One question per person, so make it good!

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/a.1576243776029589.1073741828.1575682476085719/1583759348611365/?type=1&theater


Asked in this thread and seen in the post.

"Can a CAD IC recieve formation special rules when they join a unit in a different formation? " - 100 different ways.
Similarly: "If an independent character with the Psyker USR joins a unit with the Psyker USR (or Brotherhood of...) is it still considered a separate unit for the purposes of generating warp charge, casting the same power, etc..?"

"How do the new Daemon Psychic powers in the Scions of the Warp booklet update/replace/supplement the old ones. Is it including the restrictions of the old codex, making the Tzeentch artifact useless or do the old restrictions not apply to the new powers? "

Does Psychic Shriek require a roll to hit?

Can a psyker benefit from both Psychic Focus and Chaos Psychic Focus if it chooses to only randomly generate powers from a single non-god specific discipline? For example, would Herald of Tzeentch who only rolls on Malefic Daemonology gain the primaris powers for both Malefic Daemonology and Change?

I asked about space wolf BA and GK dreadnoughts getting their base attacks adjusted to reflect the newer marine dexes. - Many, many times.

OH, someone ask about the Tesla Sphere's firing arc.

I asked if the warp spider flicker jump was meant to be unlimited or limited to once per shooting phase.

Does the Paradox "flip" count as a reroll?

Does a Deepstriking Skimmer mishap if it lands on a unit.

Has anyone asked about 1+ fnp because that's another ganky rule.

I'm not willing to reactivate my Facebook right now for a variety of reasons, but has anyone asked about the Tau Hunter Contingent and how special rules are supposed to interact with the squad-joining mechanic (in an intelligent way)?

Multi-trackers on Overwatch

KDK FMC summoning required to arrive Swooping

Blast template interaction with building levels

Anyone asked yet if piranha formation can leave the table the same turn it enters?

Not seen in the post yet:

Can the unit of grey hunters in the new Deathpack formation take a stormwolf as a dedicated transport? Or is that not allowed because the flyer itself is not listed as a unit in the formation?

Also, if a rune priest wyrdstorm formation joins the wolf lord on thunderwolf and thunderwolf cavalry in the Deathpack are they still permitted to run and charge?

in the min-codex supplied the Bloodthirster entry is replaced with the one from the Scions of the Warp booklet.
Unlike the old Bloodthirster from the normal codex these seem to be missing the 'Lord of Blood' rule that lets you take Daemon Princes of Khorne as Heavy Support _IF_ you take a normal Bloodthirster or Skarbrand as a HQ choice. All the other gods' greater demons still have their respective rules that let you do that. Is this intended or a misprint?

The Exalted Flamer of Tzeentch only has Heavy type weapons. This means if you deepstrike you can only snapshot, if you move you snapshot. Combined with its short range it is almost useless.
It is strange that the version on a Burning Chariot of Tzeentch is relentless and doesn't have this problem. Is this intended or an oversight?

I... WHAT
WHAT
WHAT

Holy never thought I'd see this day again.

The Age of Sigmar page is doing the same too :

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/?fref=ts

That's great. Somebody else ask about dual weapon profiles (melee and range) and how the Obelisk interacts with FMC's.

Wow! So.. are we going to take this as an official FAQ if they reply?

One hopes it will end up updating the official FAQs, but I guess we'll see.

From the 40k Facebook page:

FAQs eh?
All right, let’s knuckle down and do this.
What one (just one, there’s rather a lot of you guys…) rules question do you want answered or clarified? Jot it down in the comments and we’ll take them to the Game Designers on your behalf. We’ll even return with answers, we promise. It might take a week or two but a collated list of freshly approved FAQs will be yours post haste.

It sounds like these will be quite official.

Okay let's get a list together. If you have submitted a question please let us know. OP are you willing to update the first post?


These are some of the unresolved and locked threads in the YmtC forum:

Question 1: Can a CAD IC recieve formation special rules when they join a unit in a different formation?

Question 2: Can the unit of grey hunters in the new Deathpack formation take a stormwolf as a dedicated transport? Or is that not allowed because the flyer itself is not listed as a unit in the formation?

Question 3: Also, if a rune priest wyrdstorm formation joins the wolf lord on thunderwolf and thunderwolf cavalry in the Deathpack are they still permitted to run and charge?

More good news. Looks like they have started to see they need players to keep their collectible model games profitable.

Hope they continue this trend.

Question 1:
How do the new Daemon Psychic powers in the Scions of the Warp booklet update/replace/supplement the old ones. Is it including the restrictions of the old codex, making the Tzeentch artifact useless or do the old restrictions not apply to the new powers?

Question 2:
in the min-codex supplied the Bloodthirster entry is replaced with the one from the Scions of the Warp booklet.
Unlike the old Bloodthirster from the normal codex these seem to be missing the 'Lord of Blood' rule that lets you take Daemon Princes of Khorne as Heavy Support _IF_ you take a normal Bloodthirster or Skarbrand as a HQ choice. All the other gods' greater demons still have their respective rules that let you do that. Is this intended or a misprint?

Question 3:
The Exalted Flamer of Tzeentch only has Heavy type weapons. This means if you deepstrike you can only snapshot, if you move you snapshot. Combined with its short range it is almost useless.
It is strange that the version on a Burning Chariot of Tzeentch is relentless and doesn't have this problem. Is this intended or an oversight?

OH, someone ask about the Tesla Sphere's firing arc.

I asked about Independent characters joining units, and specifically about things like

"A unit of X from this detachment" with IC's joined.

Also asked if an IC joining an Astra Militarium unit then counts as part of an AM unit for orders, and benefits from those orders.

Haven't asked this as I'm not on the page yet, but surely

"If an independent character with the Psyker USR joins a unit with the Psyker USR (or Brotherhood of...) is it still considered a separate unit for the purposes of generating warp charge, casting the same power, etc..?"

Is a big one?

Only 1 question per person? Well something tells me the questions asked and subsequently answered here will be a drop in the ocean.

It's... something I guess.

Likelihood that these questions will become published in actual GQ website FAQs?
...
I'm not holding out a lot of hope.

Does Psychic Shriek require a roll to hit?

Can a psyker benefit from both Psychic Focus and Chaos Psychic Focus if it chooses to only randomly generate powers from a single non-god specific discipline? For example, would Herald of Tzeentch who only rolls on Malefic Daemonology gain the primaris powers for both Malefic Daemonology and Change?

What is the definition of a "psychic unit" for the purposes of the Psychic Phase? Do psykers who are Independent Characters and join a unit generate Warp Charge during the Psychic Phase? What if the unit contains other psykers or is itself a psyker (due to the Brotherhood of Psykers special rule for instance)? Can a psyker that has joined a unit attempt to cast a power if another psyker in unit they've joined has already attempted to cast the same power that Psychic Phase?

Take more than an faq to fix the current mess 40k is in

 Motograter wrote:
Take more than an faq to fix the current mess 40k is in

It's a start... which is something.

 Shandara wrote:
Question 1:
How do the new Daemon Psychic powers in the Scions of the Warp booklet update/replace/supplement the old ones. Is it including the restrictions of the old codex, making the Tzeentch artifact useless or do the old restrictions not apply to the new powers?

I went with this one.

Seriously, though, it's a mess.
They really should have done it on a week by week, army by army basis.
ie. "Alright, guys, this week is Blood Angels! Please post your BA related questions below. You have until Saturday to ask your questions (ONE per person. Ask two and we'll just skip you) and then we'll move on to the next army."

 skoffs wrote:
Seriously, though, it's a mess.
They really should have done it on a week by week, army by army basis.
ie. "Alright, guys, this week is Blood Angels! Please post your BA related questions below. You have until Saturday to ask your questions (ONE per person. Ask two and we'll just skip you) and then we'll move on to the next army."

Doing it like that actually acknowledges that there are MASSIVE problems with the game though.

'Can we have a decent CSM Codex please?'

I asked about space wolf BA and GK dreadnoughts getting their base attacks adjusted to reflect the newer marine dexes.

This is fantastic news!

 skoffs wrote:
Likelihood that these questions will become published in actual GQ website FAQs?
...
I'm not holding out a lot of hope.

Except for the first time in a long time they hired a community rep.
Considering rules designers weren't allowed to engage directly anymore and the fact the community rep said he will post it on Facebook and then try to update the faqs. It's a lot more hopeful the Before.

 bubber wrote:
'Can we have a decent CSM Codex please?'

Sadly, I've seen this asked close to 10 times in the comments already.

Yea instead of being happy that they are communicating and doing FAQ's plenty of people are asking obviously unrelated questions to ensure this is a failure. There are plenty of silly or flat outdated rules and costs but this should be seized upon to ask for clear answers to ambiguous rules.

It's a great step in the right directions, let's hope the comments don't blow up into a mess.

They're already a mess. Soooooo much wishlisting, gritching, and whinging.

skarsol wrote:
They're already a mess. Soooooo much wishlisting, gritching, and whinging.

Yea and people flat out asking a dozen things instead of one. I mean, I get that there are a lot, but I stuck to one question having faith in probability that in a week of thousands of gamers asking questions that most would be asked anyway.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Yea instead of being happy that they are communicating and doing FAQ's plenty of people are asking obviously unrelated questions to ensure this is a failure.

It's a great step in the right directions, let's hope the comments don't blow up into a mess.

What did they expect to happen? They've finally given their customers an outlet to vent to the company themselves. These FB pages are not even a week old. You're going to get an initial burst of things like this as people want to get stuff off their chests. If GW really want to stay the course and not have a mardy like last time and take their ball and storm off they have to weather all of this. Let people vent, let people say what they've gotta say; then once all this has (hopefully for them) died down, then they can get to the actual questions.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Seriously, though, it's a mess.
They really should have done it on a week by week, army by army basis.
ie. "Alright, guys, this week is Blood Angels! Please post your BA related questions below. You have until Saturday to ask your questions (ONE per person. Ask two and we'll just skip you) and then we'll move on to the next army."

Doing it like that actually acknowledges that there are MASSIVE problems with the game though.

You'd get the same muppets asking stupid questions / trolling / "venting" regardless of how they did it. Facebook is hardly a bastion of reasoned discourse. They should've just done something through the stores instead.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Yea instead of being happy that they are communicating and doing FAQ's plenty of people are asking obviously unrelated questions to ensure this is a failure. There are plenty of silly or flat outdated rules and costs but this should be seized upon to ask for clear answers to ambiguous rules.

It's a great step in the right directions, let's hope the comments don't blow up into a mess.

its 2 hours and 750 comments in and already its full of turds asking useless questions and people writing paragraphs about their homebrew rules. Its going as well as expected, a dumpster fire.

You also get people trying to answer when they don't understand half of the question.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Yea instead of being happy that they are communicating and doing FAQ's plenty of people are asking obviously unrelated questions to ensure this is a failure. There are plenty of silly or flat outdated rules and costs but this should be seized upon to ask for clear answers to ambiguous rules.

It's a great step in the right directions, let's hope the comments don't blow up into a mess.

its 2 hours and 750 comments in and already its full of turds asking useless questions and people writing paragraphs about their homebrew rules. Its going as well as expected, a dumpster fire.

Yea I noticed lol. People want answers but they are refusing to be reasonable. Odds are this ends in a mess with no real answers, there is no way in hell I would want to filter through that garbage fire. Would have been easier to collect data from store managers who have already gotten lists of questions from their clients.

 Ghaz wrote:
You also get people trying to answer when they don't understand half of the question.

So much of this. Shame FB doesn't offer a way to turn off replies to comments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Yea instead of being happy that they are communicating and doing FAQ's plenty of people are asking obviously unrelated questions to ensure this is a failure. There are plenty of silly or flat outdated rules and costs but this should be seized upon to ask for clear answers to ambiguous rules.

It's a great step in the right directions, let's hope the comments don't blow up into a mess.

its 2 hours and 750 comments in and already its full of turds asking useless questions and people writing paragraphs about their homebrew rules. Its going as well as expected, a dumpster fire.

Yea I noticed lol. People want answers but they are refusing to be reasonable. Odds are this ends in a mess with no real answers, there is no way in hell I would want to filter through that garbage fire. Would have been easier to collect data from store managers who have already gotten lists of questions from their clients.

Or, you know, look at the emails received at their dedicated "FAQ" email address.

I asked if the warp spider flicker jump was meant to be unlimited or limited to once per shooting phase.

I suggest we just try to thumb up the good questions and hope that they can filter through it afterwards. But there are many better ways to do this, yeah. Atleast their trying!

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Yea instead of being happy that they are communicating and doing FAQ's plenty of people are asking obviously unrelated questions to ensure this is a failure. There are plenty of silly or flat outdated rules and costs but this should be seized upon to ask for clear answers to ambiguous rules.

It's a great step in the right directions, let's hope the comments don't blow up into a mess.

its 2 hours and 750 comments in and already its full of turds asking useless questions and people writing paragraphs about their homebrew rules. Its going as well as expected, a dumpster fire.

Yea I noticed lol. People want answers but they are refusing to be reasonable. Odds are this ends in a mess with no real answers, there is no way in hell I would want to filter through that garbage fire. Would have been easier to collect data from store managers who have already gotten lists of questions from their clients.

In my experience even asking some of the more glaring rules queries to GW staff results in comments of "Idiots on the internet with too much time on their hands wanting to argue anything". Or words to that effect.

skarsol wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
You also get people trying to answer when they don't understand half of the question.

So much of this. Shame FB doesn't offer a way to turn off replies to comments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Yea instead of being happy that they are communicating and doing FAQ's plenty of people are asking obviously unrelated questions to ensure this is a failure. There are plenty of silly or flat outdated rules and costs but this should be seized upon to ask for clear answers to ambiguous rules.

It's a great step in the right directions, let's hope the comments don't blow up into a mess.

its 2 hours and 750 comments in and already its full of turds asking useless questions and people writing paragraphs about their homebrew rules. Its going as well as expected, a dumpster fire.

Yea I noticed lol. People want answers but they are refusing to be reasonable. Odds are this ends in a mess with no real answers, there is no way in hell I would want to filter through that garbage fire. Would have been easier to collect data from store managers who have already gotten lists of questions from their clients.

Or, you know, look at the emails received at their dedicated "FAQ" email address.

I am honestly surprised they didn't simply hyperlink an email address for users to submit questions. I get that having them all viewable in theory should cut down on some redundancy but realistically nobody is going to read through thousands of posts before asking their own question. Actually, the smartest route they could have gone is to simply download the ITC, ETC and NOVA FAQ's and just use their questions but with GW's official answers to them.

Asking people openly for rules questions is not the right way to go. Im starting to sympathize with GW anytime they step forward to address the public because after 24 years in this hobby I have to say a majority of people in it are useless goob gaks that couldn't tell a rulebook from crayon.

They need to ask a dedicate group of people that actually play the game. They could have easily approached frontline and filtered out their stupidity of the ITC. The work is already done and anyone that is knowledgeable about 40k could tell you what's up.

Oh well. It was a good effort.

This may not be the best way, but it is the most visible. This is being done to SHOW us that they are willing to listen for PR.

I will assume that they will actually go through it, because why be negative?

I added the one rules problem that has been nagging at me for YEARS!!! Ever since the rule was introduced in 5E if I remember correctly.
Feel free to like my post, maybe they will take the 10 most liked questions or something instead of having to read through that hellscape.
No idea how to link my comment or if it's even possible, just search for Daniel Karlsson and you will find it.

And NO, this question has never been answered and regardless of what "you" think is the right answer people will disagree with you. I'd rule it that skimmers can't deepstrike mishap from landing on friendly or enemy models but when I brought this up in the rules section I got shouted down with that deepstrike doesn't count as movement (though for some god forsaken reason they still claimed it counted as having moved).

This rule is a game changer, perhaps the rule that could have the biggest impact in the game and how it's played.
Monoliths could now deepstrike without fear of mishap, DE could deepstrike more aggressively and so could everyone else with deepstriking skimmers. Who else other than DE and Necrons have skimmers than can deepstrike though?

Daniel Karlsson This is one of the most important and game changing rules questions that hasn't been answered since the rule was introduced in 5th Edition.
SKIMMERS
MOVING SKIMMERS - Last line
"If a Skimmer is forced to end its move over friendly or enemy models, move the Skimmer the minimum distance so that no models are left underneath it."

When can this happen? Only time in the game that I can think of is during deepstrike. Does this mean that Skimmers can not Deepstrike Mishap from scattering onto friendly or enemy models?
You still mishap if you scatter off the table but not on friendly or enemy models.
I've been told this is not the case because deepstrike does NOT count as movement, it counts as having moved but NOT movement.
Please clarify when this can happen and if deepstrike counts as movement or not.

 DarkBlack wrote:
This may not be the best way, but it is the most visible. This is being done to SHOW us that they are willing to listen for PR.

I will assume that they will actually go through it, because why be negative?

Oh I agree, its awesome GW is taking the effort. Its just not going to be a productive use of their time. Like others have already said, just go to ITC, ETC, and NOVA FAQs and just filter out the dumb.

That Skimmer question has been asked at least 5 times in that post, so it's not just you.

The only query Ive had recently was the Patriarch/psychic shriek thing, otherwise I mostly play with opponents mature enough to work out disagreements or, at worst, dice it off.

On the plus side, yes this does have much more visibility than just asking for submissions by email, and by collating the results into new FAQs it provides a consistent answer, as opposed to a half-dozen email responses sent to individual people that may conflict or be internally inconsistent.

On the minus side, people are stupid, and they get stupider in groups. There is every chance actual, useful questions will get swamped by the meaningless chaff. I'm old enough to remember the Official GW forums back in the day and their gargantuan, meandering FAQ threads that, while they occasionally had welcome, insightful input from the devs, all too often devolved into a baying mob of nonsense. I'm sure they played more than a small part in GW's long hiatus from interacting with customers online

 Ravenous D wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:
This may not be the best way, but it is the most visible. This is being done to SHOW us that they are willing to listen for PR.

I will assume that they will actually go through it, because why be negative?

Oh I agree, its awesome GW is taking the effort. Its just not going to be a productive use of their time. Like others have already said, just go to ITC, ETC, and NOVA FAQs and just filter out the dumb.

Perhaps they already have the FaQ ready, and put on a show.
Its also a way to see how many people they can lure to their FB.
Cynical suspicions aside, the whole FB thing and interaction with the customers is actually great news!

I would hope they have that much forethought to just put it up there for a show and get their FAQs from people that actually have a brain in their heads free from the effects of paint chips and lodged crayons.

Good someone asked the Hunter Cadre question about Coordinated Firepower.

If I go in a store and someone stinks, do my nurgle/ pestilential troops get a bonus in game?

"Is the Wraithknight's extremely low cost just a misprint?"

I'm not willing to reactivate my Facebook right now for a variety of reasons, but has anyone asked about the Tau Hunter Contingent and how special rules are supposed to interact with the squad-joining mechanic (in an intelligent way)?

This is absolutely great, there's a whole bunch of positively angry grognards trying to police people's questions. The comedy writes itself

Threw in the squadron tank shock dilemma.

The amount of people who don't read the rulebook are freaking staggering haha

"Can Centurions ride in Drop Pods?"

MilkmanAl wrote:
I'm not willing to reactivate my Facebook right now for a variety of reasons, but has anyone asked about the Tau Hunter Contingent and how special rules are supposed to interact with the squad-joining mechanic (in an intelligent way)?

I am also not on Facebook, but expect the answer to this question to be something like "we don't see a problem here, but if your opponent agree....."

Requizen wrote:
The amount of people who don't read the rulebook are freaking staggering haha

"Can Centurions ride in Drop Pods?"

But can they ride on them! Yee haw!

Has anyone asked about 1+ fnp because that's another ganky rule.

gungo wrote:
Has anyone asked about 1+ fnp because that's another ganky rule.

atleast a few people have yeh

 Ravenous D wrote:
Asking people openly for rules questions is not the right way to go. Im starting to sympathize with GW anytime they step forward to address the public because after 24 years in this hobby I have to say a majority of people in it are useless goob gaks that couldn't tell a rulebook from crayon.

They need to ask a dedicate group of people that actually play the game. They could have easily approached frontline and filtered out their stupidity of the ITC. The work is already done and anyone that is knowledgeable about 40k could tell you what's up.

Oh well. It was a good effort.

It's absolutely the right thing to do. They are doing what people have been crying out for these last few years and they are making a big public show of it. Win for us, PR win for them. They knew they would have a lot of comments to sift through, but I'm sure they will manage. From what I can see pretty much 75% of the comments are duplicate questions. It doesn't take long to skim over them.

Also for a genuine FAQ the need the 'idiot' questions that are actually explained in the rules,

because they still confuse a lot of players

Hopefully the massive response will make it clear they need to something more substantial than just a FB effort.

How about actually answering rules queries sent to their mails in an actual FAQ

Actually, that "they've already done the FAQs and this is just a PR thing" theory sounds pretty plausible.

 Shandara wrote:
Hopefully the massive response will make it clear they need to something more substantial than just a FB effort.

How about actually answering rules queries sent to their mails in an actual FAQ

FB comments are just as good as an email. Plus it's public, so you're not sat there wondering if they've received it or if it's gone in the spam folder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
Actually, that "they've already done the FAQs and this is just a PR thing" theory sounds pretty plausible.

Tin hat much?

Someone should compile all the questions for the community rep into a pictute doc attached to the fb post. Not that we should do the work for GW but because I seriously doubt he will transfer all the questions correctly and it's over 1100 comments and not even a day out.

Also they need one of these for fw rules.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Hopefully the massive response will make it clear they need to something more substantial than just a FB effort.

How about actually answering rules queries sent to their mails in an actual FAQ

FB comments are just as good as an email. Plus it's public, so you're not sat there wondering if they've received it or if it's gone in the spam folder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
Actually, that "they've already done the FAQs and this is just a PR thing" theory sounds pretty plausible.

Tin hat much?

Actually I wouldn't be surprised, no need to accuse him of sporting aluminum foil. If I worked in PR this is exactly the type of effortless move that can only make you look better without the impossible task of filtering that crapshow. I mean lets be honest, some poor bastard would need to not only filter out all the redundancy but also the language and then split it all into appropriate categories for factions and rules, and supplements. That's a nightmare. Unless you have already been addressing most issues and this is just a token olive branch.

 Shandara wrote:
Hopefully the massive response will make it clear they need to something more substantial than just a FB effort.

How about actually answering rules queries sent to their mails in an actual FAQ

They responded to my post asking that saying that they were including questions from the emails as well.

We may actually get an answer to the Psychic Shriek/Roll to hit/Can the Patriarch fire it out of his ass question.

While there may be hundreds of different rules conundrums, it doesn't seem to me to be a monumental effort to get the game designers to go over all the pertinent questions and write an answer. It's a night's worth of homework really.

I find it amusing to imagine that we're all in the process of turning the GW Studio into a real life, really heated, YMDC thread.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I find it amusing to imagine that we're all in the process of turning the GW Studio into a real life, really heated, YMDC thread.

Exalted

I asked if you have to roll to hit on any focused witchfires. None of them have weapon profiles...

And the validity of these answers is... ?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the validity of these answers is... ?

Since they're giving them to the rules team to answer, 100%.

 skoffs wrote:
Actually, that "they've already done the FAQs and this is just a PR thing" theory sounds pretty plausible.

It's what I'd do.

Go through the major tournaments comp packs beforehand and answer the questions in their faq's (not necessarily with the same answers). Add a few questions from this facebook survey and job's a good 'un.

This said. I'll believe they will actually release a comprehensive and official FAQ once I see it. Not before.

Asked about KDK FMC summoning.

Not the only one who asked this.

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the validity of these answers is... ?

Since they're giving them to the rules team to answer, 100%.

Actually you mean the design studio. The rules team AKA the mail order guys over the phone have no more validity than you or I, traditionally giving contradictory answers to the same question.

I asked them about Multi-trackers on Overwatch. Just fair warning to anyone who also wants to ask that.

If this is for genuinely Frequently Asked Questions then duplicates should not be filtered out. If 110 people out of 1,100 ask a particular question, it shows the point is very widely misunderstood.

It won't take much effort for GW to download the whole thread and sort it into genuine queries, suggestions and wish lists.

They can then generate answers as they feel appropriate. For instance if someone asks a question that is answered in the rulebook -- Can Centurions ride in Drop Pods -- they can do an answer saying this is covered on p.XX of the rules. If the query is a real question caused by confusion in the rules, they can make a definitive official ruling.

Naturally it would be nice if GW would take more care writing their rules in the beginning, rather than wait and do FAQs every few years.

Would it be worth asking about levels under blasts or template/blast weapons on MCs (I think) having skyfire?

I'm glad they are doing this. It might not be organised but at least they recognise that they need to do it

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Asked about KDK FMC summoning.

Not the only one who asked this.

I hope you 'liked' those other similar questions too, then.

The FB post with 1.6k comments reminds me of desperate children trying to get any kind of attention from a severely neglectful parent.

How this could actually turn into a decent FAQ (When the main tournament circuits already produce better FAQs) is beyond my understanding.

The various tournament circuits produce decent FAQs for tournament players,

but they aren't official GW FAQs (and lots of people only care about what GW says),

and they are aimed at tournament players who are on the high end of understanding the rules so may well not be asking (all) the questions that mater to the larger, occasional player base

And let's be honest if these faqs come out they will influence every tournament faq.

Has anyone asked if flickerjump is a warpjump and thus limited to one a turn?

Has anyone asked if shrike is intended to be solo because infiltrate makes it so he can't join most units?

Of course they're going to influence tournament FAQs. With some exceptions, most tournaments defer to GW rules unless there's actual confusion as to how to rule/play something, which is where their personal FAQs come in. Anything other than that is changing rules, which in my experience are few and far between (Invis changes, 2+ rerolling, etc).

These FAQ updates will invariably force an update in all tournament FAQs. Likely, many of the answers will overlap since they're common sense or based off RAI (1 Spyder per Canoptek Harvest, for instance), but others may not.

I do not expect to see the FAQs create any actual rule or point changes, however, unless it's to correct a typo or accidental misprint.

Asked whether GMCs get cover just from being in area terrain or if they need to be 25% obscured. I know it's pretty clear in the rulebook, but I figure it's worth a shot.

Requizen wrote:


These FAQ updates will invariably force an update in all tournament FAQs. Likely, many of the answers will overlap since they're common sense or based off RAI (1 Spyder per Canoptek Harvest, for instance), but others may not.

I wouldn't be sop sure actually, in the past they have FAQ'd things that were not even up for debate and made a massive change to a unit. Off the top of my head the most noteworthy being helldrakes gaining 360 degree firing out of nowhere. I can't think of a formation FAQ to date however meaning there isn't much precedent if any. I would NOT be surprised for example if multiple spyders were allowed in a CH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 O'Whelk wrote:
Asked whether GMCs get cover just from being in area terrain or if they need to be 25% obscured. I know it's pretty clear in the rulebook, but I figure it's worth a shot.

It's funny how many times a possible FAQ question comes to mind only to realize the rule is clear but just monumentally stupid to begin with .

 Thokt wrote:
While there may be hundreds of different rules conundrums, it doesn't seem to me to be a monumental effort to get the game designers to go over all the pertinent questions and write an answer. It's a night's worth of homework really.

This is what I was thinking also. It would really only take a couple of days to go through even 5000 replies. Most of them are going to be "psychic shriek again" or a complaint about not having a codex. It really won't take long to skip those. They will probably distill all of that down into about 100 valid rules conundrums, then they'll solve 30 of them, if we're lucky. But that's better than zero.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the validity of these answers is... ?

Since they're giving them to the rules team to answer, 100%.

Actually you mean the design studio. The rules team AKA the mail order guys over the phone have no more validity than you or I, traditionally giving contradictory answers to the same question.

In the very first comment on the post they refer to the Design Studio as the "Rules Guys", so unless you're actually going to argue the "Rules Guys" are a distinct group from the "Rules Team", you're wrong

 Red Corsair wrote:

Requizen wrote:


These FAQ updates will invariably force an update in all tournament FAQs. Likely, many of the answers will overlap since they're common sense or based off RAI (1 Spyder per Canoptek Harvest, for instance), but others may not.

I wouldn't be sop sure actually, in the past they have FAQ'd things that were not even up for debate and made a massive change to a unit. Off the top of my head the most noteworthy being helldrakes gaining 360 degree firing out of nowhere. I can't think of a formation FAQ to date however meaning there isn't much precedent if any. I would NOT be surprised for example if multiple spyders were allowed in a CH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 O'Whelk wrote:
Asked whether GMCs get cover just from being in area terrain or if they need to be 25% obscured. I know it's pretty clear in the rulebook, but I figure it's worth a shot.

It's funny how many times a possible FAQ question comes to mind only to realize the rule is clear but just monumentally stupid to begin with .

I will say, that if they do follow through with this in a significant way, that there will be some solid head scratchers in the bunch.

 Kirasu wrote:
The FB post with 1.6k comments reminds me of desperate children trying to get any kind of attention from a severely neglectful parent.

How this could actually turn into a decent FAQ (When the main tournament circuits already produce better FAQs) is beyond my understanding.

Surely the first step in compiling a list of answers to frequently asked questions is to compile a list of frequently asked questions...?


Or am I misunderstanding the concept?

 Thokt wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Requizen wrote:


These FAQ updates will invariably force an update in all tournament FAQs. Likely, many of the answers will overlap since they're common sense or based off RAI (1 Spyder per Canoptek Harvest, for instance), but others may not.

I wouldn't be sop sure actually, in the past they have FAQ'd things that were not even up for debate and made a massive change to a unit. Off the top of my head the most noteworthy being helldrakes gaining 360 degree firing out of nowhere. I can't think of a formation FAQ to date however meaning there isn't much precedent if any. I would NOT be surprised for example if multiple spyders were allowed in a CH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 O'Whelk wrote:
Asked whether GMCs get cover just from being in area terrain or if they need to be 25% obscured. I know it's pretty clear in the rulebook, but I figure it's worth a shot.

It's funny how many times a possible FAQ question comes to mind only to realize the rule is clear but just monumentally stupid to begin with .

I will say, that if they do follow through with this in a significant way, that there will be some solid head scratchers in the bunch.

If this poor community rep guy does somehow succeed in getting the majority of these questions answered which I find doubtful since GW rules team have long ago abandoned the faq email address. With the amount of questions being asked and many about the same concept but regarding different examples I fully expect contradictory answers. I fully expect answers like no the IC will not benefit from skyhammer rules and yes an IC is considered part of a formation for rules purposes. This will only lead to follow up questions That will not be answered for another extended period of time.

Seriously though I will be surprised if the community rep guy is able to tie down one or multiple of the rules guy for a day and get them to answer all these questions. It's overwhelming just for me to read all 1700 comments and it's only day two of the week and the comments are only getting worst as time goes on. People are posting multiple repeated questions, asking for unit changes or improvements, or asking for old models to be remade again or old unit entries like Marbo.

To be fair after the first day I think every legitimate question was already asked in some form.

Charax wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the validity of these answers is... ?

Since they're giving them to the rules team to answer, 100%.

Actually you mean the design studio. The rules team AKA the mail order guys over the phone have no more validity than you or I, traditionally giving contradictory answers to the same question.

In the very first comment on the post they refer to the Design Studio as the "Rules Guys", so unless you're actually going to argue the "Rules Guys" are a distinct group from the "Rules Team", you're wrong

Someone needs to put that query into the list.

Anyone know if the question about the interactions of Lance weapons against necron quantum shielding has been asked?

I may also be completely missing something obvious but do passengers fire snap shots if a transport they are in Jinks? It seems like the answer should be obvious but I can't find any rules that say they do, perhaps worth asking as a RAI question?

I've seen both those questions asked multiple times. The top one almost exactly as you wrote it and the bottom one in reference to dark eldar tramsports.

Sort of related:

Interestingly, Games Workshop is also asking around their independent stockists for feedback and suggestions on what they could do differently.

The Age of Rountree will be interesting indeed.

gungo wrote:


Seriously though I will be surprised if the community rep guy is able to tie down one or multiple of the rules guy for a day and get them to answer all these questions. It's overwhelming just for me to read all 1700 comments and it's only day two of the week and the comments are only getting worst as time goes on. People are posting multiple repeated questions, asking for unit changes or improvements, or asking for old models to be remade again or old unit entries like Marbo.

To be fair after the first day I think every legitimate question was already asked in some form.

I would be shocked if the rules team sees a list of more then 50 questions They will certainly delete many of the stupid ones and group the repeated or similar questions together.

So long as they keep asking the community and this is not just a one-off, this could improve 40k in leaps and bounds.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
So long as they keep asking the community and this is not just a one-off, this could improve 40k in leaps and bounds.

Well, if they implement it. Bit of a turd polishing exercise unless the changes are placed into the game.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Sort of related:

Interestingly, Games Workshop is also asking around their independent stockists for feedback and suggestions on what they could do differently.

The Age of Rountree will be interesting indeed.

Step 1) allow forgeworld books to be sold in GW stores and fw models to be order for pick up in store as well as web only releases in store. This will increase sales in GW stores which has no leverage since online retailers are significantly cheaper. And will save customers shipping costs.

Step 2) allow independant retailers to order as kitties or as much product they want to stock. Independant safe forced to maintain large orders of stock that doesn't sell. This also means you may find a ton of comic/game shops with space marine starter kits and nothing else but it's better than them not stocking any GW product. I'm not sure what the independant stockist return policy is but there should be a 90 day return policy on product that doesn't sell. The ~25% markdown independants stockist recieve seem fair. Some of which is passed to consumers.

Step 3) add better battle reports on white dwarf that deal with more awkward game/rules scenarios. Add a faq section to white dwarf where the white dwarf team asks the rules team 2-3 rules questions in each magazine that we can submit.

Step 4) personally I think GW can keep printing money by releasing board game products that introduce new models into multiple game systems. Something like a new 28mm inquisitor skirmish game with models used in 40/30k. Redo chaos space marines with models useful in both 30/40k.

Step 5) I'm not sure how they can solve the issue of a fractured community and player base with the removal of game tables in most stores although I understand the reason to reduce costs. They will need a vibrant organized play community like ffg has for xwing but split it via narrative and competitive like most tournaments do.

gungo wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Sort of related:

Interestingly, Games Workshop is also asking around their independent stockists for feedback and suggestions on what they could do differently.

The Age of Rountree will be interesting indeed.

Step 2) allow independant retailers to order as kitties or as much product they want to stock. Independant safe forced to maintain large orders of stock that doesn't sell. This also means you may find a ton of comic/game shops with space marine starter kits and nothing else but it's better than them not stocking any GW product. I'm not sure what the independant stockist return policy is but there should be a 90 day return policy on product that doesn't sell. The ~25% markdown independants stockist recieve seem fair. Some of which is passed to consumers.

Just to comment on this based on (old) experience, most product in comic/game stores is purchased at about a 40% discount. 25% makes for a comparatively slim margin and GW boxes take up a fair amount of space. For comparison, Privateer Press appears to wholesale with a 40-50% discount through the distributor. That said, there is no shortage of online vendors who will sell GW product at 25% off, so I can't imagine they're only getting a 25% discount.

just put this up in the thread on YMDC, but worth reposting here

Here is the first 1950 responses, roughly filtered to remove most of the headings. If you put a word in cell A1 column A will tell you whether it is included in the text to the right. You can then use the filter to bring up all questions with the word "wraith" in them for example.

skarsol wrote:

gungo wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Sort of related:

Interestingly, Games Workshop is also asking around their independent stockists for feedback and suggestions on what they could do differently.

The Age of Rountree will be interesting indeed.

Step 2) allow independant retailers to order as kitties or as much product they want to stock. Independant safe forced to maintain large orders of stock that doesn't sell. This also means you may find a ton of comic/game shops with space marine starter kits and nothing else but it's better than them not stocking any GW product. I'm not sure what the independant stockist return policy is but there should be a 90 day return policy on product that doesn't sell. The ~25% markdown independants stockist recieve seem fair. Some of which is passed to consumers.

Just to comment on this based on (old) experience, most product in comic/game stores is purchased at about a 40% discount. 25% makes for a comparatively slim margin and GW boxes take up a fair amount of space. For comparison, Privateer Press appears to wholesale with a 40-50% discount through the distributor. That said, there is no shortage of online vendors who will sell GW product at 25% off, so I can't imagine they're only getting a 25% discount.

yea I don't know the exact number all I know is I had a local hobby store sell off its stock and wouldn't stack a $5 off coupon I had in the store because the owner said it would be a loss if they did. It might be 40% but I've never seen discounts higher then 25% on any of thier products.

The wholesale discount is tiered, but I believe 40% is the most common.

GW don't like people discounting too heavily, and somewhere in their trade terms is, I believe, something to the effect of "we're not allowed to tell you what price to sell our product for, but we are allowed, however, to choose who we do and don't supply for any reason, so before you discount too heavily, think about that."

 Azreal13 wrote:
The wholesale discount is tiered, but I believe 40% is the most common.

GW don't like people discounting too heavily, and somewhere in their trade terms is, I believe, something to the effect of "we're not allowed to tell you what price to sell our product for, but we are allowed, however, to choose who we do and don't supply for any reason, so before you discount too heavily, think about that."

Yep, there are plenty of ways for suppliers to make life difficult for heavy discounters without breaking the law.

I asked about how many psychic powers per turn. Ie: can Grey Knights strike squads cast Hammerhand and Force in the same turn? The community in Australia seems to be 50/50 on that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's become a routine question to ask before games.

Yeah, that's been asked many many times in the thread. It's one of the bigger true issues needing resolution due to their ambiguous wording.

Anyone asked yet if piranha formation can leave the table the same turn it enters?

gungo wrote:
And let's be honest if these faqs come out they will influence every tournament faq.

Has anyone asked if flickerjump is a warpjump and thus limited to one a turn?

Has anyone asked if shrike is intended to be solo because infiltrate makes it so he can't join most units?

I asked about the flicker jump

 Hulksmash wrote:
Anyone asked yet if piranha formation can leave the table the same turn it enters?

Yes

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Yea instead of being happy that they are communicating and doing FAQ's plenty of people are asking obviously unrelated questions to ensure this is a failure.

It's a great step in the right directions, let's hope the comments don't blow up into a mess.

What did they expect to happen? They've finally given their customers an outlet to vent to the company themselves. These FB pages are not even a week old. You're going to get an initial burst of things like this as people want to get stuff off their chests. If GW really want to stay the course and not have a mardy like last time and take their ball and storm off they have to weather all of this. Let people vent, let people say what they've gotta say; then once all this has (hopefully for them) died down, then they can get to the actual questions.

There's no reason to make excuses for ass-hats to be ass-hats, is there?

It's less 'making excuses' and more 'not being at all surprised'...


However appropriate (or not) that behaviour is, it's a completely unsurprising reaction to GW finally opening the floodgates after shutting themselves away for so long. If they can keep it up and are willing to put some serious effort into rebuilding a more positive relationship with their customer base, it will eventually die down... but there's going to have to be a certain amount of hunkering in and weathering the storm before that can happen.

 insaniak wrote:
It's less 'making excuses' and more 'not being at all surprised'...


However appropriate (or not) that behaviour is, it's a completely unsurprising reaction to GW finally opening the floodgates after shutting themselves away for so long. If they can keep it up and are willing to put some serious effort into rebuilding a more positive relationship with their customer base, it will eventually die down... but there's going to have to be a certain amount of hunkering in and weathering the storm before that can happen.

This is more or less my train of logic. Deserved? Yes.
Is it the route of the better Man/Woman/Genderfluidanthropomorphicwolf? No.
We'll see what GW thinks.

Hey guys,
We wanted to say a big thank you to all of you who took the time to send in your questions for the next round of FAQs.
There were a lot of them (over 2,000!), so bear with us — we'll get the answers back to you as quickly as we can.
If you didn't get a chance to ask your question, there are good odds someone already did, so don't worry too much. While you're waiting, feel free to resolve any rules disputes in the time-honoured tradition of Rock, Paper, Chainsword.

The Rock, Paper, Chainsword made me lol

 Swampmist wrote:
The Rock, Paper, Chainsword made me lol

Yeah...Games Workshop is running dangerously close to being cool again.

Can't wait, seeing that most of the Necron questions were asked.

 Swampmist wrote:
The Rock, Paper, Chainsword made me lol

I usually play rock, paper, chainsword, lascannon.

I normally win, unless it's an Eldar player, then they just whip out D-Cannon...

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Swampmist wrote:
The Rock, Paper, Chainsword made me lol

I usually play rock, paper, chainsword, lascannon.

I normally win, unless it's an Eldar player, then they just whip out D-Cannon...

I would never whip out my D-cannon in a rock paper scissors game. That's just indecent.

I'm just thrilled that a real, actual human being might look at mob rule and say "oh yea, hey, we left off 7 and 8 from the table." Even if they don't do anything to make the rule more fun (i.e. having the ork player not kill quite so many of his own models) at least we know that we aren't losing just because of a misprint. Heck, I'd rather lose to Tau than a Typo.

OP, please update title to let us know if they post a reply

gungo wrote:


Has anyone asked if shrike is intended to be solo because infiltrate makes it so he can't join most units?

Yes, I asked about Shrike.

(Shouldn't have to, the wording is clear. Before deployment, he can only join Jump Units is how his rule is worded.

The FAQ ruling on infiltrate only applies during deployment.

All IC's are shown to be joined to a unit during deployment.

Therefore, Shrike can join a Jump Unit, and confer Infiltrate because he attaches before Deployment begins. But its written vague enough for people to question it, despite the history of the character and rule. )

That argument doesn't work, though, because there is no mechanism for joining ICs to units prior to deployment (other than putting them into reserves).

So Shrike's rule, as written, does nothing more than add an extra restriction to something that he doesnt have permission to do in the first place.

Or the rule actually grants that permission.

It doesn't, though. The rule as written is a restriction - when he joins a unit prior to deployment, that unit can only be Jump Infantry.

There is no permission in that. Just a restriction, with the assumption that a particular action (joining units prior to deployment) would normally be allowed.

The really stupid thing about this issue is that it's been there since Shrike was first introduced in 4th edition. The eventually fixed it by changing the IC rules in an FAQ towards the end of 5th edition... and then dropped that change out of the switch to 6th edition.

surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

 Mousemuffins wrote:
surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

Why should we believe that what the rules say is not what they intended? Especially in light of a FAQ that reinforces that as their intention?

Okay, sorry for my possible ignorance,(and off topicness), but what is the rule for if not to allow him to infiltrate with his wing?

It's supposed to work that way, probably, but GW wrote every other rule in the game to make sure it doesn't work.

RAI only comes up when the rule isn't clear. Rules are very straightforward here, and they contradict his at every step. FAQ might fix it.

Requizen wrote:


RAI only comes up when the rule isn't clear. .

Hmm. Why is this? Surely every rule is written to convey an intention?

 Mousemuffins wrote:



Hmm. Why is this? Surely every rule is written to convey an intention?

...you must be new to GW.

 Mousemuffins wrote:
surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

Sure. Just as the intention was obvious in the 3rd edition Dark Eldar codex, when GW decided to require you to join an IC to a unit when you were writing your list in order to give them a transport.

It would be nice for the rules to actually say what they mean though, rather than just hint at it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mousemuffins wrote:
surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

Sure. Just as the intention was obvious in the 3rd edition Dark Eldar codex, when GW decided to require you to join an IC to a unit when you were writing your list in order to give them a transport.

It would be nice for the rules to actually say what they mean though, rather than just hint at it.

Reminds me of the old Initiative Boosting Weapon vs Banshee Masks/Tyranid Lash Whips (reduce enemy I to 1 in assault) debate... The intent was so very clear when GW produced two opposite answers in two different FAQs, despite the Banshee Mask and Lash Whip rules reading almost identically. (As an aside, of course the Tyranids got the shafted ruling )

On topic: I'm looking forward to seeing answers when they come out. Hopefully we get something thoughtful this time instead of more confusion...

I jus thope it doesn't mean they'are working on a new edition, instead of an actual FAQ release.

I, wondering if they are going to release this with the he anniversary weekend, and then can say they love us so much that they are doing everything we ever asked during this celebratory time. A few lucky customers will even get a pony!

 Shandara wrote:
I jus thope it doesn't mean they'are working on a new edition, instead of an actual FAQ release.

GW starts working on a new Edition after the actual one is released.
So of course they are working on a new one instead of a proper FAQ.

General Hobbs wrote:

gungo wrote:


Has anyone asked if shrike is intended to be solo because infiltrate makes it so he can't join most units?

Yes, I asked about Shrike.

(Shouldn't have to, the wording is clear. Before deployment, he can only join Jump Units is how his rule is worded.

The FAQ ruling on infiltrate only applies during deployment.

All IC's are shown to be joined to a unit during deployment.

Therefore, Shrike can join a Jump Unit, and confer Infiltrate because he attaches before Deployment begins. But its written vague enough for people to question it, despite the history of the character and rule. )

insaniak wrote:That argument doesn't work, though, because there is no mechanism for joining ICs to units prior to deployment (other than putting them into reserves).

So Shrike's rule, as written, does nothing more than add an extra restriction to something that he doesnt have permission to do in the first place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Or the rule actually grants that permission.

insaniak wrote:It doesn't, though. The rule as written is a restriction - when he joins a unit prior to deployment, that unit can only be Jump Infantry.

There is no permission in that. Just a restriction, with the assumption that a particular action (joining units prior to deployment) would normally be allowed.

The really stupid thing about this issue is that it's been there since Shrike was first introduced in 4th edition. The eventually fixed it by changing the IC rules in an FAQ towards the end of 5th edition... and then dropped that change out of the switch to 6th edition.

Mousemuffins wrote:surely though, the intention is obvious? He can join a unit of Jump Infantry that can then infiltrate? Why would anyone even argue this?

Oh my poor head is spinning after reading this. Now I remember why I don't play no more. We all have to become rule lawyers to play a 40K game or don't visit YMDC forums lol.

It's the Internet. What do you expect!

And old one, but a good one that new players struggle with...

How many powers can a psyker use?

RAW = Equal to their mastery level.
RAI = Equal to their mastery level.
How it's been in every edition of 40K ever = Equal to their mastery level.

How the community has been influenced for 7th via an unofficial internet FAQ bias to and dictated by competitive and WAAC players = Go wild until you don't have any more warp charge dice.

A simple weigh in from GW would resolve.

Davor wrote:

Oh my poor head is spinning after reading this. Now I remember why I don't play no more. We all have to become rule lawyers to play a 40K game or don't visit YMDC forums lol.

The whole point of asking for badly-written rules to be clarified is to remove the potential for argument over the meaning of the rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
And old one, but a good one that new players struggle with...

How many powers can a psyker use?

RAW = Equal to their mastery level.
RAI = Equal to their mastery level.
How it's been in every edition of 40K ever = Equal to their mastery level.

How the community has been influenced for 7th via an unofficial internet FAQ bias to and dictated by competitive and WAAC players = Go wild until you don't have any more warp charge dice.

A simple weigh in from GW would resolve.

That's a spectacularly one-sided version of that discussion.

'Equal to their mastery level is not the current RAW. And 'how it's been in ever previous edition' is not a reliable metric for rules interpretation, since stuff changes in every edition.

Davor wrote:
Oh my poor head is spinning after reading this. Now I remember why I don't play no more. We all have to become rule lawyers to play a 40K game or don't visit YMDC forums lol.

Except that it's only like 1% of special rules that require discussion. The rest of the game is relatively straightforward if you have a cursory understanding of the BRB and your own Codex.

 kodos wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
I jus thope it doesn't mean they'are working on a new edition, instead of an actual FAQ release.

GW starts working on a new Edition after the actual one is released.
So of course they are working on a new one instead of a proper FAQ.

I hope so- getting rid of most of the randomization of things like Warlord Traits, Objectives, and Psychic Powers would go a long way to getting me to play more often.

I wouldn't count on that. Random is GWs current method of avoiding having to balance anything. Even if 8th edition doesn't turn out to be AoS In Space, I would be surprised if it's any less random than the current rules.

 insaniak wrote:
I wouldn't count on that. Random is GWs current method of avoiding having to balance anything. Even if 8th edition doesn't turn out to be AoS In Space, I would be surprised if it's any less random than the current rules.

Ah, but a man can dream! Hopefully the Age of Rountree will see some tightening down on random tables. We appear to have gotten some other good things already(cheapish starter sets, return to social media, return of specialist games).

 Crazyterran wrote:
I, wondering if they are going to release this with the he anniversary weekend, and then can say they love us so much that they are doing everything we ever asked during this celebratory time. A few lucky customers will even get a pony!

A pony sounds delicious heheh

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
I jus thope it doesn't mean they'are working on a new edition, instead of an actual FAQ release.

GW starts working on a new Edition after the actual one is released.
So of course they are working on a new one instead of a proper FAQ.

I hope so- getting rid of most of the randomization of things like Warlord Traits, Objectives, and Psychic Powers would go a long way to getting me to play more often.

Expect it to get more random with the next edition (and morecsimplke mechanics that get much more complex rules)

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:

Oh my poor head is spinning after reading this. Now I remember why I don't play no more. We all have to become rule lawyers to play a 40K game or don't visit YMDC forums lol.

The whole point of asking for badly-written rules to be clarified is to remove the potential for argument over the meaning of the rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
And old one, but a good one that new players struggle with...

How many powers can a psyker use?

RAW = Equal to their mastery level.
RAI = Equal to their mastery level.
How it's been in every edition of 40K ever = Equal to their mastery level.

How the community has been influenced for 7th via an unofficial internet FAQ bias to and dictated by competitive and WAAC players = Go wild until you don't have any more warp charge dice.

A simple weigh in from GW would resolve.

That's a spectacularly one-sided version of that discussion.

'Equal to their mastery level is not the current RAW. And 'how it's been in ever previous edition' is not a reliable metric for rules interpretation, since stuff changes in every edition.

Do you own a rulebook? Read it again, it's right there in bold lettering. Unless you're trying to be difficult, are choosing to be blind or you're That Guy, it's irrefutable.

The bold you are referring to states

"The number of psychic powers a psyker may cast per turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now show me where that relationship is defined.

Is it 1 power per ML? 7? Is it 0.5?

Your assumption that it equates to 1:1 is not supported anywhere in the rulebook. It is a fair assumption, but that's all it is.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The bold you are referring to states

"The number of psychic powers a psyker may cast per turn is dependant on their mastery level."

Now show me where that relationship is defined.

It actually is defined in the Resolving the Psychic Phase section. The higher your mastery level, the more warp charge you generate and the more powers you can cast per turn. That section contains no prohibition on psykers casting more than 1 power per mastery level.

This is in danger of turning into a YMDC thread (again) but I've just checked that section, albeit quickly, and I can't find that clause?

 oni wrote:

Do you own a rulebook? Read it again, it's right there in bold lettering. Unless you're trying to be difficult, are choosing to be blind or you're That Guy, it's irrefutable.

It's really not.

As Azrael13 pointed out, the introduction to the psychic section mentions a relationship between Mastery Level and casting, but doesn't actually define it. That intro is a direct copy and past from last edition, when that relationship was a 1 for 1 deal... but the rest of the psychic phase rules have changed, and that direct correlation no longer exists. Instead, we have a psychic section that explicitly allows you to keep casting powers until you run out of warp charges.

So either it's supposed to be limited by your mastery level but they accidentally left that bit out of the rules, or it's supposed to be limited solely by the number of warp charges you generate and they didn't realise that the copy-paste intro would cause issues... but which of those possibilities is the right way to play it is in doubt. Hence the need for an FAQ.

Given the current games' strong leanings towards second edition, my personal assumption is that it's only supposed to be limited by warp charges, as that's how it worked in 2nd edition.



It's hardly the only problem with the current psychic rules...

 insaniak wrote:

 oni wrote:

Do you own a rulebook? Read it again, it's right there in bold lettering. Unless you're trying to be difficult, are choosing to be blind or you're That Guy, it's irrefutable.

It's really not.

As Azrael13 pointed out, the introduction to the psychic section mentions a relationship between Mastery Level and casting, but doesn't actually define it. That intro is a direct copy and past from last edition, when that relationship was a 1 for 1 deal... but the rest of the psychic phase rules have changed, and that direct correlation no longer exists. Instead, we have a psychic section that explicitly allows you to keep casting powers until you run out of warp charges.

So either it's supposed to be limited by your mastery level but they accidentally left that bit out of the rules, or it's supposed to be limited solely by the number of warp charges you generate and they didn't realise that the copy-paste intro would cause issues... but which of those possibilities is the right way to play it is in doubt. Hence the need for an FAQ.

Given the current games' strong leanings towards second edition, my personal assumption is that it's only supposed to be limited by warp charges, as that's how it worked in 2nd edition.



It's hardly the only problem with the current psychic rules...

Actually, specifically what it says is that the number of psychic powers a psyker can use per turn 'Depends on'(exact words) their mastery level. Which is why this whole discussion happens, because you could argue literally anything is what it means as long as their is correlation and still be just as correct as anyone else. A librarius conclave player would take that to mean the psyker can cast every power he has access to, his opponent, however, can claim that it's actually 7 mastery levels per 1 power and still be exactly right as per the literal interpretation of RAW. So they both argue until they physically can't speak anymore, never finish their game and go home angry.

This is why FAQs like ITC have to exist for competitive play.

I'm just now realizing that this was just a long winded way of say 'yes i agree' apologies.

And I expect the GW FAQ to answer this question with "A psyker can cast one power each phase"......

Those questions are usually asked AND answered on the first OT second week of release.

GW ignored thrm for years.

All others companies dont and that's the difference.

So, has there been anything from them (GW) since?

A friend asked them a week ago and they said they were basically done but were double-checking all their clarifications to make sure they don't just lead to more questions.

I have my fingers crossed for them releasing it any time this week. Should make a big splash.