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.

skkipper wrote:so if you are going to allow transport capacity for other marines. does that include demon hunters and chaos?

Well Clearly no, as I don't play those armies....

My god we have to make a decision for ourselves? Agree something in a civilised manner!

I think if you can't make decisions with other people about how you play the game when the most important rule is to have fun, then i think it says something for peoples ability to function in a community!

Polonius wrote:This isn't a case of GW failing. It's a case of GW continuing it's policies

If the policy is a failure, then it is GW failing.

Reaver83 wrote:My god we have to make a decision for ourselves? Agree something in a civilised manner!

I think if you can't make decisions with other people about how you play the game when the most important rule is to have fun, then i think it says something for peoples ability to function in a community!

Gahhh what are all the rules lawyers, who have spent years learning to bend words and meaning in order to get their way, going to do now? The can't agree with themselves, let alone anyone else.

skyth wrote:

Polonius wrote:This isn't a case of GW failing. It's a case of GW continuing it's policies

If the policy is a failure, then it is GW failing.

Ok, let me restate: this isn't a new failure, this is just a continuance of a previous policy, that many people consider a failure. For the record, I agree that the "no rules outside of codexes" policy is bizarre, but it's at least marginally defensible. Given the relaxing of the Counts As rule, it's less and less an issue for this sort of thing.

As I've stated in other threads: GW doesn't care about who plays their games, only who buys their models. Accept that and move on. They're basically begging the community to take over tournament regulation as it is.

Ignoring the stupidity of the 'different gear because your marines are painted a different colour' issue, I do notice that they've reversed the decision on putting a single combat squad in a drop pod (which previously contradicted the codex).

Although they forgot to fix the one addressing the rhino's fire arcs...

Reaver83 wrote:My god we have to make a decision for ourselves? Agree something in a civilised manner!

I think if you can't make decisions with other people about how you play the game when the most important rule is to have fun, then i think it says something for peoples ability to function in a community!

No matter how blameworthy you may feel the community is, it doesn't releive GW of the requirement to competently write their rules.

The DA FAQ is a massive punt on their part, as if they simply came out and said: "you know, those DA, if your opponent agrees, shave a couple points off every model, it's all in good fun!"

Codexes (presumably) have their options costed at a certain level to balance their power as the Codex is written (again, presumably). I don't have the DA codex, but we all have access to the BA Codex, so can we apply the same logic to them? Do their apothecary equivalents get to use the new Narthecum rules? Can all of their squads that have access to Storm Shields (cheap storm shields at that) get the 3+ inv? Personally I think it has to be a "yes" to all those things, if only to avoid the insanity of having ridiculousness like a squad of BA assault termies and SM ATs having completely divergent combat prowess. But applying all those difference rules makes the BA codex substantially better then it was when it was written; it's not being a jerk for an opponent to realize that letting the BA player use the Codex SM rules means the BA player can field 3 assault squads with FNP, opr that the assault termies that were crap when his codex was first written are now very nice, and cheaper then yours (by the cost of one Death Company).

So what is the DA/BA player to do? How do you build an army when you cannot know what rules you army has to follow?

That's why this is a punt. The whole point of having a widely known/played game is, at least on some level, portability.

Buzzsaw wrote:So what is the DA/BA player to do? How do you build an army when you cannot know what rules you army has to follow?

Why don't they know which rules to follow? The FAQ quite clearly says that they should use the rules in their own codex.

The rest is simply pointing out that if you don't like the RAW, talk to your opponent and create house rules.

I'm not seeing a problem there.

insaniak wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:So what is the DA/BA player to do? How do you build an army when you cannot know what rules you army has to follow?

Why don't they know which rules to follow? The FAQ quite clearly says that they should use the rules in their own codex.

The rest is simply pointing out that if you don't like the RAW, talk to your opponent and create house rules.

I'm not seeing a problem there.

Other then the problem that using the rules "strictly" leads to ridiculous situations? Beyond that, your comment points out the very problem I emphasis: lack of portability. The FAQ lays out what should be done (i.e., what you strictly should do) and in the next sentence, recognizing that their prior point will lead to ludicrous situations, recommends that you house rule it.

Their solution is fine for a game that plays with proxies or paper chits; for a game where you not only have to buy your game pieces but are expected to model them with the wargear they have, it makes playing anywhere without prior notice of their excepted rules a craps shoot.

I'm shocked that there was no mention of Apocalypse in the FAQ. As we all know, and question that's too gribbly or deep should receive the "You can in Apocalypse!" response.

Am I the only one that finds it a bit hypocritical to say that players are honor-bound to do certain things, while simultaneously asserting that the design team is not honor-bound to make a consistent rules-set?

Doctor Thunder wrote:Am I the only one that finds it a bit hypocritical to say that players are honor-bound to do certain things, while simultaneously asserting that the design team is not honor-bound to make a consistent rules-set?

Nope.

Power of the Machine Spirit
Storm Shields
Transport capacity on LRs
Transport Capacity on Drop Pods
Cyclone Missile Launcher
Typhoon Missile Launcher

You seem to have forgetten a couple. New stats for Chaplains and Librarians, new scout stats, 24 inch hoods and need to be included as well. For the record, I have no problem with updating the DA codex so long as you take the bad as well.

steinerp wrote:

You seem to have forgetten a couple. New stats for Chaplains and Librarians, new scout stats, 24 inch hoods and need to be included as well. For the record, I have no problem with updating the DA codex so long as you take the bad as well.

That seems to be the fact that people keep forgetting: the DA codex was designed to be complete. It was designed weak sauce, but complete. Believe it or not, there are advantages it enjoys over basic marines (tacs can take a special weapon under 10 men, better chaplains/libbys, Deathwing as troops, etc.

This isn't about errata, or consistency: it's about power balance. And that's just not something GW likes to correct midstream any more.

strange_eric wrote:This is all they needed to update:

Power of the Machine Spirit
Storm Shields
Transport capacity on LRs
Transport Capacity on Drop Pods
Cyclone Missile Launcher
Typhoon Missile Launcher

And instantaneously I would be happy. Come on GW is it THAT hard to upgrade SIX whole rules?

I'm seriously considering house ruling this for Local Tournaments. :/

also,

Apothecaries
Librarians
Chaplains
scouts ammo
command squads

Would been a hell of alot easier to make Master of Ravenwing and Deathwing part of new SM codex.

Just stunned by this FAQ

Alpharius wrote:I can see both sides here, but really, would it have killed GW to actually decide one way or the other?

Yes, yes it would

"FAQs
Q. There are a number of cases where things
with the same name have different rules or
characteristics in Codex Space Marines and
Codex: Dark Angels, such as the different
transport capacity for the Land Raider. There are
also a number of new items of equipment in the
Space Marines Codex that are not this one.
Which version of the rules should I use, the latest
version, or the one in Codex: Dark Angels?
A. Strictly, you should always use the rules from
your own Codex, and this is the default solution
you must use if you and your opponent can’t
come up with a better one (you’ll find that this
might be the case in tournaments, for example!).
However, always keep in mind the foreword we
have written to all of the Errata and FAQ
documents, as well as ‘The Most Important Rule’
described on page 2 of the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook, which states ‘… it is important to
remember that the rules are just a framework to
create an enjoyable game.
Winning at any cost is less important than making
sure both players – not just the victor – have a
good time.’ On this basis if an opponent asks you
if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of
the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can
use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in
their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of
course you can!’ Please note that ‘The Most
Important Rule’ cuts both ways, and because of
this, if you feel that a piece of new equipment
might spoil the game for your opponent by giving
your own army an unfair advantage, then you are
honour-bound not to use it.
As you can see, the nature of the Most Important
Rule means that it’s impossible to give a black
and white answer to any question that may arise;
instead you and your opponent need to discuss
things and come up with the answer that makes"

Just by default players are going to say no when asked if DA, BA, SW or BT can use updated equipment.

Pussyfooting and not addressing this is asinine!

I just can't believe a multi-million dollar company can not come up with a R&D dept. to develop rules for their hugely popular miniatures.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:

I just can't believe a multi-million dollar company can not come up with a R&D dept. to develop rules for their hugely popular miniatures.

Especially when they know there are people like yakface who would gladly do it for free if they only asked him to.

All they'd have to do is copy and paste what he sent them onto their website.

Is JohnHwangDD on sick leave today?

Is H.B.M.C.?

Alpharius wrote:Is JohnHwangDD on sick leave today?

Is H.B.M.C.?

They are probably both too stunned by this latest that they can not comment at this time.

Either that or maybe they think this arguament is entirely academic and therefore don't need to say anything at all.

And HMBC doesn't even USE GW's rules. He uses his own.

Who's in charge of this thing? Jervis, right? A guy who doesn't even think that people should use army lists outside of tournaments. He's looking at the game from a completely different place than most of us are.

Polonius wrote:If DA were a top teir codex and SM were mediocre, nobody would be complaining.

I don't know... this is DakkaDakka. A place were people use the expression "moral courage" to describe making choices about rules for toy soldiers. I have a feeling people here will complain about anything, in any situation, for as long as the hobby exists.

JOHIRA wrote:

Polonius wrote:If DA were a top teir codex and SM were mediocre, nobody would be complaining.

I don't know... this is DakkaDakka. A place were people use the expression "moral courage" to describe making choices about rules for toy soldiers. I have a feeling people here will complain about anything, in any situation, for as long as the hobby exists.

Well, let's get off the whole "internet complaining is wrong" high horse. I find kvetching to be about as productive as the next person, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any usefulness. Finding out that you're not the only person to find something BS can be comforting. And finding reasons to complain about GW aren't hard...

I was just pointing out that there is a tenor to this complaint that I think is ignoring the main issue, or even issues. It's becoming increasingly clear that not only aren't tournament rules a priority, but that I don't think there is a single strong advocate for competitive play on the 40k side (unless alessio is doing more 40k work now that he's done with the 5th ed rulebook), meaning that competitive/tournament play has gone from a low priority to no longer even on the radar screen.

We're consumers in an economic crisis, in a marketplace with other companies that not only cater to, but actively woo competitive gamers. One of the ways they do this is through regular updates and patches. GW, ironically now that the internet is so readily accessible, have stopped doing that, leaving (admittedly better) codexes to sit out for years and years without any updates. We have a huge investment in time, money, and simply emotion into our armies, and while stuff like this isn't a surprise, it's still annoying to be reminded how little our demographic means to GW.

Polonius wrote:
We're consumers in an economic crisis, in a marketplace with other companies that not only cater to, but actively woo competitive gamers. One of the ways they do this is through regular updates and patches. GW, ironically now that the internet is so readily accessible, have stopped doing that, leaving (admittedly better) codexes to sit out for years and years without any updates. We have a huge investment in time, money, and simply emotion into our armies, and while stuff like this isn't a surprise, it's still annoying to be reminded how little our demographic means to GW.

I think lack of tournament support has been pretty evident for at least 2-3 years now. Remember how many official GTs there used to be?

Buzzsaw wrote:Other then the problem that using the rules "strictly" leads to ridiculous situations?

That's a problem with the situation created by the FAQ answer... not a problem of not knowing which rules you're supposed to be following...

The FAQ lays out what should be done (i.e., what you strictly should do) and in the next sentence, recognizing that their prior point will lead to ludicrous situations, recommends that you house rule it.

They're not 'recognising' that it leads to ludicrous situations. They're simply saying that if you and your opponent don't like the solution they've given, you should feel free to create a house rule. Not because they think their answer was ludicrous, but simply because they recognise that some people are not going to like the fact that DA and UM versions of the same equipment do different things.

I personally would prefer that an item in one codex do the exact same thing as an identically named item in another codex... but their stance that players should just use the rules in their own codex does at least remove the problem of people needing to buy the newest codex, whether they play that army or not... something that players have been complaining about for at least a decade.

JOHIRA wrote:

Polonius wrote:If DA were a top teir codex and SM were mediocre, nobody would be complaining.

I don't know... this is DakkaDakka. A place were people use the expression "moral courage" to describe making choices about rules for toy soldiers. I have a feeling people here will complain about anything, in any situation, for as long as the hobby exists.

Hey, I was always taught that the largest component of moral courage was having the ability to admit that you're wrong.

I cannot speak for HBMC,
but I too am amazed he hasn't piped up yet...
HELLO!!!!!

Anyways,
This FAQ and Errata fixed a few minor things that needed to be fixing (the typo's and clarifying the wargear).

In terms of the new Space Marine book, I did very little. We write our own rules set (almost complete, just fixing some of the codecies) because of this exact issue.

Wargear that has different rules in different books. etc etc.

As for Yak writing rules,
heaps of respect for Yak, but they really do need a rule set that puts their bottom line first. If the rules were perfect, there would be no need for more rules, more books, more reasons for new models etc.

So that just would never work, they are a company still that makes more money sadly off half good rules than that they would make off good rules

To be honest,
as a DA player, I am pretty much just going to be using the Marines book for for DA's anyway, they are marines (Just the chapter is a sucessor chapter of the Dark Angels) if I am playing in a tornie.

Polonius wrote:Well, let's get off the whole "internet complaining is wrong" high horse. I find kvetching to be about as productive as the next person, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any usefulness. Finding out that you're not the only person to find something BS can be comforting. And finding reasons to complain about GW aren't hard...

Calm down, calm down. I was just making a joke about how overly-serious everyone seems to be taking this. I mean, we've got people casting aspersions about the personal character of GW's writers because of a FAQ about rules for toy soldiers. Doesn't that seem silly? We all have known for weeks if not months that this is how GW was going to go with all the marine variants, so why the outrage over a FAQ that confirms what we already knew?

I think you're exactly right that the problem is the disappointing quality of the Dark Angels codex. So why not make your own? Isn't that what HBMC does? I disagree with a lot of his opinions and the severity thereof, but I really respect him for doing what he can to improve his hobby.

Rather than look at this as a snub for the tournament crowd, why not turn it around? "The GW hobby" (if you'll pardon the ridiculous term) has always been about fan communities, doing things for themselves. We assemble our own models, we paint our own models, we make rules for our own models and sometimes even our own armies, and it's always been seen as a good thing. So look at this FAQ as simply acknowledgment that GW is approaching competitive play in the same way. I seem to remember people complaining about the way GW runs tournaments for as long as GW has run tournaments, so this is really just them openly telling tournament organizers to take more freedom in what they do.

The whining here is truly unbecoming, but the solution is very simple:

If you want to play as Dark Angels, then suck it up and play Dark Angels.

If you want to play as not-Dark Angels, then pick a different paint scheme and use the SM Codex.

But don't whine about it.

I'm just sad GW didn't put their foot down harder and say "No, don't be ridiculous - they're different Codices. It'd be as unfair and unfluffy as fielding Marked Daemons in a CSM army."