Grimstonefire:
There is a way to get email updates from GW when they do an errata. Not sure what the link is, but next time I see it I’ll make a note.
On the HE thing I just think it’s a real shame there was such confusion at all when there really didn’t need to be if they had worded it better.
Baggronor:
We have a 7th ed worded rule, and a FAQ that tells us how this should be played in 8th. Maybe you elf-haters could finally accept it? It's not an advantage that they didn't have previously after all.I've accepted it, I just think its still a poor choice to make. Its not the striking first that stinks, its the re-rolls. I just don't see why it was necessary to allow it with great weapons as well, when no one else's rules are like that (Grave Guard with VanHels, Executioners with Hag Graef, Chaos Lord with Helm of Many Eyes and great weapon, etc). And yes, I know HE infantry are expensive, boo-hoo. I don't see my Skeletons or Zombies getting a special fix for costing three times what they should. Oh that's right, they got nerfed with Unstable instead ;P
Thommy H:
I play Dark ElvesAnd you're complaining about re-rolls? ;)
snowblizz:
And I'm not an elf hater, I play Dark Elves. They're wonderful :PI would say that makes you the number 1 elf-hater... You know Dark elfs and all... ;P
Baggronor
Baggronor:
And you're complaining about re-rolls?No, I'm complaining about HEs getting them ;) At least my guys strike last with great weapons and are still not exactly cheap. And only re-roll once.
Can't we go back to trashing Deamons, DE and VC players instead?Now, THAT got old ;) Thankfully my VCs are now immune to such whingeing, being bottom-feeders for the time-being. Waiting for the Tomb Kings book to reinvigorate them.
Hashut’s Blessing:
As has been stated, the wording they used is why the FAQ is in direct contrast. Their intention for the rule could’ve simply been worded in such a way that it said “ignoring Always Strikes Last on weapons and such like” or whatever. Note: Yes, I hate Elves, but that’s because they’re too poncy, not because of rules. I agree that the FAQ is alright on the matter, it’s just that their original wording never actually negated the fact that GWs cause ASL - which is where my problem lies. Essentially - the rule can be OP (in particular, with the Swordmasters who are better than Chaos Warriors, by quite a bit, IMO, unless it’s a pure shooting game…), but the original wording never actually stated that you IGNORE ASL, just that the models GET ASF: a bit like the Banner of Eternal Flame - it says the unit gets Flaming Attacks. The unit, not any attacks. The unit gains ASF, but they are armed with GWs. I think I’m circling my point without making it, but I’m trying to point out the distinction between me disliking the rule (not the case) and me disliking the fact that they never actually said what they meant to begin with (what I dislike) and that people were saying the FAQ ruling was the way to play it before there was any FAQ (even in 7th), despite there being no precedence (until the FAQ).
As for saying about DEs getting re-rolls, HEs have ASF (compatible with GWs, no less) AND will usually re-roll as well. DEs get re-rolls for the first round of each combat.
VC players can only be trash-talked if they spam Wight Kings: perhaps the only way to make them near-decent (since Skellies are abour 4 times their worths, maybe only 3, and zombies are about double their worth at best).
Regardless, interesting to see that three of the PDFs didn’t need an update. Also, the WotR FAQ (although not many likely care here, lol) still hasn’t addressed the issue of costs of Legendary Formations, however, I’m VERY glad to see that they have FAQed the Overlord rule, which shouldn’t have really needed it.
What do people think of the additional update overall?
Thommy H:
it's just that their original wording never actually negated the fact that GWs cause ASLYes it did.
cornixt:
I love these “irresistable force vs immoveable object” discussions.
Kelharis:
It almost seems as though HB is reading the rules in a “Speed of Asuryan rule happens first, and then great weapon rule happens after SoA rule is resolved” kind of way. I sense that HB might have a background in CCG’s?
By the way, if we read rules in that way, I could argue that a cavalry model is a man sized model, riding a mount, and therefore a single model. Then when he is armed with a lance, the entire model must be “re-mounted” on another horse in order to receive the +2 strength when charging, as the “counts as a single model” rule is resolved, and then the lance rules take place.
Just an example of the problems with ruling in a “this happens, and then this happens” fashion
Thommy H:
Yeah, the point is that I think Speed of Asuryan has always specified that ASF overrides the great weapon’s ASL rule. I may be wrong, but I think in 7th Edition that ASF overruled it anyway, so maybe it doesn’t specifically point it out in those exact words, but the rule works the same way in 8th that it did in 7th - i.e. they Always Always Strike First. The only way that it becomes a bit weird is with the re-roll misses thing if they have higher Initiative - which applies even with great weapons, as Baggronor points out. I’ve heard it said elsewhere that the idea of this was, paradoxically, to balance them with Dark Elves - because ASF (and even SoA) is now no longer as powerful with striking in Initiative order, stepping up and supporting attacks. Striking first is just not as good as it was in 7th Edition, so the re-roll is to make High Elves worth their points by giving them an ability that is broadly similar to what Dark Elves have.
As always though, the proof is in the pudding - we can talk about how it feels unbalanced all we like, but I haven’t noticed High Elves trouncing everyone in 8th yet…
snowblizz:
There is a way to get email updates from GW when they do an errata. Not sure what the link is, but next time I see it I'll make a note.Here: http://mail.northwestwarriors.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/faqchecker_list_northwestwarriors.org.uk
Grimstonefire
I've heard it said elsewhere that the idea of this was, paradoxically, to balance them with Dark Elves - because ASF (and even SoA) is now no longer as powerful with striking in Initiative order, stepping up and supporting attacks. Striking first is just not as good as it was in 7th Edition, so the re-roll is to make High Elves worth their points by giving them an ability that is broadly similar to what Dark Elves have.Exactly.
Thommy H
Baggronor:
As always though, the proof is in the pudding - we can talk about how it feels unbalanced all we like, but I haven't noticed High Elves trouncing everyone in 8th yet...They won the Grand Tournament last weekend :)
VC players can only be trash-talked if they spam Wight Kings: perhaps the only way to make them near-decent (since Skellies are abour 4 times their worths, maybe only 3, and zombies are about double their worth at best).What annoys me is when my Zombies get mugged horribly by Skavenslaves. I pay three times the cost of a slave for each zombie...
Thommy H:
They won the Grand Tournament last weekendSomeone had to.
Tarrakk Blackhand:
Wow! There is so much errata in the rule book that they might as well reprint the whole thing! 8 pages is a HUGE ammount of stuff!
I also see (From the Dwarf Erratta) that they’re removing the Dogs of War rule. What is going to happen with the Ogre Kingdoms then? Are they still an army for hire, or is that gone? (never mind - I just read it in OK erratta - they’re their own army now!)
Is it just me, or did 8th get rushed to market?
Thommy H:
Wow! There is so much errata in the rule book that they might as well reprint the whole thing! 8 pages is a HUGE ammount of stuff!8 pages out of 528? That's less than 2% of the whole thing...
Tarrakk Blackhand:
No, I mean that on those 8 pages, there's a LOT of little paragraphs and sentance corrections, etc. Seems to me like they didn't proofread the book before they printed it or something.Wow! There is so much errata in the rule book that they might as well reprint the whole thing! 8 pages is a HUGE ammount of stuff!8 pages out of 528? That's less than 2% of the whole thing...
Thommy H
Thommy H:
Seems to me like they didn't proofread the book before they printed it or something.Have you ever actually proofread something? It's not as easy as it looks. I still find mistakes in my Chaos Dwarf book, even after countless readthroughs.
Tarrakk Blackhand:
Ok, I’ll give them the “Proofreading” thing, but there’s so many rules that are typed “Wrong”…so that they don’t make sense…brought out by the erratta.
Thommy H:
No, there are 8 pages worth. Out of 189. That’s not a huge amount at all.
Khan!:
Thommy H is trying to throw his weight around again, I see - whether correct or not.
I agree with Tarrakk Blackhand in the sense that the need to do errata and FAQs in this edition is consistent with GW’s record from past ones. That is, GW has too many books with too many rules written by too many people and these books are bound to contradict one another or seem confusing despite the authors’ best intentions.
Naturally proofreading is difficult when one does it oneself; this is what editors are for (presumably GW has some of those?). Additionally, I find that the best way to avoid mistakes in final drafts is to a) edit as one goes and b) not make mistakes 
Rules-writing has never been GW’s strength, imo. However, I approve of their efforts to make (hopefully?) regular updates for this edition.