Different print runs of a Codex.

5517 Views 52 Replies 12 Participants Last post by don_mondo, Mar 17, 2007

Viscount Vash

Discussion Starter · Mar 11, 2007

Just had a chat with TYRANIDS the Living Metal rule on the Monolith and it seems that we have different things printed in our Codex.
(I now know that his is the newer one.)

Tyranids wrote:

I was looking at the codex when I wrote it "any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what"

My codex does not say this at all!

It is fairly common fo GW to edit a later print run of a Codex without saying they have which can cause some annoying and un-needed auguments and disscusions.

If you have spotted any of these list them here so that we can all save time and much angst.

EDIT Please Do not quote whole passages of your Codex as this is against the old Copyright laws

Save

1 - 3 of 53 Posts

dakari-mane

· #15 · Mar 12, 2007

uberschveinen said:
Tyranids, there is no such phrase in any of the editions I've ever seen, and I've been researching that since you first made this unsupported claim. My own codex, the ones of all the people near me, and roughly twelve from other countries do not have that wording.

& what does that prove? Nothing. Go to a GW & look for codex V3 or above.

uberschveinen said:
Not only this, but if the rule had ihad actually changed between printings, Games Workshop would have released a FAQ for it, or updated the old one to include it. They have learned what happens when different things say different things last edition, and want it to happen again about as much as I do. As there is ZERO mention of this change in the rule, reference to this change, or even the component words of this rule broken down and put into seperate sentences, there has been no change.

Incorrect. GW will often update a FAQ then once the codex has been updated remove the now superfluous bits from it. A good example of this would be the T5 Obliterators from the early versions of the chaos codex. They were later changed to T4(5) in a FAQ. The codex was then updated & the FAQ changed leaving a lot of people wandering round with chaos codex's showing their oblits as T5. Which is wrong.

uberschveinen said:
Until such a time as you post a scan or photograph of this mythical sentence that seems only to exist in your unique 'special edition' codex, it simply doesn't exist. I believe even the moderators of this board would be happy to let you do so for a few minutes before deleting it for legal reasons, if only to kill this overblown non-issue.

If you read it wrong, just admit it. Nobody cares if you misread something, since everybody does. Blowing up epic debate about a rule to make you feel better won't do anything to help you once the bubble is popped. even then, at this point I'd be more than willing to pretend none of this ever happened if you do, because this is getting ridiculous.

Your lack of netiquette & frankly rude manner do you no favours. As for the post above where you were screaming like a wounded monkey I can only hope it is not a reflection of your regular behaviour.

Your codex is out of date. Pay some money to get a new one. Nobber :roll:

Save

dakari-mane

· #16 · Mar 12, 2007

Viscount Vash said:
If you have spotted any of these list them here so that we can all save time and much angst.

Things to look out for:
Early CSM codex has T5 obliterators.
Newer Ork codex has removed opponents consent from the special characters.

Word :wink:

Save

dakari-mane

· #19 · Mar 12, 2007

Viscount Vash said:
You don't per-chance work for them Dakari-mane?

No just a die-hard fanatic :mrgreen:

Save

1 - 3 of 53 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month