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.

It seems like every event I attend these days is stumbling all over themselves in their rush to use the GW FAQ. Honestly, I'm so happy that GW is working on this FAQ. After so long of not supporting their customer base they are taking the right steps. However, it would appear that they are releasing these FAQ's in a Draft form so that they can collect feedback. There are numerous typos, and items that are either unclear or likely to be changed before a final draft. Some of the FAQ items just spawn more questions rather than answering them, and at every step of the way GW has been very clear that this is a 1st draft, and work process, and that the final draft is imminent. I read that, and understand from it that they would prefer we hold off using these rules until they are complete. It seems that using the 1st draft FAQ's is a violation of GW's wishes, and I don't want to do that when they are finally doing the right thing.

I am an Ork player that has been patiently waiting for a codex update to make my precious killa kans playable again. That may be years from now, and the waiting is hard and frustrating, but waiting a month or two for GW to finish these FAQ's seems perfectly reasonable.

Sometimes I wonder if the fact that I'm a highly competitive player, and spend so much time at tournaments clouds my ability to understand fluffier oriented gamer, but I see that miniwargaming still isn't using the Draft FAQ's for the same reason I'm not. I feel like every fluffy gamer I know is a fan of Miniwargaming, and their excellent approach to the game, so I often use their viewpoint on things to ground me, and keep me from getting to tied up in competition.

From a completely anecdotal approach, everyone that I know locally that wants to use the FAQ's immediately is either a Space Marine or Eldar player. Since the FAQ buffed Space Marines and Eldar at the cost of other armies, they are in a rush to claim their newest round of advantages, and don't really have a reason beyond that.

What possible benefit is there to disregarding the wishes of GW, and using a clearly unfinished document in games of 40K, especially when you've developed and been using your own FAQ? It feels to me like it is just creating more trouble for TO's than it is worth, and waiting for one or two events until the FAQ's are finish is the obvious answer, but they must be seeing some other way. When I ask them, they become immediately defensive, and just give me a "My way or the Highway", but I feel like these aren't unreasonable people, and probably do have some logical thought process that I'm just not seeing.

Can someone explain the rush to me? Is it just the buffed armies looking to claim their advantages?

Personally, because it answers some questions that come up in my games. The Lance vs Quantum Shield rule, for example. Or the fact that my Harlequins no longer have to roll to-hit with Mirror of Minds. A lot of these are questions that are honest questions that people NEEDED answers for.

And really, what's the point in not adopting them? Yeah, they might change, but they also might stay the same. GW is never going to be done changing rules. It's also not for-sure that they will release a final version - they might just skip that and go straight to 8th edition. This process might take half a year to complete - and it's already been half that long!

Lastly, no, I am not a Marine or Eldar player (I do have Eldar, but they're not my main army). I play Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Harlequins, and Genestealer Cult. So it's not just a "they just like it 'cause it helps them" thing - a lot of us actually just appreciate the answers and are hungry for them.

Personally I like that they clarified a lot of poorly worded rules or unclear interactions but there are a fair amount of stuff that leave me either scratching my head or strongly disagreeing with GW's intent/interpretation. I don't really want to play the FAQ immediately but I'm not against trying it to see how some of the changes impact the game. For everything that I feel is desirable or even an advantage there is something I disagree with or that it hinders my army. If I had to guess I think people want to play with the FAQ is because its something new and it spices up the game for everyone.

 Yarium wrote:
Personally, because it answers some questions that come up in my games. The Lance vs Quantum Shield rule, for example. Or the fact that my Harlequins no longer have to roll to-hit with Mirror of Minds. A lot of these are questions that are honest questions that people NEEDED answers for.

I'm specifically confused about Tournaments that have been using well establish FAQ's that were in most cases the response of feedback from their audience. For instance, at the event I ran, we used the ITC FAQ. That answers all of the questions that the GW one does, and generally in the same way. I am 100% on board that those questions needed answers, so my local community came up with our own, and all of the various tourney groups came up with their own, and so we had answers.

tag8833 wrote:
It seems like every event I attend these days is stumbling all over themselves in their rush to use the GW FAQ. Honestly, I'm so happy that GW is working on this FAQ. After so long of not supporting their customer base they are taking the right steps. However, it would appear that they are releasing these FAQ's in a Draft form so that they can collect feedback. There are numerous typos, and items that are either unclear or likely to be changed before a final draft. Some of the FAQ items just spawn more questions rather than answering them, and at every step of the way GW has been very clear that this is a 1st draft, and work process, and that the final draft is imminent. I read that, and understand from it that they would prefer we hold off using these rules until they are complete. It seems that using the 1st draft FAQ's is a violation of GW's wishes, and I don't want to do that when they are finally doing the right thing.

Where you read that GW wishes you NOT to use? They never said anything to that effect.

Typos or not playing according to the FAQ is 100% quaranteed to be closer to 40k how it's supposed to be played than not. After all these are mostly answers to unclear cases, not rule changes, so completely different answers are unlikely to come. Bit clearer wording yes but no radical changes.

It's a draft FAQ, it's meant to be used and commented on.

Honestly, it's even more important to use the FAQ while they are drafts than it is when they are official. Right now, we are essentially playtesting the FAQs. Please do so, then give feedback on GW's facebook so that anything that doesn't work or is still unclear can be fixed.

 jreilly89 wrote:
It's a draft FAQ, it's meant to be used and commented on.

I am a software developer. When I release a demo (1st draft) version of software, I don't want people to use it in a production environment. Just look around and give me feedback. Much of the functionality probably isn't finished, and I would much prefer you not try to use it in earnest.

tag8833 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
It's a draft FAQ, it's meant to be used and commented on.

I am a software developer. When I release a demo (1st draft) version of software, I don't want people to use it in a production environment. Just look around and give me feedback. Much of the functionality probably isn't finished, and I would much prefer you not try to use it in earnest.

Maybe that's how things work in software demo 1st drafts, but the key to good game design is to get testing immediately, with even the most basic game you have. Identify where the problems are right away, and you can fix them better and faster. As stated, they WANT responses to these, which means they really do hope you use and comment on them!

The purpose of them releasing a draft is so people could use them, find any new flaws, and report them to GW so that these new ones could be corrected for the final draft.

If no one used them, then there'd be no point in a "Draft" since there would be literally zero differences between it and the final one. There's no way GW or any human on earth can formulate a perfect ruleset in one go (and indeed any game maker will tell you that they almost never actually reach perfection, they just get closer with each iteration).

Now if you disagree with some of the rulings, then it's perfectly fine to change them for your own house rules or tournaments, no one's stopping you. But to disregard a FAQ completely just because of the "draft" stamp is counter-intuitive since, again, it goes against the entire point of having a draft in the first place.

EDIT: Saw the comment about software. What you're referring to would be considered an alpha or closed beta stage. To put it in perspective, this Draft is GW"s "Open Beta". It's the first draft shown to us but not necessarily the first one they've developed in-house.

tag8833 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Personally, because it answers some questions that come up in my games. The Lance vs Quantum Shield rule, for example. Or the fact that my Harlequins no longer have to roll to-hit with Mirror of Minds. A lot of these are questions that are honest questions that people NEEDED answers for.

I'm specifically confused about Tournaments that have been using well establish FAQ's that were in most cases the response of feedback from their audience. For instance, at the event I ran, we used the ITC FAQ. That answers all of the questions that the GW one does, and generally in the same way. I am 100% on board that those questions needed answers, so my local community came up with our own, and all of the various tourney groups came up with their own, and so we had answers.

You got a great group then! In my neck of the woods, getting people to agree on rules is like herding cats.

 Yarium wrote:
In my neck of the woods, getting people to agree on rules is like herding cats.

I find a whip helps. In both situations.

tag8833 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
It's a draft FAQ, it's meant to be used and commented on.

I am a software developer. When I release a demo (1st draft) version of software, I don't want people to use it in a production environment. Just look around and give me feedback. Much of the functionality probably isn't finished, and I would much prefer you not try to use it in earnest.

Well I work in software development as well and I sure as hell DO want comments and feedback from users. And those are always best from those who are actually using software rather than just theorizing.

And in 40k it's not like any bad effect comes from using them even if some wording gets cleared afterwards...

 Yarium wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
Personally, because it answers some questions that come up in my games. The Lance vs Quantum Shield rule, for example. Or the fact that my Harlequins no longer have to roll to-hit with Mirror of Minds. A lot of these are questions that are honest questions that people NEEDED answers for.

I'm specifically confused about Tournaments that have been using well establish FAQ's that were in most cases the response of feedback from their audience. For instance, at the event I ran, we used the ITC FAQ. That answers all of the questions that the GW one does, and generally in the same way. I am 100% on board that those questions needed answers, so my local community came up with our own, and all of the various tourney groups came up with their own, and so we had answers.

You got a great group then! In my neck of the woods, getting people to agree on rules is like herding cats.

Don't get me wrong. The lack of an FAQ fractured the community, and we've got more cliques than before the FAQ process stopped. It has always my opinion that was part of the reason the FAQ process stopped. Jervis used to snear at gamers that meetup at a game store and try to play an equal points game while both trying to win when he wrote articles in White Dwarf. For him it was "The wrong way to play the game", so I assumed it was that philosophy that led to ending the FAQ process in the 1st place.


But back on point. Are you guys saying, you think it is GW's position that we should be actively using their 1st draft FAQs? If so, why call them a draft or ask for feedback in the way they have, or stagger the release of them, or make the Errata non-draft? Why not just release them as version 1.0?

Because, again, there would be no point in releasing drafts at all if no one were to use them to find the flaws.

GW is using us as free beta testers and they see the Drafts not as a standalone thing, but rather as incremental patches to the game as a whole. The term "Draft" is merely a marketing ploy, it offers the consumers, us, some reassurance that if we don't like the product, it can be changed. GW could have easily just released these as normal FAQs and then updated them later, but people would raise one hell of a gakstorm when they saw something they didn't like, but didn't know it could be changed down the line. Considering that GW hasn't released FAQs for a full year before this, those complaining would be justified. The name is merely an insurance against it.

Which is why I find it utterly insane for anyone to reject the draft as less legal than the Codex themselves just because of the "draft" title; GW would have changed it when people complained enough whether it's a Draft or not, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with the whole shenanigans in the first place. The Baleflamer got changed before they stopped the FAQs, so it's not like there isn't a precedent.

Why are you so opposed to useing it? This clarifies a bunch of stuff (even if half of it was already in the rulebook) and provides a definitive statement from GW that these are the rules that they intended us to be using all along. The comment multiple times in the FAQ's that they don't care if you don't like the ruling, they want feedback on if it's clear or not. That means that the actual rules changes/clarifications aren't going to be any different in a future, non-draft copy, but they may change the wording to it's slightly more clear. You aren't suddenly going to be able to go back to thowing a grenade with everyone because GW had a touch of whimsy and decided to change it back.

As for explaining the rush, we've been waiting for FAQ's for roughly forever, to the point where half of 7th was actually FAQ's and errata for 6th! When things have been in contention/broken for so long, the rush to use the fix is perfectly understandable.

 Drasius wrote:
Why are you so opposed to useing it?

I'll definitely use them. I'm just in no hurry to. I can wait until they are done. As a TO, I don't want to deal with the confusion caused by several of the FAQ's or to try to sort out intention since only some codex drafts have been released. I also think that a good number of clarifications will be made before the final version. Let me give you an example. Per the FAQ FMC's can't get cover saves from terrain. Ever. Not even in glide mode (aka on the ground). I seriously doubt that is going stay the same.

 Drasius wrote:
This clarifies a bunch of stuff (even if half of it was already in the rulebook) and provides a definitive statement from GW that these are the rules that they intended us to be using all along. The comment multiple times in the FAQ's that they don't care if you don't like the ruling, they want feedback on if it's clear or not. That means that the actual rules changes/clarifications aren't going to be any different in a future, non-draft copy, but they may change the wording to it's slightly more clear. You aren't suddenly going to be able to go back to thowing a grenade with everyone because GW had a touch of whimsy and decided to change it back.

We've already seen significant and dramatic changes to them. Look through the posts and find all the times they changed an Answer that is "No" in the picture to "Yes" in text of the post. They are definitely an evolving thing. That doesn't bother me honestly, but I'd just as soon wait until they are a bit more stable before I use them. In the same way I might wait to upgrade my operating system for a few months to let them work out the bugs.

 Drasius wrote:
As for explaining the rush, we've been waiting for FAQ's for roughly forever, to the point where half of 7th was actually FAQ's and errata for 6th! When things have been in contention/broken for so long, the rush to use the fix is perfectly understandable.

Sure, kinda. Except I didn't really wait, nor did others in my gaming group, nor did organized play events, or probably anyone that plays the game frequently. GW abdicated their duty to support the rules, so we all developed our own answers. The game isn't playable without some sort of house ruling, and we did that. I don't know anyone that is not going to embrace the GW FAQ once it is finished, but I feel like it is pretty easy to keep going the way we've been going until then, and my experience at the last 4 events I've attended is that using the GW FAQ adds more rules debates than it solved. Organized play events had their own FAQ's done, and now people are debating clarifications that aren't clear enough, and playing rules wrong because they aren't used to them, because they changed in the FAQ, and sometimes changed again in the text after the image was posted, and trying to resolve conflicts between Tourney FAQ's and GW FAQ's. I don't run my own tourney FAQ, I generally use the ITC one for the events I run. But if I did put in all the work to build and maintain my FAQ, I would sure as hell want to wait for the GW FAQ's to be finalized so that I only have to amend my document once.

tag8833 wrote:
But back on point. Are you guys saying, you think it is GW's position that we should be actively using their 1st draft FAQs? If so, why call them a draft or ask for feedback in the way they have, or stagger the release of them, or make the Errata non-draft? Why not just release them as version 1.0?

To get feedback obviously...Best feedback always comes after use and not by theorizing.

It's not like models are going to explode if you play with draft. You still are playing lot closer to game as intended(and as how rules have been written all the time. Just unclearly)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tag8833 wrote:
We've already seen significant and dramatic changes to them. Look through the posts and find all the times they changed an Answer that is "No" in the picture to "Yes" in text of the post. They are definitely an evolving thing. That doesn't bother me honestly, but I'd just as soon wait until they are a bit more stable before I use them. In the same way I might wait to upgrade my operating system for a few months to let them work out the bugs.

Yeah there's been glitches in making the pictures. Those still weren't GW midway deciding otherwise. It was change before 1st draft was released when guy who did the picture screwed up. These aren't THAT common so it's not worth dumping majority of correct answers in fear of odd errors.

That's like dumping down entire 40k rulebook out of fear of there being typo somewhere!

There are a few players who have been trying to twist the 7th ed rules away from plain English into meaning something else. These people argue passionately for their false interpretations.

Many of these FAQ's are simply restatements of the original rules, but with enough emphasis to shout down the rules lawyers...or at least the ones who are wrong.

Who wouldn't want that?

They reduce the worst part of this game : rules bickering to a minimum. But there are some FAQ parts that you might discuss on pre game, such as the multi lv template and the grenade rules or other parts that feel like a serious rule change for one of the players.

 JimOnMars wrote:
There are a few players who have been trying to twist the 7th ed rules away from plain English into meaning something else. These people argue passionately for their false interpretations.

Many of these FAQ's are simply restatements of the original rules, but with enough emphasis to shout down the rules lawyers...or at least the ones who are wrong.

Who wouldn't want that?

the scum sucking rules lawyers?

 Yarium wrote:

tag8833 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
It's a draft FAQ, it's meant to be used and commented on.

I am a software developer. When I release a demo (1st draft) version of software, I don't want people to use it in a production environment. Just look around and give me feedback. Much of the functionality probably isn't finished, and I would much prefer you not try to use it in earnest.

Maybe that's how things work in software demo 1st drafts, but the key to good game design is to get testing immediately, with even the most basic game you have. Identify where the problems are right away, and you can fix them better and faster. As stated, they WANT responses to these, which means they really do hope you use and comment on them!

The fact that they used Facebook as the release platform surely shows that this is what they want, the dreadnought attacks change is an example of exactly this.

taking your software development analogy a little further you'd have to appreciate that this isn't the same thing. The faq and errata are probably closer to a software team issuing a patch to pre-released software.

The only reason they are a first draft is because they don't focus on rules and they want to stimulate the community to respond and identify where they have gone wrong or ask for further clarification.

There is no point in not using them since they are a clarification in the intent of the rules as well as in some cases the originally poorly written rules.

The flip side to your argument would be that it is only people who's armies haven't benefited from these changes that are not in a hurry to use them.

 Nithaniel wrote:
The flip side to your argument would be that it is only people who's armies haven't benefited from these changes that are not in a hurry to use them.

I don't see that anecdotally. About 1/3 of Eldar players want to use the unfinished draft FAQ's. About 1/4 of Space Marine players. There is one CSM guy that never agrees with any sort of house ruling, and he talks up the GW faq, but he rarely plays. I'll bet he hasn't played a game since the rules dropped.

Now my little community isn't necessarily representative. The ITC is much more representative, and they voted to hold off using them until they are complete, but I have no way of knowing what portion of the vote corresponds to what army.

Once again, I will underline that every person I know wants to use them as soon as they are finished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JamesY wrote:
The fact that they used Facebook as the release platform surely shows that this is what they want, the dreadnought attacks change is an example of exactly this.

Note that the Erratta aren't draft, and so we've been using those immediately. IMO it sucks that Space Marine Dreads get a boost while CSM, and Ork Dreads don't, but we have been doing it GW's way.

Probably because there is a lot more changes/clarifications that are better for the game as opposed to more negative.

Do whatever you want for the events you TO for, obviously. But the more these FAQs get used the more feedback GW can get and the better they can be (as in more clearly worded and whatnot). These FAQs are intended to tell us what they meant when they wrote their ambiguous rules, and while some will say some of the rulings go directly against the rulebook (I'm not saying their wrong), for the most part they're achieving that and lessening arguments. Making it more about the game.

Yeah, if you're playing with house rules or ITC FAQ then you have answers to those questions, maybe most of them were on par with GW. But some people weren't, and some house rules aren't. These are direct from the company that makes the game.

Also, as of the day you mentioned it, CSM helbrutes DO have the extra attacks Orks still don't, though.

I'm thinking they're doing it as patch style releases so as not to overwhelm people with everything at once, or they're only allocating a certain amount of manpower to these drafts and so can't release it all at once but want to show the community they're working on it. Alternatively, have you noticed the hype every Wednesday?

tag8833 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
It's a draft FAQ, it's meant to be used and commented on.

I am a software developer. When I release a demo (1st draft) version of software, I don't want people to use it in a production environment. Just look around and give me feedback. Much of the functionality probably isn't finished, and I would much prefer you not try to use it in earnest.

Software != Table Top Gaming

The BEST way to vet these FAQ is to play them, not to just comment on them and harumph about s&*^.

I want to see the finished product until I decide.

I find some of the ruling to be useful, and frankly I'll play tau coordinated firepower according to the faq. Goodbye single cadre fireblade buffing the whole gunline.

We've started incorporating some of the FAQs into our games.

However, as an Eldar player I don't care what the FAQ says. Lance vs Quantum Shielding is AV12.