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.

Let's keep this quick and simple. The FAQ's posted on the GW website are pretty jacked up. If these are supposed to be "official" how about making them match the rules. Just a few examples; the Swooping hawks for the Eldar, while they are a good unit the skyleap makes them even better. But according to the FAQ they do not even have to land in the game to still drop their Ordnance blast anywhere on the board. Now if you read the rules, both 4th and 5th edition. A unit that "deep strikes" can not move in the movement phase, since dropping in is their move. The rule for skyleap says they can leave the field in their movement phase. So now you have people dropping pie plates and never even pulling models out of the carrying case. It should have read that they can not deep strike and sky leap in the same phase. But that is only if you wanted to follow the rules.

Another case in point for the dark eldar, the codex has not changed in almost 10 years but now all of a sudden wych weapons only have an effect when the opponent is attacking the wych. Now lets look at this in game terms. at WS 4, 95 percent of the opponents are going to need a 4+ to hit, even if their WS is cut in half (this only changes if the wyches get the combat drug giving +1 to their WS). But attacking back, they would hit on a 3+ (with opponents WS halved). Now that is going to change to a 4+ when they attack back. While it is not going to be 95 percent of the time, since not all armies have a WS 4, most players on the other hand play armies with WS 4 (SM (all flavors), Chaos, Orks, Necron).

If I had to guess I would say that you are either a SM player or a Tau player. Simply because those seem to be the only armies that did not get weaker from your FAQ's. One last question, how does one get to submit FAQ's anyways? After googling your name, I could find no ties to GW, just this forum.

Please do not take this out of context, I wish to really talk(write) about this topic. I am not attacking you, I am attacking your "opinions" and your FAQ's.

Yak didn't write the GW FAQ's. GW credited him, but he didn't actually write them himself.

If you want to acuse anyone of bias, acuse GW. God knows they're always trying to push whatever the new kit is, so if these FAQ's have hurt everyone except Marines, that makes sense.

BYE

HBMC,
GW has been doing that for years. But , the "blame" has fallen on one of the designers, mostly Gav and Andy. Now the posts are listing "Yakface". So no matter what GW did to it, he is getting the backlash. Plus if he did not agree with it, he should have asked them to remove his name. Silence is consent. Now my aspiration here is that if GW would listen to him once, why not again. This time with a better balanced set of FAQ's. It can't be all that hard, the rules "official" release was the 14th and the FAQ's were out not long after that. Heck, I was coming up with my own to get my group through until the "real" ones came out. I was just hoping the posted ones would have been better balanced and more fair to all the armies.

The only way to get balanced and fair rules is to complain long and hard to GW.

I have been doing it (pretty much solo) for years with no effect.

So I've changed tactics.

Now things are getting done.

If you carefully read the FAQ's you attrubute to Yakface, you will note that they actually say:

"Thanks to Jon 'Yakface' Regul and his FAQ ruling council"

or they say:

The questions we have answered in our FAQs have been
gathered from many sources. Some have been submitted by
members of the public, others by representatives of the online
gaming community and more still are the result of face to face
meetings with keen and inquisitive players at a myriad of
gaming events. Special thanks for raising many of the
questions we have answered in this particular FAQ go to Jon
Regul. We are always happy to consider more questions, and
aim to update these FAQs as frequently as is practical. Visit the
‘Contact Us’ page of the Games Workshop website for the
address to which you can send your questions. Thanks to all
those who have done so already!

That would seem to imply that he didn't write the FAQ, but he and others wrote and compiled a body of work that GW used to write their own FAQ. He was simply the one named.

To be more precise, he asked some well worded questions to be included in a 4th ed FAQ because at that time GW had been remiss for years on giving the public a FAQ and he took matters into his own hands.

Many times he didn't have to ask a question but merely follow a particularly sticky question being asked here and follow the thread to its conclusion.

Case in point, and more to your questions is 'Skyleaping'.
Whether it was GW's intention to allow the rubberhawking tactic or not, if RaW is followed it is implicitly legal. I know because no one was able to made a valid argument against mine that it was breaking the rules as written. Here is one of a few threads debating the legality of Skyleaping.

Many have argued on the side of intention against the point (including Yakface himself who pretty much said "I would absolutely positively mark someone down on sportsmanship for using this tactic in a tournament game" ) that it is legal, but the rules in 4th edition spoke differently. If followed to its logical conclusion, skyleaping as it is now FAQed, is very RaW.

So Yakface put it in his FAQ that it is RAW to rubberhawk with the caveat that he doesn't believe it was GW's intention to allow it.

Etc, etc. through many rules.

It was not just Dakka though, Adepticon had gathered a very verbose FAQ as well. Adepticon and Yakface basically combined their previous efforts and made a newer Adepticon FAQ

Then GW pretty much releases FAQ's that surprises everyone and validates that tactic, holding on to its previous stance that 'RaW is the law'.

They took all the hard work of others and in many cases copy and pasted verbatim what Yakface compiled in the Dakka FAQ.

Many people do not like the rulings made in the recent GW FAQ, including the person who is credited to them in the first place. People have been crying for years regarding the neglected state of the FAQ's, and GW finally took the opportunity to make one. But atleast they are there now and everyone has something to use as a way to be on the same page and help conflicts that may arise in the game. Fore warned is fore armed.

The only real problem with these FAQ's in my opinion is that they were made for 4th edition, and they only get released a couple months prior to 5th editions release.

And as always, if you don't like it you don't have to use it. Use your own house rules. GW has said that for years.

Stelek wrote:I have been doing it (pretty much solo) for years with no effect.

You've been alone in your complaints?

You do know that the world doesn't revolve around you Stelek?

BYE

tell you what. you spend time and effort writing FAQs that are so respected that they are not only used in conjunction with the organisers of the largest GW related tournament in the world, but also the designers of the game itself, then come back and complain. until then you do not have a leg to stand on.

Yakface compiles grievances which according to consensus are valid and significant.

GW then writes their FAQ based on their interpretation of that compilation.

Yakface delivers lemons to GW, then GW uses those lemons to either make lemonade or to mulch into a bitter, rindy pulp which it then rubs into players' eyes. The decision is made after the lemons leave his hands.

Regwon,
If I could I would, but I don't have/own a forum to back up my opinions. When I propose "house rules" to my group, it is with the intent to make the game a better experience. When a rule question comes up, most of us will use common sense and think "what would happen if this was real?". But, like every other group, we have a few people that want to stop the game and argue about how the rule is written. Those are the people that no one likes to play with, but we look at it as a community and so tolerate them in the group.

These are the same people that will not accept a "house rule". It must have the GW seal of approval or it is not real. That brings us back to the issue at hand. The FAQ's are crap, but now they are accepted as GW law. It just creates more arguments from people who can free-think and those that just blindly follow what others have written. The only logical conclusion would be for free-thinkers to write the FAQ's.

My submissions to GW have been many (the postage is a killer), I could cover a whole wall with the standard rejection letters I have gotten over the years. It is my sincere hopes to drive a second round of FAQ's, spearheaded by this forum that will bring balance the the game (sound like I have heard that before, in a movie or something).

As for my "attacks" on Yakface, he is the only named person on the FAQ's. If you would like to give me the names of the "rules committee" so that I can address them, I would be more then happy to do that.

The Sarge wrote:As for my "attacks" on Yakface, he is the only named person on the FAQ's. If you would like to give me the names of the "rules committee" so that I can address them, I would be more then happy to do that.

Then you must address the internet as a whole I am afraid.

People go to warseer, see a problem, come back here and discuss it and vice versa. As merely one example.

In fact, if you frequent any 40K forums, you may have unwittingly added to these FAQ's by way of just debating a point somewhere where another person takes it up somewhere else.

There is no singular or group blame for the state of the FAQ upon which you grieve.

And by the way, they whole thing you sling about skyleaping in its current state not following the rules is bollocks. It is you in fact who are not following the rules. Do some research before you make claims like that, because people around here will be quite quick to point out where the mistake is.

Well you can "blame" me as well. I got wide shoulders and AdeptiCon will certainly stand behind the excellent work Yakface and the FAQ committee produced and for the reasons it was done.

My hope is that 5th edition will require less clarifications and the burden of work will be significantly less for this year.

And as far as I know (and as far as it is relevant ) Yakface plays tyranids.

Wait, the world doesn't revolve around me? :S

I think you mistake what Yakface is doing. He is not writing the FAQs or making rules.

What he and the “FAQ ruling council” try to do is just clear up ambiguously worded rules and rules that are contradictory. That way, people who play across the country and possible across the world can all play the same game using the same rules.

GW takes what they want out of “FAQ ruling council” rulings, and puts them in their official FAQs. As far as the rulings go, GW most of the time agrees with them, but sometimes they don’t agree, and GW makes a conclusion that is totally different than what they come up with and changes the ruling.

Not everyone agrees with all of the rules. I do not agree that Ahriman can’t use the same power more than once, but they are the rules, and we all play by them (unless you want to make your own). If the FAQs changed the way your units/army plays, Yakface is not the one who can change it, or will change it, that is all GW.

Hehe, Yakface playing SM, that'll be the day.

Taken from his own forum sig line...

yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.

@The Sarge

As a proponenet of the INAT and a vet of many events, I would rather see a FAQ that addresses issues rather than not have an answer at all. As with probably most, I can agree with 95+% of the rulings in the INAT and GW FAQs. You are not the first person to disagree with these rulings. Some of your arguments will be seen as correct by some players and some of your arguments will be seen as BS. Rulings should be and have been made, which makes everything better because people will at least know what to expect (especially when traveling to other areas to play).

Now as far as organizing the FAQs go, the amount of time and effort put forth by Yak, the ruling committee and all of the players debating online through the various sites is exceptionally high (probably the equivalent of hundreds of hours for just Yak and the ruling committee alone). This effort is not just some fly by night operation. Several of the ruling committee members are long term tournament veterans with solid knowledge of the game system. I also know for a fact that the ruling committee would come down to decisions being made with a 3-2 voting record. A decision had to be made and it was done.

That said though - things can be changed and I'm sure certain items will come up for debate again. Get involved with the forums and contribute if you feel so pationately that you have a better way to play. Do a search on the different issues and you may see why the FAQs were ruled a certain way. Be open minded though because not everyone is going to agree with your "correct" way to play.