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.

I've only recently got back into 40K after a large break that ended in 3rd edition just before Necrons were released. I was pretty impressed by my first reading through of the 5th edition rules, thinking them clearly worded and with great examples for anything I thought wasn't 100% clear.

Interestingly, it wasn't my games (I've only played two 5th edition games so far) that shattered this illusion, but reading DakkaDakka! Playing Orks, I have witnessed the heated discussions on deff rollas, kustom force fields and ICs and how they pertain to Snikrot and FNP - not to mention more general issues such as the placement of embarked units after vehicle explosions...

The heatedness of these discussions appear to come down to a number of things including (but not limited to!):

The lack of precision in the English language - as used by GW and/or those in the discussion

Arguing unrelated(?) view points - RAW, RAI, logic/realism, fluff, etc

What I have also discovered is that:

You can't reference how other rules work without sidetracking the discussion to how well written those rules are

An answer that isn't in an official GW publication or from Jervis himself doesn't count (ie a random person from GW, or even WD!)

For a friendly game, it does seem to inspire a lot of heated argument (still) - which I (naively?) think could easily be solved by GW officially clarifying a lot of these rules.

This is my thinking. Assuming that the rules and points values are not completely random (I seem to remember reading way back when that they start with a points value - possibly mathematically based - and then play test to refine it...) - then for any given situation, GW should know whether it definitely applies, doesn't apply or they hadn't considered it. The only point of issue here should be the "hadn't considered it" - and I believe they would be better off stating this as "doesn't apply" than leaving it up in the air.

As an example - take the deff rolla issue and whether it should apply to vehicles or not. No matter which side of the argument you fall on, would you agree that a deff rolla that applies to vehicles should cost more (points wise) than one that doesn't? A deff rolla that works on vehicles on a 4+ would presumably cost somewhere in between. The question then becomes - for 20 points - which one are we getting? If GW decided the points value based on it applying to vehicles, not applying to vehicles, or randomly applying to vehicles - why can't they say so? If they didn't consider it - surely it is not covered by the points cost and this works out the same as it not applying - again, why can't they say so? I am not suggesting that they need to change anything - just make their intentions clear.

It is not like there isn't a wealth of information regarding what rules would be useful to have official FAQs for - see any discussion board, the INAT FAQ etc. Not only that - these include a wealth of information on what the issues are, as well as potential solutions!

I would love to see a return to WD (and/or the web site) of FAQ articles. Better still - given that GW does a write up of each army as its new codex is released, I would love to see a follow up article - say 3 to 6 months down the track - about how the army is actually being played and that addresses FAQ issues.

"This month in WD - the Deff Rolla debate solved!" - with an article about the history of the deff rolla, the deff rolla rules, current issues and official FAQs - whether that is just clarifying existing rules or expanding them to incorporate the different uses (with different points costs).

I'd like to see that!

But seriously, to my original question, why doesn't GW do more FAQs? It would seem easy to me. It would make WD / the web site more relevant. It would reduce the heated debates. It would even be good PR. What serious flaw in my logic is holding them back?

Thanks for reading,
Adrian

Easier for GW to put the responsibility on to the players with the "common sense"
then having embarrassment due to wall of faqs to be published that makes one wonder if they proof read their codex.

Because its the human nature to find flaws. Even with proof/FAQ/ect people will find a rule they just don't like/understand and raise a 'valid point' about it. Enough confusion and you have yret another 'buggy rule'.

firstly, why we need FAQ: I find its many things, from:
1. GW just doesnt give enough attention to getting the codex or armybook right in the first place.
2. tounament rules compared to standard rules.
3. RAW compared to RAI.
4. multiple versions of FAQ.
5. old books, new books.
6. ok ferret has a point as well people argueing for what ever reason.
7. GW not caring so long as it makes its buck. and as luna says, might exspect gamers to take common sense into it. but as that hasnt been the case for 20 years, youd think they'd have learned.
8. you name it.
9. money:gw, has come a long way sense its first version, but its not progressing as far as tighter rules. you could say the rules take a back seat to models, or game machanics only produce so much capital compared to regimental box sets sales. cooler models are more sexy? sexy sells?

But the OP asked a specific question:
Why? because in part :
1. exspect tournament and casual players to make their own rulings.
2. cant be bothered. (why waste the time?)
3. havent got it high enough up on the 'to do list'
4. it isnt on the to do list.
5. GW lost the to do list.
6. they dont make money off a faq.
7. again any reason why is plasible. so long as GW doesnt say why, just satify your own reasoning. you'll be correct, no matter what others say.

Why doesn't GW do more FAQs?

Because they don't care.

The other thing is that - putting rules in WD does two negative things - one removes room for product hype aka something has to be dropped per issue (assumption same WD size). Talking about rules is still talking about GW product which keeps you thinking about GW product.....

have you seen the recent WD's? i would use the content for my dog to crap on......... sppeking of witch...... gatta make a thred....

I'm speaking from the viewpoint of buisiness practice. Its akin to putting bad customer reviews on the front window of a pizza store.

ok i see, but your previos post was rather fuzzy.

Cause the longer I speak the less coherensy I make.

Off topic, the history of the Deffrolla? If it were anything like the history of the tellyporta then I'd be purring like a kitten.

Yup the ALMIGHTY DEFF ROLLA DEBATE! *echo and fade out*

Check it out, its insanely insane. I made a petition for GW to FAQ the bloody rules even lol. I wrote GW to let me and my brother write FAQs in their WD. Still havnt got a return on that

careful king, GW will fire you a week before your set to release it, and leave you out of the credits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
what ever you do dont agree to sign anything.