PDA

View Full Version : GW mistake?



WarriorOfJustice
21-12-2005, 06:14
I was looking at the sample army for Tk's on GW website, and for a 1500 pt army led by a TP they had 3 chariots under the core selection. Doesnt the army book say that you need to have an army led by a TK to have chariots selected as a core choice? Maybe I read the rule wrong....
http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/tombkings/gaming/armylists/list1.htm

lorelorn
21-12-2005, 09:28
Chariots are special unless the army is led by a Tomb King. This would not be the first time GW made an elementary mistake with their own army lists.

Tiberius Frost
21-12-2005, 09:50
A similar example was a 40k battle report which featured a Chaos army with a unit of bloodletters and a Greater daemon of Slaanesh (= Not allowed)

Crube
21-12-2005, 10:31
rule #1 of reading GW army lists (online and in battle reps...)


Dont believe the list....

sometimes, they're just using a playtest list, other times, they're just plain wrong...

athamas
21-12-2005, 10:37
they also fail to read the rules, just to make the battle reports better... [or just plain forget them..]

Zanusiekk
21-12-2005, 11:48
they also fail to read the rules, just to make the battle reports better... [or just plain forget them..]

Hey! That's the way I play, too!

Griefbringer
21-12-2005, 11:56
It is rather ordinary to see mistakes in WD battle report army lists - not to mention that sometimes they do not even manage to spell correctly the names of magic items.

boogle
21-12-2005, 11:59
A similar example was a 40k battle report which featured a Chaos army with a unit of bloodletters and a Greater daemon of Slaanesh (= Not allowed)
which battle report was this?

Tiberius Frost
21-12-2005, 14:12
It was a carnage scenario, which featured Orks vs Dark Angels vs Tyranids vs Chaos. I think it was Pete Haines using the Chaos army, but I can't remember. Each player used their own personal models (well, at least some of them did anyway).
The Dark Angels won, by having a single character on the objective at the end (from memory).

All I can say for sure was that it was the carnage scenario, and that it had those four armies playing. Sorry I don't remember the WD number. If it's any help, it was after the neew whirlwind model had come out, and after the latest Chaos codex.
Alot of people complained about the ork player, since he gave his warboss Mega armour, but decided a turbo booster was too expensive so had him walk d6 inches for 6 turns in an objective based mission. He never saw combat.

Scythe
21-12-2005, 16:11
It was a carnage scenario, which featured Orks vs Dark Angels vs Tyranids vs Chaos. I think it was Pete Haines using the Chaos army, but I can't remember. Each player used their own personal models (well, at least some of them did anyway).
The Dark Angels won, by having a single character on the objective at the end (from memory).


I think it was Black Templar Mat using his Word Bearers.

Drasanil
21-12-2005, 16:53
There is also the bat. rep. were Paul Sawyer(sp?) fields his Slaanesh lead warband against a collection of empire warrior priests led by Valten and Luthor Huss and takes Screamers of Tzeench...

Lostanddamned
21-12-2005, 17:14
And a BT vs Orks batrep where the templars have sergeants and 15 man squads.

Bingo the Fun Monkey
21-12-2005, 18:38
The 15 man squad thing was legal under the Armageddon BT rules...not sure about the new dex. They can't take sergeants? I never really knew or cared...I play IG :p.

librerian_samae
21-12-2005, 18:42
A really good example of this is in the new dwarf book, many mentions of dwarf heros/lords being able to take 'pistols' with 3 minis being modeld with them but flick through to the army selection section and it only has dwarf hanguns as a valid ranged weapon choice:eyebrows:

Lord Baldrick
22-12-2005, 09:53
Anyone notice the chariots from the first post didn't pay to have a banner?
Either that or the Banner of the Undying Legion had a significant drop in point cost...

(You do need to have a banner before you can take a magical one, right?) ;)

Jedi152
22-12-2005, 10:12
You need to have a standard bearer, yes.

dneff23
22-12-2005, 10:38
Well actually ...if you are undivided or Word Bearers you could use Bloodletters and a Keeper of Secrets....

Scythe
22-12-2005, 13:16
They were Word Bearers. I remember the dark red / black color scheme from that battle report.

Not that it makes much sense to put Khorne daemons next to Slaanesh ones.

AngelofSorrow
23-12-2005, 09:09
They were Word Bearers. I remember the dark red / black color scheme from that battle report.

Not that it makes much sense to put Khorne daemons next to Slaanesh ones.
Why doesnt that make sense above and beyond the fact khorne and slaanesh hate each other i dotn have a CSM army but my fantasy chaos mixes khorne and slaanesh to deadly effect so it does make sense.

Scythe
23-12-2005, 09:25
Why doesnt that make sense above and beyond the fact khorne and slaanesh hate each other i dotn have a CSM army but my fantasy chaos mixes khorne and slaanesh to deadly effect so it does make sense.

Erhm, maybe BECAUSE Khorne and Slaanesh hate each other?

I try to keep fluff in mind when I am designing my armies, and try not to go against it in favour of sheer destructive potential.

WLBjork
23-12-2005, 22:05
A really good example of this is in the new dwarf book, many mentions of dwarf heros/lords being able to take 'pistols' with 3 minis being modeld with them but flick through to the army selection section and it only has dwarf hanguns as a valid ranged weapon choice:eyebrows:

Eh? Pretty sure it's a choice of Pistols or Great Weapons for Lords and Thanes. Engineers definately get pistols. Trouble is my AB is at my friends so I can't confirm ATM.

boogle
23-12-2005, 22:06
its and/or with regards to pistols and great weapons

Chuffy
23-12-2005, 23:11
rule #1 of reading GW army lists (online and in battle reps...)


Dont believe the list....

sometimes, they're just using a playtest list, other times, they're just plain wrong...

Indeed, the Battleaxe of the Last Waaagh was 65pts when 6th ed was released, Orc book came out; 75pts! And when the Battle report was being written the Blorcs hadn't even been painted by the eavy metal team.

Gives you an idea of how far ahead GW sometimes work.

Shimmergloom
23-12-2005, 23:26
Here's another GW mistake.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/orcsandgoblins/ardboyzlist/1/

Notice how both sample grimgor's lists have black orc bosses in the orc units, which is not allowed in either grimgor's or the regular O&G list.

I even emailed GW about this months ago, because on a greenskin site I saw people putting black orc bosses in orc units for 'ard boyz lists, because GW had done it and got a reply that Big bosses of other types are allowed in any type of unit.

And I had to reply back, "NO. Those aren't big bosses, they are black orc BOSSES. You can't upgrade an orc to a black orc boss in either list." Finally they got back to me and said 'oh.' and that it was an obvious typo that they would correct to avoid confusion.

This was months ago. And still the lists say black orc boss in all those orc units and even boar boyz units.

ugh.

Bloodknight
24-12-2005, 01:41
That reminds me of a starter armylist for high elves which included a single level 2 mage as general and no other chars. The gag: the mage wore a magic armour which didnīt allow casting in armour, so he could therefore not cast spells anymore.

ZomboCom
24-12-2005, 01:48
I spotted that one too, made me laugh.

Shimmergloom
24-12-2005, 02:03
There's also the old school orc and goblin 4th edition book, that had a battle report vs dwarfs.

And the time the dwarf book hadn't been released yet, but the O&G army had multiple illegal units based on the army list in the book itself.

For starters there were doom divers and a goblin general, but no goblin or wolfrider units that were required to field a goblin general or a doom diver.

Tiberius Frost
26-12-2005, 11:14
And during 6th ed (earlier days, though) there was a battle report in White Dwarf where Space McQuirk led a goblin army against dwarfs, and his stated tactic was to use rereolls from Mork Save Us to prevent miscasts, which he did. On at least one occasion I believe he used a reroll to cause irresistable force.
Later this was cleared up in an FAQ where Gav admitted that it was a mistake and that you can't do it (as per the rules).

Also in Codex:Craftworld Eldar there's a picture of a Saim Hann army featuring a falcon and a fire prism, although Samm Hain can only take one Heavy Support choice.

boogle
26-12-2005, 16:09
the thing with those army shots however, is they are meant to showcase the whole army whether its is legal or not (check out the IG codex for the Cadian army that has Barries and at least 3 Russes in it)

librerian_samae
26-12-2005, 16:20
or the raven gaurd army photo in the new marine dex:rolleyes: ...

Tiberius Frost
27-12-2005, 08:02
the thing with those army shots however, is they are emant to showcase the whoel army whether its is legal or not

True, but they're enough to confuse you if you're not 100% sure on the rules.
Unprofessional, in my opinion. Though not as bad as the horrific grammar rife within the online store. :rolleyes:

Griefbringer
27-12-2005, 10:50
There are some things that one should never expect GW staff to get properly:

1.) Rules of their games
2.) English grammar and spelling
3.) Currency conversions

Stu
27-12-2005, 17:20
If you go to the Kill team rules in the 40k rulebook their exemples are illegal:)
I think it is acceptable that they do a mistake once in while but those mistakes should be corrected ASAP when noticed and there is no excuse for mistakes in rulebooks and in codexes/armybooks that should be corrected before being printed and in battle reports where "experient" players do the army lists and "experienced" players spectate.
We (the players) should complain more about those kinds of mistakes because they bring trouble especially for new players that will repeat the mistakes stating that GW does the same thing.

Crazy Harborc
28-12-2005, 02:04
It "bugs me" when whatever is done in a game and isn't "legal" and isn't a new rule but a flubup. Do thye actually edit/check for mistakes (in games) or just misprints??

Darius Rhiannon
30-12-2005, 07:47
One thing I do not think GW always appreciates is the time that their products are on the market.

Take for example the dwarf book. It the old one was out for 6 years before being replaced, and I am sure they sold quite a few thousand copies.

The new Wood Elf and Ogre Kingdom books have a long list of FAQ's. Since GW is not in the mood to issue FAQ answers those questions are going to be continued to be asked for quite some time.

I have heard that the models are the real causes of the time between books. So why aren't the books written better? Why do they still have so many unclear rules.

But it seems the battle reports have at least gotten better with regards to being accurate.