Tyranid FAQ

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240364a_FAQ_Tyranids_2010.pdf

Blood Angels

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240365a_FAQ_BloodAngels_2010.pdf

Wow, that was really fast. Reading now.

Woot for Doom clarification!

Nothing too shocking in there

Erf, blocked at work... If anyone could copy/paste....

Nice detail: Internally, their document titles list them as "Updates" to the codex.

It's also incredibly typical of GW being quick. The "corrected" entry for Sanguinary Priests is exactly the same as the one it is meant to replace.

And no EA (or Magna Grapple) for Furioso Librarians? How magically arbitrary and stupid. "Ooh, maybe he's a little scary. Let's make him silly too!"

Q: Can cover saves be taken against wounds inflicted
by the Doom of Malant’tai’s Spirit Leech ability?
A: Yes.
Q: Does the Doom of Malan’tai’s Spirit Leech ability
affect units embarked in transport vehicles?
A: No.

ha !

Q: Can a Baal Predator use smoke launchers during its
Scout move?
A: Yes.

ha ha !

Q: Tyranid Special Characters. Are Tyranid Special
Characters considered to be special versions of the
standard creatures of their type for the purposes of
using psychic powers, biomorphs and special rules? For
example, is the Swarmlord considered to be a Hive
Tyrant for the purposes of using Hive Tyrant psychic
powers? Similarly, is Deathleaper considered to be a
Lictor for the purposes of Chameleonic Skin and
Pheromone Trail, is the Doom of Malan’tai considered
to be a Zoanthrope for the purposes of Warp Field, is
Old One Eye considered to be Carnifex for the
purposes of Living Battering Ram and are Ymgarl
Genestealers considered to be Genestealers for the
purposes of Brood Telepathy?
A. Yes in all cases.

ha !

Q: Do vehicles gain a cover save from Shield of
Sanguinius?
A: Yes.

files attached for the work blocked

The "corrected" entry for Sanguinary Priests is exactly the same as the one it is meant to replace.

No it's not It changes "Chalice of Blood" to "Blood Chalice".

Glad that clears up the simply idiotic notion that a Swarmlord wasn't a Hive Tyrant for the purposes of psychic powers.

Can't believe I had someone here call me an immature cheater because I dared to say that a Swarmlord can use 'Hive Tyrant' psychic powers...

Silly GW FAQ wrote:Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a transport vehicle?

A: No.

What? Why??? How does that make even the slightest bit of sense?

"Oh no! The way the Hive Mind disrupts the Warp! I cannot concentrate to draw power! What ever shall I... oh... walking inside made it better. Wow. Who'da knew?"

Thanks for the files, but you put twice the tyranids and zero BA

fixed, apologies.

I see a few good things:

Blood Angels get furious charge at the time of making their attacks, rather than when they make their charge. This should cut some teeth on Priests blanketing several squads at once.

Also, Corbullo's re-roll cant be used on the roll to pick deployment zones/sides. This was getting to be a little common around here.

And double nerfs to Doom. No hitting units inside transports and you get a cover save now. Good stuff.

Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Sanguinary Dan wrote:It's also incredibly typical of GW being quick. The "corrected" entry for Sanguinary Priests is exactly the same as the one it is meant to replace.

And no EA (or Magna Grapple) for Furioso Librarians? How magically arbitrary and stupid. "Ooh, maybe he's a little scary. Let's make him silly too!"

Actually, I think that's how it was always supposed to be, but some people tried to interpret the unit entry otherwise.

wow they actually posted errata??? which they never make mistakes so....

wow they actually answered real questions instead of random questions??? with actual hard and fast answers instead of warm and fuzzy?

what is games workshop coming to could it be they actually listened for the first time???

nah thats just wishful thinking.

reds8n wrote:

The "corrected" entry for Sanguinary Priests is exactly the same as the one it is meant to replace.

No it's not It changes "Chalice of Blood" to "Blood Chalice".

Well that's embarrassing. I'd apologize to GW if I thought they gave a .

Still angry with them for no upgrades on Furioso Librarians however. Illogical at best. And a serious example of "We screwed the pooch on playtesting that one! Better limit them somehow without admitting we made a mistake. I know!" at worst. So you don't worry about the order in which upgrades are listed when converting Orks from Shoota Nobz to Slugga Nobz, but do with FLs?

So shield gives youa cover save, brililant.

Still doesnt mean it can be used against glancing / penetrating hits, as you must be obscured to do that. Typical non-answer...

Hooray for a sensible FAQ for 'Nids. I finally have a reason to expand my army.

I am going to second the wtf on

Q: Does Shadow in the Warp affect psykers who are
taking a Psychic test whilst embarked within a
transport vehicle?
A: No.

Apparently transports have some sort of psychic filters. Even ork ones.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

That shouldn't actually be coming as a surprise to anyone.

GW have never been overly concerned with RAW where it didn't fit how they thought the game would be better played. Even last edition, when Jervis went on his brief 'RAW where possible' kick and tried to focus the FAQ's more on the RAW, they still ignored it where it was silly or blatantly wrong.


And with one or two exceptions, the RAW proponents in YMDC are generally more than happy to agree that playability is the more important factor when you have minis on the table. So let's not turn this into a slinging match.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So shield gives youa cover save, brililant.

Still doesnt mean it can be used against glancing / penetrating hits, as you must be obscured to do that. Typical non-answer...

You should go into politics, you'd go far.


@ Sanguinary Dan : I thought the same thing first few reads.

Quite surprised about the DC version of Tycho, that seems really really odd. Too mad for the Death Company even it seems.

reds8n wrote:

Q: Do vehicles gain a cover save from Shield of
Sanguinius?
A: Yes.

You know, the argument has never been about whether they get a cover save.

Its that they aren't allowed to use a cover save unless obscured.

So technically you still can't use your cover saves with vehicles.




darn it, beaten by nos.

RAW is not a "policy" for anyone. RAW is what you do when you can't figure out what you're supposed to do, and it makes sense / is reasonable.

The problem is, when there's no clear RAW, and it's hotly debated on both sides, when people are all "IT MUST BE DONE THIS WAY" even when their slightly more advanced RAW argument is in utter opposition to the standards of the game, precedents of the game, and clear intent (here's looking at you, Doom).

Oh well. Before removing most of the now-superfluous answers from my own tourney FAQ, I was gratified to see that I had all but one of the questions "right."





PS - Seriously, someone is already trying to argue that no cover save for pen/glances? That's gotta be a troll.

Am I the only one who thinks the Nid FAQ is really hard to read? The question text is really light! Usually highlighting the text helps, but not in this case.

So they got the Doom ruling right, as well as the Mawloc, but made a stupid regarding scout moves and smoke launchers.

Oh well, it still doesn't make Blood Angels any better

Lorne wrote:Apparently transports have some sort of psychic filters. Even ork ones.

Not that realism should really come into the equation, but it is amusing to consider how librarian dreads and libbys in terminator armor would for instance be affected, but a warphead in an open-topped trukk would be perfectly protected.

Overall a mixed bag on Tyranids, but mostly all stuff I can live with. I'm particularly disappointed that they didn't do an errata on the Lictor's pheromone trail. Who cares if it stacks if they have to come in from reserves in order to use it?

Damn it! My iWarp is getting a lousy signal from all this Shadow! I'm going to go back inside to see if I can get a better signal and read these PDF's properly...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Damn it! My iWarp is getting a lousy signal from all this Shadow! I'm going to go back inside to see if I can get a better signal and read these PDF's properly...

For some reason I picture a Marine standing on top of a Rhino waving his Auspex around trying to get a signal

"Can you hear me now?"

CptZach wrote:
You know, the argument has never been about whether they get a cover save.

Its that they aren't allowed to use a cover save unless obscured.

So technically you still can't use your cover saves with vehicles.

I can assure you that I am fully aware of the level of stupidity displayed by people at various times.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

GW consistently rules against RAW fundamentalists. The RAW fundies are, as you note, just really loud and belligerent.

One key element i felt the Tyranid FAQ lacked was whether or not "Hive Commander" grants bonuses to reserves while the Hive Tyrant is himself in Reserves. Ditto for "alien cunning".

I vote yes.

daedalus wrote:Hooray for a sensible FAQ for 'Nids. I finally have a reason to expand my army.

because they are even worse now? XD

Noting the last page, it seems transport vehicles are even stronger vs. nids than previously. Other than that, I don't see how the FAQ made the army 'worse'. The drop spore thing kinda sucks, but really I don't see how this will 'change my game' aside from making it go smoother and friendlier now that we have official rules clarifications.

Also has anybody noticed the date on the FAQs is 7/1/2010 when today's date is actually 6/30/2010? Think maybe it was a premature .pdf on GW's part?

@Grundz

Looks like you'll have to change your sig now....

They split the Mawloc ruling downt he middle which made me a little sad. I had my fingers crossed for no cover saves but expected them to allow them while allowing you to deepstrike onto another model. At least there is no more arguing about it. Makes the model decent now

The shadow in the warp not affecting vehicles has to be one of the worst rulings I've ever seen. Where was the issue in this at all??

Anyways, I never cared for Doom so his ruling doesnt bother me. However, they did give a boost to Hive Tyrants (can never be picked out) which is incredibly important, and they didnt touch Hive Guard which is also great.

I'm just glad I can play in peace now about some of this stuff.

Saldiven wrote:@Grundz

Looks like you'll have to change your sig now....

I might!

Just annoys me that they are a 2nd tier army even with rule bending in their favor, so they FAQ to unbend the rules, and take things away that we /should/ have. >.<

No, it doesn't. Mawloc will never be decent @170 points. For something that scatters 2/3 of the time, and even now would grant cover saves to units in area terrain (while itself suffering a dangerous terrain test, ) And cannot defend itself in CC vs anything other than firewarriors and scouts....No, the Mawloc will never be decent.

IMO.

If Baal Preds can use smoke launchers in their scout moves, can Deffkoptas drop their bombs?

Someone in Gw gave nids the shaft....

jspyd3rx wrote:If Baal Preds can use smoke launchers in their scout moves, can Deffkoptas drop their bombs?

Nope. Orks aren't scouty enough to do that. Or something.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Actually, all it suggests is that the GW Writers are morons.

And to repeat what I said in the YMDC thread:

Wow, yet more fail from GW.

Guys, if you want to actually play a decent game, use my FAQs. The GW ones, yet again, ignore clear and absolutely fine RaW for no reason.

It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

Gwar! wrote:
It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

Thats what I gathered too. It is annoying.

It would be nice if GW was more accepting of its userbase, and there were a logical group of people making improvements or additions to armies to keep them balanced instead of this wildly arbitrary bloodbowl-style garbage.
If it weren't for the GT who would toss anything we brewed up I bet we could get this done.

Old Man Yarrik wrote:Someone in Gw gave nids the shaft....

Nah, I wouldn't say that. I think it's a mixed bag like I said. There are favorable rulings in there.

Reckless dreamer that I am, I was holding out some hope for all-reserve Tyranids to become viable. I think that pretty much got squished.

The spore pod thing really chaps my ass since space marine players still get to drop empty pods, but nid players can't now.

I had a feeling that GW would nerf the doom, that doesn't suprise me. I will still run him, as even in tournaments with these same rules, he very often gets his points back.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Am I the only one who thinks the Nid FAQ is really hard to read? The question text is really light! Usually highlighting the text helps, but not in this case.

It's a very thin, dark grey font on a light grey mottled background. I too find it hard to read.

Back to the RAW vs RAI argument (Hurrah!), the trouble with RAW is that GW's editorial skills are poor so they often make stupid mistakes like blast template.

Glad to see the twisted logic of allowing Doom to psyche units in transports and Swarmlords not using powers didn't infest this FAQ. I expect the usual inane arguments about vehicles not being able to use cover saves will persist among the diehards, however.

No upgrades for the BA dread is a little odd (compare it with the IC and Venerable) but not too bad.

Gwar: No offense, but trying to apply your style logic to how the devs actually work and write makes the game even more ridiculous and unplayable than it already is at times- it's a clash of two different philosophies. You're trying to make a spoon into a knife by sharpening the handle and all that does is lead to bloody finges :-)

I'm half and half on the Doom ruling. I'm kind of surprised they allowed cover saves, as the wounds are clearly not any sort of shooting attack. Conversely, I'm completely not surprised they disallowed the Doom affecting units within transports. It was a pretty radical departure from precedent to assume that it could affect units embarked in transports, which is why I was against it int he first place (regardless of RAW). I think the only reason some people are upset is because the community at large made the decision to allow embarked units to be affected.

I'm really surprised that SitW doesn't affect embarked psykers though; maybe they were trying to be consistent with their ruling on the Doom?

jmurph wrote:Gwar: No offense, but trying to apply your style logic to how the devs actually work and write makes the game even more ridiculous and unplayable than it already is at times- it's a clash of two different philosophies. You're trying to make a spoon into a knife by sharpening the handle and all that does is lead to bloody finges :-)

How so? Isn't that what Errata is for? If they want to change the RaW, they can issue an errata.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

What? Why??? How does that make even the slightest bit of sense?

"Oh no! The way the Hive Mind disrupts the Warp! I cannot concentrate to draw power! What ever shall I... oh... walking inside made it better. Wow. Who'da knew?"

Because since the beginning of 5th Edition GW has determined that MECH is thier Messiah and anything that could remotely question thier god's reign should be nerfed for its heresy. Seriously, you GW and the Chimera you road in on.

The smoke launchers thing seems arbitrary but perhaps GW knows what the intent of their rules were in regards to the doom of malantai and shield of sanguinius (Was fairly obvious what their intent was unless you love to argue (OMG IT DOESNT SAY OBSCURED)

So while the Doom questions may not be RAW.. GW rules against raw and goes with RAI all the time, just how it is. If anyone knows how its supposed to work, they do.. theyre just not good at expressing it

But yeah some of the other rulings are strange

Grundz wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hooray for a sensible FAQ for 'Nids. I finally have a reason to expand my army.

because they are even worse now? XD

They're worse, yes, but this is the reason why I DIDN'T buy a Mawloc and convert a Doom from the beginning. I don't like spending money on stuff, having to argue iffy rules with people, and then finally after all that, find that GW has FAQed it otherwise. I just wanted my expectations set.

jmurph - not inane, just using the rules that were written down to actually draw a logical conclusion.

If obscured...then.... is very, very simple and straightforward - and they got it "right" with Orks so why, if they really wanted vehicles to benefit (remember SW and BA are in the same boat currently) did they not simply use the same language?

Because different people write different books. This has only been discussed for the last decade

The tyranid FAQ has some complete BS in there ....

no attaching a tyranid prime to podding warriors? are your $%#^ing kidding me? If i ever play against someone who trys to disallow this id apply the same logic to sm ICs and drop pods, and make a 4+ or not play .... slowed rulings abound.

An unnecessary nerf to lashwhips.

Doom not hitting units in vehicles is good, and its answered now at least ....

mawlocs can ds onto units is also good.

But i cant understand the sense in not allowing ICs to attach to mycetin spore podding units .... thats just absolutely slowed.

As for blood angels .... no extra gear on furioso librarians is a complete rules change.

Seems everything was better off before they bothered to write this tripe, as most of the stuff was only broken when playing the biggest TFGs, i.e vindicator having the large blast template tyranid ccws stacking etc.

I think that these rulings have taken nids out of the competitive and put them into a 2nd rate army.

The nerfing of running empty pods have really, really diminished nids.

wyomingfox wrote:
Because since the beginning of 5th Edition GW has determined that MECH is thier Messiah and anything that could remotely question thier god's reign should be nerfed for its heresy.

I am 99% sure this is due to profit margins on the big, flat paneled vehicles, which in turn have to be/can be filled with troops.

On the bright side the nid faq does have a cool border and background! Usually its just a plain white pdf

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

No, it suggests GW writers are terrible, and cant even comprehend what the words they write actually mean in game terms.

+1 to 'why doesn't shadow affect people in boxes?!'

Also, I can't put a prime in a pod?

Also, why are lash whips resolved before other modifiers?

At least they resolved stacking modifiers, tank shocked pods and tyrant guard.

Edit: ninja'd by kill dem. By about 10 minutes. That's what I get for trying to watch tennis... ::

gannam wrote:I think that these rulings have taken nids out of the competitive and put them into a 2nd rate army.

The nerfing of running empty pods have really, really diminished nids.

I have never seen or heard anyone run an empty pods list. Ever. I really dont see a point to giving a bunch of free kill points away at 40 points a pop, especially when there are so many slots and units tyranid players cant fit in to begin with.

Most of the answers are exactly what was expected, and most of the units that make Tyranids good were not even mentioned. If the army is second tier now, it was before as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:jmurph - not inane, just using the rules that were written down to actually draw a logical conclusion.

If obscured...then.... is very, very simple and straightforward - and they got it "right" with Orks so why, if they really wanted vehicles to benefit (remember SW and BA are in the same boat currently) did they not simply use the same language?

Because GW writers have a pretty shaky grasp of things and often make this kind of mistake.

If you take double reserve bonus and 5 or 6 pods, with 2 mawlocs you can destroy an entire ig parking lot in one turn ... surround with pods and all that cant be moved are destroyed.

Kinda gimmicky, but it can work.

Night Lords wrote:I have never seen or heard anyone run an empty pods list. Ever. I really dont see a point to giving a bunch of free kill points away at 40 points a pop, especially when there are so many slots and units tyranid players cant fit in to begin with.

At least before you had the choice to walk about and drop the pods in by themselves. Doesn't have to be maximum cheese. They are a killpoint if taken with a squad anyway. I know marines are not the same as nids but it kinda blows to have people saying scratch built pods should mirror sm pods (INAT) but then nerf their choices without good reason.

I am suprised that they didn't address the question of whether or not you got the reserve bonus if the Hive Tyrant or Swarm Lord were currently in reserve.

kill dem stunties wrote:If you take double reserve bonus and 5 or 6 pods, with 2 mawlocs you can destroy an entire ig parking lot in one turn ... surround with pods and all that cant be moved are destroyed.

Pods used to be pretty great at objective shanagins, and they gave you some deployment flexibility if you didn't /want/ to deep strike that particular game, but had to use the list (a tourney for example)

Not even being able to put an IC in your pods is total unfair crap though. >.<

Gwar, whilst I understand your disappointment in GW not adhering to your stance, it's their rulebook and their FAQ/Errata.

The thing that immediately leaps to mind is that rather than waste your time writing unofficial FAQs or adjudicating according to a style that GW themselves don't hold with, that you write your own rules, from scratch.

And no, I'm not being underhand or subtly implying here, you have this passion for rules and applications and use of wording.

So apply it, write a minitures wargame, from scratch and set the bar for it precisely as you wish it, because it definately does not fit the GW design studio's ethos regarding casual play and 'the most important rule' (BGB).

These faqs are pretty good in my opinion. They cleared up the main points of contention. And the rest of the stuff like nid IC's in spods and lashwhips not working on banshees and furious charge will turn out to be just something we adapt to. I.E. it's not a biggy.

And by the way, even though I really do respect what GWAR! does with his FAQs and YMDC help, this isn't GWAR!Hammer 40K, this is Warhammer 40k.

GG

Using the logic they've applied to the lash whip, does this mean that units assaulting into cover with furious charge should be striking at initiative 2?

FAQs have always changed the rules instead of just clarify them. Nothing new here. I'm only disappointed by the BA psychic power answer because it doesn't clarify the issue since the wording is incorrect and instead leaves the underlying issue still unanswered. This is of course because the question was formulated wrong.

There's tons of stupid rules in GW games. I really don't care what they are, as long as we know how the stupid rules are supposed to work and didn't have to play a different way at every tournament or roll a D6 each time. That's why I find pretty much every other answer perfectly okay except the Shield of Sanguinius one.

Grundz wrote:Pods used to be pretty great at objective shanagins, and they gave you some deployment flexibility if you didn't /want/ to deep strike that particular game, but had to use the list (a tourney for example)

Not even being able to put an IC in your pods is total unfair crap though. >.<

That's kind of the nerf as I see it. There are times you don't want to drop the unit. It's not the worst thing in the FAQ, though.

I don't understand the mindset at all regarding ICs in pods. And maybe I should expand that to say I don't understand the design philosophy of adding umpteen alternate deployment methods to the army, but then building in umpteen limitations to make sure you can't exploit (I mean this in a non-TFG way) those methods.

Trygon tunnels also didn't get any clarification or errata, so those are still a complete crapshoot as a tactic.

Everything I expected to be answered and how. Now all these cries of 'omg Nids suck even worse' are just the icing on the cake. Interesting on the Shadow not hitting units in transports.

Kurgash wrote:Everything I expected to be answered and how. Now all these cries of 'omg Nids suck even worse' are just the icing on the cake. Interesting on the Shadow not hitting units in transports.

FU

Hell yeah!!!! that Nyds faq are sooo sweeett )))))))

Are there specific rules that allow a SM IC to be dropped in a pod?

Deep striking my entire force now including the winged tyrant though seems like it would be fun.

So much of the nid FAQ is common sense (mawloc deepstriking into units, doom=zoan) it is fairly jarring to see one or two baffling and seemingly arbitrary decisions about relative non-issues (SotW, IC in pods).

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Actually, all it suggests is that the GW Writers are morons.

And to repeat what I said in the YMDC thread:

Wow, yet more fail from GW.

Guys, if you want to actually play a decent game, use my FAQs. The GW ones, yet again, ignore clear and absolutely fine RaW for no reason.

It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

Thats a bit narcisstic don't you think? (curse you for making me try to type that word )
I highly doubt they are aware of your FAQ, and only slightly aware of this board(if at all). But its your personal opinion so equally valid.

they don't have to be RAW, RAI, or anythihng. They write the rules. That means they win.

Frazzled wrote:I highly doubt they are aware of your FAQ, and only slightly aware of this board(if at all).

To be fair, they have in the past used GWAR!'s work verbatim...

It just goes to show that paying attention to Gwar and his FAQs will steer you wrong.

Gwar: I agree with MeanGreenStompa the suggestion that you go write your own rules, because the fact of the matter is that you will never be the authority on Warhammer regardless of your posturing.

Soup and a roll wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I highly doubt they are aware of your FAQ, and only slightly aware of this board(if at all).

To be fair, they have in the past used GWAR!'s work verbatim...

According to him.

EDIT: They may even have done so. My point is its the Company's rules and the company's writers. The point of an FAQ is to fix inconsistencies or questions. Their method doesn't concern me. Whether they even have a method doesn't concern me. I don't care how they do it, only that they do it.

Surely you're not suggesting that people tell untruths? On the internet?

Edit: Can't disagree with the rest

Gwar! wrote:
So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

At first, I was shocked by this statement - I thought, "No way!".

Then I applied a RaW approach to understanding it.

I don't think it means Gwar! won't be posting about GW games anymore...

More OT, well, at least GW put something out!

kill dem stunties wrote:

no attaching a tyranid prime to podding warriors? are your $%#^ing kidding me? If i ever play against someone who trys to disallow this id apply the same logic to sm ICs and drop pods, and make a 4+ or not play .... slowed rulings abound.

Come and play me. Of course I am insisting that my guys all get a 2++ save, and if you don't agree we will 4+ it or I won't play.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

^^ THIS !!

Q: Can a Furioso Librarian take additional equipment
(such as extra armour)?
A: No.

Okay, this is just dumb. I understand that they may have wanted to keep the Magna-grapple away from the Librarian Dread (though I don't see it as that big of a deal really), but not allowing a honored and valuable asset like a Librarian Dreadnought to not have the protection afforded by extra armor is just... dumb.

"Hey, Techmarine Bob, I noticed that our honored pal Furioso Librarian Chuck isn't as well protected as honored pal Dreadnought Frank. Why is that? Don't we want to protect our chapter's former leader just as well as any other Dreadnought in our ranks?"

"No, Brother Poindexter, we don't."

"Why not?"

"That metal from the extra armor interferes with his psychic abilities."

"Uhh... But isn't Librarian Chuck already entombed within a massive metal body? How can a bit more armor interfere with his psychic power?"

"The power of the warp works in mysterious ways."

"Yeah, no $h!+."

Dumb.

Good, the nid faq came out finally with some sense attached.

Nid players, your days of being a whore are over!

juraigamer wrote:Good, the nid faq came out finally with some sense attached.

Nid players, your days of being a whore are over!

FU

Modquisiton Frazzled: see here's an excellent example of how to be both an ass and suspended without even writing a complete word. Leaving it up as an example of what not to post.

Oh, my whoring has only JUST begun...

Modquisition on. This thread is being closed for just a minute as Dakka Rule #1 has been vilated to the point I have to decide whether to suspend someone or ban them. Anyone have a coin?

EDIT: Reopened. Evil doers have been dealt with. A reminder be polite here folks or you too shall enjoy a multiweek suspension.

Considering that both of those were just a copy and paste of Yakface's idiotic FAQ's I can not wait to make some interesting argument on special abilities while embarked, or that EVERY type of attack REQUIRES a cover save and LOS now, what else. . . there will a bunch of things I will mess with on other armies now because GW has opened that door.

It is nice to know that Eldar Seer Council just got harder to play against thanks to the lack of Shadow of the Warp. . . .

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

QFT!

reds8n wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So shield gives youa cover save, brililant.

Still doesnt mean it can be used against glancing / penetrating hits, as you must be obscured to do that. Typical non-answer...

You should go into politics, you'd go far.

+1

Just goes to show how deeply rooted the "I'm never wrong no matter what" RAW followers will go to do just that.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Actually, all it suggests is that the GW Writers are morons.

And to repeat what I said in the YMDC thread:

Wow, yet more fail from GW.

Guys, if you want to actually play a decent game, use my FAQs. The GW ones, yet again, ignore clear and absolutely fine RaW for no reason.

It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

As already pointed out.... this isn't GWARHAMMER! If you do not like playing 40k by Games Workshops rules, then I highly suggest you actually take your own advice and stop playing.... and stop writing/complaining about it here. We are really sick of hearing you bitch about GW.

"How very petty and childish. -sigh-"
Pretty much sums your own reply useing your own words.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lysenis wrote:Considering that both of those were just a copy and paste of Yakface's idiotic FAQ's I can not wait to make some interesting argument on special abilities while embarked, or that EVERY type of attack REQUIRES a cover save and LOS now, what else. . . there will a bunch of things I will mess with on other armies now because GW has opened that door.

It is nice to know that Eldar Seer Council just got harder to play against thanks to the lack of Shadow of the Warp. . . .

Good luck trying to find anyone willing to play you, cause you will quickly become TFG.

Everyone needs to polite up or I will close this thread and ban more people. Seriously.

Lysenis wrote:Considering that both of those were just a copy and paste of Yakface's idiotic FAQ's

Speaking of idiotic, no apostrophe required in FAQs my friend.

Just think of the confusion that could have caused if you were writing rules or things!

Also, I like the INAT FAQs, they aren't Yakface's (oh look, correct usage of that pesky, possessive apostrophe here ) but are created by a group of people dedicating their free time to making the game playable in tournament, not, as in some other cases, driven by personal ego or lack of gainful employment.

Finding people to play will not be hard, even with the new rules all GW *coughs-Yakface-* has done is:

Messed up my Deployment options
Fixed a few rules that should have gone differntly
Runined my Tervigon's prowess
Made Lashwhips as useless as a Pyrovore
Made EVERY BLOODLY Psyker invincible while in a transport
as well as a few other things. . .

Even with ALL this I will still likely win or have some mesaure of "fun" because I am a Water Tactician, I flow with the tide of battle.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Couldn't have said it better, and its not the first time this has happened (see WH and LRBT with new guard codex debate)

And though I may not agree with every ruling in the FAQ, i'm glad they at least tackled the harder questions "doom etc" and did not just ignore them, as they have done in past FAQ's.

Also the fact that there are both people happy and mad with this ruling means its probably done just about right.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Lysenis wrote:Considering that both of those were just a copy and paste of Yakface's idiotic FAQ's

Speaking of idiotic, no apostrophe required in FAQs my friend.

Just think of the confusion that could have caused if you were writing rules or things!

Also, I like the INAT FAQs, they aren't Yakface's (oh look, correct usage of that pesky, possessive apostrophe here ) but are created by a group of people dedicating their free time to making the game playable in tournament, not, as in some other cases, driven by personal ego or lack of gainful employment.

Tell me why then that an army that I love to play, that are fun to play, that all ready were considered the MOST BALANCED army of the current 40k edition needs to be neuters further? Yes they dedicate their free time for tournament play but last time I checked when they MADE the FAQ yakface said that NO ONE in INAT would be playing Tyranids. I wonder why?

As for my Grammar, I have no excuse but the lack of caring about such things. It may be vital for people to consider my credibility but if something like that is needed or such a simple thing then people are getting to shallow.

Lysenis wrote:Finding people to play will not be hard, even with the new rules all GW *coughs-Yakface-* has done is:

Messed up my Deployment options
They have merely removed a couple of options; you still have plenty of others.
Fixed a few rules that should have gone differntly
In your opinion.
Runined my Tervigon's prowess
Really?
Made Lashwhips as useless as a Pyrovore
It's hardly made any change at all. Things charging with FC will still attack after anything with a Laswhip, and the only unit that gets to ignore them are Banshees on the turn they charge. How often are you really going to run into that?
Made EVERY BLOODLY Psyker invincible while in a transport
Then pop the transport. That's what things like Hive Guard are for, right?
as well as a few other things. . .

Even with ALL this I will still likely win or have some mesaure of "fun" because I am a Water Tactician, I flow with the tide of battle.

Hyperbole much?

IMHO, you're completely over-reacting.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Gwar, whilst I understand your disappointment in GW not adhering to your stance, it's their rulebook and their FAQ/Errata.

The thing that immediately leaps to mind is that rather than waste your time writing unofficial FAQs or adjudicating according to a style that GW themselves don't hold with, that you write your own rules, from scratch.

And no, I'm not being underhand or subtly implying here, you have this passion for rules and applications and use of wording.

So apply it, write a minitures wargame, from scratch and set the bar for it precisely as you wish it, because it definately does not fit the GW design studio's ethos regarding casual play and 'the most important rule' (BGB).

Oh, I can't do that. If I did that, GW Would just send a C&D! Or threaten legal action aganst me because I had the nerve to have my FAQ stolen by them.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Gwar, whilst I understand your disappointment in GW not adhering to your stance, it's their rulebook and their FAQ/Errata.

The thing that immediately leaps to mind is that rather than waste your time writing unofficial FAQs or adjudicating according to a style that GW themselves don't hold with, that you write your own rules, from scratch.

And no, I'm not being underhand or subtly implying here, you have this passion for rules and applications and use of wording.

So apply it, write a minitures wargame, from scratch and set the bar for it precisely as you wish it, because it definately does not fit the GW design studio's ethos regarding casual play and 'the most important rule' (BGB).

Oh, I can't do that. If I did that, GW Would just send a C&D!

No, just write a totally new rules set, perhaps even locate some mini company and talk to them about their existing or a future sci-fi mini range and create your own game, from nothing.

You would have entire mastery over it and then you could have your own gwars to battle over the internet about the flaws in your rules (but how could there be any right...?)

Gwar! wrote:
Or threaten legal action aganst me because I had the nerve to have my FAQ stolen by them.

Not sure what that means? You said in a previous post you think GW released these FAQs to spite you and now you think GW stole your FAQ? Why aren't you taking legal action then?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Not sure what that means? You said in a previous post you think GW released these FAQs to spite you and now you think GW stole your FAQ? Why aren't you taking legal action then?

Because I don't gak out money and can't afford 98 lawyers.

Glad to see you are going against your previous stance with all this passive aggressive trolling. Classy.

But I give up. All that will happen is me getting banned again.
Whatever.

Saldiven wrote:

Lysenis wrote:Finding people to play will not be hard, even with the new rules all GW *coughs-Yakface-* has done is:

Messed up my Deployment options
They have merely removed a couple of options; you still have plenty of others.
Fixed a few rules that should have gone differntly
In your opinion.
Runined my Tervigon's prowess
Really?
Made Lashwhips as useless as a Pyrovore
It's hardly made any change at all. Things charging with FC will still attack after anything with a Laswhip, and the only unit that gets to ignore them are Banshees on the turn they charge. How often are you really going to run into that?
Made EVERY BLOODLY Psyker invincible while in a transport
Then pop the transport. That's what things like Hive Guard are for, right?
as well as a few other things. . .

Even with ALL this I will still likely win or have some mesaure of "fun" because I am a Water Tactician, I flow with the tide of battle.

Hyperbole much?

IMHO, you're completely over-reacting.

Do the Number Crunch, and look at the rules. Bascily I could give a nice lenghty reason as to why each of these things are a problem.

I.E. can a SM IC join a squad in a Drop Pod? They can correct? Well I can not now so my sacrifical Warriors with Twin Boneswords are going to run in at their basic weapon skill and get slaughtered by that obligatory Power Fist. (This is only one point of this as well)

FINALLY! No more bitching about Mawlocs and Dooms . . . =D

I don't even play 'Nids and I wasn happy with how they worked before, as that's how the codex was to be read. But now with these FAQs done, I just have to remember that the Doom isn't quite as hard =p

Oshova

Oh and Lysenis, sorry, but your anti-Yakface agenda in your comments, given that all I've encountered from him has been a fairly selfless and laid back individual, has led me to ceasing any humouring of your comments over your tyranids.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Oh and Lysenis, sorry, but your anti-Yakface agenda in your comments, given that all I've encountered from him has been a fairly selfless and laid back individual, has led me to ceasing any humouring of your comments over your tyranids.

Last I checked INAT was a group of minds that came together to create what people call wonderful FAQs, Yakface poseted these and has even gotten Credit from GW on a few of their FAQs from what I have seen. Nicely done and all. This does not mean that some rules that were changed should have been (I.E. A cover save for a non shooting attack? That would go against BRB instantly)

Lysenis wrote:As for my Grammar, I have no excuse but the lack of caring about such things. It may be vital for people to consider my credibility but if something like that is needed or such a simple thing then people are getting to shallow.

I think Meangreen was just noting the hypocrisy of using incorrect grammar to complain about RAW not being crystal clear due to the occasional poorly chosen word or phrase. Don't worry about it- nobody's perfect.

I am a big advocate of common sense and RAI but would like to see more consistency in these FAQs. Where a ruling is seemingly arbitrary, I would like to see the reasoning behind it (though I may just be spoiled by GWAR!'s FAQs). They have really pushed the tactical side of nids in this edition (swarmlord etc) but have taken away options people might have taken for granted (like ICs in a pod). Perhaps they just wanted more differentiation between sm and nid pods but I'd really like to know the thought process behind it.

Lysenis wrote: (I.E. A cover save for a non shooting attack? That would go against BRB instantly)

who are you to make such statements? maybe its you written BRB?

Lysenis wrote:
I.E. can a SM IC join a squad in a Drop Pod? They can correct? Well I can not now so my sacrifical Warriors with Twin Boneswords are going to run in at their basic weapon skill and get slaughtered by that obligatory Power Fist. (This is only one point of this as well)

The SM Drop Pod is a vehicle. The Spod is not. The rules for IC's joining a unit held in reserve and using their dedicated transport do not apply to a Monstrous Creature that has a special rule that mimic SOME aspects of a transport vehicle.

Don't run with twin boneswords, then. "Obligatory Powerfists" kill 1-2 of most everything; why should your 'Nids be exempt?

This is not an attack on your person; merely an attempt to show that you're completely over-reacting.

I would LOVE to see an explantion next to each question on why they came to that conclusion, if they were to do that I think people like myself would be a tad more receptive even if we hate it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

penek wrote:

Lysenis wrote: (I.E. A cover save for a non shooting attack? That would go against BRB instantly)

who are you to make such statements? maybe its you written BRB?

BRB states that a cover save can ONLY be taken against a Shooting attack, tell me where Spirit Leech is a shooting attack.

Lysenis wrote:I would LOVE to see an explantion next to each question on why they came to that conclusion, if they were to do that I think people like myself would be a tad more receptive even if we hate it.

Don't be silly. That's a Reasonable and good idea. GW are allergic to those.

Incidentally, does anyone have an explanation for why shadow of the warp would affect a lib-dread but not one in a rhino? I can't think of one by fluff, rules or general GW attitude. They might just be trying to cement that embarked units are safe? Do they think it's too complicated? Are they trying to sell more Landraiders (if that's possible)?

Saldiven wrote:

Lysenis wrote:
I.E. can a SM IC join a squad in a Drop Pod? They can correct? Well I can not now so my sacrifical Warriors with Twin Boneswords are going to run in at their basic weapon skill and get slaughtered by that obligatory Power Fist. (This is only one point of this as well)

The SM Drop Pod is a vehicle. The Spod is not. The rules for IC's joining a unit held in reserve and using their dedicated transport do not apply to a Monstrous Creature that has a special rule that mimic SOME aspects of a transport vehicle.

Don't run with twin boneswords, then. "Obligatory Powerfists" kill 1-2 of most everything; why should your 'Nids be exempt?

This is not an attack on your person; merely an attempt to show that you're completely over-reacting.

While I can agree with that on a few points, so then an option that was avalible to me is now completly useless, or if used would cause a tantamount of foolishness that could be avoided. In this sense it is like taking a Pyrovore. . . . why would you? As for me over reacting, I think not, I have tred the INAT FAQ and it has proven to weaken the codex further to just barely about C:CSM I have still pulled off win after win though because of my tactics. Now GW has further decreased their capabilities.

Soup and a roll wrote:Incidentally, does anyone have an explanation for why shadow of the warp would affect a lib-dread but not one in a rhino? I can't think of one by fluff, rules or general GW attitude. They might just be trying to cement that embarked units are safe? Do they think it's too complicated? Are they trying to sell more Landraiders (if that's possible)?

It's because GW are staffed by complete morons who don't actually know the rules.

Soup and a roll wrote:Incidentally, does anyone have an explanation for why shadow of the warp would affect a lib-dread but not one in a rhino? I can't think of one by fluff, rules or general GW attitude. They might just be trying to cement that embarked units are safe? Do they think it's too complicated? Are they trying to sell more Landraiders (if that's possible)?

Well the Lib Dread is not embarked so it does not get the "SAFE! While in a Transport" ideal that GW is pushing unless it is in a Stormraven, and it is likely to sell more Landraiders.

The bit about Shadow in the Warp not working against Psykers in transports is strange. Does that also mean Psychic Hoods are useless against embarked Psykers? The wording in determining what is eligible to defend against is pretty similar.

Being able to take cover saves against the Doom and Mawlocs only further hammers in the point that 'Nids have issues attacking things in cover and in transports.

Ah well, at least Hive Guard still work...

Frazzled wrote:Everyone needs to polite up or I will close this thread and ban more people. Seriously.

I'm just posting because I find the phrase "polite up" to be utterly hilarious.

The next question is if members in transports can be affected by a polite up attack, or if they get a cover save.

Something tells me that whichever way it's ruled (by Yakface no less!), Frazzled wins.

Lysenis wrote:I would LOVE to see an explantion next to each question on why they came to that conclusion, if they were to do that I think people like myself would be a tad more receptive even if we hate it.

I doubt this very much...There would be just as much teeth gnashing, as people would start railing against how much they thought those "explanations" were idiotic or moronic. Why would GW open themselves up to more irrational nerdrage?

GG

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Not sure what that means? You said in a previous post you think GW released these FAQs to spite you and now you think GW stole your FAQ? Why aren't you taking legal action then?

Because I don't gak out money and can't afford 98 lawyers.

Glad to see you are going against your previous stance with all this passive aggressive trolling. Classy.

But I give up. All that will happen is me getting banned again.
Whatever.

Fairly unnecessary gwar. Still, I'm bowing out of this until it simmers back and we can examine what the new changes mean for the game without the 'they're not real!!1!' screeching and self martyring you seem to be experiencing because a company that's never heard of you didn't do what you told them to.

...King Canute sat on the beach and told the waves 'Get out of reach!'...

Saldiven wrote:The SM Drop Pod is a vehicle. The Spod is not. The rules for IC's joining a unit held in reserve and using their dedicated transport do not apply to a Monstrous Creature that has a special rule that mimic SOME aspects of a transport vehicle.

Although now you're making a RAW argument in the context of an FAQ full of RAI answers.

The proper question is why GW had the *intent* to disallow Primes from joining spore-borne units. It's the only IC in the army, not overpowered, designed to accompany and buff units, and there's plenty of precedent for similar mechanics in other armies.

I think there's a lot of overreaction here, as most of the stuff that really works for Tyranids will still work just fine. However, IMO I think there are a few legitimate design and philosophy issues with the codex/FAQ.

I know i probably wont even bother finishing painting my nids, let alone playing them for the forseeable future, shame really as theyre my newest army.

I don't really know why people are complaining so much. (with the exception of the Blood Angels dread, that's just nonsense)
We have a codex update. Some of the rules changes are mislabeled errata & FAQ.
They've changed rules between codex releases. I'm a fan of this.
I'm hoping they'll take up this pattern and maintain updates to other books.

And for the Nid players complaining about shadows of the warp and transports. Get over it, really.
So Njal is protected in a Rhino. That's one less Razorback to deal with.
At least you can punch him out of the tank.
With my (initiative 2) necrons, I need to score a minimum of 3 weapon destroyed/immobilized glances to extradite him from his battle toaster.

kill dem stunties wrote:I know i probably wont even bother finishing painting my nids, let alone playing them for the forseeable future, shame really as theyre my newest army.

All because of an FAQ? Kind of an odd logic but I'd say play it anyway and see how it goes, you'd surprise yourself.

gorgon wrote:

Saldiven wrote:The SM Drop Pod is a vehicle. The Spod is not. The rules for IC's joining a unit held in reserve and using their dedicated transport do not apply to a Monstrous Creature that has a special rule that mimic SOME aspects of a transport vehicle.

Although now you're making a RAW argument in the context of an FAQ full of RAI answers.

The proper question is why GW had the *intent* to disallow Primes from joining spore-borne units. It's the only IC in the army, not overpowered, designed to accompany and buff units, and there's plenty of precedent for similar mechanics in other armies.

I think there's a lot of overreaction here, as most of the stuff that really works for Tyranids will still work just fine. However, IMO I think there are a few legitimate design and philosophy issues with the codex/FAQ.

Oh it is no contest that the Codex will work that is obvious simply because of the fact that Nid players WILL make it work but sadly builds are going to start becoming predictable and that will get us in in the end. . .

kill dem stunties wrote:If you take double reserve bonus and 5 or 6 pods, with 2 mawlocs you can destroy an entire ig parking lot in one turn ... surround with pods and all that cant be moved are destroyed.

Kinda gimmicky, but it can work.

Unless the IG player just keeps his stuff in reserve.

I dont understand how this makes lash whips.. bad? Every unit with a lashwhip is higher than I2. Yeah okay you cant combo it with a carnifex, so what? Wasnt everyone bitching how awful they were anyway?

Lysenis wrote:BRB states that a cover save can ONLY be taken against a Shooting attack, tell me where Spirit Leech is a shooting attack.

Point me please on EXACT quote from BRB where it is said that Cover Saves can ONLY be taken against a shooting attack? Maybe you think that if rules for Cover saves are written in shooting section, means that they can only be taken vs them? If GW say you can - then you can. And any way, Leech are ranged kind of "attack"

Wow this is a real b*tch slap to all the RAW Nazis. Good calls GW. Put em in their place.

penek wrote:Point me please on EXACT quote from BRB where it is said that Cover Saves can ONLY be taken against a shooting attack

Search YMDC, its been done.

As for Lash whips. . .

The army has no frag grenades, other than on Lictors and Carnifex. (yaay?)

Lash whips were a useful way to deal with assaults through cover. They still can, but not if the assaulted unit has any mod to Initiative.
That is not much of a change, but it is one.

Also the bit about SA can easily catch people.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Personally, I think such a disconnect shouldn't be happening. GW has, each edition, removed more and more of the narrative elements of the game in an attempt to streamline 40k's playability. This makes the game much more "chess-like" in the sense that the game is very "rule-oriented" as opposed to the early RT eras "DM/Narrative-oriented" gaming style. Obviously, this trend provides incentive for "rules-oriented" players to convert over and come purchase more GW products. These kinds of players expect, in return, to be able to play 40k competitively (in the sense that you are competing - not talking about tourneys here) within a defined ruleset that is clear and easy to understand... and with the way the rules have been changing, what's the surprise? 40k has become more "gamey" and much less "story-ey", so what's with all the hate for people who were brought into the franchise on the promise of being able to play an actual game? (aka, being able to compete against other players).

The disconnect between what GW writes in its FAQs and what it releases in its codicies is somewhat disturbing, and I think my issue with your statement is that you imply (imho) that this disconnect is a perfectly okay thing, because the opinion of RAW gamers shouldn't have any weight. GW is making 40k a very rules-oriented game, and yet they repeatedly fail to write rules that stand up to any sort of scrutiny. As a relatively new player, how am I supposed to know that the DoM doesn't hit embarked units? If I didn't know about DakkaDakka or a similar site, I could only look at the rules as they appear in the relevant books (aka RAW). So why shouldn't RAW be followed, at least until they clarify something by releasing an FAQ? I'm not sure I understand what makes playing by the rules so god-damned awful.

Eh, that's just my rant for the day... sorry if it's a bit incoherent, I just saw a bunch of people quote this and talk about how great a statement it was. Everybody seems so obsessed with "sticking it to the RAW players" and I think that's an unfair attitude towards those of us that expect to be able to open the book and play it how the rules tell us to do so.

I don't mean to be offensive with any of this, sorry if it comes off that way. Also, this all comes from someone who agrees with most of the FAQ'd stuff, although I think the IC/Spod, SitW/Vehicle, and Lashwhip stuff was a little wonky.

PanamaG wrote:Wow this is a real b*tch slap to all the RAW Nazis. Good calls GW. Put em in their place.

Yea!

Down with people who follow the rules!


I think plenty of the FAQs are silly, but now I know that if I follow them I am a nazi that GW will put in my place.
Thanks for that.

Belphegor wrote:And for the Nid players complaining about shadows of the warp and transports. Get over it, really.

This is harsh. It's easy to over-react when your builds/tactics get messed up but this is GW answering a question everyone (I believe) had amiably resolved a while ago. It wouldn't be a problem but they seem to have come down on the opposite side of the coin contradicting the fluff and common sense. I'd imagine you'd be annoyed if GW released an errata and removed one of your army's special rules or builds.

That said, I'm sure it will all simmer down quite quickly and it is nice that GW are resolving a great many unnecessary and messy arguments.

EDIT @ Xca|iber: If you take a stroll through the 'You make the call' forums you'll quickly see just how in depth (over the top) people are prepared to go to argue one interpretation of the rules over another. Common sense and how you would like an opponent to play against you are replaced by the definition of individual words and so on. The proponents of 'Rules as intended' are happy to move away from this if it makes the game more playable, fun or interesting even if it means going against the rules. GW seem to agree with this stance and it is obviously rewarding to some posters to see that in many cases what the rules actually say is less important than what they convey; that it doesn't really matter how you play it as long as everyone has fun (and buys models). Because of this, it doesn't matter if you know all the rules as long as you can agree with your opponent one way or the other and have fun. Of course this makes it much harder to play competitively or against people who are prepared to bend rules in order to win which is why RAW advocates want everything set in stone and will fine-tooth-comb the books for mistakes or loopholes. Some even argue that this is the only way the game can be fun.

Anyway, to conclude: Playing by the rules is not bad but GW will never release a rule set that is completely objective.

You know what's really funny?

The BA Errata for the Sang Priest still doesn't fix anything, and they also forgot to include the Stenguard Hellfire Round Errata.

And yet GW are infallible who put rules "nazis" in their place.

I agree that it is totally unfair that spore pods can't take IC, but that is how I interpreted it before the FAQ. I wish the would have just made it a transport vehicle and then it would be allowed. I also think cover saves from doom is slowed, but understand on the whole vehicle issue.

My question is can Gargoyles, Winged Warriors, Parasite of Mortex, and Winged Rippers also deep strike because they all have the Winged Biomorph?

Grundz wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hooray for a sensible FAQ for 'Nids. I finally have a reason to expand my army.

because they are even worse now? XD

sig makes post

I'd rather the rules be slightly off by the designers than to look at the rules with such borderline autistic minutiae that it half the time breaks the game and the other half breaks the spirit by people with nothing better to do than to start that drama (and it also causes more drama in the sense it's not official, so everyone eternally argues. Whereas with gw it is so you can
like it or house rule it. )

.

Deadshane1 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So shield gives youa cover save, brililant.

Still doesnt mean it can be used against glancing / penetrating hits, as you must be obscured to do that. Typical non-answer...

I lold.

BA "Errata and FAQ" is turning out to be a complete failure. They even nerfed the Demolisher! :(

BuZzZzJaY wrote:My question is can Gargoyles, Winged Warriors, Parasite of Mortex, and Winged Rippers also deep strike because they all have the Winged Biomorph?

Yes. IIRC, the whole issue with Harpies and Tyrants was in their MC classification. They should have made it clearer what that question was really all about.

..well this went well eh ?

THIS IS WHY YOU DON'T GET ANY DESSERT BEFORE SUPPER !

AND WHY YOUR FATHER DOESN'T LIVE WITH US ANYMORE.

ALL.

BECAUSE.

OF.

YOU.

Obligatory warning Pms and suspensions incoming it is then.