blood angel vindicator rule change

[Crevab]

Relax guys, it's just another GW typo. Looks like it got copypasta'd from C:SM. You'd think they would get tired of making erratas for the same mistakes. How many times do they have to change Strength X to Strength 1 and "against vehicles with a WS" before someone notices pre-printing?

[Majorcrash]

so the consensuss is no template for the BA demolisher? If feel that reduces its usefullness considering the cost. And probably wont make it into any army I field. For the same reason I stripped off all the hellstrikes from my valkyries and put on rocket pods.

[ashnaile]

I very much doubt youll play at tourney anywhere that has it running as nonblast.

In a purely hypothetical rules debate thats fine yes.

But if anyone ever tryed actually pulling that on you in a game they need a brick to the face ... Theyre retarded.

[Majorcrash]

Perhaps, but the faq on the hellstrike was shown to me at a tourney and that makes the weapon use extremely different.

[hisdudeness]

How is a non-blast codex specific Vindi any different than other rules differences between the marine codices? If the BA Vindi and SM Vindi where exactly the same except for the missing blast I would agree, but the 2 are not the same. They don't even have the same points cost, so in game terms they might as well be 2 completely different units.

The BA version would seem to be a better anti-vehicle/monstrous creature death machine.

[ashnaile]

Because if they wanted to give a new tank with direct str 10 fire to the blood angels they would call it something new, or say it has the deus excelsior pattern omgwtf antitank cannon. Nott The same wep as every other vindi.

A vindicator has a str10 ap2 large blast template, typos wont change this, and the errata will eventually come.

[hisdudeness]

I agree, but it does not change the fact that the BA codex does not include 'blast'. Until a errata is issued, BA players are stuck with a different version of the Vindi. If this is ignored' might as well ignore half the BT codex while we are at it.

[UltramarineFan]

I agree, but it does not change the fact that the BA codex does not include 'blast'. Until a errata is issued, BA players are stuck with a different version of the Vindi. If this is ignored' might as well ignore half the BT codex while we are at it.

That's fine, if you want to do that then go for it. In the meantime I'll keep my friends and let it pass as a typo.

[BuFFo]

I agree, but it does not change the fact that the BA codex does not include 'blast'. Until a errata is issued, BA players are stuck with a different version of the Vindi. If this is ignored' might as well ignore half the BT codex while we are at it.

Agreed.

[Tynskel]

This is really funny to me. This has happened to many of the 5th edition codex that has a demolisher cannon/ ordnance weapon.

We ALL know what the demolisher cannon does. We all know that an ordnance weapon is large blast---- there is only ONE weapon in the game that is ordnance and is NOT large blast, because the FAQ explicitly states so, the hellstrike missile.

The rulebook implies that all ordnance weapons have a large blast. The codex has to explicitly state otherwise-- which, for the case of the Hellstrike Missile, the codex has stated otherwise through a FAQ.