Dodging deployed weapons and out of LoF clarification. Page 83 says dodge malus don't stack: Whereas page 86 demonstrates they do: Which is correct?
Hidden deployment has a duplicate statement for success instead of having both a success and failure statement. Spoiler: Image of PDF
It happens on first prints. Everyone does it - Privateer Press had a few typos in most runs of Warmachine, and companies with larger teams have these errors too, sometimes even worse. Look at GW, they published an entire 6th Edition of 40k that was completely wrong!
In Code One the Multi Sniper Rifle Anti Materiel Mode had B1, in N4 it has B2, is it a change or a typo?
Fire damage on the rocket launcher has been replaced by continuing damage in the weapon charts, but the rule book has no description of continuing damage. Similarly Shotguns still have range bands and a small template but no description of how it works, not a problem for us old hands but new players will be totally in the dark. Robert
All weapon Traits are in the Traits section in the Glossary, p152. This is mentioned in several places in the book, but you're also the second person I've seen mention this. Wait, unless you're the same person that was discussing this on FB? Note that Fire ammunition has been replaced by the Continuous Damage Trait on all weapons that had Fire ammo. I've not heard about anyone struggling with it in CodeOne. Don't forget that, unlike N3, CodeOne and N4 specifically describe how multi-mode weapon profiles work, see the ranged Weapon Profile section on p53-4.
I'm trying to figure out what they meant to say here. I assume maybe it was going to be something along the lines of "you can't ARO attack against a Repeater if the Repeater was used bounce a hacking attack at you?"
Thanks IJW, I hadn't given the glossary a good look as I'd assumed it would merely summarize the rules already covered in the text. And I haven't even looked at Code One so I've no idea how that compares. Robert
Yeah, I know, but it still irks. I also have a lot less patience with these sort of things due to personnel experience. I recently co-wrote and edited 30 pages of technical documents. That's a lot less than Infinity's rules, but I only had a bit less than a month to do it before it was released and hundreds of people got to pore over it, looking for any mistakes. They sure did, and there were still some very minor issues of grammar and spelling, but that was it. So I think there's an issue with process, when a document gets that much time before release, that many people getting to work on it, and somehow, nobody notices that sentences are missing... One key difference with my experience: I wasn't making people pay to read my stuff!
Out of curiosity, how much time do you think 'that much time' was? Because it's almost guaranteed to be less than you think, potentially a lot less. :-( EDIT Yes, it's a lot less. More than an order of magnitude less, and that's excluding the annex file, weapons chart, and diagrams.
I'm going to assume changes were being made up to an hour before release, because that's what I've come to expect since the launch of N3 Where they literally copypasted JPGs of the correct profiles over the text-based profiles on the pdf
Page 77, The game element attributes for Perimeter weapons are missing; ARM, BTS, STR, and Silhouette for these miniatures. (See comparison to DropBears on the same page)
Well, if we are going to include annexes, I'd be at more than 200 pages myself, but I will exclude that as I was not in charge of editing them. On the other hand, I did not have a prior document to copy/paste from. So maybe it's apples to oranges, but I think it still provides a frame of reference. I would expect work on the actual document to have started at least a year ago. I would also think the entire team of editors and feedback teams to include more than three people, as was my case. And maybe I'm wrong, and maybe this is the product of two guys cramming every night for 2 months. Which really would not change anything: if that's actually how it was done, it would explain the result, but that wouldn't change the general conclusion of "don't do it this way". I have always strongly disagreed with the logic that CB should get a pass because it's a small company. You should aim to what you can do with reasonable quality; not aim higher, do it poorly, and argue it was the best you could do with your limited resources. I don't want to overstate my case, and I don't pretend these issues will decide whether N4 is a success or not, but it is disappointing, again. In my experience, the ruleset is the weak point of Infinity: how it is written, how it is presented, for such a complex game, constitute an essential barrier to new players (on the other hand, the minis constitute the strong point). Code One was a step forward in principle, but is hampered by a rulebook that is still poorly organised and presented. So I really expected N4 to be better on these points.
Oh, I agree, 100%! Maybe we could take this to PM later in the week? Overall structure of the rules and presentation isn't something I'm involved with, but I'd love to hear where you think it can be improved.
Yeah, I think while I can give them the benefit of the doubt in some areas, there's clearly something that doesn't work about their process when a casual reading can immediately reveal so many errors. It's common in board game design to send copies of the rules/game for double-blind play tests, where the players only have the rules as written and nothing else (no designer sitting by the side chiming in) to learn from. This usually exposes a ton of problems. You get the sense here, particularly with the nature of many of the errors (including those in the Army Builder), that it could be that people who are TOO familiar with the design and rules of the game are checking their own work rather than having someone else do it for them. I also think rules errors caused by working too quickly would be more acceptable if the redactions/fixes came faster or there was communication from the designers with clarification. For example, there was Jump/Super Jump forum about an inaccurate image in the C1 book showing a Fusilier jumping over a barrier (which wouldn't be possible with a 4" jump due to the fact that falling is no longer a thing). It was clearly a mistake that needed fixing/clarifying, but I don't think we got any solution. Then the new N4 rulebook contains the same image and same error. It's things like this in particular that make it seem like the rules are being changed conceptually without enough play testing... and that is much more confidence-undermining and frustrating than things like misspellings and misprints.
don't know if it is a bug, but the question came up in my gameing group and i couldn't find anything in the rulebook. does pistol(+1b) have b2 in cc or is burst always 1 in cc
While I appreciate the effort made to get us an Annex .pdf file, I have to wonder, why weren't those rules included in the main rulebook? The Annex is about 14 pages or so. I would have thought it should have been included in the main book. Not having fire team rules when there are sectorial armies from the start of the release of N4 was a bit of a head scratcher. Only until I visited the downloads section on the CB site did I notice there were additional .pdf rules, so I'm disappointed they were not included in main book which would have made things easier as a one stop source.
As written there is no doubt that it does give you +1b in cc in the active turn. Wether or not it was intended is a different but irrelevant question.
It's easier to press DELETE on a small PDF file than it is to edit a huge PDF file when they remake Fireteam rules and sectorial lists.
