Ottawa Area Errata

[Twinlinked]

well it looks like while this is a good idea people do not like the idea of changing stats etc.

which i can understand because it causes cinfusion

what about the assault cannon or Storm Shield issue?

A.

[Gahris]

what about the assault cannon or Storm Shield issue?

If me and you were to play a game againt each other, I would have no problem of something similar to this since we are friends, but I don't know how as a group people would feel about this. GW may of made the assault cannon Heavy 3, and the storm sheild +4invul on purpose tho ?

[Twinlinked]

Leaving all the talk of rule changing aside is there any interest in producing this document that clarifies rule ambiguities - Valkyries, Turrets, KFF, etc.

it would be probably set up:

BRB - Clarifications
Each army - Clarifications

I don't see this being see if being a huge document few pages max, and i my thinking is to stay away from arbitrarily wherever possible, in other words it would draw directly from RAW, and only Interpret if absolutely necessary

Do people think having a document that spelled things out would be worth while?

(i continued the old thread in case people want to read up on the original post)

A.

[natesnation]

It looks like what you're talking about now is simply putting the results of forum discussions on paper. I think thats counterproductive to what a discussion is all about.
If you had this thing, saying KFF gives 5+ save even to vehicles, you would get alot of friction from people who didn't take part in the discussion. Every time you used this with another person, you would have to reiterate the whole argument, and in the end there's still a chance that they would resist the idea.(unless this document also included the printed forum thread, in which case, prepare to build a tome that makes the Fantasy rulebook look like a pamphlet).

As for turrets, The codices obviously do not list the placement and mounting of most weapons, so any ruling on that would be purely a matter of opinion.

I think furm discussion on these things is the best way to clarify, and distrubuting a paper on these issues while they're still in discussion would only confuse people who don't already have a firm grasp on the subject.

Maybe business cards with the forum's URL is the best way to spread the word.

[Orbital]

Lemme just give you a kind and friendly warning that I'd rather not close a second thread because of arguments over KFF saves. Just mind the edge of the cliff, if you get my meaning.

Cheers!

[LUTNIT]

Just mind the edge of the cliff, if you get my meaning.

Mmmmm... lemmings. Wait, what?

The problem I see is not everyone local is on this site, those that are don't all check all the threads and many probably don't know this exists. Even if they do know about it there is nothing forcing them to follow it and there will always be people who disagree with what is in it. IMO making it into a PDF document or something wont make it any more accepted then the INAT FAQ which I have met several people who refuse to use it due to some of their interpretations. I am in the process of writing something similar to what you propose but its essentially house rules for anyone who plays at my place, there is no way it could be implemented city-wide or anything.

Also if the assault cannon and storm shield are the way they are in the DH book then that is what their point costs where designed for. Updating them to newer rules that are better without adjusting point costs goes against the entire point cost system. I mean look at BA terminators, they pay an extra 5pts for TH/SS that codex marines don't have to, so do we increase the points for codex marines or remove the 5pts for BA's?

[TrentL]

See personally I think that if both Codex's are in the same edition but they are somewhat different like the BA paying 5+ more for shields, I don't like house rules that change that, the BA codex was written after the SM codex, and there was a reason (Whatever it may be) that they chose those 5 points.

But likewise if a DA person came to me and said "Would you mind if i use the 3+ storm shields since my codex is way out of date" I might be okay with that (Depending if they chose to update all their rules to match codex space marine equipment, and not just picked and chose the best)

[Twinlinked]

well rules are as written,

for the DH asslt cannon, it is heavy 4 rending in the french codex and heavy 3 in the english codex, so there is no argument of points costs or army design in that one, it is simply an error one way or the other,


my interest is to see a short list of interpretation so when someone arrives we can say he is a list of commonly agreed upon interpretations, instead of read the forum front to back.

I have been rolling this back and forth in my mind for a while wondering if it would make things better or worse,

A.

[36Dice]

Here's something I'd like to discuss: giving Eldar Pheonix Lord's the ability to take one of their associated Aspect units as a Troop choice.

[Twinlinked]

Here's something I'd like to discuss: giving Eldar Pheonix Lord's the ability to take one of their associated Aspect units as a Troop choice.

my understanding is that the would be making up a rule not interpreting a rule or set of rules to figure out what is intended.. or is there specific mention of this in the codex?

A.