Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So GW have moved one letter along the alphabet, and instead of asking for C&D they are asking for C&C on their Facebook FAQs!

Have you been using the FAQs from facebook in your games?

I will once i get back into the game.

Haven't had a chance to play since they came out, but I will be using them. Even if they aren't 'official' in that they haven't been released as a pdf, they still give good insight into the intent behind a lot of the rules.

NO!

They are a draft and they killed a large portion of my army so why would I use them at this moment.

No. They're drafts and if I start using them now it'll probably cause me more problems down the line as I mix them up with actual rules.

I don't think so. I don't play an awful lot but my gaming group said that they acknowledge but don't use them.

Just the WAAC players that oppose them when I think about it.

Most of them are worth playing with, but the few that blatantly contradict RAW should be ignored as yet another example of GW's rule authors not understanding their own rules.

Testing out the ones that don't cause trouble in the armies people use. Specifically, terrain for my Flyrants is a big one I'm including now, just to get used to the new difficulties that might happen. Others like Jinking passenger penalties, no. I'm not going to enforce a change that drastic in any game I play until the rules are official.

 Peregrine wrote:
Most of them are worth playing with, but the few that blatantly contradict RAW should be ignored as yet another example of GW's rule authors not understanding their own rules.

I don;t like to be in the situation where I have to pick and choose what parts of the FAQ / Rules I like and don't like.
I know the core rules already have some issues but adding another layer of draft FAQ on it doesn't seem to be the best idea like me.
Either both players accept all or both don't accept all or they should discuss them all before the game. I don't really like the last option.

Yes for the ones that make sense and clarify issues we'd encountered. Any that drastically change the rules or address issues we hadn't encountered or thought we don't use; we'll wait til they're official for that.

We use the FAQ. The only thing that's really wrong with it is that quite some "answers" are actually errata / rule changes, and should be labelled accordingly.
Yes, they (might) contradict the RAW in some places, but that can be said for a LOT of those answers - e.g. the Jink vs Blast stuff or all of the Psyker stuff. And most of the later stuff was already houseruled by most in that way, and not being able to Jink when you werent the initial target was plain stupid.

It's perfectly fine to change a rule later on if you notice you wrote something that wasn't your intention at all or to simply change your mind over a matter, like with the Battle Brother transportation. Just mark it as a rule change.

If you feel better about it, just call it 7.75th Edition or whatever.

We use them more often than not, in fact the only "not" I can think of is one friend who wants to ignore the grenade thing. We both play orks among other armies, and I have a couple knights for my chaos armies...so I'm happy to ignore that bit when we play.

I've only had one game since they've been released, but my attitude is that we should play them. Even if some things change, the over-all tone of the documents won't. So better get used to them.

I am definitely using them. Apparently I was playing a large portion of the rules the way the FAQ draft is ruling them anyway, so there really isn't a big change for me.

No, because it's still a draft, correct? As soon as it becomes official I will

Only had the chance to play one game since they released, but we used the FAQs. We were mostly playing this way anyway. We did house-rule one thing, though: We still let our Tyranid players use the GSC as BB.

I'm quite eager to start using the FAQs. I've already tried, as I love chances to cut down on rule ambiguities.

But players in my area have been slow to even become aware of them, and combined with how slowly they are being released, I've given up trying to use them for now.

Hypothetically, if I had functional armies that were in some way competitive (Chaos Marines, Dark Eldar and Ork 'player' here) and was playing games with them - I would not be using the FAQs until a final version was released.

As it is, successive codex and rules releases have killed off my forces and this FAQ makes them even less than useless in their current state.


I also smudged my ballot

Yes, because my opponents army is actually hit hard enough here and my tanks will finally stand a chance in the assault phase.
Oh, and Anti Grenade Mesh is now worth something.

None for now, but as soon as they are published in their entirety, we'll use.

If I was playing I would. Whole point of a draft is to be tested and then have feedback for tweaks submitted.

Not playing with them at least some with all changes in place just means that GW wont get proper feedback to fix any issues you find you have with it. Picking and choosing is all well and good now, but if you dont say anything then the changes you dislike may be made permanent, then theres nothing you can do about it.

I'm not going to have anything to do with the FAQ's until they're official, and not just a draft.

We dont you them here in our gaming group. Dont care.