View Full Version : warhammer 40K Wargear errors and omissions

23-12-2005, 16:48
Hi everyone,

I got the new wargear compendium for my birthday, I've just had a flick through and already I've spotted a mistake and an omission and I haven't even read it through properly!?

In the space marine section terminators are now apparently +3 save instead of +2...? When did this change!? (Please note voice dripping with irony) Does this mean my Leman Russ Battlecannons will now negate their armour save...? ;)

Also, even though the front of the book states all ammendments to be found on their website have been included there's no stats for the Tau Rail Rifle...?

I'm really pretty annoyed about this - I thought the compendium was a really great idea and now I'd have a much better idea of all the different races' weapons and stats without having to buy all the individual codexes.

Now I'm just annoyed that hard earned money has been spent on a compendium which is not accurate nor comprehensive - what's the point of that...? Can I trust all the other stats in the book...?

Sorry if this has been brought up in a thread already and does anyone know if GW know and if they're going to do anything about it!?

Malchek ;)

23-12-2005, 16:50
I have no idea what every one is talkin about in my book all the entries for termi armor are correct is this case for anyone else. as a matter of fact so are the rest of the entries

Although i dont have the rail rifle in mine either

23-12-2005, 16:51
The 2+ save thing was known. The book has some issues and it somewhat annoying that every 6 months it'll be out of date, but like the idea of it.

I'll buy the next.

23-12-2005, 17:00
You know the terminator entry in the SM codex is wrong too, it claims they have a 2+ armour save and no invulnerable save. Also, it doesn't actually say anywhere that they wear terminator armour...

23-12-2005, 17:03
Pity the fool who equips his terminators with terminator armour...

23-12-2005, 17:38
NOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo don't start the terminators don't wear terminator armour debate up.

forums accross the Internet have nearly blown up with the heated debate.


Lafeel Abriel
23-12-2005, 17:56
It's up there with putting a dozer blade on a Land Speeder in sillyness..Plus the reason why GW didn't put it in there was probably because they thought it was so blindingly obvios that anyone would realize they come as standard with it..

23-12-2005, 18:48
I'm going to have to agree with Lafeel Abriel...it really is only common sense that TERMINATORS wear TERMINATOR ARMOUR...okay, granted in some cases is best to have a definitive, no room for confusion listing in the codex...but some things should just be obvious, shouldn't they? I'm not claiming GW has ever had the best editing and proof-reading, and they've certainly been known to leave the occasional important bit of rules or info out.

Meh, back on topic we go then. Wait. A dozer blade on a Land Speeder? Riiight...Lafeel, tell me that someone didn't actually do this and that it's just a silly example you came up with....please.

23-12-2005, 19:07
I think both the rules discussion and wargear errors have both been discussed to death.

If you wish to continue discussion on the wargear book search the original posts.

Thread Closed.