Found THIS posted on GW's forums, so take with a grain of salt:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=565 border=0> <TBODY> <TR> <TD vAlign=top width="100%"> FAQS . (0 Replies). Spack[]. 8/14/2006 9:01 (8/14/2006 9:01) </TD> <TD vAlign=top noWrap></TD></TR> <TR> <TD vAlign=top colSpan=3>Just got off the phone with GW UK customer service about the missing FAQs, and Rik Turner has said that the 4th edition FAQs for Marines, Tau, Black Templars and Tyranids will be posted tomorrow, however it appears that there will not be new FAQs for the 3rd edition codexes. It may be that the existing 4.0.1 FAQs will be reinstated, but whether it'll happen tomorrow nobody knows.

Until then, the only place to get the existing FAQs in English are via the US site and the Oz site, at the following URLs:

http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/errata.htm

http://oz.games-workshop.com/games/40k/chapter_approved/chapterapproved.htm
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I guess I'll be keeping an eye open to see if there's any truth to this.  However it will be disappointing (to say the least) if it turns out to be true that they don't update all of the FAQs.

It wouldn't surpise me. But anything posted on the EoT is suspect anyway.

I'll be more disapointed if they use the assenine rules from the Spanish website.

I'm expecting them to be 95% similar to that version. It took them impossibly long to come up with those barebones and sometimes strange FAQs. I think it's unrealistic to expect that an updated version would be much different. In the new WD, Jervis talked at length about FAQs and used the example of drop pods being immobile and therefore giving half VPs. So it looks like that one's going to stick, at least.

Frankly, I hope they never release them, as I'm quite sure they'll make my "overpowered" Tyranid Warriors once again subject to IK.

Ah well.

Perhaps it is better to have some unpleasant answers than a lot of unanswered questions.

I don't believe they'll differ much to the Spanish ones.

Tau Sniper Drones and Pathfinders will get shafted.

Anyone want to bet on GW actually posting the new FAQ's tomorrow? My bet is "NO"

Darrian
(pessimistic)

the half points gien up for drop pods is just absolutely slowed. who came up with that? they are immobile, they have not been immobilized due to enemy fire! ach, i hate that stupid FAQ. at the LA battle bunker they do not use that ruling, if that counts for anything. hahaha, it might have to do with the fact that the manager plays SM's.

Posted By Reecius 08/14/2006 5:50 PM
the half points gien up for drop pods is just absolutely slowed. who came up with that? they are immobile, they have not been immobilized due to enemy fire! ach, i hate that stupid FAQ. at the LA battle bunker they do not use that ruling, if that counts for anything. hahaha, it might have to do with the fact that the manager plays SM's.

Clearly slowed. Since, y'know, it's in the rulebook and all. Read page 85. Any vehicle that is immobile at the end of the game gives half VP's to the enemy. Never says anything about being immobilised by enemy fire, only that it's immobile at all. Let's not call people slowed when you're wrong anyway.

As of fifteen minutes ago no update on the US or UK site.

I don't care nearly as much for codex FAQ's as I do about FAQ's for the actual rulebook. I await with trepidation.

Come now Cheexsta, don't confuse people with the facts when their minds are already made up.

Quick!

All you Tyranid players!

Go out and play as many games as you can before S9 and S10 weapons resume insta-killing your forces.

BYE

speaking of which the FAQ's are posted on GW UK now, nothing for the rule book, just the 4 codex's that have come out

It's the crappy FAQ's from the GW Spain site it seems. At leat it specifically states that Warriors can be instant killed by Lascannons.

Well, now we have the new FAQ's.  Of course, none of the real questions were answered.

So, now that we have the FAQ's that we've been clamoring for, how long before all the complaining starts... after all, they are now 'official'...

Complaining commences in 3...2...1...

The fact that they still don't tell you what to do if a Drop Pod scatters onto a friendly unit is pretty disheartening. Especially since they were clear on a Pod being "immobilized" on arrival.

I've said my peace on Tyranid Warriors and instant kills, so I won't comment further.

But to waste time answering three questions on spore mines and one on whether the Tyrant is an IC, and ignore the common question of how to treat a model armed with two venom cannons...well, it's every bit the excrement I expected.

Well this does address some of the more bizarro things with the new codexes. Just wish we had a FAQ for the main rulebook.

The fact that they still don't tell you what to do if a Drop Pod scatters onto a friendly unit is pretty disheartening.

I think the disheartening part is that every time you think things might be improving at the studio, they prove they're still out of touch with what's really going on in the hobby. I'm sure anything I'm saying will get written off by the designers as just another internet whiner. But I've defended the studio many times on this forum and others. I'm just being honest when I say these are just a poor, poor effort, especially given how long players have waited. How long will we have to wait to have our real questions answered?

All I know is that things are bad when gorgon is disgusted with the studio. Really bad. I know I've been complaining for years (and often with gorgon as my foil), but good grief. What will it take for the studio to get it? Or is it management not getting it? Or both? Look at Flames of War, their new v2 ruleset has just been released and they're already keeping a FAQ updated ("Letters from the Front") on their website. Not even a month has passed and they are on top of things. GW= Two years and basic fundamental issues still haven't been adressed. Ugh.

Posted By H.B.M.C. 08/15/2006 8:14 AM
Quick!

All you Tyranid players!

Go out and play as many games as you can before S9 and S10 weapons resume insta-killing your forces.

BYE

ROFLMAO

HBMC, that really made my day.  One of my buddies plays 'Nids all of the time and I keep on forgetting that they cannot be insta-killed.  Boy, that would make his dislike of GW on my level.

Two years and THIS is what they put out?

Shameful.

I'm curious if the studio sees posting these as a "win" or a "loss" for themselves.

This is sad.

There is a clear need for for a a detailed review of the basic rules and that has not occurred. When Dakka and other boards can generate pages of questions that need FAQing, when their own website has a a thumb in the air FAQ that itself goes for pages, why is this not addressed?!?!

Further, there were issues raised in the old FAQ's for existing codexes, which have not been addressed.

It's like someone decided to let a bunch of high school kids take over doing errata for GW.

Eh, I'm already getting over it. I'll just have to go Godzilla now, like *everyone* else. Synapse was hard but doable as long as Warriors and Zoanthropes had some durability. This just accelerates players moving away from Gaunts and toward the units that make up a Godzilla list...Tyrants, Carnifexes and Stealers. It was already happening, but I'm sure GW didn't notice. I think Tyrants "hidden" in Tyrant Guard units will become more popular, at least.

The really funny thing is that you know Tyranid MCs will get the nerf treatment in the next Tyranid codex. That's all they'll see players using at tournaments, so the only "answer" they'll come up with is that they must be completely broken.

I feel bad for all the people on various forums who took the time to put together their own, extensive FAQs. I'd think these would be fairly insulting.

What´s the point in Depp Striking Land Speeders now..?

 

I don´t know what to say about this crap really... But I feel far, faaar better treated by Battle Front. GW should learn from them.

I know, I will never, ever enforce their ruling on Synapse. Here is something interesting from the latest White Dwarf:

Jervis Johnson, pg. 71 of USWD 320

"I have to admit that, very occasionally, we do get it wrong. We might not word something perectly, or a rule might get changed late in writing and affect other rules in an unforeseen way. Speaking as a designer, there is nothing worse than finding out that a rule you have written is not achieving the effect you wanted, and one's instinct is to dive in and try and fix it immediately. However, I've learned that doing so in the Errata for a rule book can cause all kinds of other problems."

Insert Paragraph saying that clearifing the Wolf Leader in a Wolf Scout Squad was a bad thing. "...Still, you live and learn. Thus, from now on, our errata will only fix typographical errors or unclear rules."

"Further changes will be made only when we bring out a new edition of a rule book or supplement. Thus, when we next revise Codex: Space Marine we may ange the rule for drop pods (earlier he stated by RAW drop pods are immobilized because they are immobile), and you can rest assured that the next Codex: Space Wolves will not allow infiltrating Wolf Gaurd Leaders. What we won't do is alter the rules in the errata or other media. By doing so, we can ensure that all players are made aware of changes, as it's rather hard to miss a new Codex coming out!"

So it looks like GW would rather listen to those complaining that they don't have access to the FAQ's rather than those complaining that they don't fix their mistakes.

Yeah, I read that Mahu.  Its basically sticking your head in the sand.  Which is sad because most players actually have access to the internet, I would think, and could get them.  And most of the people who want Errata are the Tourny players anyway, and they'd make sure they found them.  Its a lame excuse. 

You know you put out a sub-par product, so instead of fixing it, you wait till you publish another codex, thereby forcing people to pay - yet again - for rules that will probably also have issues.  Including stealth printings of the Chaos Dex, I have 4 chaos codexes in three editions (and 4th doesn't really count as a full edition), and its still a mess...

I'm usually willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but geez...

My fully legal V3 Chaos codex has T5 oblits. By this train of logic (not needing FAQ's) that puppy's fully usable. Hurray!

This just burns me up. Don't play much due to work and the plethora of 13 year old gamers as opponents, so drawn mostly to new codexes and the pulp fiction they put out. But I can rectify that quite easily.

WORTHLESS! That is all there is to say about the Templars FAQ. It should have just said...."go read the marine FAQ!" At least the other ones have SOME things addressed. They still haven't addressed issues from the Core book nor, any of the older books. Wow. It looks like the Adepticon Council Rulings are becoming the best rulings in organized play so far. After 2 years, this is sad.

Capt K

Hi All

 

I don't post much as there are lots of smarter players here than I. Funnier too.

As for this 'amazing' performance with GW's efforts on FAQ's, it's simple really.

FAQ's are free. Want new rules, buy the Codex. Sure you have to wait a couple of years and it's lousy customer service at best, but it makes GW money short term.

FOW looks better and better all the time. Wait five years and it will be GW who? I'm finishing off my 28mm terrain projects then converting over to 15mm stuff.

 

Robert

I am not a big GW Critic. To me it is just a game with some rules issues.

This recent FAQ though really hacks me off. What a pile of garbage. Here they have a chance to prove all the whiners and complainers wrong about their lacking rule set, by simply releasing a decent FAQ, and we get this crap. Hell the rule lawyers even gave them a list of the problems, all they had to do was answer them.

Sorry GW, but FOW is looking better and better. If get into FOW I wont have to be so embarrassed that I play with plastic space warriors and monsters.

I too am disappointed. But I'm not surprised.

I just don't understand it. It doesn't make any sense. I hope they didn't spend more than a day doing these.

Posted By Mahu 08/15/2006 10:04 AM
"Further changes will be made only when we bring out a new edition of a rule book or supplement. Thus, when we next revise Codex: Space Marine we may ange the rule for drop pods (earlier he stated by RAW drop pods are immobilized because they are immobile), and you can rest assured that the next Codex: Space Wolves will not allow infiltrating Wolf Gaurd Leaders. What we won't do is alter the rules in the errata or other media. By doing so, we can ensure that all players are made aware of changes, as it's rather hard to miss a new Codex coming out!"

Well, it could be considered smart business practice. Afterall, why make a free online faq, when you can wait 2 years, make a new print run, and call it the "new" codex and make more money.

Afterall, why make a free online faq, when you can wait 2 years, make a new print run, and call it the "new" codex and make more money.

Because if they're really serious about never releasing any more FAQs, the customers might finally throw in the towel. Might.

I hope they didn't spend more than a day doing these.

Bigchris, I think you nailed it. They didn't, and that's the problem. Either release meaningful FAQs with some real thought behind them, or don't do them at all and let the hobby community come up with their own answers. We woulda done it better.

As Mahu said, they'd rather listen to the people who say they can't access errata than to the people who really want their questions answered. Here's a question for the studio...of those two groups of players, which are probably your more devoted customers?

It's a shame. I think the recent codicies/releases have been some of their best work and generally well-balanced (SM codex excepted). And I'm not an Eldar player, but I've been eager to play against the new codex and maybe pick up some of the models. But these FAQs have me thinking that if GW doesn't give a crap, why should I?

When I go to those sites, it still shows the old FAQs. Are the new ones actually out somewhere?

it is on the UK site

It seems GW's is afraid of inserting their foot in their mouth again. 3rd Edition FAQ's had some, ahem, interesting rule interpretations. It really seems GW would rather the local gamers come up with their own consensus on unclear areas.

Overall, there were some basic questions answered, some that had me shaking my head and others that I can't understand how it was even unclear.

Events like Adepticon have demonstrated that they can do a pretty comprehensive FAQ and allow everyone to have access to it. Does one agree on every ruling? No, but at least it's clear and available for all to read.

I am playing necrons now thats it. Cause now as the WBB rule is writen in the same manner as the Tyranid Synapse rule that basilisk or russ cannot prevent me from getting a WBB roll. Its strength of DOUBLE the models toughness preevnts WBB not MORE THAN double. I am not fielding warriors or zoanthropes anymore and am so disappointed I may just put the nids on the shelf for now.

Y'know... Given GW's inclination to tell people to roll off for answers to rule interpretations, I've got to wonder if that's what they did here. The answers they give are somewhat scattershot, and don't really point to any clear direction or logical process. I would like to say that I appreciate the effort, but I get the impression that little effort was actually put into it. The purpose of FAQ answers is to clarify things to make the game run more smoothly, and thereby be more enjoyable. These answers just confuse things even more in some cases.

I think that's one thing GW ought to understand... Yes, a civilized group of players can reach an amicable solution on an unclear rule, but it makes the game that much more enjoyable if you don't have to go leafing through the rulebook every five minutes. Apparently, I'm just a whiner, though, and I just don't know any better.

Personally, I'd just as soon ignore these and use Adepticon's instead.

Posted By Davian 08/15/2006 12:07 PM
Y'know... Given GW's inclination to tell people to roll off for answers to rule interpretations, I've got to wonder if that's what they did here. The answers they give are somewhat scattershot, and don't really point to any clear direction or logical process. I would like to say that I appreciate the effort, but I get the impression that little effort was actually put into it. The purpose of FAQ answers is to clarify things to make the game run more smoothly, and thereby be more enjoyable. These answers just confuse things even more in some cases.

Actually, they, for the most part, follow RAW as outlined in the Codexes (at least the Nid ones for IB and Synapse).  According to the WD article that Mahu posted, GW is now all of a sudden falling back on RAW, 'even if it doesn't make sense', rather than make changes mid-stream.

So, they're really not scattershot, they're just a far cry from what people were expecting (and hoping for).  They've apparently taken the position not to change rules mid-edition, and this is the end result. 

Like Gorgon said, I'd rather them not have bothered, and left the community to deal with it (like Adepticon, and so many local clubs).

Oh well, now its out there.  Always remember to be careful what you wish for :S .

According to the WD article that Mahu posted, GW is now all of a sudden falling back on RAW, 'even if it doesn't make sense', rather than make changes mid-stream.

So terminator ICs that can always deepstrike, even without retinue, is RAW?

They really are scattershot.

Jervis talked a lot about RAW in the WD article, and I wonder if that's the reason for the delay. Maybe they wanted to wait until Jervis's article was out there as an explanation of their mindset before the FAQs were released.

Considering this is what they said in the Tyranid design notes about synapse and IK...

"What about the rules for synapse creatures though? Well, Phil's been a bit of a clever swine here. "One of the problems that developed with the old Codex was the vulnerability of the middle-weight beasties, which led to Warriors and Raveners dropping out of players' armies. This was a shame as they were cool models. We've all seen what happens when you introduce a good old krak missile to a Tyranid Warrior! "To alleviate this problem, we've rewritten the Synapse rules such that creatures within range of the Hive Node are immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule. This new rule simulates the Hive Mind invigorating the creature despite horrific injury and gets around undesirable weakness in the list - bonus!"

...I think it's safe to assume the original intent was for general IK immunity, but the rule was written poorly in the codex. And now that they're on a RAW kick, Tyranid players just lose out on that one.

I'm not sure that all their "answers" are strictly RAW, however.

Well if GW ever wanted to see certain models just stop selling they succeeded. Speeders, Raveners, warriors, zoanthropes are all going to take a drastic drop in sales that they will be just like cultists where you can only order them online because there would be no point wasting shelf space for a model that sells even more poorly than Dark Eldar Scourges.

Posted By magine 08/15/2006 1:00 PM
Well if GW ever wanted to see certain models just stop selling they succeeded. Speeders, Raveners, warriors, zoanthropes are all going to take a drastic drop in sales that they will be just like cultists where you can only order them online because there would be no point wasting shelf space for a model that sells even more poorly than Dark Eldar Scourges.

Speeders will still sell for all those armies that aren't using them in a Drop Pod list.

And honestly if people only bought what was "effective" then the only ones they're loosing out on are Warriors and Zoanthropes.

Warriors sucked anyway, but can still work if you run your list right - if they're firing lascannons at your Warriors that means they're not firing lascannons at the Winged Hive Tyrant and other 2+ TMC's which they possibly should be just as worried about.

I used a lot of raveners and found them quite effective. As they are fast attack the generally deployed after all my opponents troops so I set them up to utilize cover and avoid bolters and such and they were quite deadly. I actually had just bought three more to beef up my list even more as I found them that effective. The only TMC I use is a Flying tyrant. I use a fast list and it works really well. However this just really took my list and screwed it.

I've only been looking at the Tau errata so far but they do not actually clarify any of the questions about drones except for the Sniper Drone Controller question. (And that effectively goes against RAW.)

Really quite a shabby effort, though considering the poor editing of the original rules and army lists it's not surprising the FAQs should be as bad.

The stupidity of this Tyranid ruling is unfathomable, and the decision not to FAQ against the RAW when the RAW ruins the game is just absurd.

Tyranid Warriors, Raveners, Lictors and especially Zoanthropes can now all just get thrown in the trash. If they had their uses before, this ruling absolutely DESTROYS them.

And as pointed out by Gorgon, by a similar train of thought the Necron WBB rule should now function the same way. Not only is it idiotic but it's also inconsistent.

Man this sucks. I so wanted to try to buck the Godzilla trend and play a Ravener heavy force, but now how can I even contemplate it?

So very stupid. . .

The EoT is a seething mass of indignation.

On first reaction GW seem to have really blown it with this release.

I have been saying it for the longest time. GW in their attempt to try and stop the cookie cutter Nid armies of bigbugs and 80 small bugs then in their own designer notes stated they wanted to put more dependence on medium bugs. This goes totally against their wishes and makes medium bug next to cannon fodder.

Like I said before the Nid Codex is just pushing for big bugs and we all know Big Bug lists are easy to do, not a high model count and makes for some good sales on the big bugs more so the 8-9 carnifexes so people. Its more of a marketing ploy and when you think about it since most people scratch build their Drop Pods; GW can freely nerf them because relatively few people can buy the forgeworld models en masse.

But the only upside to this is the arguments on how droppods are dealt with when they are immobile and the 2 twin linked devourer question. Although I really did want someone to field a 10-15 emperor's champion army.

The EoT is a seething mass of indignation.

Yes. That's how it always is.

Isn't it interesting that GW is paralleling their 40K universe quite perfectly.  In the 40K universe, Tech is a mystery to them, and coming up with new tech is impossible, so they make do with the old.  The current inheritors of the 40K game seem to have no real idea how to fix the rule system, so they just bury their heads in the sand and try to make do.  They make new armies and hope they can fit into the current system.  If a product doesn't fit as they'd like it to, they change the rules for that unit and alter the fluff to make it fit.

It appears they're on a rudderless ship, with no captain, and grots manning the sails.

Clearly slowed. Since, y'know, it's in the rulebook and all. Read page 85. Any vehicle that is immobile at the end of the game gives half VP's to the enemy. Never says anything about being immobilised by enemy fire, only that it's immobile at all. Let's not call people slowed when you're wrong anyway.

I concede, that according to RAW, the vehicle would give up half of its VP's, however, the reason i had stated that the ruling was slowed, was becuase this is an obvious (IMHOP) case of the letter of the rule vs. the spirit.

In no circumstance should a unit (no matter how good it is), upon entering play, instantly give up half of its VP's without the other playing doing anything to earn them. That is just plain stupid. You ropponant should have to commit SOME resources to gaining those VP's. To my knowledge, no other vehicle in the game is immobile (apart from a necron pylon, which no one i have ever seen has used) and as such, the rule was written without the forethought that a vehicle could come in to the game immobile and remian that way till the end.

So, i feel that this ruling is a blind and thoughtless adherence to RAW when an intrepretation of the rules would serve so much better. As is the case with many of this game's rules, the poor writting leaves far too much room for wiggling.

Its a shame that the game dev staff didn't have the moxy to actaully make some rulings based on the spirit of the rule sin order to make the game more enjoyable. this is truly a poor effort.

It would be another matter entirely to stick to RAW if the BGB was so well written that it would put any rules arguments to rest, however, it is not. far from it, so sticking to a bad foundation does not leave much room for growth on GW's part.

[Headhunter sez:] "Isn't it interesting that GW is paralleling their 40K universe quite perfectly. In the 40K universe, Tech is a mystery to them, and coming up with new tech is impossible, so they make do with the old."

Awesome post.
*darts off to begin preparing for a deep space STC expedition.

To my knowledge, no other vehicle in the game is immobile

And any VDR monsters (if anyone still uses them). Imagine giving up half the points on one of those!

In all the FAQ was a let down but at least it answered SOMETHING.

And isn't it killer that for that brief time period between the release of 4th ed and now that he Nid warriors were brilliant!??! I mean just prior to the release of the codex they could fleet if they had leaping... but then GW killed that. Ok so they aren't fast anymore, BUT they can still laughed off a lascannon bolt!!! Nope, they are cannon fodder again....

*sigh*

At first I was rather upset with the rulings. But then, after a bit I have come to the conclusion that they aren't that big of a deal. I used Zoanthropes and Warriors in the last edition. I use them about the same now. My opponents are usually not marines, so I don't see much of an effect. I think the biggest offender here is marine armies with the multiple access to Str 9 weapons. Most other armies don't have access (except IG, but they are easy to deal with). But the ruling won't change much how I play. Just more hiding from Lascannons.

I can see the ruling on Land Speeders, not a big deal either. I don't DS, and it still gets glancing. Sure, it doesn't get to waylay the first turn it comes down. Oh well, I thought at times that was cheesy anyway.

Drop pods. Well, it fits within the rules. No real other way to deal with it except by making a specific rule for it. In a way though they are expendable items. So I see why the ruling would go that way anyway. Makes sense to me.

But maybe I am just a little odd...

As mentioned the necron pylon will automatically give *210* free victory points under this ruling. Just for being deployed.

The hydra flak platform will give 72 free VP for being deployed.

Something smells....

Both not being "official" anyway, so no reason to use those rules as long as consented upon by the opponent. Otherwise you are screwed...

Gabe:

Forgeworld has started including rules (as of IA3) how their immobile vehicles give up VPs (you have to actually cause an immobilizing hit on them), so there vehicles (at least those that have such a rule) aren't affected by this ruling.


Af for Drop Pods, the only reason I'm not against the ruling is because of how incredibly awesome Drop Pods are for the points. Making them give up 1/2 VPs automatically actually makes them somewhat balanced (in VP games at least).

ok, I don't have IA3... thats good to know that FW cleared that issue up.

Isn't it funny that the spin off company has more cogent and better thought out rules than the parent company? Don't get me wrong, i seriosuly love this hobby and GW has been a part of my life for over 14 years, but there needs to be some kind of tightening up of the leadership and/or dev standards. Forgeworld really does do it better, GW could learn a lot from their coller little cousin.

Posted By bigchris1313 08/15/2006 2:33 PM

The EoT is a seething mass of indignation.

Yes. That's how it always is.

Today it's worse. It's difficult to find a neutral response let alone a favourable one. Everyone thinks their army got the shaft one way or another.

Posted By yakface 08/15/2006 3:30 PM

Gabe:
As for Drop Pods, the only reason I'm not against the ruling is because of how incredibly awesome Drop Pods are for the points. Making them give up 1/2 VPs automatically actually makes them somewhat balanced (in VP games at least).

I agree.  It would be different if we were talking about something that wasn't already grossly undercosted.  Drop pods should be MORE than Rhinos as they get where they're going more often and the occupants virtually always arrive alive.  I play Marines, I own a few pods, and I don't use them because I personally feel that they are cheesy at 30 points.  This adds a bit of balance to them.

Cool. Uh...thanks. Yay? I agree with most of the rulings (being close to RAW). The one that sticks out is the terminator armor rule.

In no circumstance should a unit (no matter how good it is), upon entering play, instantly give up half of its VP's without the other playing doing anything to earn them.

What about deepstriking your units on top of enemy units (and are neither monoliths nor drop pods)?

Or off the table with anything?

When V4 Tyranid book came out, I knew I wasnt going to be fielding my tyranids in 4th. This FAQ now confirms it.

I KNOW Superiority is out very shortly and it kicks butt, hell Magnus charter makes my day.

Mass order from the Warstore for more warmachine stuff it seems.....

Anyone load up the WH FAQ? I cant get it to load....

We will know if the droppods counting as 15 VPs is a mistake if all-of-a-sudden, droppod armies cease to be a tournament choice.  But that won't happen.  Now they are still a great buy, they just aren't as efficient as they used to be.  It's also nice to the opponents who now don't have to waste any effort on actually targetting the droppods.

- Oaka

GW is very political. First they give then they take away. It is all part of their marketing strategy. No big deal on drop pods... they are still awesome in their own right. I think Tyranids got the biggest shaft.

I think Gav had his fingers in the Drop pod issue since his precious Eldar were probably getting hammered by them......

I dropped out of 40K for many reasons. These FAQs have done nothing but solidify those reasons. GW doesn't have a clue what they are doing or how to make a working game. I'll agree that the nids got shafted, but the marines got so many bonus (that they didn't need), its just sick. And if anyone thinks that 1/2 vp for drop pods or no shooting after DS speeders is a shaft against the marines, you just don't understand the idea of unit balance in this game.

Yes, the FAQ's suck, create more questions than answers, answer questions in ways that make no sense, and no, nobody is surprised.

I'd love to know why everyone thinks the space marines are unbalanced... my space marines have done nothing but get the crap kicked out of me throughout medusa V and the tau and nids are the ones who overall seem to have been doing the best at our store.... frankly none of the FAQ's really did anything for or against them because they pretty much just stated what everyone has been doing anyway as best I have seen.

Oh sure they are first place overall in Medusa V right now, but on the other hand lets take a look at how many battles they've fought... at 11:23pm CST they have fought 31,307 battles, the next closest faction is chaos at 20,752, that difference is almost as many battles as the dark eldar (4,096) and necrons (6,967) have had COMBINED. The space marines are no more broken than any other army, they simply have a much larger number of players to chose from.

And since someone will say "you're just a space marine player who hasn't played any other armies" or some such, I own and have played pretty much every army other than orks, eldar and necrons, and I've played against those quite a bit. That said, I will completely agree... orks and eldar have pretty much gotten shafted, hopefully that will be corrected soon with their new codex.

Did nothing against Tau or nids? Deathwing_Adam did you read the FAQ?? Warriors, Zoanthropes, Raveners and Lictors can all be instant killed when within synapse now. Thats a huge kick in the groing to any non-zilla playing nid force. I also know nobody that was playing it that you can instant kill at str 9+.

 

sorry I am just obviously bitter

Well, I don't think the insta-kill issue is all that bad. it stinks, but it could be worse. As for lictors, when were they ever in synapse range anyway? They are too far out to really be in synapse much as they are "loaner" units.

   As for the rest, yeah being hit with a lascannon sucks. but on the bright side at least missile launchers, dark lances, bright lances, pulse lasers, battle cannons, rokkits, and some Zap guns are MUCH less effective against warriors.

  Also, remember that the biggest problem with instakill was always the hidden powerfist. This is taken care of now.

As for the Tau, while most of the stuff was just clarifications there were a few very bad standouts. First the total nerfing of pathfinders. There is never any reason to take them anymore if the D-fish doesn't also have scout. In 1/3 of general games and half or more of games at GDs that fish will stay off the table. So what if the finders can start on the table, what the hell are they going to mark for? Where are their seekers? What you will end up with is a unit that won't actually do anything until turn 3. So much for forward scouts.

Then the second killer comes in the SM FAQ where FOTA doesn't need LOS. This totally scews JSJ, etherials, Sniper Drones, and the list goes on. Honestly these FAQs just made me sick and if I never play 40K again, I don't think I'll really be missing anything.

Actually i wasn't talking about Nids or Tau, I was talking about the space marines, nothing in the FAQ's really effected anything relating to the Space Marines in the positive or negative enough to matter to me (and probably shouldn't to anyone else).

I'd agree nids got a bit hurt, but whose going to fire a lascannon at a warrior when they can fire a lascannon at a Fex or a Hive Tyrant? and as was pointed out, how often is a lictor in synapse range? Everyone is always complaining about tau, the tau players complain they got screwed by the new codex, Everyone else complains about how the tau "break all the rules" or are overpowered or other such crap.

And i just don't see fury of the ancients being nearly the big deal that Jayden63 seems to, taken it a few times, not all that impressed with it with or without line of sight, probably won't take it again.

Folks, it's a game, there are no perfect games, anywhere. There will always be rules that are ill written, make no sense, or are about as realistic as purple grass and pink elephants. If those rules make your life so miserable that you have to complain about them constantly, then stop playing the game, it has obviously ceased to be fun for you so there is no point in you playing it anymore anyway.

Don't play the game for wins and losses (I lose far more often than I win), don't play because it is an accurate representation of war (so you're saying Mortors kill just about nothing? Wait you mean I can see the gaunt, but the rampaging carnifex over there I can't see?) . I play it because I have fun, I like the people who play at my local store (Mayhem in Ames, IA) and I enjoy painting minis (which is why I have more armies than anyone should ever need). It just doesn't matter that much.

It is with a great amount of pride that myself and our gaming group just finished our revised Tyranid Codex on the weekend, for release on the same day as these FAQ's came out. These FAQ's have only made it more abundant to myself and my gaming buddies that our revised rules are even more necessary.

BYE

Hey guys.  Yeah, I know, I haven't posted in a long damn time, although I have been lurking.  I'm not one to post complaints about GW, so instead I'll vote with my feet and my wallet.  I'm done with 40k.  This change made any tyranid list other than godzilla a liability.  I'll be giving my local playing community first stab at buying my armies, but you guys are next in line for a shot at em before I hit up bartertown and e-bay.  Depending on what happens with 7th ed Fantasy, I may be gone from that, too.

On the other hand, Battletech's re-issue is looking very good, and I've been pawing over my gen-con copy incessantly.

As for the rest, yeah being hit with a lascannon sucks. but on the bright side at least missile launchers, dark lances, bright lances, pulse lasers, battle cannons, rokkits, and some Zap guns are MUCH less effective against warriors.

All true, but the problem is that at your average tournament the total number of lascannons fielded probably outnumber all of those weapons put together by at least two to one.

I suppose I'm particularly bitter because I've defended GW's overall treatment of the 4th ed Tyranid codex and the use of Tyranid Warriors for so long. With IK immunity, I think Tyranid horde armies were still viable in competitive situations, but definitely tricky to play. While this may seem to some like a minor change, I think it's a nudge that pushes horde armies past the tipping point and makes them clearly inferior to Godzilla armies, competitively speaking.

And you might say that not everyone is interested in tournament play. That's true, but I think that what most Tyranid players wanted is not an uber-powerful competitive codex, but a codex that allows a number of different, reasonably competitive builds. Right now, what Tyranid players are left with is something like what the Orks had with Speed Freeks back in 3rd ed...a variant army type that's clearly superior to the "standard" list, which will then become almost extinct on the tournament scene. This doesn't benefit Tyranid players, it doesn't benefit other players, and it doesn't benefit the overall hobby or game.

But that's reality, so we have to deal with it. I won't be quitting the game or my Tyranids. I'll probably just field a Godzilla army when I attend tournaments. I don't really like Godzilla lists, as I think it's a distortion of what a Tyranid army is supposed to look like. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna bring a knife to a gun fight.

I have nothing more to add other than to repeat that these FAQs are a monument to GW's shameful incompetence.

And it saddens me to know that they think they're doing a great job.

Come on guys!  Don't give up on GW.  I heard they recently bought 10,000,000 chimpanzees and gave them all typewriters.  Eventually, by the law of averages, they must turn out a rules set that is coherent and workable.

[sarcasm]I know that I will continue to throw huge amounts of cash at them for the outstanding job they are doing. . . [/sarcasm]

It took me some time to make the jump to Flames of War, I didn't think I would like the genre as much but, man, I gotta tell you.  It is FAN-&^%^#%-TASTIC  to find well written rules and damn near instantaneous FAQ's on things that are unclear or poorly written.

I led the charge for people in my gaming group to try Flames of War and almost overnight we went from a 40K based group to a WWII group.  And all the rules arguments EVAPORATED.  Issues are resolved by looking up the rule in the FREE v2 rules where they are written quite clearly.

I have spent 99% of my gaming purchases this year on NON-GW products and I've never been happier.

If you are on the fence about it, Try it, you might be pleasantly suprised. . .


Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

Welp, they just ripped the heart out of my army again....

First they release that god-awful 3rd edition codex (Genestealers were useless, Shoot the Big ones, Overly complicated Custom Hive Fleet and Mutation rules) and now this..

The 4th edition codex was great. Simple, balanced, fun and every unit could be useful. Now? I'm really not sure why GW felt this change/clarification was needed. They wanted to make the mid-line creatures viable and they succeeded. Why they would go back and make them pretty much useless again baffles me.

Maybe they wanted to boost Hive Tyrant and Carnifex sales

I must be going mad.

From the Guard FAQ:

"The full cost of an Enginseer's servitors counts against his wargear limit."

I am certain that the current printing of the Guard Codex says the complete opposite of that.

"If the Rough Riders are charged, they may use the Hunting Lance. They will not get the Strength of Initative bonus but will count as having power weapons."

I am certain that the current printing of the Guard Codex says the complete opposite of that. The Codex doesn't use 'may use', it says 'must use'.

GW have once again failed the most basic prerequisite of rules writing - read the rules you wrote before answering questions about them.

BYE

Why are people acting surprised?

Why are people acting surprised?

Because a lot of us go through the RaW debates on YMDC in order to show GW how NOT to write the rules... also to show them how bad the rules are so that when they FAQ them they can shed some light... only to have them ignore 90% of it and drop the ball on the rest!


I mean they can't be THAT stupid can they?

Dice Monkey is correct, it unfortunately really is not that surprising. Despite my bellyacheing about the drop pods, which stinks for me and SM players who use them, the nids really did get it worst.

and the HMBC's point is funny, in a very black way.

Well, i still enjoy the game and wont be bailing out, but something does needs to change.

GW have once again failed the most basic prerequisite of rules writing - read the rules you wrote before answering questions about them

That almost sounds like "Anderton has once again failed the most basic prerequisite of YMDC-read the rules in the codex before answering questions about them"

I wonder if Anderton is a GW writer?



Now THAT wouldn't surprise me.

What did I expect? I expected 1/2-a$$ed FAQs that created more problems than they solved. I was not disappointed. I was not going to write a response to them, but this one really got to me...

"The full cost of an Enginseer's servitors counts against his wargear limit."

WTF??? I can't access the FAQ at work. Is this some kind of joke? My copy of the IG codex says nothing about the servitors counting towards the wargear limit. Since the Enginseer is limited to 50 points, he can never again take a full squad of 4 gun or combat servitors. The plasma cannon gun servitor is 45 points alone. What the hell? Is GW even aware of what they write? Do they even read their own books? I'd say these FAQ's were written by slowed monkeys, but that would be an insult to slowed monkeys everywhere. Even they could do better.

Please someone tell me it's wrong and this was not from the FAQ.

As for the hunting lance, the rules say "They will automatically use the lance in the first close combat they fight...". The bonus to S and I was only when they charged. So it looks like Rough Riders benefited from this ruling.


BTW GW/Jervis...what an idiotic stance to take that you will update the rules in a new codex and not FAQs. You have completely destroyed any respect I had left for you and your company. I've spent more on GW this year than WarMachine and FoW, but I feel that is about to change.

Why would you not provide a well though out and well written FAQ? Do you seriously believe that someone who doesn't have internet access (no internet, but plenty to spend on minis, hmmm) is going to be upset that they can't access the FAQ's someone else is using? This argument is absurd and has no merit. I could say that I can only afford one codex, if someone is using another codex, I cannot afford it and therefore do not have access to it. I demand that you only use an army from a codex I own so I can reference the rules. As for the other 'arguement' that updated codex books will drive sales, you are sadly mistaken. Having a coherent and well written rules system will drive sales. A well done FAQ tells people you care about the system and their feedback.

NEWS ALERT: Games Workshop UK has just purchased Dell Computers. If you have a Dell, roll a d6 to see if you battery bursts into flames. If you have a laptop with battery in danger of bursting into flames, don't worry, in about a year new laptops will be produced that don't have this problem. Everyone can simply buy a new laptop when they come out.

Hmmm...GW's 'strategy' sounds funny when you apply it to another business.

... Servitors are listed under wargear... so why wouldn't they count towards your wargear limit? It doesn't say anywhere in there that they don't.... ergo...

Posted By 2112 08/16/2006 9:50 AM

NEWS ALERT: Games Workshop UK has just purchased Dell Computers. If you have a Dell, roll a d6 to see if you battery bursts into flames. If you have a laptop with battery in danger of bursting into flames, don't worry, in about a year new laptops will be produced that don't have this problem. Everyone can simply buy a new laptop when they come out.

Hmmm...GW's 'strategy' sounds funny when you apply it to another business.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day!

 

As for the complaints about Drop Pods...

I've always given my opponents the automatic 15 VPs for each one, ever since I first used them. Its no big deal. I simply think of it as part of the cost of using them, and a small cost it is for the ability to safely drop an Assault Cannon + Heavy Flamer + DCCW wherever you need it.

Really stupid question..

What does RAW mean or stand for?

Posted By Megad00mer 08/16/2006 10:11 AM
Really stupid question..

What does RAW mean or stand for?

Rules as written.

Posted by H.B.M.C. on 08/16/2006 9:47 AM
From the Guard FAQ:

"The full cost of an Enginseer's servitors counts against his wargear limit."

I am certain that the current printing of the Guard Codex says the complete opposite of that.

The FAQ predates the current printing of Codex Imperial Guard.

just wanted to say:
I love your name Megad00mer...It's got chicken legs!

on a more on-topic issue:
Please tell me that Dell buyout isn't for real. *looks nervously at the Dell computers he's got at home*

Posted By ChaplainSeverus 08/16/2006 8:25 AM
Come on guys!  Don't give up on GW.  I heard they recently bought 10,000,000 chimpanzees and gave them all typewriters.  Eventually, by the law of averages, they must turn out a rules set that is coherent and workable.

[sarcasm]I know that I will continue to throw huge amounts of cash at them for the outstanding job they are doing. . . [/sarcasm]

It took me some time to make the jump to Flames of War, I didn't think I would like the genre as much but, man, I gotta tell you.  It is FAN-&^%^#%-TASTIC  to find well written rules and damn near instantaneous FAQ's on things that are unclear or poorly written.

I led the charge for people in my gaming group to try Flames of War and almost overnight we went from a 40K based group to a WWII group.  And all the rules arguments EVAPORATED.  Issues are resolved by looking up the rule in the FREE v2 rules where they are written quite clearly.

I have spent 99% of my gaming purchases this year on NON-GW products and I've never been happier.

If you are on the fence about it, Try it, you might be pleasantly suprised. . .


Interrogator-Chaplain Severus

You know, I'd been thinking about picking up FoW for pretty much the same reasons - as much as I like 40k, I just don't have time in my life to waste on GW's screwy rules and piss-poor quality control. I think I'm going to be dropping by the local shop for the next FoW night...

I mean they can't be THAT stupid can they?

Apparently so, I forsaw this more than a year ago sold my Nid's and jumped ship. GW's Z rules team is definatly working on 40K. If nothing else maybe this will get some more people into Fantasy, FOW, Mongoose and PP games.

Posted By Dice Monkey 08/16/2006 11:34 AM
I mean they can't be THAT stupid can they?

Apparently so, I forsaw this more than a year ago sold my Nid's and jumped ship. GW's Z rules team is definatly working on 40K. If nothing else maybe this will get some more people into Fantasy, FOW, Mongoose and PP games.

Same here. Sold my nids last year after playing the weakened game called 4th Ed. Not long after sold all my 40k stuff. Now I just paint the occasional mini for fun. I have an OK army so I can still play occasionally friends who are mainly GW but have moved to FOW, PP, Hybrid and this Friday confrontation. Never been happier.

2 years and they produce this pile of junk. Some-one needs sacking because this is pathetic. 

Folks, it's a game, there are no perfect games, anywhere. There will always be rules that are ill written, make no sense, or are about as realistic as purple grass and pink elephants. If those rules make your life so miserable that you have to complain about them constantly, then stop playing the game, it has obviously ceased to be fun for you so there is no point in you playing it anymore anyway.

You haven't played Warmachine have you? Privateer Press has managed what GW apparently won't. Don't believe GW, that wettness on your back ain't rain. At this point I'm one of four people out of 12 or so gamers in my group that still play 40k regularly. Fow and Warmachine are the top dogs now. If I can get enough players converted to Starship Troopers, I'll be gone too.

Because if there is one thing Warmachine got right, it was to the heck with balance. Let's just let everyone powergame!

I have gotten in and out of the game twice already. Still don't like it.

I really don't mind "some" of the rulings. I still play tyranids, I still play with warriors. I do mind no main rulebook clarifications. At least clear up some of the main rules first.

And for nids, it wouldn't be so bad if marines weren't the only army being played. Most armies don't have access to much above Str8. I am in a good place because most of my enemies aren't marines, so I don't see the problem a lot.

Posted By Ghaz 08/16/2006 11:05 AM

Posted by H.B.M.C. on 08/16/2006 9:47 AM
From the Guard FAQ:

" the="" full="" cost="" of="" an="" enginseer="" s="" servitors="" counts="" against="" his="" wargear="" limit="" [/i="">

I am certain that the current printing of the Guard Codex says the complete opposite of that.

The FAQ predates the current printing of Codex Imperial Guard.

And yet it is still out there as "official". On top of that, since GW refuses to put out any corrections/updates to their codices and instead chooses to "stealth update" with unannounced and unlisted changes in new editions, how is anyone to  know of the changes? It's asinine and it's the crap that got me to stop playing 40k over two years ago, despite having been a fan since Rogue Trader days with a huge investment in time and miniatures in the game, and it's what's keeping me out.

For the past few weeks I had been entertaining a return to 40k by going back and remodelling and converting a bundle of my figs, but the more I read about v4 and the terrible mess of rules (despite two fricking years to fix things), no way. While I've held onto quite a bit of 40k stuff that I haven't touched in years, selling off the whole lot is starting to look real good now.