So it is already may .
Any news? Rumours? Anything?
I cannot find any information about FAQ being postponed or cancelled neither.

Pft! Being able to write an FAQ from home? Preposterous!

Really GW seem happy with how the game is so I'm not we'll have a Big FAQ. By "big" I mean they won't change anything fundamental about how the game plays like when they changed the Deep Strike rules or Smite.

Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

In imagine there will be something (even if it's a post saying no changes needed), but certainly not until the pandemic it's over, and games workshop is back to normal. This has delayed everything, and I can imagine an faq isn't high on the list of priorities atm ha ha.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

Perhaps they could finally get around to fixing Assault weapons.
It's only been four years, after all!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

Perhaps they could finally get around to fixing Assault weapons.
It's only been four years, after all!

Maybe this is a non-problem for them, as BCB is the only guy on the planet to misunderstand that rule

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

Perhaps they could finally get around to fixing Assault weapons.
It's only been four years, after all!

Maybe this is a non-problem for them, as BCB is the only guy on the planet to misunderstand that rule

It'd still nice if they fixed the wording up.
and by far it not the only exemple of RAI and RAW beeing heavily in conflict and notthing beeing done about it, cough command vox net cough...

What's the issue with assault weapons? I've never had a problem with how they work.

 jaredb wrote:
What's the issue with assault weapons? I've never had a problem with how they work.

By strict raw the text as written disalows the use of them after advancing, even though RAI is pretty clear.
it's mostly consistency issues of the writing with it. Nothing too important but it'd be still nice if they'd have fixed it by now.

Yeah, I believe the wording is (roughly) that Assault weapons allow a model to shoot after it Advanced when the unit would be able to fire, but the wording of Advancing precludes you from selecting the unit with such models in to be able to shoot.

Most people won't even notice, and play it as everyone - even BCB, I think - agrees the RAI interpretation is, but RAW you can't shoot after Advancing with Assault weapons.

Which may be worth keeping in the back pocket if you end up playing against a tool of a TFG...

As to the Spring FAQ question, it might be worth bringing it up on one of the Twitch streams, or emailing GW about (or asking on FB, etc). Even if they just put up a post on WHC saying they're not doing one this time, people would appreciate knowing.

I would expect there to be no faq. There has not been enough time since the december faq with actual games happening to see what the current state of the game is and if something needs changing.

 Dysartes wrote:
Yeah, I believe the wording is (roughly) that Assault weapons allow a model to shoot after it Advanced when the unit would be able to fire, but the wording of Advancing precludes you from selecting the unit with such models in to be able to shoot.

Most people won't even notice, and play it as everyone - even BCB, I think - agrees the RAI interpretation is, but RAW you can't shoot after Advancing with Assault weapons.

Which may be worth keeping in the back pocket if you end up playing against a tool of a TFG...

As to the Spring FAQ question, it might be worth bringing it up on one of the Twitch streams, or emailing GW about (or asking on FB, etc). Even if they just put up a post on WHC saying they're not doing one this time, people would appreciate knowing.

You are correct, even I realise what the rule probably, maybe, is meant to do. The fact it doesn't do it doesn't change because you really wish it did though.

GW literally have to release errata for books before they go on sale, hiring someone for minimum wage to work from home to write FAQs is clearly too complicated for them.

After the changes on the February FAQ to marines, there has not been enough tournament data to see how things are panning out. In general, the FAQ has worked and the diversity has skyrocketed, space marines aren't dominant anymore.


So I doubt we will have a April FAQ, at least one that changes things significatly. Probably , if it exist, will be small things.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Yeah, I believe the wording is (roughly) that Assault weapons allow a model to shoot after it Advanced when the unit would be able to fire, but the wording of Advancing precludes you from selecting the unit with such models in to be able to shoot.

Most people won't even notice, and play it as everyone - even BCB, I think - agrees the RAI interpretation is, but RAW you can't shoot after Advancing with Assault weapons.

Which may be worth keeping in the back pocket if you end up playing against a tool of a TFG...

As to the Spring FAQ question, it might be worth bringing it up on one of the Twitch streams, or emailing GW about (or asking on FB, etc). Even if they just put up a post on WHC saying they're not doing one this time, people would appreciate knowing.

You are correct, even I realise what the rule probably, maybe, is meant to do. The fact it doesn't do it doesn't change because you really wish it did though.

GW literally have to release errata for books before they go on sale, hiring someone for minimum wage to work from home to write FAQs is clearly too complicated for them.

I'm still curious if you would actually try to enforce it in a game though since you know what it actually means and you are just being pedantic about it to show how bad the wording of the rules are (which we all agree on)

Wayniac wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Yeah, I believe the wording is (roughly) that Assault weapons allow a model to shoot after it Advanced when the unit would be able to fire, but the wording of Advancing precludes you from selecting the unit with such models in to be able to shoot.

Most people won't even notice, and play it as everyone - even BCB, I think - agrees the RAI interpretation is, but RAW you can't shoot after Advancing with Assault weapons.

Which may be worth keeping in the back pocket if you end up playing against a tool of a TFG...

As to the Spring FAQ question, it might be worth bringing it up on one of the Twitch streams, or emailing GW about (or asking on FB, etc). Even if they just put up a post on WHC saying they're not doing one this time, people would appreciate knowing.

You are correct, even I realise what the rule probably, maybe, is meant to do. The fact it doesn't do it doesn't change because you really wish it did though.

GW literally have to release errata for books before they go on sale, hiring someone for minimum wage to work from home to write FAQs is clearly too complicated for them.

I'm still curious if you would actually try to enforce it in a game though since you know what it actually means and you are just being pedantic about it to show how bad the wording of the rules are (which we all agree on)

As can be attested by several people, I am a generous god and allow my opponents to not follow the RaW. However, I require myself to follow the RaW strictly, which means no shooting after advancing without a detachment/warlord trait allowing me to do so, and I don't fall back from combat unless the unit has FLY, etc. Argent Shroud and Exemplar of the Mont'ka are very important to my lists and makes some units such as Shoota Boyz and ABR Intercessors sub-optimal for my purposes.

I feel this is a fair middle ground.

My part of europe has a long standing tradition of rules and laws being passed or put in action, where different intentions were claimed by the law givers and where the extrem was claimed to never happened, because all people would know that the rule shouldn't effect some specific something, yet in the end the stuff people feared always happened in the ends, sometimes worse then people imagined.

Lazy or shody rules writing can not be excused with the argument that people will just fix it themselfs, or that they will house rule it.

Also expecting a new player that the book they just bought, with real money, is full of errors, and in fact the rules say something different, is something that can make people very unhappy at best, and quit the game at worse.

I disagree. If I bought a rulebook, read the rules, went for a game and everyone there told me "We don't like the rules so we changed them", I'd be frustrated.

They need to clean up the mess they made with Tempestus Scions in the Greater Good....that would be nice.

 Galas wrote:
After the changes on the February FAQ to marines, there has not been enough tournament data to see how things are panning out.

You don't need tournament data to figure out what's wrong with 40K.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

Perhaps they could finally get around to fixing Assault weapons.
It's only been four years, after all!

They're not broken. RAI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
After the changes on the February FAQ to marines, there has not been enough tournament data to see how things are panning out. In general, the FAQ has worked and the diversity has skyrocketed, space marines aren't dominant anymore.


So I doubt we will have a April FAQ, at least one that changes things significatly. Probably , if it exist, will be small things.

I think marines are still pretty broken, but only time will tell. I really wish they had just made them cheaper.

Considering we are pretty close to 9th ed and there have been next to no tournaments since the last update, I'm guessing no big FAQ. When will GW announce 9th ed, right after they are done selling us all of PA for 8th ed.

This ^^^^^^^^^.

Are we actually close to 9th Ed though? It's only been three years of 8th.

There's been more than enough change. I still think GW is going to get of tripointing, too.

Martel732 wrote:
There's been more than enough change. I still think GW is going to get of tripointing, too.

I dunno about the first part, but nixing some of the fiddly parts of the game like tripointing would be nice, as long as there's some other mechanic to lock up combats.

Oh, there won't be. It's GW. They had no idea tripointing existed when they wrote fall back. They've just declined to faq it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are we actually close to 9th Ed though? It's only been three years of 8th.

Sure. We're closer to 9th today than we were yesterday.

Insectum7 wrote:Are we actually close to 9th Ed though? It's only been three years of 8th.

That's one more year than 6th isn't it?

Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There's been more than enough change. I still think GW is going to get of tripointing, too.

I dunno about the first part, but nixing some of the fiddly parts of the game like tripointing would be nice, as long as there's some other mechanic to lock up combats.

A return to the 3rd edition trial assault rules would be nice.

I don't know, but I find it impossible to believe the same company and playtesters that missed conscripts and bobby G stormravens somehow intended tripointing.

The gathering storm and malign portents both heralded a new edition of the game, and PA seems to be cut from the same cloth. I'm not sure what GWs angle is on splat book series before edition change, but it is a pattern. Maybe they do it to subsidize the edition change, which tend to be expensive. GW doesn't carry debt, so there is a certain logic to it, since right before release is when the holding cost would be greatest.

There is certainly a need as well, alot of the rules in 8th ed were untested going into the edition, and while a lot of them have worked out, many of them haven't. With three years of experience with the new system under their belt, I'm sure GW has a lot of things they would like to change.

There is still plenty of things that could do with fixing(cough playtesting) in 8th edition beta 21 before they jump to a 9th edition.

Hopefully they have listened to people and don't go making sweeping changes or mess with the balance of the game too much requiring wholesale new codex's.

While their is the obvious issues of just GW can't write technical language to save themselves.

There is also a number of other aspects that could really do with some play testing like functional terrain rules, and jusy before someone's a smart ass No cities of death isn't functional it's just as balance breaking just in a different way.

Also CP system still could be better, with them slowly handing out mono faction bonuses it's getting better but we'll see where we end up at the end of Psychic Awakening.

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, there won't be. It's GW. They had no idea tripointing existed when they wrote fall back. They've just declined to faq it.

Looks like they learned about tripointing recently.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/04/17/charging-and-how-to-do-itgw-homepage-post-3fw-homepage-post-3/




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
There is still plenty of things that could do with fixing(cough playtesting) in 8th edition beta 21 before they jump to a 9th edition.

Agreed.

Yeah, people claim it was playtested, but I 100% don't believe them.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, people claim it was playtested, but I 100% don't believe them.

I read an ex GW design studio guy say that testing often has very little impact on how the rules end up finalised in a codex or CA.

Unfortunately just because something is tested, doesn't mean decision makers appropriately use the data.

I like a lot of the underpinnings of 8th, but there are some pretty serious holes in it.

Karol wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, people claim it was playtested, but I 100% don't believe them.

I read an ex GW design studio guy say that testing often has very little impact on how the rules end up finalised in a codex or CA.

That sounds about right for GW.

Martel732 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, people claim it was playtested, but I 100% don't believe them.

I read an ex GW design studio guy say that testing often has very little impact on how the rules end up finalised in a codex or CA.

That sounds about right for GW.

Unless it was that guy who made the post in like 2013 about Eldar Knights.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, people claim it was playtested, but I 100% don't believe them.

I read an ex GW design studio guy say that testing often has very little impact on how the rules end up finalised in a codex or CA.

That sounds about right for GW.

Unless it was that guy who made the post in like 2013 about Eldar Knights.

LOL like they've actually changed. Remember how long it took then to finally fix Castellans despite the constant reminders that it was broken?
2013 is the same as 2020 except with friendly PR

Pandemic must be over - you've all returned to squealing for your rules updates & quibbling about what should be in it/why.

ccs wrote:
Pandemic must be over - you've all returned to squealing for your rules updates & quibbling about what should be in it/why.

People are getting restless, duh.

ccs wrote:
Pandemic must be over - you've all returned to squealing for your rules updates & quibbling about what should be in it/why.

Maybe in places where people play at homes. In places where the majority happened at stores, the end of pandemic won't change. Our store closed and won't open.

ccs wrote:
Pandemic must be over - you've all returned to squealing for your rules updates & quibbling about what should be in it/why.

I mean, if people are stuck at home, complaining on the internet isn't exactly an unknown activity, especially when everything's closed

ccs wrote:
Pandemic must be over - you've all returned to squealing for your rules updates & quibbling about what should be in it/why.

To be fair, GW made a big song and dance about their FAQ schedule early in 8th's lifespan. Getting a WHC post with an update as to what's going on with the Spring FAQ wouldn't hurt anyone, even if it basically said "sorry, due to what's going on we're not releasing one".

 Dysartes wrote:

ccs wrote:
Pandemic must be over - you've all returned to squealing for your rules updates & quibbling about what should be in it/why.

To be fair, GW made a big song and dance about their FAQ schedule early in 8th's lifespan. Getting a WHC post with an update as to what's going on with the Spring FAQ wouldn't hurt anyone, even if it basically said "sorry, due to what's going on we're not releasing one".

Equally, it’s hardly anyone’s number one priority right now, as I’m sure you realise. We’ll all be fine without an FAQ for a bit longer.

It should be easier not harder to produce a FAQ in the current environment unless GW does not allow employees to work from home. No communication combined and how much energy GW has put into 8th PR amplifies the silence.

7th and 8th took us into directions best left out of future editions. I am hoping they just turn 6th upside down into a 9 and make a few adjustments to update those rules. Not going to happen but can't a Necron dream? Actually, I am not sure about that...

 Tokhuah wrote:
It should be easier not harder to produce a FAQ in the current environment unless GW does not allow employees to work from home. No communication combined and how much energy GW has put into 8th PR amplifies the silence.

7th and 8th took us into directions best left out of future editions. I am hoping they just turn 6th upside down into a 9 and make a few adjustments to update those rules. Not going to happen but can't a Necron dream? Actually, I am not sure about that...

Ew. 6th gave us Hull Points. No thanks.

If they're going to go back, I'd rather go back to 5th. But 8th is pretty good.



Anyway, it's hard to produce an FAQ in lockdown since an FAQ requires data to make changes. IIRC they openly stated one time that their FAQ followed and was based on Adepticon experiences, so I would guess that given that a number of major tournaments didn't happen this year, there's just no information to show if anything is wrong.

The tournaments that usually precede these FAQs didn't happen.

Only a portion of the FAQs are from tournaments. Also, there were tournaments between the last FAQ and the cancellation of Adepticon.

5th gave us the abomination of TLOS. 4th please, but with some alteration.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
5th gave us the abomination of TLOS. 4th please, but with some alteration.

TLOS is fine, it's entirely binary. I want 5th with Wound Pool abuse removed (and maybe Grey Knights removed too )

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
5th gave us the abomination of TLOS. 4th please, but with some alteration.

TLOS is fine, it's entirely binary. I want 5th with Wound Pool abuse removed (and maybe Grey Knights removed too )

I dislike TLOS for ruining all the woods in the game. "Here is my woodland board!" *might as well be planet bowling ball, at least if you're playing with enough space to actually put down minis*

Abstracted woods were the best. TLOS is cancer.

Martel732 wrote:
Abstracted woods were the best. TLOS is cancer.

oh feth I agree with martel on something

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Abstracted woods were the best. TLOS is cancer.

oh feth I agree with martel on something

Its true though, 4th Ed woods were great.

 alextroy wrote:
Only a portion of the FAQs are from tournaments. Also, there were tournaments between the last FAQ and the cancellation of Adepticon.

Sure there were, but Adepticon is one of the Big Ones--and GW's staff are present at said event and taking 'in person feedback' from the tournament players.

People want to make it sound like Big Tournaments are all that matter when it comes to writing lists, etc--then are shocked when GW doesn't provide FAQs based off that feedback from the people actually present.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Abstracted woods were the best. TLOS is cancer.

oh feth I agree with martel on something

I'm sure we agree on more than one thing. I'm just abrasive when I disagree.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
5th gave us the abomination of TLOS. 4th please, but with some alteration.

Rogue Trader gave us TLOS, and it's been in every version of the game since. 4th edition just changed how area terrain worked, which has been different in pretty much every edition.

Having said that, I would agree that 4th edition's take on area terrain was better than 5th... but it was written in a way that confused an awful lot of people.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


But 8th is pretty good.

Through my eyes this sentiment pretty much invalidates any opinion you have on the matter.

To each their own. And to be real, 6th for a Necron still means the 5th Edition Codex so my perception may be a bit warped in this regard. Currently there are so many great miniatures games and bootlegs like Grimdark are a more streamlined version of Kill Team so I pretty much buy a few GW models but do not pay for or play any of their content. This is sort of like treating GW as a model company but not a game company. If GW decides to work on a game worth my time I will consider it but not if 9th is 8th v2.0 because I am not bound to play a game just because I own the models.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Equally, it’s hardly anyone’s number one priority right now, as I’m sure you realise. We’ll all be fine without an FAQ for a bit longer.

But at the same time, why not have one ready? It's not as if working from home stops you from doing an FAQ.

 Tokhuah wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


But 8th is pretty good.

Through my eyes this sentiment pretty much invalidates any opinion you have on the matter.

To each their own. And to be real, 6th for a Necron still means the 5th Edition Codex so my perception may be a bit warped in this regard. Currently there are so many great miniatures games and bootlegs like Grimdark are a more streamlined version of Kill Team so I pretty much buy a few GW models but do not pay for or play any of their content. This is sort of like treating GW as a model company but not a game company. If GW decides to work on a game worth my time I will consider it but not if 9th is 8th v2.0 because I am not bound to play a game just because I own the models.

What do you not like about 8th [and why does that invalidate my opinion]?

It is my opinion that my favorite past edition was 5th. The introduction of hull points in 6th was the first major step downhill, and then the introduction of the Riptide which was by all accounts a vehicle but was classed as a monstrous creature so that it would benefit from the vastly better MC ruleset really set things off. 6th also brought in Super Heavies in normal play, Allied Detachments, and nonstandard force organization charts for special snowflake factions. 7th then started the giving out of free rules for existing, going as far as to include free units.
5th's major flaw was wound shuffling, which I think could be solved by using the modern rule that says allocated wounds to wounded models first, and the Plasma Siphon, which at the very least shouldn't have applied to all Tau weapons and probably shouldn't have existed in the first place.
5th also brought me tank squadrons for my IG, which is something I of course, really like, and why I wouldn't want to go earlier.

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch. The bad parts are the Space Marine Supplements which hearken back to 7e Formations, sub faction rules in general, locking things in melee, the new AP system [and giving AP out of basic infantry], and the general lack of power in truly heavy vehicle weapons [which are no longer able to kill tanks, while rate of fire with midrange guns is an answer to everything].

We're still stuck with superheavies in standard play [as much as I love my Shadowsword and play it as often as I can because it's awesome] since Imperial Knights exist, and we're still stuck with nonstandard force orgs because Imperial Knights exist, and Allied Detachments are going to be a thing forevermore [which, to be fair, the addition of allies to 6e allowed me to start Sisters of Battle, but I also think that allies are a net detriment to the game]

I expect it to happen in 2-4 weeks, everything has been pushed back by corona.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Equally, it’s hardly anyone’s number one priority right now, as I’m sure you realise. We’ll all be fine without an FAQ for a bit longer.

But at the same time, why not have one ready? It's not as if working from home stops you from doing an FAQ.

It's a sad, vicious circle. Too many can't play the game without GW constantly tweaking it & GW can't tweak the rules without seeing a tiny % (who most players will never know exist) play the game.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Equally, it’s hardly anyone’s number one priority right now, as I’m sure you realise. We’ll all be fine without an FAQ for a bit longer.

But at the same time, why not have one ready? It's not as if working from home stops you from doing an FAQ.

It's to do with who if anyone is technically declaired as working vrs not working while GW is/was closed, the goverment was/is paying some of companies wage bills during this pandemic, but only if the employees are not working at all.
So to produce your FAQ would have cost the company.

So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

Saga of the Beast KFF Meks are the biggest offender, along with Deathwatch having unnerfed Doctrines.

i just want a working command vox net.

And some interactions between enforcers and marauders.

Clarification on strategic discipline, when is during a phase ? DW has two strats which were changed. Necrons are the only faction which cannot disembark T1 from their transports.

I was under the impressions that they “playtest” a book (I use that term loosely) then put it out to the public.

A few tournaments generally pick up the issues and loopholes which generate the FAQ and errata.

With lockdown they have no data to gather.



Don’t get me wrong, GW playtesting is far from even “ok” but things will always be missed or overlooked.
They would have to go through every single interaction possible in the game with the new rules to find these issues.

Some are glaring like missing parts of text or sometimes even units.

Others are interactions that require such a small possibility to come about that it’s not even a thought.

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

From the mail I sent them:

- Can Thrakka ride in transports?
- Can pain boys use sawbonez on Thrakka?
- Can Thrakka make use of the (Greater) Waaagh! ability?
- Can a weird boy use the Skorched Gitbones relic to cast clan powers?
- Everything about the Big Mek with KFF
- How does Dreaded Deff Machine interact with the Goff culture?
- Do multiple mek workshops reward multiple kustom jobs?
- Can da boomer or the zagzap be used with the gunwagon's periscope ability?

For most of them the answer is clear in RAW, but having them spelled out would help settling rule arguments.

Jackal90 wrote:
I was under the impressions that they “playtest” a book (I use that term loosely) then put it out to the public.

A few tournaments generally pick up the issues and loopholes which generate the FAQ and errata.

With lockdown they have no data to gather.



Don’t get me wrong, GW playtesting is far from even “ok” but things will always be missed or overlooked.
They would have to go through every single interaction possible in the game with the new rules to find these issues.

Some are glaring like missing parts of text or sometimes even units.

Others are interactions that require such a small possibility to come about that it’s not even a thought.

That's not true. Every veteran/tournament player only needs hours to figure out broken combos with new rules. When new rules are sent to previewers on YouTube there are new videos about insane combinations the same day, or the next day.
GW Playtesting ist non existent, or their testers are noobs.

Issue is more of GW not listening feedback.

Also doesn't help testing is basically hand out 2 army lists, told to play it and tell how it went.

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
I was under the impressions that they “playtest” a book (I use that term loosely) then put it out to the public.

A few tournaments generally pick up the issues and loopholes which generate the FAQ and errata.

With lockdown they have no data to gather.



Don’t get me wrong, GW playtesting is far from even “ok” but things will always be missed or overlooked.
They would have to go through every single interaction possible in the game with the new rules to find these issues.

Some are glaring like missing parts of text or sometimes even units.

Others are interactions that require such a small possibility to come about that it’s not even a thought.

That's not true. Every veteran/tournament player only needs hours to figure out broken combos with new rules. When new rules are sent to previewers on YouTube there are new videos about insane combinations the same day, or the next day.
GW Playtesting ist non existent, or their testers are noobs.

Their writing is based upon they way their team plays beerhammer, they are not competitive minded people and also even when the rules arn't clear they have the advantage od knowing what their intention was.
It also doesnt help that the guys writing the rules, competitive players and rules lawyers, veiw the game with very different goals.
Like GW's last nerf to marines was this is how GW tested the doctorines 1-2 turns of dev then tac then assualt, it was rummered they argued with playtesters about ironhands and Fists being broken.

Given the recent Deathmatch articles on Warhammer Community (Especially the "Middleweight" one) it seems the thing holding GW back from doing a proper FAQ is that without outside help they don't know the rules for their own game.

I'd think even working from home it should be possible to produce the regular FAQs for Saga of the Beast and the Deathwatch update though. Bit puzzled why they haven't been done.

I'd happily work as a contractor for them for a nominal £1 fee

Well, I dropped Customer Services an email on the 3rd suggesting (not demanding) that they at least pop an update on WHC regarding the Spring FAQ - got a response on Sunday saying they'd pass it on and see what they can do, but who knows what that'll mean.

Didn't playtesters repeatedly bring up how broken IH were and GW just completely ignored it?

 p5freak wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:
I was under the impressions that they “playtest” a book (I use that term loosely) then put it out to the public.

A few tournaments generally pick up the issues and loopholes which generate the FAQ and errata.

With lockdown they have no data to gather.



Don’t get me wrong, GW playtesting is far from even “ok” but things will always be missed or overlooked.
They would have to go through every single interaction possible in the game with the new rules to find these issues.

Some are glaring like missing parts of text or sometimes even units.

Others are interactions that require such a small possibility to come about that it’s not even a thought.

That's not true. Every veteran/tournament player only needs hours to figure out broken combos with new rules. When new rules are sent to previewers on YouTube there are new videos about insane combinations the same day, or the next day.
GW Playtesting ist non existent, or their testers are noobs.

Please read all of my post correctly before trying to get a quick 1up on the internet.
In hours you cannot figure out every single interaction that army will have with all others.
Unless you have a team that’s thousands strong all attempting separate parts to gather all data, it’s impossible.

My post wasn’t just in regards to which units will be meta or bad.
It was about rules and how they interact.
We’ve seen it plenty in the past where a scenario comes up months after release that leads to a dead end or a broken rule.
Working out strong units is indeed quick.

Playtesting each and every rule against every possible conflicting rule however isn’t so quick.
Even thinking it is shows a severe lack of understanding to how rules integrate into an ongoing system.

No tournaments being played is not an excuse not to start mining away at the mountain of questions they get sent concerning rules disparities.

 Jidmah wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

From the mail I sent them:

- Can Thrakka ride in transports?
- Can pain boys use sawbonez on Thrakka?
- Can Thrakka make use of the (Greater) Waaagh! ability?
- Can a weird boy use the Skorched Gitbones relic to cast clan powers?
- Everything about the Big Mek with KFF
- How does Dreaded Deff Machine interact with the Goff culture?
- Do multiple mek workshops reward multiple kustom jobs?
- Can da boomer or the zagzap be used with the gunwagon's periscope ability?

For most of them the answer is clear in RAW, but having them spelled out would help settling rule arguments.

1) This is not a "question" you're just asking for a change to a rule you don't like.
2) See 1
3) See 1
4) See 1
5) Not a question?
6) I guess a question, but RAW seems pretty clear here to me. Extra attacks from Goffs kultur do not generate extra attacks. DDM is a strat that generates extra attacks. Therefore it would not trigger based on bonus attacks you already gained from the Goffs kultur, nor would DDM generate extra attacks due to Goff Kultur because it also says it does not generate bonus attacks.
7) Actually ambiguous wording! You're 1 for 7!
8) See 1

This is why I almost dislike the FAQs: 90% of the "questions" people ask are actually not all that unclear RAW, people are just asking for a re-interpretation that favors you. Two different abilities that both state "Bonus attacks generated by this ability do not generate additional bonus attacks" is crystal clear RAW, you'd just like one rule to be able to trigger bonus attacks from the other rule.

In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

the_scotsman wrote:

1) This is not a "question" you're just asking for a change to a rule you don't like.
2) See 1
3) See 1
4) See 1
5) Not a question?
6) I guess a question, but RAW seems pretty clear here to me. Extra attacks from Goffs kultur do not generate extra attacks.

5 might not be question but whole entry is mess. The kff desperately needs faqing as as it is it's mess and whoever wrote it hasn't even read ork codex. Standard course for faq's.

In case you have been not reading faq's so far they actually do change rules they messed up. As is codex is beta test for players to do gw's job for free. It's not accident that books are messed up. Deliberate cash saving by gw.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

From the mail I sent them:

- Can Thrakka ride in transports?
- Can pain boys use sawbonez on Thrakka?
- Can Thrakka make use of the (Greater) Waaagh! ability?
- Can a weird boy use the Skorched Gitbones relic to cast clan powers?
- Everything about the Big Mek with KFF
- How does Dreaded Deff Machine interact with the Goff culture?
- Do multiple mek workshops reward multiple kustom jobs?
- Can da boomer or the zagzap be used with the gunwagon's periscope ability?

For most of them the answer is clear in RAW, but having them spelled out would help settling rule arguments.

1) This is not a "question" you're just asking for a change to a rule you don't like.
2) See 1
3) See 1
4) See 1
5) Not a question?
6) I guess a question, but RAW seems pretty clear here to me. Extra attacks from Goffs kultur do not generate extra attacks. DDM is a strat that generates extra attacks. Therefore it would not trigger based on bonus attacks you already gained from the Goffs kultur, nor would DDM generate extra attacks due to Goff Kultur because it also says it does not generate bonus attacks.
7) Actually ambiguous wording! You're 1 for 7!
8) See 1

This is why I almost dislike the FAQs: 90% of the "questions" people ask are actually not all that unclear RAW, people are just asking for a re-interpretation that favors you. Two different abilities that both state "Bonus attacks generated by this ability do not generate additional bonus attacks" is crystal clear RAW, you'd just like one rule to be able to trigger bonus attacks from the other rule.

Well, he did say that the RAW was clear on most of them.

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

I mean , speak for yourself.

My ork army in 7th was 5ppm boyz in 30ppm trukks.

My ork army in 8th is 7ppm boyz in 65ppm trukks.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

I mean , speak for yourself.

My ork army in 7th was 5ppm boyz in 30ppm trukks.

My ork army in 8th is 7ppm boyz in 65ppm trukks.

Yeah but points from one edition to another that uses completely different rules don't count.

the_scotsman wrote:
This is why I almost dislike the FAQs: 90% of the "questions" people ask are actually not all that unclear RAW, people are just asking for a re-interpretation that favors you.

RAW, there was nothing stopping Tyranids from giving an Adaptive Physiology to a named character, but then the subsequent FAQ forbade that.

RAW, you can place an entire squadron of 3 Leman Russes in ambush when playing as Tallarn, and this was called out as the correct ruling in the FAQ.

Yes, a lot of these questions are clear in regards to RAW- but when the RAW seems to conflict with RAI, people ask questions, and then the FAQ either confirms that the RAW is RAI, or erratas the RAW to match the RAI.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

I mean , speak for yourself.

My ork army in 7th was 5ppm boyz in 30ppm trukks.

My ork army in 8th is 7ppm boyz in 65ppm trukks.

Yeah but points from one edition to another that uses completely different rules don't count.

....Not when the claim is how many models you put on the table....

My ork army is smaller in 8th than in 7th, and dies far, far faster

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

They're FAQ/Errata, so it's both.

Voss wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

8th is a major step up from 6th and 7th. The artificial vehicle-monster divide is gone. Scatter dice being gone is something I didn't know I needed, since it's nice to not have to argue for every Basilisk or just let people take advantage of the fact that I don't want to deal with an argument for every one of my 9 guns [seriously, it's 2.5" in radius. With 4" of scatter, it is physically impossible for it to miss your 4" wide Land Raider]. USR's being traded for "everything is on the datasheet" is nice. Balance between units in the same book is still pretty hit or miss, but balance between factions is tighter than it's been since ever I started playing. CP and Stratagems are a nice touch.

Personally I could have gone for the first two (vehicles/MCs stepping back to their original conception kicking scatter dice to the curb) without any of the rest. Especially the amped up lethality and Strats, which tend to either bog the game down something fierce when something unfamiliar comes up or breaks the game on basic principles. 1 CP = 1 reroll is fine. 1 CP also = several paragraphs worth of effects at once? Not fine. There's no way to make that gap between the good Strats and the basic value of command point work.

As the various army books have come out, I think 8th has kept far too many of 7th's flaws and special case nonsense, and not enough baseline sensibility.

There are actually only 2 categories of models less tough than they were previously: Terminator Equivalents and Monstrous Creatures. Everything else is more resistant to fire than before.

However, units & upgrades are now cheaper, particularly infantry, so you have a lot more stuff that can put fire downrange. This is theoretically a wash on the army scale, but a single unit sees it's odds of survival go down if there's more guys shooting at it.

I mean , speak for yourself.

My ork army in 7th was 5ppm boyz in 30ppm trukks.

My ork army in 8th is 7ppm boyz in 65ppm trukks.

Yeah but points from one edition to another that uses completely different rules don't count.

....Not when the claim is how many models you put on the table....

My ork army is smaller in 8th than in 7th, and dies far, far faster

And not not a points problem that they die faster, thats an 8th problem, 8th jacked up the damage by a HUGE amount, just removing real cover saves was big, then making twin linked x2 shots over re-rolls, on top of giving out insane amounts of re-rolls. Yeah things die faster.

Yes and no, I find that my Tyranids in general are far more resistant in 8th.

Also 6th and 7th had the abomination that was Grav which pretty much killed everything that wasn't a death star or hordes. And there were blast for hordes.

But yeah doctrines didn't help as they are all offensive buffs. At least with sub-faction rules many are defensive buffs.

The AVERAGE lethality of the game has increased for sure, but the TOP lethality has gone way way down.

The top lists used to inflict much more damage per turn than the current ones, grav spam, D weapons, scatspam and the like were on a level of damage which tabled armies in one turn.

Many didn't notice it because against those lists you played with equally broken defensive buffs, but without those the damage was simply insane.

Even pre nerf iron hand lists were cute little puppies compared to them.

Wakshaani wrote:
So, while we're waiting … what are the outstanding questions that need answering?

Definately the Scions problem regarding the Vigilus Detachement and the new Scions Regimental Doctrines.

How does "Flay Them Alive" interact with atsknf. Does the loyalist player reroll both dice again and I choose which to discard, or do they reroll one dice and keep that? Would love to know because the idea of making loyalist dogs flee in terror amuses me.

My emails to gw on the subject have so far just gotten the standard response.

Spoletta wrote:
The AVERAGE lethality of the game has increased for sure, but the TOP lethality has gone way way down.

The top lists used to inflict much more damage per turn than the current ones, grav spam, D weapons, scatspam and the like were on a level of damage which tabled armies in one turn.

Many didn't notice it because against those lists you played with equally broken defensive buffs, but without those the damage was simply insane.

Even pre nerf iron hand lists were cute little puppies compared to them.

I suppose this is accurate. It just seems like GW can't help themselves at all.

Fix the Monolith and Night Scythe.
Give us actual transport ability.

 Blndmage wrote:
Fix the Monolith and Night Scythe.
Give us actual transport ability.

+1! Make the Monolith great again!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
In fairness, that is what FAQs should be used for, to reinforce what the rule says despite people disliking the rule, not to CHANGE the rule (that is what errata is for).

This. Your personal attack was utterly unnecessary, scotsman.

 Apple Peel wrote:
No tournaments being played is not an excuse not to start mining away at the mountain of questions they get sent concerning rules disparities.

For once, I agree with you.

OK, the lack of tournament data - *rolls eyes* - might mean they don't want to do a big balance change this time. I don't agree with it, given how many of these big events aren't playing 40k in my eyes, but whatever.

However, they have this email address for rules queries. Why not take the ten or fifteen questions they get in most often for each codex, as well as the core rules - hey, fix Assault weapons finally, maybe - and address those, along with checking to make sure that no important FAQs or designer's commentary have gone missing with older files being removed from WHC (I think people have referred to this in the past). Do that, alongside releasing the "Day 14" FAQs for any products that haven't had them yet, and that'd be a reasonable Spring FAQ, for my money.