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.

HiveFleetEzekial wrote:

Most of it was.. not needed kind of common sense. And since when is doing completely the opposite of what a codex says, 'common sense'? Not to mention opening possible 'abuse' of rules for others (empty drop-pods?).


No one else here, yet, has anything to comment about the 'quality' of the DA FAQ?


I've already read the BGB FAQ (and had only one problem, that I've since forgotten what it was), and I've read the Eldar FAQ, both credited/thanked to Yakface and crew. Both really well done (and the adepticon FAQ as well) This one just leaves me lost, trying to figure out just exactly who put it together, and what they were thinking; it's so not 'like' the other 'yakface' FAQs I've read. It doesn't feel solid, or even needed. Granted, it's only posted on the CA site sofar, so... I dunno... Somebody way up there in GW-CA land jumping the gun again?

FYI, I wasn't contacted by anyone at GW regarding their FAQs. The credit clearly comes because they read the Adepticon FAQ we created and used it as a resource for some of their questions.

The Dark Angel codex in general doesn't have all that many serious questions, compared with say the Eldar or Ork codex. For example, the DA section in our Adepticon FAQ was pretty sparse (although GW did include most, if not all of our DA questions).

While many of the questions and answers may seem like 'common sense' be aware that the DA codex was the first in this 'new style' of marine codex and since it behaves differently from all the SM codices before, it leaves a lot of players wondering about the "intent" behind some of the new rules, especially the combat squad rules vs. transports.

And allowing marine players to take drop pods and then start their units on the table instead of in the drop pod only really puts them in line with any other transport vehicle. . .you always have the option to not to deploy your unit in their transport vehicle if you want.


As for who wrote these FAQs, I am pretty sure (according to what Phil Kelly said at Adepticon) that these are all written by Alessio (the guy who wrote the v5 rulebook).

yakface wrote:FYI, I wasn't contacted by anyone at GW regarding their FAQs. The credit clearly comes because they read the Adepticon FAQ we created and used it as a resource for some of their questions.

And allowing marine players to take drop pods and then start their units on the table instead of in the drop pod only really puts them in line with any other transport vehicle. . .you always have the option to not to deploy your unit in their transport vehicle if you want.

So, they pretty much just gave.. false 'credit' to you and your team, to cover their own mishandling of the FAQ?

There were more questions they could have handled, other than what they did. For anyone that frequents B&C, they'll know that Jervis himself had a pre-release Q&A put out care of Owen Reeves. Then had Owen ask around (mostly B&C) for yet more questions after it was released, and answered all of them. People (Some DA player included) still fuss, whine, pi** & moan about it not being 'official enough'. They could have simply copy/pasted the whole list and 'all' (generalizing here) Da players would have been happy enough. Instead they gave us this? (the DA players I know, that've seen it.. the B&C crowd anyways, are all dissapointed with it)

Yes, squads have 'always had the options', except in the case of drop-pods, which.. from the 4th ed SM codex and on, have said the squads must use them. (though, now that I go over the rules for it in DA, with a finer toothed comb.. I see that rule distinctly missing. New avenues and tactics open. Yet still...) Units with combat squads rule cannot be split going into or coming out of reserves. It's exlicetly stated in the codex. Yet their FAQ goes against it. (even so much as impliying that one DP bought for a full 10 man squad could be used by a completely seperate combat squad - poor wording on their part)

HiveFleetEzekial wrote:
So, they pretty much just gave.. false 'credit' to you and your team, to cover their own mishandling of the FAQ?

There were more questions they could have handled, other than what they did. For anyone that frequents B&C, they'll know that Jervis himself had a pre-release Q&A put out care of Owen Reeves. Then had Owen ask around (mostly B&C) for yet more questions after it was released, and answered all of them. People (Some DA player included) still fuss, whine, pi** & moan about it not being 'official enough'. They could have simply copy/pasted the whole list and 'all' (generalizing here) Da players would have been happy enough. Instead they gave us this? (the DA players I know, that've seen it.. the B&C crowd anyways, are all dissapointed with it)

Yes, squads have 'always had the options', except in the case of drop-pods, which.. from the 4th ed SM codex and on, have said the squads must use them. (though, now that I go over the rules for it in DA, with a finer toothed comb.. I see that rule distinctly missing. New avenues and tactics open. Yet still...) Units with combat squads rule cannot be split going into or coming out of reserves. It's exlicetly stated in the codex. Yet their FAQ goes against it. (even so much as impliying that one DP bought for a full 10 man squad could be used by a completely seperate combat squad - poor wording on their part)

I wouldn't call it 'false credit', they gave a 'thanks' to us which I took as a thanks for all the hard work we put into our FAQ because it helped them in some way while they were compiling their FAQ.

I don't remember the questions that were on the 'unofficial' Q&A that are missing from this FAQ (maybe you can link me to it), but is it possible that some of the missing questions are simply answered by the 5th edition rules? I know that seems to be the case with some of the questions we had in our Eldar section that weren't included in the official FAQ. For example in our FAQ we had a question about whether characters on eldar jetbikes could use their 'fleet' ability, but GW didn't need to include that question in the official FAQ because in v5 bikes can't run (and therefore fleet is useless on a bike).


Their ruling about splitting a unit and then putting half of it in the Drop Pod does go against the codex RAW but perhaps it is done because the forthcoming SM codex is going to allow that and they are planning ahead?

No prob. Right here. http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=108170&view=findpost&p=1238566
Don't recall a one of them being carried over to the (official)FAQ. Perhaps they just don't 'see' how someone couldn't take the codex author's words as 'official enough'. :\


(and a broad list of questions, with unoficial answers)http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=106421


And it such is the case, about splitting combat squads, would it not have simply been better to just [i]wait[/t] till the 5th edition stuff was out, when it would warrent an FAQ answer...?

HiveFleetEzekial wrote:No prob. Right here. http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=108170&view=findpost&p=1238566
Don't recall a one of them being carried over to the (official)FAQ. Perhaps they just don't 'see' how someone couldn't take the codex author's words as 'official enough'. :\


(and a broad list of questions, with unoficial answers)http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.php?showtopic=106421


And it such is the case, about splitting combat squads, would it not have simply been better to just wait till the 5th edition stuff was out, when it would warrent an FAQ answer...?

Well, I looked through that list of unofficial Q&As and it looks like almost every one of them falls into the 'yes, play it RAW' category. In fact, a lot of them seem to be based on the fact that you can do one thing in the SM codex that you can or can't do in the DA codex; a nuance that will almost certainly soon be going away with the release of the new SM codex.

Ultimately there doesn't seem to be any gigantic huge ruling they missed out on including in the FAQ, unless I'm not seeing something (which is possible given that I don't play DAs). But that's just my opinion.