy claws
Image


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: GW'S stance on errata / faq's
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:12 am 
Recruit
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 5
Telion I agree with he is an upgrade character and so his stealth helps him work better with camo wearing snipers instead of cc scouts.

But Vulcan does not give his ability to units with combats tactics. It is obviously intended to be used with dreadnaughts and speeders which do not have combat tactics. But that leaves it open to interpretation as to what exactly is an army. They need to FAQ that he applies only to marine units.


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: GW'S stance on errata / faq's
PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:12 pm 
White Raven
User avatar
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:01 pm
Posts: 1340
Location: Hebburnium - Newcastle
BrothrR wrote:
Telion I agree with he is an upgrade character and so his stealth helps him work better with camo wearing snipers instead of cc scouts.

But Vulcan does not give his ability to units with combats tactics. It is obviously intended to be used with dreadnaughts and speeders which do not have combat tactics. But that leaves it open to interpretation as to what exactly is an army. They need to FAQ that he applies only to marine units.



my view however is that land speeders and dreadnaughts shouldn't get it as as my bank manager knows What isn't there, cannot be changed into something else. It still states that they lose the "combat tactics" special rule. so to lose something it has to be there to begin with

and here is the entry. to save you all flicking through the codex.
Quote:
Chapter tactics: if you include he'stan then all your units in your army lose the Combat tactics special rule. Instead, all thunder hammers in your army count as master-crafted, and all flamers, heavy flamer, melataguns and multimeltas count as twinlinked. If more than one character in your army has the Chapter Tactics special rule, you must choose which version will apply.


Units that dont have the combat tactics special rule cant take this because they cant have anything to lose!
hence why although i agree it may have been designed for use with landspeeders and dreadnaughts they simply cant use the upgraded rules. and if so if Vulken were to give his abilities to such units i see no reason why walkers should not get the fleet special rule a widely rejected theory, when taking shrike.or sticking with the sisters of battle theme, why sisters repentia which get +D6 to their movement speed, cannot also fleet if Shrike is somewhere on the their side.

_________________
Its easier to ask for forgiveness then permission

Check out my Geekly/weekly Blog @ http://jaspercation.blog.co.uk/

Victorus aut Mortis = i.e glory to the black dudes with jump packs and pointy claws
Image


Profile  Offline
 
 Post subject: Re: GW'S stance on errata / faq's
PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:53 pm 
Recruit
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 5
I understand your logic, I just don't agree with it. Just because a unit doesn't have combat tactics doesn't make them ineligible for the 2nd part. If you compare to the other special characters they say combat tactics is replaced by some special rule. That is not the case here. Shrike doesn't give fleet to our dreadnaughts as much as I would like him to because dreads don't have combat tactics.

All in all it is just lazy rule writing on GW's part and should be corrected.


Profile  Offline
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Panel

Top You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to: