Print error on page 49, Flying Monstrous creature's

[Losing Command]

While reading the rules for flying monsters, I noticed that there is a , missing in the Special Rules part (at least in my rulebook). If you read it RAW, Flying Monstrous Creature's have the following special rules : Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Move through cover, Relentless Smash and Vectror Strike. There is no special rule named 'Relentless Smash' , so if you'd play the rules as written those flying baddies can't move and shoot heavy weapons etc and have no AP 2 with their CC attacks But it should be obvious that it is a print error and should not be abused We still had a ton of laughs at the local club when teasing a guy using a Bloodthirster with it

[Lord Damocles]

I'm surprised there aren't more obvious errors.

Last edition we got Wave Serpents with front AV 2, and Dark Eldar weapons with Range: Blaster.


Still not as good as Fabius Bike (which has never been corrected, and is still in print ) in the Chaos Marine codex, or the Tau love wolves from the Australian webstore though

[Lord Inquisitor]

Was it city fight that had "every man is a but spark in the darkness"?

A good rules howler from WFB for the always strikes first rule allowed the unit with the rule, if they had an I value higher than their opponent to "re-roll failed misses" (which was later corrected via errata).

[Radium]

Chaos codex 3.5 had Thrall wizards with 3 wounds and toughness I.

[murgel2006]

If you read it RAW, Flying Monstrous Creature's have the following special rules : Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Move through cover, Relentless Smash and Vectror Strike. There is no special rule named 'Relentless Smash' , so if you'd play the rules as written those flying baddies can't move and shoot heavy weapons

I can not see a problem with that. Maybe there will be a rule text published in WD for Relentless Smash who knows. I am very sorry but there is no indication that this is an error. Such a blatantly obvious mistake would have obviously been published in an Errata within days.
Thus it is no mistake but intentional and it is clear that the rules were meant to be that way.

Thank the gods, that rules are country specific. So I get relentless and smash as special rules for flying MCs.
But I do not get the visibility reduction for Harlequins as the English do, I only get shroud.

[Thommy H]

Someone who can't use an apostrophe correctly in a one-line text box is criticising a company who wrote a 452-page book for missing out one comma.

[Andy089]

Someone who can't use an apostrophe correctly in a one-line text box is criticising a company who wrote a 452-page book for missing out one comma.

You aren't paying stupendous amounts of money to read his post though! =)

[Corvus Corone]

To be fair, relentless smash sounds like a cool rule name.

Like smash. Except you double your attacks. Yeah.

[AngelofSorrow]

And the rulebook isn't a stupendous amount of money either.


Ready for eternal war!

[Losing Command]

Someone who can't use an apostrophe correctly in a one-line text box is criticising a company who wrote a 452-page book for missing out one comma.

It isn't meant as criticising, I just thought it was funny. And I can't get the damn spellchecker to work on forum posts