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.

Please let GW put out the English FAQ Update with all haste. But knowing GW they will use bad grammer and throw the interwebs into another hissy fit on what the rules mean.

Despite GW taking wayyyyyyyy too long to answer this Frequently Asked Question, I'd be happy to treat Alessio to either Taco Bell or Fazoli's. His choice. Guess I need to go pick up another BW or three.

And since we love giving nicknames to lists, I say that any list with 3+ BWs with rollas be called, "Armored Brutality"!

Someone mentioned that it's not about racism. But yest it is.

When someone clearly says, if it's Purple, it's not accepted unless is Blue. If people are lazy in the writing and can only put out one line sentences, and not explain themselves, they just make themselves look like they are racist. Again, sorry, if you say it's Purple it's no good without futher explanation you are racsit. If you say you are not, don't be lazy in writing then.

I am in Canada. I understand I play with an English codex. My oppononet who is also from Canada plays with an english codex it would be understandable to play with an english FAQ. For an opponent to throw apon in a middle of a game and say, but oh, the spanish FAQ says this, and we both don't know any spanish, I would consider my opponent of trying to pull a fast one over. But if said opponent said, look it was stated that on the spanish FAQ says this, or the German one said that, I think this is the way the rule should go, do you agree or disagree. Can we come up with a comprimise? Then he is not pulling one over and is going by what GW has put out.

See I had to spend a bit of time to write out something. So if someone cant take the time to write out something on the internet that is their problem then and don't cry if someone might think you are a racist person for being lazy.

I know I am not racist, I just can't speak or read Spanish or Italian plus web site translation programs often mess up the grammer horribly to the point of not being able to be used. I just don't have time to learn every language that GW has things published in so that is why I simply want an English FAQ to come out.

olympia wrote:The point is that the Italian and Spanish FAQ do NOT conflict with anything. There is no FAQ on this other than the Spanish and Italian FAQ.

Gitzbitah wrote:There is no conflict with any GW FAQ. This is the only time GW has addressed this in an official document.

Whether there'll be a conflicting English FAQ or not, that doesn't change the precedent that for non-English speakers a foreign FAQ ruling without an English counterpart written by (or endorsed by if the Space Wolf FAQ taught us anything) the guys that write the actual rules doesn't have a lot of credibility.

Hola! Me llamo Olympia! Tengo quatro deff rollas!

Then I would happily play against them without complaint of it being unfair, but don't be surprised if your local tournament decides to go with "path of least benefit" and play it safe until there's an official English FAQ from GW Headquarters.

EDIT: Davor I think you're being overly simplistic here with the racism accusation, and I suggest you keep an open mind yourself.

This was done using an online translator. Not shure how well it's translated but some don't make sence to me, so I guess it's an unfinished FAQ. Also it dosn't address what we have been asking anyways.

Page 81. Arms and biomorphs. Eater. Replaces
paragraph in italics preceded by an asterisk
by:
"If an enemy unit has one or more casualties
because of a consuming and required the
moral check at the end of the phase, the unit
suffer a -1 to leadership. "

Page 83. Melee weapons. Whip
organic.
Replace the first word of the second
paragraph by "Any", so that the text
reads: "Any enemy model in contact
[...]"

Page 86. Tyrant of Swarm. Options. Replaces
the wording of the third point:
"Substitute any two sharp claws by:"

Page 90. Spore Micética. Opciones.Sustituye the
set point by:
"Choose one of the following (options):"
January 2010
CODEX: TYRANIDS FAQ
©

IN ENGLISH NOW
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m970066a_2010_Orks_FAQ

Deal with it.

Awesome, I'm sure my friends who play Orkz will be very pleased with this.

Well, there ya go! Glad to see GW growing some balls and actually clearing up unclear rules for once!

Olympia wins the thread.

A mod or the OP needs to delete 'spanish' from the subject of the thread!

Anyone else having trouble with the link?

Gwar! wrote:Well, there ya go! Glad to see GW growing some balls and actually clearing up unclear rules for once!

Hey, they did fix the Space Wolf FAQ after all the nerdrage that caused (on both sides). It's too bad, because when they did, your fervent argument of the FAQs not being official convinced me to dismiss the fixed FAQ in favor of house rules that combine CA and FC. :(





(Just kidding )

meh deffrollas were never that scary anyway

bhsman wrote:Anyone else having trouble with the link?

No doubt their bandwith is a bit taxed at the moment.

Well Now I'm happy ... question is why they couldn't do that what a year ago when 5th came out? (also why not up date all the PDF at the same time?)

Also wonder if they ever get round to answering if the Deff rolla can be destroyed by a weapons destroyed result?

Sergeant Horse wrote:meh deffrollas were never that scary anyway

No, but this does give some armour killing weight to orks, who need it.

EXALT!

And even more pleasing is this argument can finally now die.

New questions:
*Can all things able to tank shock now perform Rams?
*Can a Deffroller be removed as a 'weapon destroyed' result now that people are going to be actually using them again?

Well, I just treated meself to a Battlewagon with Deffrolla.

Anyone else?

No, but this does give some armour killing weight to orks, who need it.

Huh? Because all those Nobs with power claws getting in your face from Battlewagons and fast moving open topped trucks just couldn't get the job done? Deffrollas taking out vehicles is abusive.

olympia wrote:IN ENGLISH NOW
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m970066a_2010_Orks_FAQ

Deal with it.

Was just about to say it. Now what do people say about it? Is it official now?

That is pretty awesome.

nkelsch wrote:New questions:

*Can a Deffroller be removed as a 'weapon destroyed' result now that people are going to be actually using them again?

No, it's a vehicle upgrade, not a weapon.

BrassScorpion wrote:

No, but this does give some armour killing weight to orks, who need it.

Because all those Nobs with power claws just couldn't get the job done? Huh?

let's see... STR9 need to toll to hit attacks VS STR10 auto hit attacks.

This also solves the 'boarding plank walkers' debate because no one will ever boarding plank a walker as they can just deffroll it to smitherinies.

nkelsch wrote:New questions:
*Can all things able to tank shock now perform Rams?
*Can a Deffroller be removed as a 'weapon destroyed' result now that people are going to be actually using them again?

If you're using the new FAQ as precedent, I'd say:

-Yes

-Not sure, are it's rules located in the weapons or vehicle upgrade section of the Ork codex?

Oh this is soooooooo great. Now I can kill every rhino on the board without wasting boyz or lootas on them.

nkelsch wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:

No, but this does give some armour killing weight to orks, who need it.

Because all those Nobs with power claws just couldn't get the job done? Huh?

let's see... STR9 need to toll to hit attacks VS STR10 auto hit attacks.

This also solves the 'boarding plank walkers' debate because no one will ever boarding plank a walker as they can just deffroll it to smitherinies.

Yes, although the walker could choose to 'death or glory' in which case it would take 2d6 S10 hits.

Vehicle upgrades.
Awww yeah, thank you GW. Mostly, I'm happy that I was right, and the other people were talking out their arses.
Being able to squish land raiders (for the first time in my memory) is a bonus! Think I'll mostly still play Horde though.
Seriously, people whinge about this, but not Lash? 3++ Storm Shields?
Looks like the Whaaaambulance call centre is overwhelmed today.

Are there any other changes to the FAQ??

coredump wrote:

Are there any other changes to the FAQ??

Not that I saw with a quick read.

nkelsch wrote:

Lol! I find it telling that it's already been put out a few months ago in an italian FAQ. It's hard to say this Spanish one is going to end the debate (it obviously hasn't) if that one didn't... hopefully they will clear it up in English one way or the other as well!