" a piss ant blog" -Rikimaru


"Dethtron, you are...an asshole" - 38% of Dick Move Readers


" I probably won't read unless I'm bored as shit at work" - A. Hack



"I cannot bring myself to actually read this drivel"- anonymous

"pox riddled post coital stain of a blog"- anonymous



Tuesday, June 22, 2010

IA 8 Revisited: FAQ off and Die!

As you may have guessed from the snappy title, the Imperial Armour Volume 8 FAQ was finally released, sort of.

Anybody that has had the opportunity to thumb through this great volume may have noticed that in addition to being rife with typos and spelling errors, as usual- I mean armour, come on really?- it was missing a pretty sizable number of rules and equipment entries. Kudos to FW for getting this to us in a much more timely fashion than GW does with their FAQs. Now if only this one were complete.

Many of the issues mentioned have been fixed and a few things have been clarified- unnecessarily even. We now have rules for homing beacons (not really that exciting to me at 20 points a pop), auxiliary grenade launchers (12" range I believe is shorter than past iterations- this also hurts my desire to take this slightly), and know that there were not typos in the equipment section of the CCS but there were in the stat line for vets.

Some Ork stuff got fixed as well, but who the hell cares? This Ork list does seem to fix a few holes in the codex one though, so if you care about Orks, it's well worth checking out the IA8 list.

Now, why am I still pissed off? Well basically 2 reasons:
  1. Why was this necessary in the first place. Basically every question that was answered (except those posited by people with poor reading comprehension...case in point can I take an Astropath? Does it say you can? No. Well then I guess you can't have a fucking Astropath, then) boiled down to a typo, copy/paste error (which they even admit in the FAQ), or a rules omission. Is it really too much to ask that a book that cost me almost $80 would have been proof read a couple of times by someone who knows a little about editing and the game system?
  2. We're still missing rules. Various missiles and bombs are still not given stat lines. Some of them can be found in other books, but I've had a hard time tracking the info down. But I shouldn't have to do all that work myself, the books should be self-contained. Was anybody else pissed when they got IA Apocalypse and there were a bunch of entries that would say something like "see IA2?" Honestly all you should have done was put a 1 page unit/equipment summary page at the end of the list just like you did with the Ork list and every single codex out there.

4 comments:

Chumbalaya said...

No Astropath is a kick in the balls imho.

Hoagy From British said...

Armour, Humour, Neighbour, Aluminium etc :) haw haw.

Lauby said...

most embarrassing FAQ ever.

Its shit like the astropath clarification that bugs the shit out of when new FAQS are released. Fucking Jervis goes on and on about how 40k and the like aren't competitive games and don't need the niggling and paltry rules clarifications that the competitive gamers want.

...aaaand then they waste space with shit like the astropath clarification. How the fuck is that any 'better' of a question to answer than the issue of scout moves and smoke.

Brother Loring said...

I think they were just testing their readers with those typos??