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.

Steady now...it's quite extensive.

...is it April already ?

Bah, far too lengthy to read all of it.

*polite cough*

Well, it does clear some gak up I guess.

Wow.

Why did they bother?

There are certainly more pressing things to FAQ.

Whatever!

Wow. That was intense.

Two entries? Proof that the writing in GW books is getting better and better! Soon we won't need any errata or FAQs at all!

George Spiggott wrote:Two entries? Proof that the writing in GW books is getting better and better! Soon we won't need any errata or FAQs at all!

The Product is flawless.
The Company is Mother.
The Johnson is Father...


The Johnson is Father...

Strikingly minimalist.
A slight and appetizing beginning evolves precariously to a pastiche of RAW concepts, slowly testing the philosophical beliefs of every responder. GW is merely toying with us, through this pastiche of simplicity and utter genius.

I feel a Haiku perhaps better encapsulates the emotion generated by such a piece:

Humble beginning
"In its/their unit entry"
Then it gets real dumb.

The disclaimer and copyright verbiage is longer than the FAQ

Really GW? Really?

I like Planet strike. I'm not sure that it really needs a FAQ as it is more for fun play in my eyes and a couple of guys across a table can work it out. But if GW is going to take the time (not much obviously) to put something out it shouldn't be this poor in content.

I feel kind of like I was rickrolled.

kirsanth wrote:I feel kind of like I was rickrolled.

Ya know, I wasn't exqactly sure what it was I felt, but yeah. That was it.

jgemrich wrote:Really GW? Really?

I like Planet strike. I'm not sure that it really needs a FAQ as it is more for fun play in my eyes and a couple of guys across a table can work it out. But if GW is going to take the time (not much obviously) to put something out it shouldn't be this poor in content.

Precisely. So they FAQ something that's kind of a loose, player consent thing in the first place...and then proceed to put almost no time into it.

It's stunning that they'd do this and not update other FAQs to answer, say, the Deff Rolla question. But once again it's clear they have a very different world view than their customers. *shrug*

Glad they finally got to the glaring issues with the Space Wolves Codex. And Orks, for that matter. Wait.....

So the FAQ basically said THIS

Q: "If Im playing Planet strike can I still use rules for my army?"

A: "yes"

Kirasu wrote:So the FAQ basically said THIS

Q: "If Im playing Planet strike can I still use rules for my army?"

A: "yes"

yes as well as suggesting some thing me and my friend from school can work out

That was an epic fail on GW part. I have wasted seconds of my life reading it.

Epic Fail? Really? I think you might want to look those two words up in the dictionary. Out of the failures that happen this one falls in to the epic category?

This was an easy one to put out. I'm sure it didn't take any time away from the other FAQ's they are currently working on. Why not take a quick win rather than nothing while they work on the harder ones.

Dictionaries are serious business.

What about the freaking stratagem that sends burning wreckage at your opponent's vehicles, but doesn't tell you what facing to resolve it on? Is that not a real question? Urgh, morons!

Well, why it is a tad ridicoulus, I'm actually glad they cleared this up. I'm not satisfied with the conclusion, because I think Demons as Defenders the way it is ruled now is stupid, but at least they cleared it up.

The feth? I honestly do not know whether to laugh or cry...

Oh look! They remembered Planetstrike.

And here I was thinking they'd completely forgotten about it a month after its release.

Ok, from the FAQ:

This may mean that an attacker invades an empty emplacement only to find it wasn’t nearly as undefended as he first thought!

Meaning GW acknowledges how silly that is, but doesn't care.

Ok next question... wait... wha... huh? That's it? Really? That's it?

crap... now i have to delete more space on my hard drive to fit that monster faq in. oh well, looks like i'll have to delete last week's grocery list...

Man, that was depressing. Even if I hadn't been depressed enough, it would have made me depressed. Only one question and they call it a FAQ?

A friend of mine, just had an interesting question: If Demons still use their own rules for deep striking, does that mean, that they can't attack in the same round?

Ah, an FAQ that doesn't actually answer the questions properly. Good Job!

Anung Un Rama wrote:A friend of mine, just had an interesting question: If Demons still use their own rules for deep striking, does that mean, that they can't attack in the same round?

Why couldn't they?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:A friend of mine, just had an interesting question: If Demons still use their own rules for deep striking, does that mean, that they can't attack in the same round?

Why couldn't they?

If they were defender they couldn't because there's nothing permitting them to.

nyyman wrote:Man, that was depressing. Even if I hadn't been depressed enough, it would have made me depressed. Only one question and they call it a FAQ?

well, i guess they minimally redefined the acronym. it's now a Frequently Asked Question document (read singular tense).