New Errata Now Available

[HellecticMojo]

Shield guard works now!

burstfire working for skorne, not a +3 but what the hey.

backswing's no longer simultaneous... huh...
Thank the lord the archangel is immune to saeryn's feat.

[FearLord]

Can anyone comment on why Backswing was changed? I imagine it's certainly a lot easier to resolve now, I'm just wondering if that was the reason, or if there was some particular interaction that caused it.

If you search for Back swing in the rules forum there are plenty of threads about timing issues with it, but basically the main problem as I see it was the whole having to declare the target for both attacks before rolling to hit with either... I think they probably just got fed up with the many many problems people had with it, especially when logically it would make sense for them to be sequential rather than simultaneous...

[PG_LEJKaya]

I don't get the point to Jarl Skuld's feat errata. Why was it changed to get rid of Pathfinder and say instead "can advance through terrain and obstacles without penalty"? The only thing that comes to mind is pBaldur's feat that would have shut that down. Was there anything else that caused problems?

Some wording was changed from "Moved" to "Advance" so before you could (For example) slam a model ignoring obstructions and models. And I suppose they thought Baldurs feat needed a nerf... only half the game ignored it before now its 51%

[PG_BloodRath]

thamks will that clears up a bunch its good to see sheild guard is good again

[Muffin Man]

I don't get the point to Jarl Skuld's feat errata. Why was it changed to get rid of Pathfinder and say instead "can advance through terrain and obstacles without penalty"? The only thing that comes to mind is pBaldur's feat that would have shut that down. Was there anything else that caused problems?

Wouldn't this allow them to move through non-linear obstacles like a house or what-not now? Which you can't do with pathfinder.

Edit: Nm the feat already let them move through obstacles.

[lanedaughtry]

And here I was hoping for some Mountain King love.

Too soon I guess. Too soon.

-L

[PG_Viper114]

Some wording was changed from "Moved" to "Advance" so before you could (For example) slam a model ignoring obstructions and models. And I suppose they thought Baldurs feat needed a nerf... only half the game ignored it before now its 51%

Hmmm, I guess that makes sense, though usually I only ever moved or charged through those clouds...

[Syas]

I don't get the point to Jarl Skuld's feat errata. Why was it changed to get rid of Pathfinder and say instead "can advance through terrain and obstacles without penalty"? The only thing that comes to mind is pBaldur's feat that would have shut that down. Was there anything else that caused problems?

Does it change Charging through a Linear Obstacle?

[FearLord]

Does it change Charging through a Linear Obstacle?

Pathfinder lets you do that...

[Syas]

Pathfinder lets you do that...

Which the Feat no longer gives - I was pretty sure that changed based on the new wording, though I am relatively new, so "Advancing through without penalty" =/= letting you charge through the Linear Obstacle (which the feat used to allow)?

[Hashmal]

Poor Vigilant. Oh well, barely anyone took you anyway.

[FearLord]

Which the Feat no longer gives - I was pretty sure that changed based on the new wording, though I am relatively new, so "Advancing through without penalty" =/= letting you charge through the Linear Obstacle (which the feat used to allow)?

A charge is a type of advance so neither wording stops you from charging through Linear obstacles.

[PG_Electric Seal]

Siege's ground pounder got a lot better.

[Crate123]

Poor Vigilant. Oh well, barely anyone took you anyway.

Eh ?

[PG_Kalfan]

New errata is now available for download!

The file can be found here: http://privateerpress.com/files/WM%2...uly%202012.pdf

Enjoy!

Cannot open it:

The requested page could not be found.

???

[Syas]

A charge is a type of advance so neither wording stops you from charging through Linear obstacles.

Thanks - that's what I was trying to find out, was just curious if there was a ramification there

[Crate123]

Siege's ground pounder got a lot better.

That had already been ruled by the infernals though, so it only got better for people who dont follow the rules forums

[PG_Electric Seal]

Missed that one apparently.

[TechLee]

Cannot open it:



???

Same here.

[Mr_Smigs]

ditto... can't open

[razcalking]

Requested page could not be found.

[Boreas]

Page not found!

[Hashmal]

Eh ?

He can no longer weapon lock heavies, which was one of the niftier things you could do with a 4 point ARM 21 'jack with negligible hitting power.

[MoN4RcH]

Not happy with the lock errata PP! The Raek and a few of the light jacks with open fist got some play because of this previously nifty trick now you render them obsolete.

Locking large based models would force them to use their action if they couldn't find help to free them from the lock. Light jacks and beast dont see that much play as it is, please just make the lock errata to Collosals.

[Crate123]

He can no longer weapon lock heavies, which was one of the niftier things you could do with a 4 point ARM 21 'jack with negligible hitting power.

Ah ofcourse.

[sleet01]

That had already been ruled by the infernals though, so it only got better for people who dont follow the rules forums

The change to Breach was a nice surprise, though. The ruling about "suffer damage == suffer a damage *roll*, not damage > (ARM * 1/2)" was already around, but the errata wording means that the auto-damage from a Defender's hammer or a Lancer/Thorn's cortex damage does not cause Breach to go away on the affected model.

[Crate123]

The change to Breach was a nice surprise, though. The ruling about "suffer damage == suffer a damage *roll*, not damage > (ARM * 1/2)" was already around, but the errata wording means that the auto-damage from a Defender's hammer or a Lancer/Thorn's cortex damage does not cause Breach to go away on the affected model.

Yeah that is nice. No more Exemplar Bastions ruining that feat

[PG_LEJKaya]

He can no longer weapon lock heavies, which was one of the niftier things you could do with a 4 point ARM 21 'jack with negligible hitting power.

Woldwatcher is in the almost identical situation.

I think we have to play this but its a huge buff to heavies with shields. I guess it doesn't matter too much to Menoth, they hit plenty hard, but the Woldwatcher was used as an effective -2ARM buff to the most heavily armoured heavies and that actually let us have a chance of destroying them.
Lets see.

[PG_dbsmash]

Am I the only one for whom the supplied errata link doesn't work?

[PG_LEJKaya]

Yeah that is nice. No more Exemplar Bastions ruining that feat

And Warlocks transfering.

[PG_LonelyMonk]

Use the link on this page... it works...

http://privateerpress.com/organized-play

[PPS_Hungerford]

New link available, some gremlins got into mainframe and started causing havoc.

http://files.privateerpress.com/op/errata/errata.pdf

[Tossy]

Am I the only one for whom the supplied errata link doesn't work?

Nope, not working this end either. Anyone?

[Adurot]

Am I the only one for whom the supplied errata link doesn't work?

Nope. Sounds like there's quite a few, myself included, who the link does not work for.

[Sanguinary Dan]

Damn! File not found. Right. Which one of you buggers stole it? C'mon, fess up.

[drachenfels]

charges stop once you contact an obstacle (which a wall is) it has been clarified befor that if you may "advance through without penalty" then you dont contact the obstacle. both wordings allow them to charge across a wall.

[Adurot]

New link available, some gremlins got into mainframe and started causing havoc.

http://files.privateerpress.com/op/errata/errata.pdf

This one however works fine.

[Shadowspite]

atm, I don't see why you couldn't use Pthag's feat on the Archangel.

the gargantuan rules say it cannot be placed, but this only applies while the gargantuan is actually in play. if thagrosh is feating to bring it back, its rules are not in play until it is once more in play. which doesn't occur until the feat is complete, and the model is already placed.

my head hurts.

I realize this sounds odd, but doesn't makes a sort of sense? I would honestly just prefer PP to flat out state he can't by changing his feat to say no huge bases. otherwise this will be argued a lot, and I'd rather save myself the headache.

anyway, this is a loophole that I can see.

oh, and link broken

[Crate123]

And Warlocks transfering.

They have suffered a damage roll though.

[PG_LEJKaya]

They have suffered a damage roll though.

Yeah, I'm saying its stops warlocks transfering ruining the feat, same as bastions.
It now works, before it had issues.