Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Arguements
Bannings
Flaming
Threats of quitting 40k entirely
Broken lists that depended on a single sketchy rule
Hate
...and all other types of general unpleasantness.
Nothing like a good 'ol FAQ to brighten up the forums and give me some good agitated gamers to read about!

Thanx GDUB, oh yea, and by the way...

On a lesser note, thanx for clearing up some rules and that little "sheild" issue. I'll take 6 Razorbacks please.

Because I'm a sell-out? Nope. Because 40k is a fun game and now I know it works.

Who got banned?

Personally I like the trolling. The trolling was really hilarious. Even better than the butt-hurt.

I WILL, OF COURSE, NOT ATTACH NON WARGAMING PCITURES... EVEN IF THEY'RE QUITE FUNNY.. TO DAKKA.

MILK COMES IN BAGS


SHATNER FOR SUPREME RULER

Nurglitch wrote:Who got banned?

Personally I like the trolling. The trolling was really hilarious. Even better than the butt-hurt.

This just in: Local troll enjoys it when others troll.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:Who got banned?

Personally I like the trolling. The trolling was really hilarious. Even better than the butt-hurt.

This just in: Local troll enjoys it when others troll.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Your trolling is acknowledged and forwarded to the moderators for their consideration.

Awesome Nurglitch !!!

G

I forgot one other feature of GW released FAQs...

Overworked mods.

I raise my glass to thee....*snicker*

Deadshane1 wrote: Because 40k is a fun game

You would think that but seemingly...

I forgot one other feature of GW released FAQs...

Overworked mods.

I raise my glass to thee....*snicker*

... .... if I didn't know you were armed.. POW ZOOM TO THE MOON ALICE !

For some obscure reason we'll see how this goes, if we could refrain from trolling each other, picking fights getting in the way of my payday celebratory hooch, that'd be super.. or "skill" as we said when I was a bairn.

Then we found out this is also a term for a pig or a donkeys' bum disease so we stopped.

That's today's life lesson.

..worrying huh !

reds8n wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote: Because 40k is a fun game

You would think that but seemingly...

I forgot one other feature of GW released FAQs...

Overworked mods.

I raise my glass to thee....*snicker*

... .... if I didn't know you were armed.. POW ZOOM TO THE MOON ALICE !

For some obscure reason we'll see how this goes, if we could refrain from trolling each other, picking fights getting in the way of my payday celebratory hooch, that'd be super.. or "skill" as we said when I was a bairn.

Then we found out this is also a term for a pig or a donkeys' bum disease so we stopped.

That's today's life lesson.

..worrying huh !

You know that was practically incomprehensible. In the immortal words of Batman: "Dude, are you drunk?"


presonal view. I never understand why people can't just say-cool an FAQ. It needs to be larger but at least it answered X questions. I don't care how they do it, if there's a methodology or if it meets some persons view of what RAW is. Just answer the questions that come up.

Some people's lives are smaller than an FAQ.

I just read the thread in question and really? I can't believe people can get so overworked talking about small plastic toys, on the internet no less...

I do love that they missed one major thing on the BA FAQ:

If a Storm Raven Deepstrikes it can never use the assault Ramps rule.

Big, big discrepancy between the SR assault Ramps and the Land raider's.

Kommissar Kel wrote:I do love that they missed one major thing on the BA FAQ:

If a Storm Raven Deepstrikes it can never use the assault Ramps rule.

Big, big discrepancy between the SR assault Ramps and the Land raider's.

I must be missing something... What's the discrepancy there...?

insaniak wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:I do love that they missed one major thing on the BA FAQ:

If a Storm Raven Deepstrikes it can never use the assault Ramps rule.

Big, big discrepancy between the SR assault Ramps and the Land raider's.

I must be missing something... What's the discrepancy there...?

I think he's saying that you shouldn't be able to assault on the turn you deep strike: something that the Storm Raven's Assault Ramps seem to allow.

Yeah, I'd rather not have an FAQ and leave the rules interpretations up to geniuses like Deadshane1 and Gwar!. Talk about butthurt. (Because I get a headache so ginormous that it reaches from the top of my head to the tips of my toes and fingers. Gotcha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

I love how I read them with rose colored glasses - then I can depend on my friends to smash them from my face and step on them.

I see them as a sign of love from our providers of game rules and my friends look at them as excrement that are proof positive that the developers think we are idiots.

Kind efforts to remove confusion and discord, only to sow more destruction than a poorly placed remark... the road to hell...

I say, think twice, talk with others much, write in draft, give it to confirmed jerk or two and get their feedback, edit the heck out of it, review, then print it and leave the darn document alone!

Nightwatch wrote:I think he's saying that you shouldn't be able to assault on the turn you deep strike: something that the Storm Raven's Assault Ramps seem to allow.

You can't. The Stormraven's Assault Vehicle rule says you can't.

I'm roasting marshmellows from all that flaming people are doing in the FAQ threads. Very enjoyable banter.

insaniak wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:I think he's saying that you shouldn't be able to assault on the turn you deep strike: something that the Storm Raven's Assault Ramps seem to allow.

You can't. The Stormraven's Assault Vehicle rule says you can't.

The Land raider says you cannot assault out of the assault ramp the turn you arrive by Deepstrike.

The Storm raven says you cannot assault out of the assault ramp if you deepstrike(as in ever, any turn)

The discrepancy is the Landraider has the specific statement of "During the turn that it arrives by deepstrike"(or something very similar), The Storm raven is lacking any such wording while the rest of the assault ramp rule is pretty much a copy paste.

I do not own the new BA book so cannot Quote accurately, but my friend does have it, noticed the discrepancy and we discussed it at length. We also generally allow the troops to use the assault ramp for assaulting in turns following the deepstrike because that is how the nearly identically worded Land raider allows.

I don't know. I certainly appreciate where the people that are upset by the FAQ stand... but I think that GW FAQ's should take precedence.

The people who say GW FAQ's are garbage though, should not recieve nearly as much flak as they do.

40k, hard to balance. Easiest way to balance? Play strictly RaW, for a global even playing field...(?)

Alot of dribbling buffoons unite against RaW though, so I may be a little biased.

Kommissar Kel wrote:The Storm raven says you cannot assault out of the assault ramp if you deepstrike(as in ever, any turn)

Ah, I see the problem now. So yes, that could do with including in a future FAQ.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:40k, hard to balance. Easiest way to balance? Play strictly RaW, for a global even playing field...(?)

Doesn't work. The rules aren't written in anything like a tight enough language for a universally accepted interpretation of RAW to be possible. If they were, FAQ's would rarely if ever be necessary.

Alot of dribbling buffoons unite against RaW though, so I may be a little biased.

How about we stay away from blanket insults against people who have different opinions on how to interpret the rules.

Kommissar Kel wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:I think he's saying that you shouldn't be able to assault on the turn you deep strike: something that the Storm Raven's Assault Ramps seem to allow.

You can't. The Stormraven's Assault Vehicle rule says you can't.

The Land raider says you cannot assault out of the assault ramp the turn you arrive by Deepstrike.

The Storm raven says you cannot assault out of the assault ramp if you deepstrike(as in ever, any turn)

The discrepancy is the Landraider has the specific statement of "During the turn that it arrives by deepstrike"(or something very similar), The Storm raven is lacking any such wording while the rest of the assault ramp rule is pretty much a copy paste.

I do not own the new BA book so cannot Quote accurately, but my friend does have it, noticed the discrepancy and we discussed it at length. We also generally allow the troops to use the assault ramp for assaulting in turns following the deepstrike because that is how the nearly identically worded Land raider allows.

Do you happen to play that if a model with a heavy weapon moves then it can never fire its heavy weapon? The wording is basically the same, and yet we all know what is intended by the rule.

Deadshane1 wrote:Nothing like a good 'ol FAQ to brighten up the forums and give me some good agitated gamers to read about!

I think the FAQ answers themselves provide enough comedic value.

"No Eldrad I can't hear you! My iRune is acting up. Hold on, let me go back inside the Falcon to see if I can get a better signal... oh yes, that's better."


The stuff that happens afterwards here (especially with the RAW crowd going into full battle mode) is just gravy.

Cheexsta wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:I think he's saying that you shouldn't be able to assault on the turn you deep strike: something that the Storm Raven's Assault Ramps seem to allow.

You can't. The Stormraven's Assault Vehicle rule says you can't.

The Land raider says you cannot assault out of the assault ramp the turn you arrive by Deepstrike.

The Storm raven says you cannot assault out of the assault ramp if you deepstrike(as in ever, any turn)

The discrepancy is the Landraider has the specific statement of "During the turn that it arrives by deepstrike"(or something very similar), The Storm raven is lacking any such wording while the rest of the assault ramp rule is pretty much a copy paste.

I do not own the new BA book so cannot Quote accurately, but my friend does have it, noticed the discrepancy and we discussed it at length. We also generally allow the troops to use the assault ramp for assaulting in turns following the deepstrike because that is how the nearly identically worded Land raider allows.

Do you happen to play that if a model with a heavy weapon moves then it can never fire its heavy weapon? The wording is basically the same, and yet we all know what is intended by the rule.

No I do not; but then like I said we do not play the Storm Raven RAW either.

In fact had the Land raider not had the extra bit then there would be no problem.

Just out of curiosity, just how many of the rulings across the two FAQ's contradict how other FAQed things work?
Psychic Hood for example?

Even better is how the FAQs are inconsistent within ithemselves. The latest FAQ says 'do Hive Tyrant reserve bonuses stack? No. But Hive Tyrant and Swarm Lord reserve bonuses do'

Barely a page later it says 'Is the Swarm Lord a fancy version of the Hive Tyrant? Yes'

Some army reserve bonuses stack, some army reserve bonuses don't, varying from FAQ to FAQ. This creature's don't stack unless it's a named version of the same creature giving an identical bonus, then it does. Because it's different. With the same effect. On an 'elite' version of the same creature, as stated within the very same FAQ, but it's still different. Somehow.

I swear the more of these I read the more I become convinced that it's not anyone actually looking at the game and making wise decisions for the betterment of all, it's like a pile of sticky notes on the back of the GW game room door where everyone writes down the result of 4+'ing it every time someone raises a rules question during what passes for 'quality assurance'. Eventually the new intern is told 'hey, grab all those sticky notes and shove them up on the internet!'

Haha at GW those interns have a name, and that is "Red Shirt"

Deadshane1 wrote:

On a lesser note, thanx for clearing up some rules and that little "sheild" issue. I'll take 6 Razorbacks please.

Out of curiosity, what "shield issue"?

Sheild of Sang. What's more amusing thou is no-one ever debated that they had a cover save j8ust that the needed to be obscured to use it againts Glance/Pen. Which the FAQ still hasn't addressed.

Probably because GW takes it for granted that people will figure out for themselves that if a vehicle is granted a cover save, it can use it...

But they didn't tell us. What else in that case haven't they told us that we need to figure out?