A nice one for people that said that cover is useless for hordes:
Q: When determining whether a model benefits from
cover, does the model’s entire unit need to be fully on
or within terrain, or just the model making a particular
saving throw? A: All of the models in a unit need to be at least partially
on or within terrain if any of the models are to receive
the +1 bonus to their saving throw.
Note, however, that it is possible for a unit to gain the benefit
of cover as it suffers casualties during the Shooting phase by
removing those models that are not on, or within terrain. As
soon as the last model that was not on or within terrain is
slain, the rest of the unit immediately starts to receive the benefit
of cover.
You know! Put your sargeants and heavy weapons guys in cover first! Let the unnamed grunts die first for the team!
EDIT:
This is very usefull:
Q: Can you declare charges against units that are not
visible to the charging unit? A: Yes.
Note however that the unit being charged still obeys the
normal rules for targeting when it fires Overwatch, and so,
if a model cannot see the charging unit, it will not be able to
fire Overwatch
Well, time to jump aboard this "reroll before modifier" train. Sounds weird to me but that is how the game is supposed to work.
Atsknf will be argued over though. I think that the "adding number of casualties" for moral tests is not actually a modifier, it is working out the target number. If you count it as a modifier then atsknf doesn't work at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MaxT wrote: No errata, just FAQs. Puts that point changes bs rumour to bed.
Not really, as that would be in the Index FAQs anyway. This is really just a main rule FAQ.
Q: Can you declare charges against units that are not
visible to the charging unit? A: Yes.
Note however that the unit being charged still obeys the
normal rules for targeting when it fires Overwatch, and so,
if a model cannot see the charging unit, it will not be able to
fire Overwatch
My friend loves to abuse the fact that his ruler is wavy and bendy and nothing in the rulebook before said anything about a "straight line". Now he might actually use it for tactical advantage.
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points? A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.
Are these really Day One FAQs or just Designer notes? I don't think they are really FAQs but giving us an understanding what the designers were thinking.
I am not saying because it's not an FAQ they can't be viewed like was mentioned but don't think it correct in saying they are FAQs.
What exactly a FAQ is, is a matter of debate anyway. IMO clarifying a rule as it is written is a FAQ, changing the nature of a rule (or points changes) is an errata. But that's just me. Other peeps may think differently
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I feel bad for the FAQ writers. Most of the document is basically "no you ass that's not what we meant, read english like a normal person!"
Like the final ones about the keywords
I have to say it. I have never encouter people so willing to force and broke a rulebook as Wargamer players! RAW and RAI are things that I have never encountered in other types of games!
Hmm, looks like transports don't actually reduce your deployment footprint either. You have to spend one of your deployment turns putting the unit in the transport.
Also, looks like if a charging unit uses pile-in to dodge overwatch, they have to wait one turn before they can actually attack the unit they piled-in to. In which case, I guess the free round of melee attacks you get to make against them (or the opportunity to disengage without a scratch) would be just as good as overwatch, so that technique is not as scary as it sounded at first.
Consolidation is still potentially scary though, because consolidation doesn't necessarily happen the same turn that they charged, and if they didn't charge that turn, then they can fight whoever they consolidated into.
Captyn_Bob wrote: It specifically says units in transports don't count as a separate choice.
Nice, Mechanicus is getting screwed again, guess we'll have to learn to play second all the time. Or spend a CP rerolling our Initiative roll.
Really disgusted by the Plasma overheat with modifiers, this makes NO sense. Could've been a flat one on the dice like Overwatch works, with no modifiers involved.
My army have no way to add bonuses to hit except for rerolls fortunately.
Wasn't there a talk somewhere about an errata coming on day one too ?
Captyn_Bob wrote: It specifically says units in transports don't count as a separate choice.
Nice, Mechanicus is getting screwed again, guess we'll have to learn to play second all the time. Or spend a CP rerolling our Initiative roll.
Really disgusted by the Plasma overheat with modifiers, this makes NO sense. Could've been a flat one on the dice like Overwatch works, with no modifiers involved.
My army have no way to add bonuses to hit except for rerolls fortunately.
Wasn't there a talk somewhere about an errata coming on day one too ?
Huh, that thing about bonuses is a good point.
Have +1 to hit, never fail a Gets Hot roll (it'll always be at least 2 after modifiers).
Quick, we need to figure out the cheapest way to put a +1 to hit on a plasma weapon!
Yup, hence why we should stop it riiiiight here. Not to mention it is off topic since it's only part of an anecdote where I saw someone get verbally torn a new one by an old Disney Head.
Has there been any mention of the nerf to Conscripts that the Day 1 faq was rumoured to contain?
I wondered if they might be releasing separate faqs for the factions or something.
Or was that rumour just nonsense?
proably just nonsense, a wish listing more then anything else, BTW has GW said if we should use the points costs in the indexes or the mini dexes for primaris and death guard?
vipoid wrote: Has there been any mention of the nerf to Conscripts that the Day 1 faq was rumoured to contain?
Well there were some hints about it in a Frontline Gaming Batrep, although not about the conscripts directly. In this batrep, at 2:50, there were hints that Scion command squads were going to be limited in number. That was the second rumour that appeared in the initial "conscript point" rumour post. Now, you will have to decide for yourself if evidence for one part of a rumour lends credibility to a different rumour from the same source.
Technically this isn't even a FAQ, just Dev Commentary.
I'd suspect that we'll see organized FAQs coming out in the next month or so, when they can gather some play data, more questions, and organize them into proper indexes and factions.
Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points? A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.
Another stupid argument put to bed
Wat arguemnt exactly?
Assuming one had "less than 0 command points", what would that even MEAN? they need to use that many reverse stratagems during the game?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I feel bad for the FAQ writers. Most of the document is basically "no you ass that's not what we meant, read english like a normal person!"
Well, we had plenty of these back in 7th when there actually WERE messed up rules, and people still managed to tangle up the most obvious dumb things.
Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points? A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.
Another stupid argument put to bed
Wat arguemnt exactly?
Assuming one had "less than 0 command points", what would that even MEAN? they need to use that many reverse stratagems during the game?
I have seen people arguee about that "But what if negative Command Points gives your opponent more command points?!"
Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points? A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.
Another stupid argument put to bed
Wat arguemnt exactly?
Assuming one had "less than 0 command points", what would that even MEAN? they need to use that many reverse stratagems during the game?
I have seen people arguee about that "But what if negative Command Points gives your opponent more command points?!"
I'm not sure how that order of operations even became a thing. People here aren't the brightest crayons in the box sometimes.
Sorry that your plasma guns can actually explode on you now - thematically it makes sense too; you'll shoot more shots at a hard to hit target, increasing the odds your plasma gun blows up from overusage.
I'd suspect that we'll see organized FAQs coming out in the next month or so, when they can gather some play data, more questions, and organize them into proper indexes and factions.
I mean... They were Answering Questions...
Questions that are ... Asked Frequently
So it was more of a QTAAF
Maybe get rid of the "that are", and make it a QAF.
------------------------------------------------------------
I wish that in the Re-roll and Modifier question, they used a "Rolls a 3 on a BS3, that can reroll failed hits but is suffering a -1 from the opponent"
Rerolling into a 3 as the example said is not the same, since the attacker can't reroll a second time regardless.
I feel like I already know the correct way to play it, but I still wish it was the example in the QAF
"Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No. "
To expound a bit on GW's answer I would like to add, "...if you are the kind of person who would attempt to do this type of thing, screw you! You're why we can't have nice things!"
MagicJuggler wrote: Never overcharge combi-plasma at Ratlings in cover. You now have a 50-50 chance of dying per shot.
Honestly, I think people wrongly are seeing overcharge as the default option. It is looking like you should be using it very sparingly. Plasma is pretty cheap, it is a very effective weapon even without overcharge. Thinking you are going to use it more than once or twice a battle seems to be a mistake. I would only ever use it on multi-wound models that need to die, or in very dire circumstances.
Why would you ever shoot it at Ratlings? It offers no advantage at all. Already wounding on 2+ and they only have one wound.
MagicJuggler wrote: So shooting Plasma at an aircraft doubles your chance to blow yourself up now...that seems a bit silly.
Ditto the "immobilized squad" FAQ.
Guess it also means a Daemon Prince with the Mark of Khorne is no longer a Khorne Daemon.
Well, that last is true, and makes sense from a game perspective. Applying different special rules from another book is problematic, this makes future-proofing simpler and simply cements the CSMDP as a different creature.
Though the prince of chaos rule does allow it to have some affect on daemons on the same god. The net effect of 'not being a Khorne Daemon' is not getting the 'Unstoppable Ferocity' rule.
The 'immobilized squad' answer doesn't really immobilize the squad except in really exceptional circumstances, what it really does is tell you that you must make moving into coherency a priority. if you don't want your squads immobilized, don't remove casualties from the center of an absurdly long daisy chain. But in most cases, moving the separated groups 5 or 6" towards each other should easily put a squad in coherency. If they're somehow more than a foot apart, you did something very bizarre.
Honestly, I think people wrongly are seeing overcharge as the default option. It is looking like you should be using it very sparingly. Plasma is pretty cheap, it is a very effective weapon even without overcharge. Thinking you are going to use it more than once or twice a battle seems to be a mistake. I would only ever use it on multi-wound models that need to die, or in very dire circumstances.
It's basically, Normal against Infantry, Overcharge against Vehicles.
Overcharging plasma is for when you're trying to take out that final wound or two from a vehicle or monster/character...for that epic moment when Private Jenkins incinerates himself while blowing up a traitor Knight.
I'm not sure if the Auxiliary Support Detachments answer really answered the question as much as needed... The big thing I was wondering about is if you could dump your CP to just buy into a bunch of ASD's and effectively have an Unbound army. Originally I thought the answer was "hell no" but the way the FAQ is phrased I'm actually not so sure anymore...
I assumed that to be the case, although the only real use of that is avoiding the HQ tax and you're not using exclusively Lords of War and Flyers.
However given that a lot of the detachments gives you somewhat generous slots and HQs are a lot more useful this edition, I'd find that to be an acceptable drawback. Not to mention Tournaments will likely limit you to 3 detachments for 2000 points, so you'd only get 3 slots out of it for "unbound".
Arachnofiend wrote: I'm not sure if the Auxiliary Support Detachments answer really answered the question as much as needed... The big thing I was wondering about is if you could dump your CP to just buy into a bunch of ASD's and effectively have an Unbound army. Originally I thought the answer was "hell no" but the way the FAQ is phrased I'm actually not so sure anymore...
I don't see why not. That seems to be the very purpose of the design - you gain benefits (CP - a little weak sauce...) by not playing borderline unbound armies. As mentioned - you'll suffer a minor HQ tax, but it's my understanding that you can run the army as long as it fits into some form of detachment.
But the missile launcher has always been that. The "best" tool for a versatile unit. Not quite as good as the lascannon or dedicated anti-tank, and not quite as good as dedicate anti-infantry, but can do both pretty darn well.
Elbows wrote: But the missile launcher has always been that. The "best" tool for a versatile unit. Not quite as good as the lascannon or dedicated anti-tank, and not quite as good as dedicate anti-infantry, but can do both pretty darn well.
Missile Launchers had their heyday in 5e due to Long Fangs being able to have true splitfire and to shake/stun 2 Razorbacks/turn with good efficiency. They lost a lot of their luster in 6th and 7th because of HP stripping favoring autocannons/scatter lasers instead of the actual AT options.
Were I hypothetically to do a Purge List in 7th (went for Word Bearers), I would have payed the extra 10 pts per Havoc Squad to swap 2 of their Autocannons for 2 Missile Launchers. Contrary to the old advice against mixing Heavies in the same squad, I felt you could get away with Missiles and Autos in the same unit, because they have the same rangebands and the same targets roughly. The big difference is that you got some shred blasts out of it, and having 2 Krak Missiles was enough to threaten Bikers to Jink.
Arachnofiend wrote: I'm not sure if the Auxiliary Support Detachments answer really answered the question as much as needed... The big thing I was wondering about is if you could dump your CP to just buy into a bunch of ASD's and effectively have an Unbound army. Originally I thought the answer was "hell no" but the way the FAQ is phrased I'm actually not so sure anymore...
I don't see why not. That seems to be the very purpose of the design - you gain benefits (CP - a little weak sauce...) by not playing borderline unbound armies. As mentioned - you'll suffer a minor HQ tax, but it's my understanding that you can run the army as long as it fits into some form of detachment.
I figured you could do it three times (or however many times until you got to zero CP) and then couldn't take any more ASD's. The way the FAQ is worded it sounds like you can just take a dozen ASD's to make your entire army unbound with the only cost being -3 CP.
Arachnofiend wrote: I'm not sure if the Auxiliary Support Detachments answer really answered the question as much as needed... The big thing I was wondering about is if you could dump your CP to just buy into a bunch of ASD's and effectively have an Unbound army. Originally I thought the answer was "hell no" but the way the FAQ is phrased I'm actually not so sure anymore...
I don't see why not. That seems to be the very purpose of the design - you gain benefits (CP - a little weak sauce...) by not playing borderline unbound armies. As mentioned - you'll suffer a minor HQ tax, but it's my understanding that you can run the army as long as it fits into some form of detachment.
Arachnofiend wrote: I'm not sure if the Auxiliary Support Detachments answer really answered the question as much as needed... The big thing I was wondering about is if you could dump your CP to just buy into a bunch of ASD's and effectively have an Unbound army. Originally I thought the answer was "hell no" but the way the FAQ is phrased I'm actually not so sure anymore...
I don't see why not. That seems to be the very purpose of the design - you gain benefits (CP - a little weak sauce...) by not playing borderline unbound armies. As mentioned - you'll suffer a minor HQ tax, but it's my understanding that you can run the army as long as it fits into some form of detachment.
The Detachment limit is just a suggestion, although possibly one that most people will try to abide by.
But again it's mostly just the HQ tax that is the drawback. Since none of the detachments are like the 7th ones (i.e: largely consist of one type of unit and nothing else) and give you pretty generous slots, it's just a matter of selecting an HQ and selecting a detachment that best fit your roster.
So far the only reason I can see if you really want to go "unbound" is if you really don't want an HQ, you spammed something like 7+ non-troop choice units, and don't want any troop choices at all.
So overcharged plasmaguns explode more often during night fighting...
Cant say I understand the inconsistency in some of the rules. Some "to hit" modifiers should be "to wound" and vice verse. And triggering overcharge on a modifier roll instead of unmodified makes no sense, other then perhaps for balancing purpose. But the trigger should be disregarding the difficulty of the shot taken. Your not firing more shots unless you roll more dice, which would increase the likelyhood appropriate.
The fact that the game needs an FAQ the day it is released says a lot about the quality of the rules writing.
Aren't the things their clarifying the sort of things that should be picked up in quality control (playtesting) and sorted out before the rules went to print?
Also they seem to add even more oddities into the system. Things like flamers auto hitting flyers are just dumb. Plasma weapons being more likely to overheat at night / when shooting something in cover just do not make any logical sense. They are bad mechanics.
I think this shows that 40k players are just looking for anything to exploit, just because they can. Like that keyword nonsense. There's zero reason it would work that way other than rules lawyers would point out that technically by the wording it does.
Yeah, from those posted questions only a couple were genuinely reasonable questions. The others were gamey/cheesy/loophole nonsense.
Normally I'd say GW shouldn't even address this stupidity, but they are probably trying to make sure Tournament Organizers have something to quote when someone brings up some stupid game-breaking nonsense.
Tamereth wrote: The fact that the game needs an FAQ the day it is released says a lot about the quality of the rules writing.
Aren't the things their clarifying the sort of things that should be picked up in quality control (playtesting) and sorted out before the rules went to print?
Also they seem to add even more oddities into the system. Things like flamers auto hitting flyers are just dumb. Plasma weapons being more likely to overheat at night / when shooting something in cover just do not make any logical sense. They are bad mechanics.
They are trying to write rules to include a vast variety of content from decades of work so I dont think its weird things get messed up. Compared to, for example, a new game that comes with a small number of units for a small number of factions. And even those games tend to mess up pretty badly.
But it does feel strange that the rules seem so inconsistent in application and wording. Not as if by accident but by choice, which only serves to make a simpel rulesystem annoyingly difficult to overview.
Elbows wrote: Normally I'd say GW shouldn't even address this stupidity, but they are probably trying to make sure Tournament Organizers have something to quote when someone brings up some stupid game-breaking nonsense.
I'd argue that by addressing this as much as possible, it creates an atmosphere of sensible rules interpretation. If there are a large number of examples of rulings going this way then people will be far more likely to argue and interpret rules the "sensible way". It may not be a great help but it is something.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I feel bad for the FAQ writers. Most of the document is basically "no you ass that's not what we meant, read english like a normal person!"
What is normal English? I mean those writers don't ride escalators or is it elevators? They ride lifts. They don't have French Fries they have chips. So what is normal English? After all Americans don't have U's in some of their words when they should. So again normal English is different for a lot of us.
Galas wrote: I have seen people arguee about that "But what if negative Command Points gives your opponent more command points?!"
If you're referring to me then that's rather disingenuous.
I suggested that as a possible house rule; I never argued that it was in any way RAW (or even RAI for that matter).
To be honest I didn't remembered who said that, so I wasn't thinking about anyone specifically, but if I remember correctly some people said the same thing. I apologize if you tought I attacked you, wasn't my intention!
Elbows wrote: Overcharging plasma is for when you're trying to take out that final wound or two from a vehicle or monster/character...for that epic moment when Private Jenkins incinerates himself while blowing up a traitor Knight.
Alcibiades wrote: If you measure from the model rather than the base, won't it be difficult to get a flyer into flamer range to begin with?
p126, left-side column. You measure from bases unless the model did not come with a base. I believe wave serpents have their own rule that says they always measure from the hull, however.
This is not an official document in any regard. Considering Warhammer-community has made rules errors in the past, should we really start 8th off on the wrong foot with a series of 'house rules' by the PR team?
pointless818 wrote: This is not an official document in any regard. Considering Warhammer-community has made rules errors in the past, should we really start 8th off on the wrong foot with a series of 'house rules' by the PR team?
Nah, your're right. Let's start off assuming you can name an SM chapter and Tau sept both "Wu Tang Clan" and have them buff each other. That sounds much more reasonable.
pointless818 wrote: This is not an official document in any regard. Considering Warhammer-community has made rules errors in the past, should we really start 8th off on the wrong foot with a series of 'house rules' by the PR team?
Its from the design team who works at GW and made the game.
How is that not official?
And they aren't House Rules, they are clarifications of rules that are in the rule book. That was designed by them.
pointless818 wrote: This is not an official document in any regard. Considering Warhammer-community has made rules errors in the past, should we really start 8th off on the wrong foot with a series of 'house rules' by the PR team?
By PR team you mean Devs? Lets all ignore clear and sensible clarifications from the game designers because they haven't posted them in the place you decided they have to. Bravo, you win.
Nah, your're right. Let's start off assuming you can name an SM chapter and Tau sept both "Wu Tang Clan" and have them buff each other. That sounds much more reasonable.
That was already not permitted in the rules and did not require any further clarifications. Just because your Sept has a custom name does not make magically it a <kabal>.
I like that they explained the intention behind them, and included examples. Good for them. Most of these actually are needed rules clarifications that were not apparent from the basic rules. Cover and re rolls/modifiers being my top two. The real win would be for them to re write the PDF/eBooks to include these changes so you don't need the FAQ going forward.
By PR team you mean Devs? Lets all ignore clear and sensible clarifications from the game designers because they haven't posted them in the place you decided they have to. Bravo, you win.
It's from warhammer-community, which is the PR team. It's not official, which is why it's not posted with correct formatting on GWs site, with all the other official documentation, for all their other games.
By PR team you mean Devs? Lets all ignore clear and sensible clarifications from the game designers because they haven't posted them in the place you decided they have to. Bravo, you win.
It's from warhammer-community, which is the PR team. It's not official, which is why it's not posted with correct formatting on GWs site, with all the other official documentation, for all their other games.
Riddle me this: why it's not official if it's posted in warhammer-community. Furthermore, how can it not be official when it was introduced by a member of
If you have questions about the rules in the new edition, you’ll want to read the Designers’ Commentary. We’ve had all sorts of queries about the rules and our team have written a document designed to explain the core principles behind the game, from coherency to characters, to dice rolls themselves. Whatever your level of experience, it’ll be sure to be a valuable resource in any of your games.
By PR team you mean Devs? Lets all ignore clear and sensible clarifications from the game designers because they haven't posted them in the place you decided they have to. Bravo, you win.
It's from warhammer-community, which is the PR team. It's not official, which is why it's not posted with correct formatting on GWs site, with all the other official documentation, for all their other games.
Aren't the free 8th ed primer rules also on the community website? If so, I take it those aren't official either? If those rules are not official, then does that mean GW would have to sue itself, for posting clearly pirated (unofficial) rules on their own website?
Riddle me this: why it's not official if it's posted in warhammer-community. Furthermore, how can it not be official when it was introduced by a member of
If you have questions about the rules in the new edition, you’ll want to read the Designers’ Commentary. We’ve had all sorts of queries about the rules and our team have written a document designed to explain the core principles behind the game, from coherency to characters, to dice rolls themselves. Whatever your level of experience, it’ll be sure to be a valuable resource in any of your games.
Refers to the dev-team
Our team, the PR team, has been asked the questions, they compiled the document.
Riddle me this: why it's not official if it's posted in warhammer-community. Furthermore, how can it not be official when it was introduced by a member of
If you have questions about the rules in the new edition, you’ll want to read the Designers’ Commentary. We’ve had all sorts of queries about the rules and our team have written a document designed to explain the core principles behind the game, from coherency to characters, to dice rolls themselves. Whatever your level of experience, it’ll be sure to be a valuable resource in any of your games.
Refers to the dev-team
Our team, the PR team, has been asked the questions, they compiled the document.
they likely took the questions, down the hall to the dev team and asked them, wrote their responses down and then put the responses up. seriously man do you think the other FAQs are written down and posted by the game devs?
Riddle me this: why it's not official if it's posted in warhammer-community. Furthermore, how can it not be official when it was introduced by a member of
If you have questions about the rules in the new edition, you’ll want to read the Designers’ Commentary. We’ve had all sorts of queries about the rules and our team have written a document designed to explain the core principles behind the game, from coherency to characters, to dice rolls themselves. Whatever your level of experience, it’ll be sure to be a valuable resource in any of your games.
Refers to the dev-team
Our team, the PR team, has been asked the questions, they compiled the document.
Except, you know, its called the designer's commentary. Unless you mean to tell me that the PR team designed the game.
Why are some people up in arms when some people say this isn't "official"? We are not saying it's wrong or it's not correct. All it is is not an FAQ or should I say Errata/FAQ.
When GW made comments that wasn't in an Errata/FAQ like White Dwarf or some other format and the GW rulings have been proven wrong many times. That is why we say it's not an official FAQ. Imperial Knights for everyone for instance? How many people said Tyranids couldn't take Imperial Knights when they came out when Games Workshop through White Dwarf said they could? Same for Chaos as well.
Some people are getting their knickers in a knot for no reason when some people say it's not "official". If it's so Official how come it's not on the GW website FAQ page then? If you mean by official that it's a Frequently Asked Question then yes, it's official, but if you are saying it's official for game rulings then no it's not just like how White Dwarf or Community statements are not official and in fact been proven wrong.
If anyone who would say that the rules are not correct because the Designer's Notes are not "official" is just not worth playing. I wouldn't play them and let them have their "win/victory" and go and play with someone else who is more fun to play with.
Davor wrote: Why are some people up in arms when some people say this isn't "official"?
2 reasons really-
One, dealing with two sets of rules is really a pain
Two, denying 'officialness' is usually means the individual is intending to cheese something out that the clarifications say no to.
This isn't a tweet or a WD error, its clarification of some of the vague areas of the rules from the devs, as well as stomping down on some of the ridiculous scenarios brought on by intentionally ignoring the metadata attached to keywords.
Strangely enough, some auras just got a lot weaker.
Guilliman's re-roll to-hit/to-wound aura is for "failed" rolls. Cawl's re-roll to-hit during shooting phase doesn't mention failing the roll.
So an icarus array targeting non-fly units normally has a 3+ BS but with a -1 to-hit modifier. Yet with Cawl, because his re-roll rule doesn't mention failing the roll, still lets you re-roll 3's. The equivalent situation for Guilliman doesn't let you re-roll 3's, as they aren't modified to be a failed hit roll yet.
In other news, 8" flamers are officially unable to target units making a 8.5" charge during overwatch.
So, just to see if I'm getting this right, people are arguing that this "FAQ" isn't an "FAQ" using much the same logic as the argument of "you can't use Forgeworld models because the rules say Citadel models" because of semantics and/or the location the FAQ is downloaded from?
More or less, but remember this is also the forum that:
Argued that the Drafts weren't official because they are just "drafts"
That they would not even use it until all the kinks have been ironed out (despite the draft explicitly being put out for players to test out).
Once the Draft became final, that it wasn't "Official" because it wasn't posted on the GW website.
And once that it was posted on the website, I still remember a few saying that it's "FAQs, not Erratas, therefore only count as house rules".
Of course, everyone who said that were known to have used armies explicitly exploiting some loophole that was closed by the FAQs and were unhappy that their army was "nerfed".
Again, I pity the FAQ writers. I'm willing to bet most of them would give anything to shout at the fandom "Read English!" without repercussions.
Aren't the free 8th ed primer rules also on the community website? If so, I take it those aren't official either?
If those rules are not official, then does that mean GW would have to sue itself, for posting clearly pirated (unofficial) rules on their own website?
Thank you for reinforcing my point, the rules, the actual official rules are the only document on GWs site. Why do you think that is.... because that is the only official document. It's where they provide it for ever other game. Warhammer-community is virtual white dwarf in terms of it's rulings.... Cool in friendly games, it's house rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: So, just to see if I'm getting this right, people are arguing that this "FAQ" isn't an "FAQ" using much the same logic as the argument of "you can't use Forgeworld models because the rules say Citadel models" because of semantics and/or the location the FAQ is downloaded from?
To be clear, nobody denied this was an FAQ. To be more clear, it is not an official document. The people who posted the document have already made rules errors, we should not start down this path, let's wait for actual supported rules clarifications.
Argued that the Drafts weren't official because they are just "drafts"
That they would not even use it until all the kinks have been ironed out (despite the draft explicitly being put out for players to test out).
Once the Draft became final, that it wasn't "Official" because it wasn't posted on the GW website.
And once that it was posted on the website, I still remember a few saying that it's "FAQs, not Erratas, therefore only count as house rules".
Of course, everyone who said that were known to have used armies explicitly exploiting some loophole that was closed by the FAQs and were unhappy that their army was "nerfed".
Again, I pity the FAQ writers. I'm willing to bet most of them would give anything to shout at the fandom "Read English!" without repercussions.
ohh most likely, I mean the keyword bit I can just HEAR them sitting there reading people trying to argue it and screaming "jesus these people are something else!"
Isn't the community site owned by GW? Doesn't that also make it GW's site? I don't see where you're making the distinction here. Its a document called the Designers' commentary that clarifies some aspects of the rule set that they designed, posted on a GW site in addition to the core rules. That makes it official. Claiming its not official because its not on a specific site is foolish, especially when considering that Black Library and Forge World also posts rules and are also part of GW.
pointless818 wrote: To be clear, nobody denied this was an FAQ. To be more clear, it is not an official document. The people who posted the document have already made rules errors, we should not start down this path, let's wait for actual supported rules clarifications.
What if GW regards this as an official document and you end up waiting for something that will never come?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the community site owned by GW? Doesn't that also make it GW's site? I don't see where you're making the distinction here.
Its a document called the Designers' commentary that clarifies some aspects of the rule set that they designed, posted on a GW site in addition to the core rules.
That makes it official. Claiming its not official because its not on a specific site is foolish, especially when considering that Black Library and Forge World also posts rules and are also part of GW.
They are smart enough not to let warhammer-community or their Facebook team make official rulings. Additionally the format is not correct, nor does it have the official banner and version number that ALL the others do.
It's just a friendly help-you-along document from the PR people.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the community site owned by GW? Doesn't that also make it GW's site? I don't see where you're making the distinction here.
Its a document called the Designers' commentary that clarifies some aspects of the rule set that they designed, posted on a GW site in addition to the core rules.
That makes it official. Claiming its not official because its not on a specific site is foolish, especially when considering that Black Library and Forge World also posts rules and are also part of GW.
They are smart enough not to let warhammer-community or their Facebook team make official rulings. Additionally the format is not correct, nor does it have the official banner and version number that ALL the others do.
It's just a friendly help-you-along document from the PR people.
MaxT wrote: What exactly a FAQ is, is a matter of debate anyway. IMO clarifying a rule as it is written is a FAQ, changing the nature of a rule (or points changes) is an errata. But that's just me. Other peeps may think differently
It always depends on the nature of the answer, now doesn't it?
So then if you can reroll your attack (you hit on a +3) and you have a - 1 because your objective is a flyer, you reroll 1s and 2s since a 3+ is a hit.... But then you apply the - 1?
So if you get a 3 you can't reroll it because is a hit... Even if later with the - 1 will be a fail?
Franarok wrote: So then if you can reroll your attack (you hit on a +3) and you have a - 1 because your objective is a flyer, you reroll 1s and 2s since a 3+ is a hit.... But then you apply the - 1?
So if you get a 3 you can't reroll it because is a hit... Even if later with the - 1 will be a fail?
Is funny xD
Not really. Its a lot easier to understand if you interpret rerolls to only affect natural failures.
Which does limit their power somewhat, especially considering how there's so many modifiers in the game that it can have an odd effect on rerolls.
I really find the re-rolls before modifiers to be stupid and make zero sense. It's literally a race condition that by design is put into the rules (race conditions are not meant to be intentional, they are concern for bugs) where you can fail a roll and NOT trigger the re-roll you'd normally get because of this weird order of operations things that can crop up.
Imagine the following scenarios with this example: A model hits on 4+, can re-roll failed hit rolls, and is suffering a -1 to hit.
1) You roll a 3, you trigger the re-roll and let's say you roll a 5; the -1 now applies and you end up with a 4, which still hits.
2) You roll a 5, this does not trigger the re-roll and with the -1 becomes a 4, which still hits.
Sounds okay, right? But here's the one that is pants on head slowed IMHO:
3) You roll a 4. You do NOT trigger the re-roll, as a 4 is not a miss at this point. However, then the -1 kicks in and the 4 becomes a 3. You now miss the attack.
#3 is beyond stupid and makes zero sense to anyone. For some reason, rolling EXACTLY what you need will deny a re-roll and still miss, because reasons, while anything other than that chance will properly work. That's not a feature, that's a logic error. It's the equivalent in programming of something like this (in pseudocode):
for x = 1 to 10: if x = 5 return false else return true
That's a bug, no matter how you try to justify it.
Wayniac wrote: I really find the re-rolls before modifiers to be stupid and make zero sense. It's literally a race condition that by design is put into the rules (race conditions are not meant to be intentional, they are concern for bugs) where you can fail a roll and NOT trigger the re-roll you'd normally get because of this weird order of operations things that can crop up.
Imagine the following scenarios with this example: A model hits on 4+, can re-roll failed hit rolls, and is suffering a -1 to hit.
1) You roll a 3, you trigger the re-roll and let's say you roll a 5; the -1 now applies and you end up with a 4, which still hits.
2) You roll a 5, this does not trigger the re-roll and with the -1 becomes a 4, which still hits.
Sounds okay, right? But here's the one that is pants on head slowed IMHO:
3) You roll a 4. You do NOT trigger the re-roll, as a 4 is not a miss at this point. However, then the -1 kicks in and the 4 becomes a 3. You now miss the attack.
#3 is beyond stupid and makes zero sense to anyone. For some reason, rolling EXACTLY what you need will deny a re-roll and still miss, because reasons, while anything other than that chance will properly work. That's not a feature, that's a logic error. It's the equivalent in programming of something like this (in pseudocode):
for x = 1 to 10:
if x = 5 return false
else return true
That's a bug, no matter how you try to justify it.
Yes it is part of the rules, but most of us will have it figured out in out heads before we even roll the dice.
Wayniac wrote: I really find the re-rolls before modifiers to be stupid and make zero sense. It's literally a race condition that by design is put into the rules (race conditions are not meant to be intentional, they are concern for bugs) where you can fail a roll and NOT trigger the re-roll you'd normally get because of this weird order of operations things that can crop up.
That is not a race condition. The term race condition describes a bug which exists because two (or more) processes access the same resource in undefined order, while the order of operations influences the result.
Considering how everything in the rules is done in order it is literally impossible for a race condition to exist due to the lack of parallelism.
In this case you have one process with a clearly defined order, you simply don't like it.
for x = 1 to 10:
if x = 5 return false
else return true
That's a bug, no matter how you try to justify it.
Unless the function is called "IsNotFive()", of course.
Wayniac wrote: I really find the re-rolls before modifiers to be stupid and make zero sense. It's literally a race condition that by design is put into the rules (race conditions are not meant to be intentional, they are concern for bugs) where you can fail a roll and NOT trigger the re-roll you'd normally get because of this weird order of operations things that can crop up.
Spoiler:
Imagine the following scenarios with this example: A model hits on 4+, can re-roll failed hit rolls, and is suffering a -1 to hit.
1) You roll a 3, you trigger the re-roll and let's say you roll a 5; the -1 now applies and you end up with a 4, which still hits.
2) You roll a 5, this does not trigger the re-roll and with the -1 becomes a 4, which still hits.
Sounds okay, right? But here's the one that is pants on head slowed IMHO:
3) You roll a 4. You do NOT trigger the re-roll, as a 4 is not a miss at this point. However, then the -1 kicks in and the 4 becomes a 3. You now miss the attack.
#3 is beyond stupid and makes zero sense to anyone. For some reason, rolling EXACTLY what you need will deny a re-roll and still miss, because reasons, while anything other than that chance will properly work. That's not a feature, that's a logic error. It's the equivalent in programming of something like this (in pseudocode):
for x = 1 to 10:
if x = 5 return false
else return true
That's a bug, no matter how you try to justify it.
As someone who has been playing Age of Sigmar the past year, it is a bit odd, and something that the AoS community has completely missed out on, even though it has the same mentioning. While a bit unusual, it does kind of make sense to me; calling it a bug seems a bit harsh, especially since it keeps toned down the possibility of "deathstar" type units and ability stacking.
I would argue that it's counter-intuitive, not illogical.
MagicJuggler wrote: A moving plasma cannon firing at a flyer at night overheats on a 1-4. Damn solar-powered coolant regulators.
Look, its dark and the firer is in a panic trying to hit a fast moving target. Of course he's going to hit the wrong button or hold down the trigger for too long
MagicJuggler wrote: A moving plasma cannon firing at a flyer at night overheats on a 1-4. Damn solar-powered coolant regulators.
It's not like you have to overcharge...
No you do not, but its still funny that shooting at a something at night somehow makes the gun overload.
Mechanically it's consistent, its just odd.
I guess that the Machine Spirits are afraid of the dark. Knowing the Imperium, they probably put baby brains inside to act as temperature regulators or something.
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
yes but couldn't a BS 2+ model that received a +1 to hit means it never misses? At leaSt until it gets a negative modifier?
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
yes but couldn't a BS 2+ model that received a +1 to hit means it never misses? At leaSt until it gets a negative modifier?
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.", pg 181.
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
yes but couldn't a BS 2+ model that received a +1 to hit means it never misses? At leaSt until it gets a negative modifier?
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.", pg 181.
It just seems weird that this is the correct order of play. I'd have thought you just add the bonus to hit to the BS as you're rolling
Voss wrote: Can't say I like the 'apply rerolls before modifiers' and 'modifiers can trigger results of rolling a 1'.
That's just plain unintuitive
It does make sense from a balance perspective. Rerolls have been really powerful for a long time. If this order of operations was in previous editions, things like 2++ reroll saves would not have been as bad (that was a modifier thing right? I can't remember the specifics).
yes but couldn't a BS 2+ model that received a +1 to hit means it never misses? At leaSt until it gets a negative modifier?
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.", pg 181.
It just seems weird that this is the correct order of play. I'd have thought you just add the bonus to hit to the BS as you're rolling
As the rule says, it doesn't care what the result of the dice roll was. If the physical roll is a 1 it always fails.
Tis is my favourite you can hear the "you are a fething idiot" in their tone of voice
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
upsidedownindividual wrote: Tis is my favourite you can hear the "you are a fething idiot" in their tone of voice
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
upsidedownindividual wrote: Tis is my favourite you can hear the "you are a fething idiot" in their tone of voice
Q: If I create an Astra Militarum Regiment of my own
and name them, for example, the ‘Emperor’s Finest’,
and I then also create an Adeptus Astartes Chapter of
my own choosing, and also call them the ‘Emperor’s
Finest’, do the abilities that work on the <Regiment>
and/or <Chapter> keywords now work on both the
Astra Militarum and Adeptus Astartes units?
A: No.
The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters, etc. of your own
creation is to personalise your collections and not to enable
players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect
what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions
on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment.
I know I did, and I couldn't belive it, as I think I outright commented, anyone who actually tried to make that arguement is someone you just walk away from
Jidmah wrote: Having it clarified by GW beats needing to argue a blockhead any day though.
Absolutely, 100%. I don't care if people think asking these questions is dumb, the fact that someone DID ask and GW answered is better than people saying nothing to save face then having to deal with this by ourselves when it actually crops up in a game.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't the community site owned by GW? Doesn't that also make it GW's site? I don't see where you're making the distinction here.
Its a document called the Designers' commentary that clarifies some aspects of the rule set that they designed, posted on a GW site in addition to the core rules.
That makes it official. Claiming its not official because its not on a specific site is foolish, especially when considering that Black Library and Forge World also posts rules and are also part of GW.
They are smart enough not to let warhammer-community or their Facebook team make official rulings. Additionally the format is not correct, nor does it have the official banner and version number that ALL the others do.
It's just a friendly help-you-along document from the PR people.
So the Wrath of Magnus FaQ wasn't ever official?
You know, the document titled 'Official FaQ' posted by GW?
How is it not an FAQ? There are questions in it, that have been frequently asked, and now answered. Also, how is it not official? It's uploaded, in text and same format that all their errata/FAQs have been in the past, on one of GWs official websites.
The length people will go through to exploit and abuse a game system is seriously beyond me. It actually baffles me.
alleus wrote: How is it not an FAQ? There are questions in it, that have been frequently asked, and now answered. Also, how is it not official? It's uploaded, in text and same format that all their errata/FAQs have been in the past, on one of GWs official websites.
The length people will go through to exploit and abuse a game system is seriously beyond me. It actually baffles me.
Personally I'm of the opinion the people who make those arguements don't when/if they actually play, they just like to make the argument online so they can criticize GW.
It says right on it, with the correct formatting....Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.0
The 8th edition ""Designer's Commentary"" is not official, nor does it have the correct formatting or a version number.
It's incredible the lengths you people will go to, to prove my point, AND THEN COMPLETELY DISREGARD A FACTUAL ARGUMENT.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alleus wrote: How is it not an FAQ? There are questions in it, that have been frequently asked, and now answered.
Again, this is an FAQ in the strictest sense (NOBODY is arguing that)
alleus wrote: Also, how is it not official? It's uploaded, in text and same format that all their errata/FAQs have been in the past, on one of GWs official websites.
except it's not in the correct format, doesn't have the official banner, a version number, nor is it on either website that hosts their FAQS and Errata, I provided links above.
alleus wrote: The length people will go through to exploit and abuse a game system is seriously beyond me. It actually baffles me.
The lengths people will go to be intentionally obtuse is beyond me. It actually baffles me.......
Oh boy, you must be a joy to play wargames with...
Is it released by Games workshop? Yes.
Does this mean it's official? Yes, as it is a FAQ released by GW themselves.
Does the WoM FAQ look different than any other current FAQ? No, except for the 40K logo
Personally I'm of the opinion the people who make those arguements don't when/if they actually play, they just like to make the argument online so they can criticize GW.
I'd say that's very close to the matter. I am of the opinion, Warhammer community/Facebook have made a few rules mistakes regarding 8th in the recent past and, to me, are not a credible source of rules clarifications. I think it is foolish for us (8th edition 40k players) to "be cool" with half-arsed responses, make the answers official, or don't make them at all.
I want to be able to walk into any store, club, tournament and play by the SAME RULES in each one. I travel between states and in my experience, this is not the case (past editions).
As an example, MTG would not be as popular as it is today if people played by different rules in each other town you played in.
It clearly said "Official Update for 7th Edition, Ver. 1.0" And the logo on top isn't even a necessity especially if that tittle took three lines, so they most likely conserved for space.
It's official if you like it or not. Not that it matters as we're in 8th Ed. anyway.
Point is, if GW has really turned the corner then FAQ's shouldn't be a big deal. If it's a dumb question, just answer it and move on. Players and game creators should have a synergistic relationship, not an adversarial one. Build up some trust and good faith, and everyone benefits.
It says right on it, with the correct formatting....Official Update for 7th Edition, Version 1.0
The 8th edition ""Designer's Commentary"" is not official, nor does it have the correct formatting or a version number.
It's incredible the lengths you people will go to, to prove my point, AND THEN COMPLETELY DISREGARD A FACTUAL ARGUMENT.
And yet by your logic before it isn't official because it was only ever on Warhammer Community and not with the other FaQs. Maybe look to see what I was arguing, rather than jumping in head first and actually proving MY point - being on the Community site does not make something unofficial, unlike what you said earlier.
And something doesn't need to be titled "Official" to be official... or are the 8th Edition rules not official for you because it isn't titled "The Official 8th Edition Rulebook".
Is it an FaQ as typically defined by GW? No, but then GW's officially defined FaQs are a combination of actual FaQ and Errata. The Designer's Commentary is an FaQ by another name, and (what do you know) is full of Questions that have been Answered by the people who officially designed the game to clarify things for people, and it was posted on GW's official community page.
...huh.
It's one thing if this was just an article written by the PR team as you said, but when it's answered by the actual design team and only released by the PR team through an article you have to go through some crazy mental gymnastics to decide that in fact it can't be trusted by the PR team have made mistakes in the past, even though they're not even the ones who made the damn document.
MagicJuggler wrote: A moving plasma cannon firing at a flyer at night overheats on a 1-4. Damn solar-powered coolant regulators.
Look, its dark and the firer is in a panic trying to hit a fast moving target. Of course he's going to hit the wrong button or hold down the trigger for too long
MagicJuggler wrote: A moving plasma cannon firing at a flyer at night overheats on a 1-4. Damn solar-powered coolant regulators.
Look, its dark and the firer is in a panic trying to hit a fast moving target. Of course he's going to hit the wrong button or hold down the trigger for too long
Arguing over how "official" it is seems sort of pointless, as you can probably guess by threads like this going round and round until someone gets angry and it is locked. All that really matters is if the general player base uses it or not. I would say that most "average players" will be using this and be confused at any argument about its "officialness". If the document was full of questionable rulings then an argument could be made for it being disregarded. However, it seems rather reasonable and simply clarifications of the rules, not actually changing anything.
I would like to ask if people not using it disagree with any of the particular answers that it gave. If you disagree with it being official, yet coincidentally play every ruling the way they suggest, then what is the point in arguing?
Yeah, I'll take a document by the designers as official personally. Presumably the vast majority of tournaments will as well. I think that's simple enough.
Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points? A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.
Another stupid argument put to bed
BUT this should make your army Illegal / not battle forged for purposes of matched play.
Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points? A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.
Another stupid argument put to bed
BUT this should make your army Illegal / not battle forged for purposes of matched play.
Yeah they made that unnecessarily vague. On one hand, having negative command points vs having 0 command points has no obvious effect, so why are they specifying that you can never start a battle with fewer than 0 if it just means negative command points become 0 command points?
On the other hand, if they mean that you aren't allowed to create a battle forged army that has fewer than 0 command points, "you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points" is not at all clearly forbidding certain army compositions.
This is the classic "You Can’t Put Too Much Water into a Nuclear Reactor" ambiguity.
Maybe you have not seen the document, I'll show you. It is very clearly missing the official banner and version #.
Are you saying games workshop aren't allowed to change their behaviour and formatting regarding FAQs with a new edition?
Don't forget that the community website is relatively new and didn't exist when many of the old FAQs were posted. Maybe it is the new official location for such info.
That is their decision to make, not yours.
alleus wrote: How is it not an FAQ? There are questions in it, that have been frequently asked, and now answered. Also, how is it not official? It's uploaded, in text and same format that all their errata/FAQs have been in the past, on one of GWs official websites.
The length people will go through to exploit and abuse a game system is seriously beyond me. It actually baffles me.
Personally I'm of the opinion the people who make those arguements don't when/if they actually play, they just like to make the argument online so they can criticize GW.
I'd like to think that, too. But, when I look at some of the arguments people put forth, and how they argue them, I sometimes fear if any of them are exactly the sort of person who studies the new penal code each year to find some technicality to allow them to get away with murder, and if they will promptly start committing murders if they find such a loophole. We now have people arguing what is required to merely label something as "official".
Put it this way, if you tried to argue at a tournie or store that the rules within this document shouldn't apply to you (and you're going to play it a different way) just because GW didn't post it in the same specific URL as the 7th ed FAQ's then you'd be laughed out of the room. It's an internet hardman argument.
Q: Can a Battle-forged army ever have fewer than 0
Command Points? A: No.
Regardless of how many Auxiliary Support Detachments
you take, you can never start a battle with fewer than 0
Command Points.
Another stupid argument put to bed
Mind you it doesn't mean you can't take say 20 aux det as your army(assuming no det limit). You just don't start it with -X but 0.
I'd suspect that we'll see organized FAQs coming out in the next month or so, when they can gather some play data, more questions, and organize them into proper indexes and factions.
What you think FAQ is? Lots of those answers are answers to Questions Frequently Asked in this forum as well.
MaxT wrote: Put it this way, if you tried to argue at a tournie or store that the rules within this document shouldn't apply to you (and you're going to play it a different way) just because GW didn't post it in the same specific URL as the 7th ed FAQ's then you'd be laughed out of the room. It's an internet hardman argument.
But in that case the counter argument is that you have just made every half assed or incorrect interpretation of 8th that the community site and FB published is also official?
By the way do not expect any free official Faq's your going to be buying those in the chapter approved and codex's.
MaxT wrote: Put it this way, if you tried to argue at a tournie or store that the rules within this document shouldn't apply to you (and you're going to play it a different way) just because GW didn't post it in the same specific URL as the 7th ed FAQ's then you'd be laughed out of the room. It's an internet hardman argument.
But in that case the counter argument is that you have just made every half assed or incorrect interpretation of 8th that the community site and FB published is also official?
By the way do not expect any free official Faq's your going to be buying those in the chapter approved and codex's.
Interesting claim you got there. Got any proof?
Were there no FAQs in 3rd ed due to chapter approved?
MaxT wrote: Put it this way, if you tried to argue at a tournie or store that the rules within this document shouldn't apply to you (and you're going to play it a different way) just because GW didn't post it in the same specific URL as the 7th ed FAQ's then you'd be laughed out of the room. It's an internet hardman argument.
But in that case the counter argument is that you have just made every half assed or incorrect interpretation of 8th that the community site and FB published is also official?
By the way do not expect any free official Faq's your going to be buying those in the chapter approved and codex's.
Interesting claim you got there. Got any proof?
Were there no FAQs in 3rd ed due to chapter approved?
None that I remember, White Dwarf/Chapter Approved WAS the faq. Not that I agree with the person you're quoting.
I'm not sure what your intent here is, could you be more specific?
What do you mean by "For the benefit of the people claiming the latest FAQ/whatever isn't official, here's a tweet from Nick, one of the Community Team:"
I am going to read this as; Correct, the recent Designers Commentary is not an official FAQ because it was not created by the rules team.
And yet by your logic before it isn't official because it was only ever on Warhammer Community and not with the other FaQs.
Maybe look to see what I was arguing, rather than jumping in head first and actually proving MY point - being on the Community site does not make something unofficial, unlike what you said earlier.
And something doesn't need to be titled "Official" to be official... or are the 8th Edition rules not official for you because it isn't titled "The Official 8th Edition Rulebook".
Is it an FaQ as typically defined by GW? No, but then GW's officially defined FaQs are a combination of actual FaQ and Errata. The Designer's Commentary is an FaQ by another name, and (what do you know) is full of Questions that have been Answered by the people who officially designed the game to clarify things for people, and it was posted on GW's official community page.
...huh.
It's one thing if this was just an article written by the PR team as you said, but when it's answered by the actual design team and only released by the PR team through an article you have to go through some crazy mental gymnastics to decide that in fact it can't be trusted by the PR team have made mistakes in the past, even though they're not even the ones who made the damn document.
It was official, it was stamped as such, and was hosted in a spot designated for official documentation.
My argument has NEVER changed, the designers commentary is NOT an official document because it was compiled and distributed by the PR people, it does not have the official banner, header, version number and is not hosted in the correct place where official documentation is known to exist for many years.
Here is a clear picture of the two documents in question: Can you see the difference?
nareik wrote: What kind of name is 'Designers Commentary' for something made by a PR team?!
A name for what happens when the PR team get's a load of questions, gets the Design Team to answer them, then types it up because the designers are busy designing.
