And in classic fashion, half the community on Facebook is taking the opportunity to ask questions that are NOT rules questions! So many "please change the Dreadnaught to have 4 attacks". While I agree that this is odd, it's definitely not a RULES question.
I don't have a Facebook account and refuse to get one. Please more people ask them to clarify the host of witchfire powers that don't have weapon profiles (Psychic Shriek, Laugh of Sorrows, Mind War, etc.), and whether a to-hit roll is required or not.
Someone else ask whether Gargantuan Creatures can fire only 2 weapons, or all their weapons?
Someone else ask whether your "best" save is the number defined as best (lowest number, so a Ravenwing Biker uses a 3+ save) or whichever you feel is your best (4+ rerollable is "better" than a 3+ at saving wounds, so the Ravenwing Biker uses that by Jinking).
God, I have so many...
Does a Solitaire make a single Kiss of Death attack with his Kiss in addition to gaining the benefits of Harlequin's Caress, or must he choose just one or the other?
If something says "in the shooting phase", does this mean any time the model shoots, or just in the shooting phase? This affects Overwatch for Monstrous Creatures and for models like Maugan Ra that fire twice "in the shooting phase".
Does a summoned Bloodthirster with KDK arrive already landed, or does it arrive "Swooping" and is forced to then land the next turn, and only be assault the turn of THAT?
Can the Hunter Cadre all share the benefits of a single Tau Commander if fired "as a single squad"? Or does his benefits still only apply to the unit he's with before joining them all up?
Can I charge someone if I can't place a model next to them because of clever abuse of terrain?
Do you assign the direction of hits caused by dropping a Bomb or Vector Strike from the model's initial position, final position, or from any point chosen to be the point that you "passed over" the unit?
I'm sure there's so, so many more. Please someone help gets these up!
I think I'm going to ask if the old "operational" rule means "objective secure" now, or if it does nothing.
Could be useful for old codex / Imperial Armour
I can just imagine some GW intern who got the job of managing their FB page, and thought it would be fun. Now they get to deal with every legitimate question that has been unanswered in the last 2 years.
Moreover, they have to sort the legitimate questions from the wishlists and people who can't be bothered to read the rules themselves and ask things like 'how far can infantry move?"
It's a nice thought, but I feel like asking the gamerbase for FAQs on a FB page is an easy way to go insane.
Well its a start I guess. Hopefully they reply to more then just one question. I mean, when you are silent with your customer base for a decade its no surprise that they may have questions. If they are overwhelmed well I guess that speaks volumes about the current state of the game. We'll see if GW keeps its promise.
Guys.... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make sure to be very civil and make others do the same, this is a huge step in the right direction and we cannot afford for them to say 'feth them' and leave us alone like the past while.
A lot of people are speaking about the ITC, showing links etc...
Explaining GW it is the way to do...
The others are asking to up the number of their dreadnought's attack to 4.
And some even gave "suggestions"...
For Politeness and civility, I guess we can forget.
My question is more a suggestion and not rules-based. "When will you require your rules writers to have a more than passing familiarity with the English language?"
I'm sure they knew what they were getting into when they opened this can of worms. And I'm really glad they've done it, it's certainly a step in the right direction.
Wow, this is an interesting development from GW. I hope it's a sign of more good things to come.
Gosh, off the top of my I head, I would ask...
Is the Green Tide still a legal formation?
What happens when you roll 7-8 on the Orks Mob Rule table?
Do you have to pay 1pt for a shoota upgrade on a Nob in a Boyz squad if the rest of the unit upgrades to Shootas?
... scratch that, never mind, those aren't questions about Space Marines.
Roll a D6:
1-2 - Discuss with your opponent.
3-4 - Roll a D6 for it.
5-6 - Narrative something.
Seriously, a fairly positive move by GW. hopefully they can take it a step further and erase the basic mistakes that cause a lot of the current issues. (By current I obviously mean the rate of flow of electric charge)...........
Mr. Burning wrote: Seriously, a fairly positive move by GW. hopefully they can take it a step further and erase the basic mistakes that cause a lot of the current issues. (By current I obviously mean the rate of flow of electric charge)...........
If players can keep the questions grounded in reality, it might help overcome GW's resistance to making changes like that.
it would be awesome if they did answer it but i doubt they would give a reply anytime soon, considering the VAST amounts of crap that people are still bickering over and grammar mistakes.
I can't wait until they make DLS only 3 rerolls per turn, make KFF/MFF not work on a vehicle when you are inside it, SnP doesn't confer to Artillery, and maybe correcting the typo on Kanz from 50 to 55. (jk they wouldn't do that).
Also, maybe they'll give Mek's the Big Shoota back since they forgot that's sorta the old Mek goto of 5th.
But here's hoping the following things get favorable 'typo' fixes, cause they must be have fat fingered a few things;
-The Relics.. all my relics once per army on any relic eligable model I want please
-Flash Gitz lack of 'Eavy Armor equipment option
-Kanz points cost is mispelled, should be '35'
-Dorkanaughts supposed to be SH -W!G mob rule foggy, confusing, counterintuitive, bad
-Deff Rolla, someone forgot to paste the part where it auto hits units
-Badrukk's Formation size is too big to get in a BW
-Ere we go on walkers is missing
I wonder if we could convince GW to balance units online for free in 40k. This way we could actually have some progress for other armies. Then as new campaigns get released the newest changes are put in them.
Can someone suggest this for me? I don't use facebook.
One thing I don't get is why people ask about things that are basically asking for permission to houserule something.
i.e. "can I take a Forgeworld -character into a vanilla Battle Company instead of a captain."
It doesn't state that in the rules, the answer is clear; you cannot.
Just kidding, I know why (to get the classic "you can ofcourse do that" -reply by someone who just answers with what you want to hear) but stop doing it or it'll just end badly for all of us with all sorts of clearly wishlisted rules coming into being, and something getting broken really bad.
notredameguy10 wrote: Yeah this isn't going to go over well lol. There is already over 1.3k comments...
I think they knew that was going to happen. I guarantee the rules@gwplc inbox gets flooded with that many emails asking for rules clarifications daily, or at least it used to before people gave up getting a response.
I also think they were expecting a large part of the comments would be off topic, unless the interns running the account are really inexperienced with social media. It'll be okay, guys. There's human beings on the other end of Facebook account who are capable of sorting through idiots just as well as we are.
(Then again, we're not very good at it judging from the YMDC circlejerks. Maybe we are doomed.)
i love how most of them are errata related queries and not FAQ related queries. an FAQ asks questions about confusing wording or wether something can happen or not in the current confines of the rules. they dont go on to then change those rules as well. faq =/= errata
I can't wait until they make DLS only 3 rerolls per turn, make KFF/MFF not work on a vehicle when you are inside it, SnP doesn't confer to Artillery, and maybe correcting the typo on Kanz from 50 to 55. (jk they wouldn't do that).
Also, maybe they'll give Mek's the Big Shoota back since they forgot that's sorta the old Mek goto of 5th.
But here's hoping the following things get favorable 'typo' fixes, cause they must be have fat fingered a few things;
-The Relics.. all my relics once per army on any relic eligable model I want please
-Flash Gitz lack of 'Eavy Armor equipment option
-Kanz points cost is mispelled, should be '35'
-Dorkanaughts supposed to be SH -W!G mob rule foggy, confusing, counterintuitive, bad
-Deff Rolla, someone forgot to paste the part where it auto hits units
-Badrukk's Formation size is too big to get in a BW
-Ere we go on walkers is missing
this for example is an errata type query not an FAQ
I think it will be a good thing for GW just to start answering questions. It would be much better for them to do it in an organised way, and to incorporate the answers into revisions of the rules, but that is a lot to hope for.
I applaud the direction GW is taking these past few months. It seems like they are actually starting to listen and this here is a huge step forward.
They also get a sense of what state the game is in, for the playerbase. I would bet that they are taking the questions, answer them and then take a good, hard look at what people are actually thinking about the state of the game. I wouldn't be surprised if they took these things into account when the next edition hits.
wuestenfux wrote: Looks interesting. GW is moving definitely in the right direction.
Let's see if they want to become a gaming company again.
According to my local GW rep, he's more or less confirmed (as much as he can without getting in trouble I guess) they are bringing back their specialist games division. We've already got several awesome box sets out of that, in the Assassins game, Betrayal at Calth, and now the Deathwatch Overkill game.
I think it's because they looked at the state of models-in-games and realized there's a lot of people who buy things like Super Dungeon Explore and the like. The thing is, they've also got the upper hand by having models usable in their own tabletop gaming sessions so Warhammer fans will stick to picking up their new GW games.
By the way, Betrayal at Calth is a blast to actually play. Anyone else done it?
wuestenfux wrote: Looks interesting. GW is moving definitely in the right direction.
Let's see if they want to become a gaming company again.
According to my local GW rep, he's more or less confirmed (as much as he can without getting in trouble I guess) they are bringing back their specialist games division. We've already got several awesome box sets out of that, in the Assassins game, Betrayal at Calth, and now the Deathwatch Overkill game.
I think it's because they looked at the state of models-in-games and realized there's a lot of people who buy things like Super Dungeon Explore and the like. The thing is, they've also got the upper hand by having models usable in their own tabletop gaming sessions so Warhammer fans will stick to picking up their new GW games.
By the way, Betrayal at Calth is a blast to actually play. Anyone else done it?
No,we don't play board games at our local store.
BaC is a blast, since the models are very useful for each Marine player.
I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.
Yarium wrote: And in classic fashion, half the community on Facebook is taking the opportunity to ask questions that are NOT rules questions! So many "please change the Dreadnaught to have 4 attacks". While I agree that this is odd, it's definitely not a RULES question.
I don't have a Facebook account and refuse to get one. Please more people ask them to clarify the host of witchfire powers that don't have weapon profiles (Psychic Shriek, Laugh of Sorrows, Mind War, etc.), and whether a to-hit roll is required or not.
Someone else ask whether Gargantuan Creatures can fire only 2 weapons, or all their weapons?
Someone else ask whether your "best" save is the number defined as best (lowest number, so a Ravenwing Biker uses a 3+ save) or whichever you feel is your best (4+ rerollable is "better" than a 3+ at saving wounds, so the Ravenwing Biker uses that by Jinking).
God, I have so many...
Does a Solitaire make a single Kiss of Death attack with his Kiss in addition to gaining the benefits of Harlequin's Caress, or must he choose just one or the other?
If something says "in the shooting phase", does this mean any time the model shoots, or just in the shooting phase? This affects Overwatch for Monstrous Creatures and for models like Maugan Ra that fire twice "in the shooting phase".
Does a summoned Bloodthirster with KDK arrive already landed, or does it arrive "Swooping" and is forced to then land the next turn, and only be assault the turn of THAT?
Can the Hunter Cadre all share the benefits of a single Tau Commander if fired "as a single squad"? Or does his benefits still only apply to the unit he's with before joining them all up?
Can I charge someone if I can't place a model next to them because of clever abuse of terrain?
Do you assign the direction of hits caused by dropping a Bomb or Vector Strike from the model's initial position, final position, or from any point chosen to be the point that you "passed over" the unit?
I'm sure there's so, so many more. Please someone help gets these up!
You know you can create a FB page with bogus info, right? Boaty McBoatface could be your profile name.
Orock wrote: I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.
Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.
I asked about Flyers and the Ravenwing Strike Force.
I also asked about something came up in a recent game. I had a Ravenwing Bike Squadron in my opponent's deployment zone. He had a Banewolf coming in from Reserves, and tried to Tank Shock it through my Bikes. I had a biker with a meltagun right on his table edge, so I had him make a Death or Glory attack. He scored a Stunned result. So, the Banewolf was stunned before even making it onto the table. At that point we didn't know what to do, so I asked about it.
I imagine there will be a lot of complaining when GW replies only to a fraction of the questions.
It's just not realistic that they would reply to them all. But still, I will be legitimately surprised if there aren't bitter and unreasonable individuals criticizing GW for not responding to all the ~1500 questions at the time of writing, especially if their own question didn't get answered.
Which is a bit of a downer, since they are most likely doing what they realistically can at this point. I just hope the bitter and negative part of the community doesn't deter GW from fanbase interaction once more (and then whine about lack of interaction afterwards, ofcourse...)
i know they over 1600 comments already but I am sure there arent really that many questions as I bet alot are repeat questions.I would say there are more like 600 questions once you weed out the duplicates. I for one want to put the number of weapons a gargantuan creature can shoot to rest once and for all so I can either keep adding starcannons to my wraithknight or put those points elsewhere.
Haha yea I might have FAQs / Errata questions if I actually played, but as it is those armies are shelved as they're too awful to even bother with against most opponents who haven't taken pity
pm713 wrote: The questions wouldn't be answered because none of them are relevant.
Runic understood the point I was making - see above though ^^
Wulfmar wrote: I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.
1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?
2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?
3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?
4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?
5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies
6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger
None of these are rules questions, and would not be answered. They're questions on design and scheduling decisions. So you're right, they will not be answered substantially, meaningfully, or probably at all. I'd take this opportunity to edit your question if you submitted any of these.
Wulfmar wrote: I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.
1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?
2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?
3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?
4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?
5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies
6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger
You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."
Wulfmar wrote: I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.
1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?
2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?
3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?
4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?
5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies
6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger
You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."
Read the whole thread, go on now, don't be afraid.
Wulfmar wrote: I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.
1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?
2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?
3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?
4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?
5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies
6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger
You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."
Read the whole thread, go on now, don't be afraid.
Brennon is 100% correct, dude. Ask about rules clarifications and don't be a smart
I didn't even post those questions on the site. As I clarified earlier, I don't have FAQs because my armies aren't worth the time and effort to go to tabletop unless it's a sympathy match.
If you don't understand the sarcasm / point then comment on something else.
Wulfmar wrote: I didn't even post those questions on the site. As I clarified earlier, I don't have FAQs because my armies aren't worth the time and effort to go to tabletop unless it's a sympathy match.
If you don't understand the sarcasm / point then comment on something else.
My question was
orks....what does the cybork upgrade do to models if they already have a base 5up fnp? Is it a bonus to fnp, or is it nullified?
Example...mad dok grotsnik has both fnp (since he is a painboy) and cybork.
I mean if they are not answered and printed in the GWFAQs can we really call these "Official" just like how "official" White Dwarf is, and gets stuff wrong.
That Facebook post could be filtered down to literally 20 different questions or so. seriously why are so many people wish listing and asking for added rules. Feels like players are trying to self destruct getting an FAQ
Probably because it's the first time GW have interacted with the community for a while so they're taking their chance. Plus there's the question of whether they read what it's for.
Orock wrote: I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.
Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.
they did it to avoid a massive unofficial imperium boycott. the same reason they allow superfriends, and other blatant favorism.
Nevertheless, the game itself is a mess. Not really useful as a pickup game, although it can be played very well in a closed group where players make some commitments.
Wulfmar wrote: I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.
1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?
2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?
3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?
4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?
5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies
6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger
You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."
GW is a grown-up company, not a bunch of kindergarten children. They are capable of reading all the user queries and ignoring the ones that are irrelevant, without getting into a huff and sulking in the corner all afternoon.
Furyou Miko wrote: Every of their recruitment documents makes it very clear that the 'attitude' they want is 'We love games workshop games!'
And why wouldn't they? Being passionate about a game does not mean you're blind to it's downsides. I love 40k but I can still admit that there are a lot of balance issues and that their codex release model simply sucks.
The game could be much better than it is, and someone who doesn't care for the game won't care to improve it.
I know it is a fairly stupid question, but I went ahead and asked if Pedro Kantor's Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter for the purposes of the Bolter Drill rule. The fluff section says it is, but nowhere else does. Mostly just want clarification. Since he is BS5, he only misses on 1s, so being able to reroll those 1s gives him a bit of a boost while not making him overpowered. It is just a Str4 AP4 Assault 4 weapon. It would essentially make Dorn's Arrow Master-Crafted without it actually having the rule.
Furyou Miko wrote: Every of their recruitment documents makes it very clear that the 'attitude' they want is 'We love games workshop games!'
And why wouldn't they? Being passionate about a game does not mean you're blind to it's downsides. I love 40k but I can still admit that there are a lot of balance issues and that their codex release model simply sucks.
The game could be much better than it is, and someone who doesn't care for the game won't care to improve it.
You're missing my point.
My point is that as a result of that recruitment requirement, you're looking at a company staffed by the same kind of people you find on Dakka.
Orock wrote: I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.
Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.
they did it to avoid a massive unofficial imperium boycott. the same reason they allow superfriends, and other blatant favorism.
I know the horrible ITC is oppressing you. Tau lives matter and all that.
geargutz wrote: My question was
orks....what does the cybork upgrade do to models if they already have a base 5up fnp? Is it a bonus to fnp, or is it nullified?
Example...mad dok grotsnik has both fnp (since he is a painboy) and cybork.
That's pretty clear from the brb. You get 5+++.
That might be the main problem there. 95% questions allready have clear answers in brb or not rule questions at all. It might lead to really important stuff to be missed.
Furyou Miko wrote: Every of their recruitment documents makes it very clear that the 'attitude' they want is 'We love games workshop games!'
And why wouldn't they? Being passionate about a game does not mean you're blind to it's downsides. I love 40k but I can still admit that there are a lot of balance issues and that their codex release model simply sucks.
The game could be much better than it is, and someone who doesn't care for the game won't care to improve it.
You're missing my point.
My point is that as a result of that recruitment requirement, you're looking at a company staffed by the same kind of people you find on Dakka.
No, certainly not.
We at Dakka are addicted gamers.
GW recruits people with attitude but no clue how to play 40k competitively. Go at GWHH I and you will see what I mean.
You see, that's the kind of rule that would benefit from GW writing it clearly in the first place. Though of course it can be argued that GW did intend the KFF to affect all models, and that's why they wrote all models rather than all friendly models.
Orock wrote: I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.
Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.
they did it to avoid a massive unofficial imperium boycott. the same reason they allow superfriends, and other blatant favorism.
I know the horrible ITC is oppressing you. Tau lives matter and all that.
Cant help but notice all your space marine stuff on your gallery. Oh and LOOK! space wolf thunder calvary. But I guess the rulings that they can ignore the combined chapter tactics with your wolves, white scars librarians, and blood angels apothecaries is just coincidence, and in no way benefits you or taints your opinion with bias. They should handle universal rulings such as invisibility and d weapons and such only. My main army is orks and I think its just stupid that we get a typo stompa for half price.
" Does the Heldrake Baleflamer and Eldar D-Scyths counts as flamers?"...
Really?...
Saw an arguement where a salamanders player walked away from a game because a chaos player wouldnt give him an invun save vs his helldrakes baleflamer. They dont talk to each other anymore. So that is a valid question in my book.
Orock wrote: I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.
Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.
they did it to avoid a massive unofficial imperium boycott. the same reason they allow superfriends, and other blatant favorism.
I know the horrible ITC is oppressing you. Tau lives matter and all that.
Cant help but notice all your space marine stuff on your gallery. Oh and LOOK! space wolf thunder calvary. But I guess the rulings that they can ignore the combined chapter tactics with your wolves, white scars librarians, and blood angels apothecaries is just coincidence, and in no way benefits you or taints your opinion with bias.
What, as opposed to the mountain-sized chip on your shoulder? Neither Blood Angels nor Space Wolves have Chapter Tactics, and even if they did you don't know if Crimson Devil plays a Wolfstar anyway. You're making the worst ad hominem attack I've seen in quite a while, and you're making yourself seem exceedingly petty in the process.
Orock wrote: I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.
Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.
they did it to avoid a massive unofficial imperium boycott. the same reason they allow superfriends, and other blatant favorism.
I know the horrible ITC is oppressing you. Tau lives matter and all that.
Cant help but notice all your space marine stuff on your gallery. Oh and LOOK! space wolf thunder calvary. But I guess the rulings that they can ignore the combined chapter tactics with your wolves, white scars librarians, and blood angels apothecaries is just coincidence, and in no way benefits you or taints your opinion with bias. They should handle universal rulings such as invisibility and d weapons and such only. My main army is orks and I think its just stupid that we get a typo stompa for half price.
Lol. Since you're curious. My main army is Blood Angels. I played Space Wolves back in 5th edition. Had a lot of fun with them. But I missed my Blood Angels, so I sold them quite a while ago. I left the picture in my gallery because I find Kid Kyoto's comment on the pic funny. I occasionally play my Blood Angels proxied as White Scars, and Salamanders in 30k. The Howling Griffons are permanent residents of my display case and my purple Blood Angels are in a box somewhere. I've never used a superfriends deathstar, but I did try a centstar once.
Orock wrote: I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.
Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.
they did it to avoid a massive unofficial imperium boycott. the same reason they allow superfriends, and other blatant favorism.
I know the horrible ITC is oppressing you. Tau lives matter and all that.
Cant help but notice all your space marine stuff on your gallery. Oh and LOOK! space wolf thunder calvary. But I guess the rulings that they can ignore the combined chapter tactics with your wolves, white scars librarians, and blood angels apothecaries is just coincidence, and in no way benefits you or taints your opinion with bias.
What, as opposed to the mountain-sized chip on your shoulder? Neither Blood Angels nor Space Wolves have Chapter Tactics, and even if they did you don't know if Crimson Devil plays a Wolfstar anyway. You're making the worst ad hominem attack I've seen in quite a while, and you're making yourself seem exceedingly petty in the process.
never denied it, not going to start now. Not having chapter tactics is a cop out. Its still allowing you to use the best ones, aka white scars, and all the other goodies of the best non chapter tactic lists and abusing the system in ways that break the game. Corporate tax evasion via channeling money thru ireland and other places is legal too. It dosent make it acceptable. Allies have broken the game, but people defend them to the death because "lol with no allies eldar would always win" That doesnt justify an equally broken system to answer back. And my original chip is from the ITC being too scared of what it would do to their attendance/business to risk the imperial ire and put in place justifiable nerfs, yet they seem fine handing it out lopsidedly to minor factions to placate those same players they are afraid to death to displease. Its cowardly and their reasoning is disingenuous.
" Does the Heldrake Baleflamer and Eldar D-Scyths counts as flamers?"...
Really?...
I don't see anything wrong with those questions. Especially the D Scythe.
Orock wrote:
Since in the weapons profil the range is "Template", it is a flamer weapon, always been this way, just like any weapon with a blast template in his profil no matter how its called uses the blast rules, thats why this question is redundant.
" Does the Heldrake Baleflamer and Eldar D-Scyths counts as flamers?"...
Really?...
Saw an arguement where a salamanders player walked away from a game because a chaos player wouldnt give him an invun save vs his helldrakes baleflamer. They dont talk to each other anymore. So that is a valid question in my book.
thats a weird argument, because Baleflamer is a flamer, since it uses the template and also doesn't Salamender ChapTac specify "reroll armor saves" and not "armor and invulnerable saves"? Vs flamer?
Wich in this case half of the time, except Vs Termies doesn't do gak, because the Baleflamer is AP3.
Also why the Chaos player din't allow the guy to make invul saves?, doesn't make any sens.
" Does the Heldrake Baleflamer and Eldar D-Scyths counts as flamers?"...
Really?...
I don't see anything wrong with those questions. Especially the D Scythe.
Orock wrote:
Since in the weapons profil the range is "Template", it is a flamer weapon, always been this way, just like any weapon with a blast template in his profil no matter how its called uses the blast rules, thats why this question is redundant.
" Does the Heldrake Baleflamer and Eldar D-Scyths counts as flamers?"...
Really?...
Saw an arguement where a salamanders player walked away from a game because a chaos player wouldnt give him an invun save vs his helldrakes baleflamer. They dont talk to each other anymore. So that is a valid question in my book.
thats a weird argument, because Baleflamer is a flamer, since it uses the template and also doesn't Salamender ChapTac specify "reroll armor saves" and not "armor and invulnerable saves"? Vs flamer?
Wich in this case half of the time, except Vs Termies doesn't do gak, because the Baleflamer is AP3.
Also why the Chaos player din't allow the guy to make invul saves?, doesn't make any sens.
because it does not say flamer anywhere in the description. I know, its so stupid, but the guy was a waac type of guy and he would not concede his baleFLAMER was a flamer type weapon. then again thats why we need these types of faq's, because GW cant be bothered to proofread before they put their books out.
never denied it, not going to start now. Not having chapter tactics is a cop out. Its still allowing you to use the best ones, aka white scars, and all the other goodies of the best non chapter tactic lists and abusing the system in ways that break the game. Corporate tax evasion via channeling money thru ireland and other places is legal too. It dosent make it acceptable. Allies have broken the game, but people defend them to the death because "lol with no allies eldar would always win" That doesnt justify an equally broken system to answer back. And my original chip is from the ITC being too scared of what it would do to their attendance/business to risk the imperial ire and put in place justifiable nerfs, yet they seem fine handing it out lopsidedly to minor factions to placate those same players they are afraid to death to displease. Its cowardly and their reasoning is disingenuous.
It's funny. As a Blood Angel player, when I complain about the weakness of our codex people respond with "Use Allies shenanigans to make up the difference". But should I ever do it, I'm the bad guy for doing it. There truly isn't any winning for the BAs.
I agree with you that super friends is stupid. The game is broken beyond belief. 7th edition is the worst version of the game I have ever played and I started in 2nd.
Your attacks on the ITC and FLG will win you a few converts. But overall, Your actions are in fact doing more damage to your cause than anything else. The rules changes are in place until enough people ask FLG to reevaluate them. Saying nasty things online isn't going to make that happen.
because it does not say flamer anywhere in the description. I know, its so stupid, but the guy was a waac type of guy and he would not concede his baleFLAMER was a flamer type weapon. then again thats why we need these types of faq's, because GW cant be bothered to proofread before they put their books out.
because it does not say flamer anywhere in the description. I know, its so stupid, but the guy was a waac type of guy and he would not concede his baleFLAMER was a flamer type weapon. then again thats why we need these types of faq's, because GW cant be bothered to proofread before they put their books out.
because it does not say flamer anywhere in the description. I know, its so stupid, but the guy was a waac type of guy and he would not concede his baleFLAMER was a flamer type weapon. then again thats why we need these types of faq's, because GW cant be bothered to proofread before they put their books out.
The Assault Cannon is not an Assault Weapon.
I don't see how that's relevant.
The claim was it's called a baleflamer and therefore should be a flamer weapon. The counter-argument is that Assault Cannons are not assault weapons. It is pointing out that the name means nothing. It's the rules for the item that matter.
because it does not say flamer anywhere in the description. I know, its so stupid, but the guy was a waac type of guy and he would not concede his baleFLAMER was a flamer type weapon. then again thats why we need these types of faq's, because GW cant be bothered to proofread before they put their books out.
The Assault Cannon is not an Assault Weapon.
I don't see how that's relevant.
The claim was it's called a baleflamer and therefore should be a flamer weapon. The counter-argument is that Assault Cannons are not assault weapons. It is pointing out that the name means nothing. It's the rules for the item that matter.
Yeah but it doesn't need to precise or have a "flamer" rule in its profil, look at the profil of a flamer.
There is no "flamer" rule in it, only thing is the "template" under range, you then go check the rules for templates and see the actual flamer rules ; every model under it is hit, ignore cover, etc,etc.
Look at the Baleflamer and D-scyth profiles and their range is "template" so yhey function under the same rules as a flamer.
Next time that this guy says otherwise, ask him to roll to hit with the heldrake and tells him that your models have a cover save.
Since he claim that its not flamer, then he should'nt use theor rules.
Wulfmar wrote: I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.
1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?
2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?
3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?
4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?
5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies
6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger
You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."
GW is a grown-up company, not a bunch of kindergarten children. They are capable of reading all the user queries and ignoring the ones that are irrelevant, without getting into a huff and sulking in the corner all afternoon.
Ummm....are you new to GW? This is exactly what they have done in the past, they have figuratively taken there ball and gone home before in the past.
BoomWolf wrote: I disagree.
There is much to FAQ, and much to balance, but at its core mechanics it's a good game.
Eh...I would say the fact that there is so much to FAQ on the core rules in addition to all the extra stuff from codices and stuff would make it apparent that the core mechanics are the issue, otherwise dakka-heavy armies like Tau, Eldar, and SM grav-spam, wouldn't be dominating so hard against the majority of the other armies.
BoomWolf wrote: Every flamer is a template =/= every template is a flamer.
On the same note that every gun is a weapon, and not every weapon is a gun.
Is what a "flamer" weapon is, ever defined anywhere in the relevant rules sections?
In the main rulebook, in the Weapons of the 41st Millennia" section (or whatever it is called), there is a group of weapons called "Flamer weapons" Not all weapons that use a template are classified as a flamer weapon. Some weapons in codices are noted as being a flamer weapon (for example, one of the bombs in Codex: Orks).
But as Kilkrazy stated, we are getting out of General and into YMDC.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is drifting off topic into the realms of YMDC.
I'm confused. This thread is about pktentially eliminating many of ymdc situations by having a possible clear and consice FAQ made by gw. It's only natural and probably healthy to bring things like these up, as they are prime candidates for said future FAQ. Best to brainstorm and discuss a bunch of ideas in one thread than each and every one having its own thread.
Did anyone ask them to clarify the situation where according to RAW, Exorcists are only able to fire in a 45 degree cone straight up because the barrels of the weapon are the pipes on the organ, which point straight up and are weapons on a vehicle that are fixed in place?
Because the last time someone asked them to clarify the situation, their "clarification" supported that ridiculous thing that is.
If anyone asks it, please make it clear that according to the actual rules as they exist, it's very, very clearly spelled out that the Exorcist can only shoot at targets directly above itself, and the problem isn't really a clarification in the rules as written, but the fact that this is an utterly ridiculous situation that presently exists and that it absolutely requires a special exemption from the rules.
Kanluwen wrote: They said it would take awhile to go through all the posts.
Fair enough, as they got over 2000 questions. While there are duplicates, thats like 600% more questions they have to answer than they have ever done before in any FAQ, combined.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is drifting off topic into the realms of YMDC.
I'm confused. This thread is about pktentially eliminating many of ymdc situations by having a possible clear and consice FAQ made by gw. It's only natural and probably healthy to bring things like these up, as they are prime candidates for said future FAQ. Best to brainstorm and discuss a bunch of ideas in one thread than each and every one having its own thread.
It is absolutely the purpose of the thread to suggest a question, and for someone to say that is answered on Page XX and does not ened to be queried.
However I felt it necessary to intervene because there was a developing argument about whether the question needed to be asked or not. That should be resolved in YMDC, then the question can be posted here or not, as applicable.
