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.

The severe lack of editing, and grasp of the English language isnt limited to just GW, in the realms of warhammer... Anyone ever notice how many grammatical/ spelling errors there are in the Black Library books??

i mean, seriously, any editor who hasnt just smoked a pound of marijuana can spot that a terminator cannot look at a human character, whilst riding in a rhino... and then the very next paragraph, be riding in a Land Raider, without any further action, beyond the tank moving from point A to point B... (that example, i was talking about the BEAUTIFUL "writing" of C.S. Goto in the blood raven books.

I think a better ruleset would benefit everyone. It would benefit tourney players more, but it would benefit all gamers.

And I don't think better ruleset equals more rules, more complex rules, or even more USRs/special rules. I don't what that in 40k (it works in other games and that's fine).

When I say better, I mean stating things like:

Vulkan: "Everyone loses Chapter tactics...blah blah. This only benefits units selected from the Space Marinez (hurr) codex."

There, one sentence more for something that has been endlessly debated.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Because thats pandering to a minority, and the games aren't designed with tournament level of competitive play in mind? Perhaps?

In that case, GW should stop pretending they are and stop running GT's and RT's.

Why? They will go on anyways, so why not take a cut of the pie for yourself?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Why? They will go on anyways, so why not take a cut of the pie for yourself?

Because if your going to stand there and say its not made for tournments, it sends a very different message whne you promote them....So which is it? Tournment or not?

Because GW sees tournies as celebrating the best gamer, not the best general. And somehow wanting well written rules makes you a 'hard core tourney gamer'. It's GW's mindset, and they've made it clear time and again. It's easier to publish sloppy rules, and they get away with it, so they continue to write sloppy rules. If everyone goes and plays PP games, they'll improve their rule writing. But, not everyone wants to play PP games.

GW has a good product. But, like a lot of things, they do 98% of the job. The last 2% is what lacks, and they don't want to devote the resources to make that 2% problem become 0.2%.

GW is british. That leads to certain conceptions about what's acceptable and understood. Look at the British legal system and constitution: "custom" has as much weight as actual written law.

dietrich wrote:they don't care if the rules are tight, because tourney players aren't their entire customer base.

No and Yes. GW cares about rules, to an extent.

More precisely, Tournament players aren't an important part of their customer base. And with the success of Apocalypse, GW probably couldn't care less if all of the Tournament players disappeared overnight. GW recognizes that Tournament support is a drain on resources that has only costs, whereas Apocalypse is a profit center. A GW designer working on Apocaypse produces something that drives a lot of new revenue, whereas answering questions and doing FAQs generates no new revenew. So GW isn't going to make the mistake of letting the tail wag the dog by catering to the tournament crowd.

dietrich wrote:And that's one of the problems with GW. Their written word skills are pretty mediocre.

Really? The current 5E rulebook is *extremely* tight.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:New Space Marine Codex

Can the librarian use gate of infinity to exit close combat?

...no answer

Does Vulkan's chapter tactics ability cover allied units (witch hunters, daemon hunters)?

nooooooo answer


Those are only what I can think of off the top of my head. I suppose they want to "leave it up to us" to decide the more important rules questions, but quite frankly this FAQ is just disappointing.

Anything else I missed? Thoughts?

sorry if this thread already exists, but I didn't see it on the first page and since it's only like 14 hours old I figured nobody had started one yet

actually, vulkans power does not work on allies, because the do not have chapter tactics. This has been asked before, so please read up before you post, as for gate of infinity, you can just ask costumer service.

ultramarine1 wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:New Space Marine Codex

Can the librarian use gate of infinity to exit close combat?

...no answer

Does Vulkan's chapter tactics ability cover allied units (witch hunters, daemon hunters)?

nooooooo answer


Those are only what I can think of off the top of my head. I suppose they want to "leave it up to us" to decide the more important rules questions, but quite frankly this FAQ is just disappointing.

Anything else I missed? Thoughts?

sorry if this thread already exists, but I didn't see it on the first page and since it's only like 14 hours old I figured nobody had started one yet

actually, vulkans power does not work on allies, because the do not have chapter tactics. This has been asked before, so please read up before you post, as for gate of infinity, you can just ask costumer service.

Funny. There are pages and pages of people who a) don't find it nearly as cut-and-dried; and b) reach the opposite conclusion.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

dietrich wrote:And that's one of the problems with GW. Their written word skills are pretty mediocre.

Really? The current 5E rulebook is *extremely* tight.

It's much better than anything they've done before in 40k. The problem is stuff like the SM codex, which has a bunch of holes that most people quickly found. Sorry that I wasn't specific enough. How about:

"Their ability to write technically detailed information, while improving, still leaves something to be desired."

carmachu wrote:Because if your going to stand there and say its not made for tournments, it sends a very different message whne you promote them....So which is it? Tournment or not?

The answer is an emphatic "*NOT*".

If you've been reading Standard Bearer for the past year or so, Jervis has been *very* clear and consistent on this point. You don't have to like the direction that GW is going, but it's going there and you probably aren't going to change it.

GW's actions speak far louder than any words. Since the dawn of Apocalypse, GW has published the large-format Apocalypse and a follow-on supplement, along with multiple Apocalypse-only models. GW has a continuously growing range via Forgeworld, which is now doing more business than ever before. And with the release of Apocalypse, GW also shifted *back* into profitability.

During this same time, GW has only released the occasional Internet-only FAQ for the Tournament crowd. GW has clearly stated that, going forward, the intent is to only require Codex and Rulebook, without any FAQs. GW doesn't devote any significant resources here, not even bothering to print up a Chapter Approved to compile their FAQs. Heck, their FAQs aren't even set up for printing, just slapdash together. Why? Because GW *knows* that it doesn't even matter whether the answer is "correct", only that there is an standard answer. (The INAT FAQ is the same way, but pretends that "correctness" is actually important, when in actuality, the *only* thing that matters is that the INAT blesses the INAT FAQ as official).

Apocalypse stuff is on the shelves, but there's nothing Tournament-related on the shelves. I think that pretty much answers things about as clearly as one could require.


GW runs Tournaments because they've done so historically, because some of their customers want them to do so, and will actually pay them to do so. GW simply needs to make sure that those Tournaments they run cover their own costs. Which is why GW has scaled back on Tournaments in 2009, rather than expanding and promoting them. Indeed, GW is now promoting Indy GTs, precisely so that they don't have to devote actual resources toward them.

Again, you don't have to like it, but GW really doesn't care about Tournaments any more.

dietrich wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

dietrich wrote:And that's one of the problems with GW. Their written word skills are pretty mediocre.

Really? The current 5E rulebook is *extremely* tight.

It's much better than anything they've done before in 40k. The problem is stuff like the SM codex, which has a bunch of holes that most people quickly found. Sorry that I wasn't specific enough. How about:

"Their ability to write technically detailed information, while improving, still leaves something to be desired."

Totally agreed.

GW has a time budget, and they apparently stop when they thing it's "good enough" internally. I don't believe GW cares about finding "loopholes", because it's just not part of their "beer-gaming" mentality. That is, I wouldn't be surprised if GW rules development and playtesting isn't done with a beer in hand at all times...

JohnHwangDD wrote:...GW really doesn't care about Tournaments any more.

Ahh yes, I miss Dave Taylor already!

3 cheers for Dave!

JohnHwangDD wrote: More precisely, Tournament players aren't an important part of their customer base. And with the success of Apocalypse, GW probably couldn't care less if all of the Tournament players disappeared overnight. GW recognizes that Tournament support is a drain on resources that has only costs, whereas Apocalypse is a profit center. A GW designer working on Apocaypse produces something that drives a lot of new revenue, whereas answering questions and doing FAQs generates no new revenew. So GW isn't going to make the mistake of letting the tail wag the dog by catering to the tournament crowd.

Or, the competition between Apocalypse and tournaments is some kind of imagined thing on your part, and not backed up by any data or indeed any real attitude or actions on the part of GW.

GW's still holding GTs. And Apocalypse games almost certainly represent no more than a fraction of overall 40K games played. They didn't even have a particularly good quarter when Apocalypse was released.

Ultimately, people don't actually complain about GW's sometimes sloppy rules because of tournament play. Most tournaments have impartial judges if a dispute occurs. The real problem is when you're having a fun, tactical, competitive game with a stranger at a store or a friend at home, a dispute occurs at a crucial moment, and suddenly you're making a d6 roll to decide the outcome of the game. Whether you win that roll or not, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Again, I don't want to see their games become senselessly complex, and I think GW does a lot of things right. But IMO it's a completely fair criticism to say they could do better with just a little more effort. And FAQs are part of that.

Really, I used to think the software industry was bad for releasing buggy products before they were ready. But at least they patch them. GW doesn't even try to patch them...they pretend the issues aren't there.

I'm not a GW hater. If they just acknowledged problems as they found them and fixed them through timely errata and FAQs, I wouldn't have a big beef with them. Isn't that the thing with GW customer service? They might mess up your order, but they're great about fixing things. Why shouldn't the design studio take the same approach?

ultramarine1 wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:New Space Marine Codex

Can the librarian use gate of infinity to exit close combat?

...no answer

Does Vulkan's chapter tactics ability cover allied units (witch hunters, daemon hunters)?

nooooooo answer


Those are only what I can think of off the top of my head. I suppose they want to "leave it up to us" to decide the more important rules questions, but quite frankly this FAQ is just disappointing.

Anything else I missed? Thoughts?

sorry if this thread already exists, but I didn't see it on the first page and since it's only like 14 hours old I figured nobody had started one yet

actually, vulkans power does not work on allies, because the do not have chapter tactics. This has been asked before, so please read up before you post, as for gate of infinity, you can just ask costumer service.

Oh how glib. Read up before you post eh? Nice advice.

Call customer service and ask them you say? Ahhh yes. For the last decade they have given inconsistent rulings and that is supposed to suffice? If those very same customer reps did have consistent rulings, it would be because they hold a FAQ in their hands.
Don't you think that GW would release that very same FAQ the public so that the consumer would stop wasting valuable man hours answering questions over the phone?
Indeed it has been asked before and the consensus seems to be (while beardy as hell) that Vulkan does allow allies to benefit from his rule.

If you are playing at adepticon this year, that is also how it will be played.

SM.93A.01 – Q: Does Vulkan’s Chapter Tactics benefit weaponry of allied units included in the army (such as allied Sisters of Battle flamers, for example)?
A: Yes, if the weapon is part of his army, including inquisitorial allies, then it benefits from his Chapter Tactics special rule [RAW].

So yes, please do 'read up before you post'.

gorgon wrote:Or, the competition between Apocalypse and tournaments is some kind of imagined thing on your part, and not backed up by any data or indeed any real attitude or actions on the part of GW.

Did you not even bother to read my post? :S

gorgon wrote:GW's still holding GTs. And Apocalypse games almost certainly represent no more than a fraction of overall 40K games played. They didn't even have a particularly good quarter when Apocalypse was released.

So GW's return to profitability isn't real? GW has made no bones that Apocalypse has been a resounding success at the cash register, and that's all that really matters at GW.

That said, anecdotally, Apocalypse games probably represent a goodly, and growing fraction of the total 40k gaming out there. They *definitely* outweigh Tournament activity.

gorgon wrote:GW doesn't even try to patch them...they pretend the issues aren't there.

No, GW recognizes that it's simply not worth their time to patch them. Particularly when there are guys like Yakface and the INAT who'll do it for FREE! So if FAQs will be done regardless of whether GW spends any time on the issue, why does GW need to take designers off product to deal with this stuff?

gorgon wrote:Isn't that the thing with GW customer service?
Why shouldn't the design studio take the same approach?

GW Customer Service is tied to product sales, which GW cares about intensely. The design studio exists to create the rules that sell models, which is very different.

Again, you don't have to like it, but that's how GW is.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Really? The current 5E rulebook is *extremely* tight.

Compared to previous rulesets yes, but there's still a good number of problems. Look at the potential confusion about FNP for example.

Also the newer codex's still have large numbers of problems.


Hiring a decent technical writer would help a lot.

No, GW recognizes that it's simply not worth their time to patch them. Particularly when there are guys like Yakface and the INAT who'll do it for FREE! So if FAQs will be done regardless of whether GW spends any time on the issue, why does GW need to take designers off product to deal with this stuff?

Why don't they just make these their official FAQ's then instead of bothering with the crap they put out?

Even if "tournament" gamers aren't their primary market, most people play what amounts to tournament style games most of the time (use the points value of whatever the local tourney standard is with those rules and the GW FAQ's)

Either way, their pathetic FAQ's are inexcusable. If a software or electronics firm provided such errata for instance, they'd take tons of flak for it and lose sales.

@Vak: no argument there, although the argument isn't so much FNP (which is pretty clear), but rather "his unit" includes attached ICs for the purposes of unit-wide USRs. IMO, the way ICs join units makes it pretty clear that they should get the granted USRs, even though there are potential balance issues.

I believe GW has in the past semi-blessed the INAT FAQ, but who knows?

A year ago, I'd have agreed that Tournament-style gaming was the norm, but post-Apocalyspe, I strongly doubt it. Last weekend, I popped my head in the Bunker, and the number of 40k players playing Apoc was substantial.

If an electronics company produces a solid product with crappy instructions manuals, will it sell? Yes, that is a fact.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
That said, anecdotally, Apocalypse games probably represent a goodly, and growing fraction of the total 40k gaming out there. They *definitely* outweigh Tournament activity.

Well, also anecdotally, that is completely not the case where I live. Here in North Metro Atlanta, there are primarily two stores that host GW 40K events. While there was a decent surge in purchasing and playing of Apocalypse in the months following their release, there has been a significant drop off in more recent months.

In fact, the only Apocalypse game I have seen at either store since last June was when two 13-14 year old kids threw down a 4K per side battle at Hobby Town this past weekend.

If they show Apocalypse the same kind of support that GW normally shows its products, that profit spike will go the way of LOTR.

ultramarine1 wrote:
actually, vulkans power does not work on allies, because the do not have chapter tactics. This has been asked before, so please read up before you post, as for gate of infinity, you can just ask costumer service.

Please go back to remedial reading/comp class. That is NOT what it says.

In every special character, except vulkan, it says exhange combat tactics for X ability.

Vulkans says units lose combat tactics, in exchange the ARMY gains X abilty.

The army. Not space marine army, not non-allied army, Not allied army only, just "the army". Its quite clear.

Customer service? Has no bearing on the rules.

carmachu wrote:

ultramarine1 wrote:
actually, vulkans power does not work on allies, because the do not have chapter tactics. This has been asked before, so please read up before you post, as for gate of infinity, you can just ask costumer service.

Please go back to remedial reading/comp class. That is NOT what it says.

In every special character, except vulkan, it says exhange combat tactics for X ability.

Vulkans says units lose combat tactics, in exchange the ARMY gains X abilty.

The army. Not space marine army, not non-allied army, Not allied army only, just "the army". Its quite clear.

Customer service? Has no bearing on the rules.

"quite clear?

Definition of army by GW = ???

Nonexistant outside of apoc.

Quoting OOP codices ( WH / DH ) won't help here.

so we may return to GW-faq now

JohnHwangDD wrote:Did you not even bother to read my post? :S

Your post doesn't make any sense, nor does it have any proof behind it. The global performance of Apoc has no direct correlation on the decisions of GWUS about their GT circuit. You're just making things up.

gorgon wrote:So GW's return to profitability isn't real? GW has made no bones that Apocalypse has been a resounding success at the cash register, and that's all that really matters at GW.

Currency fluctuations have more to do with it than anything. Can you show me where GW's claimed that Apoc has led them back to profitability?

That said, anecdotally, Apocalypse games probably represent a goodly, and growing fraction of the total 40k gaming out there. They *definitely* outweigh Tournament activity.

I call bull$hit if you're telling me big multiplayer games that you have to drag thousands of points to outweigh all the normal sized, 3 hour pickup games.

Apoc by its nature means it's not going to be a common thing.

No, GW recognizes that it's simply not worth their time to patch them. Particularly when there are guys like Yakface and the INAT who'll do it for FREE! So if FAQs will be done regardless of whether GW spends any time on the issue, why does GW need to take designers off product to deal with this stuff?

I'm sure that customers *could* patch software too. But why should they be expected to do so?

GW Customer Service is tied to product sales, which GW cares about intensely. The design studio exists to create the rules that sell models, which is very different.

It's *all* tied to product sales.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Vak: no argument there, although the argument isn't so much FNP (which is pretty clear), but rather "his unit" includes attached ICs for the purposes of unit-wide USRs. IMO, the way ICs join units makes it pretty clear that they should get the granted USRs, even though there are potential balance issues.

Actually the big confusion I've seen comes from the way they worded it. From a cursory glance it reads to some people as though if a shot ignores a models armor they don't get feel no pain, whereas this only actually occurs against AP1/2 weapons.

I believe GW has in the past semi-blessed the INAT FAQ, but who knows?

Sort of, but not officially, they don't use it at their events. It would be nice if they did or modified it to their tastes.

A year ago, I'd have agreed that Tournament-style gaming was the norm, but post-Apocalyspe, I strongly doubt it. Last weekend, I popped my head in the Bunker, and the number of 40k players playing Apoc was substantial.

On any given game night most people just play 1500/1750/1850/2000pts at most places I've been recently. Apoc is generally something people schedule ahead of time I've found (at least personally). I love Apoc games, but I still find tournament standard games to be the norm. I play Apoc once every couple months, even though I'd like to get it in more. I might see one Apoc game being played every 2-3 weeks if that.

If an electronics company produces a solid product with crappy instructions manuals, will it sell? Yes, that is a fact.

Yes, but if a competitor releases a similar product with better documentation, driver support, and updates, they'll lose out. GW just doesn't have that kind of competition right now. I really wish they'd go back to doing proper FAQ's and updates, even if it's just an annual pamphlet or something.

1hadhq wrote:Quoting OOP codices ( WH / DH ) won't help here.

Neither codex is out of print/production. Both are still valid, as the most-recently published version of their respective army lists. Both army lists can be used at GW-run Grand Tournaments.

1hadhq wrote:
"quite clear?

Definition of army by GW = ???

Nonexistant outside of apoc.

Quoting OOP codices ( WH / DH ) won't help here.

so we may return to GW-faq now

Quite clear. I didnt sutter. The only thing you have shown so far is ignorance. Neither Witch hunters, nor Deamon hunters codexi are out of print.

Defination of army isnt a question mark. If I ask what your army consists of when your across the table with me, you'll show me your list. Whether it has allies or not, the entire 1000pt, 1500pts, 1750pt, 2000pt set of models is your army.

The only thing in question is you.

@ Janthkin:

Sorry, misinterpreted a codex OOP in my country as viable statement here.

carmachu wrote:

1hadhq wrote:
"quite clear?

Definition of army by GW = ???

Nonexistant outside of apoc.

so we may return to GW-faq now

Quite clear. I didnt sutter. The only thing you have shown so far is ignorance.

The only thing in question is you.

Me? ignorant?


Please keep questioning me.

ultramarine1 wrote:
actually, vulkans power does not work on allies, because the do not have chapter tactics.

So by your interpretation of the rules any unit that doesn't give up chapter tactics can't benefit from Vulkan's special rule....

Looks like no twin linked meltas/flamers on Speeders and Dreadnoughts because they can't give up chapter tactics.

His rules state ALL army wide meltas/flamers stop crying about it already.

1hadhq wrote:@ Janthkin:

Sorry, misinterpreted a codex OOP in my country as viable statement here.



Me? ignorant?


Please keep questioning me.

You. Ignorant. On this topic.

The rules are quite clear.

Other special characters have models exchange combat tactics for X ability.

Vulkan says specifically ALL models with combat tactics lose it, the entire army(meaning models that did not have combat tactics to begin with- allied sisters, dreadnaughts, landspeeders) gain the Twin linked ability.

The way you've gone about the thought process to conclude otherwise has been quite ignorant. To say nothing of your mistaken thinking a pair of codex are OOP. I dont see any need to keep questioning you, as you havent brought anything to the table to show any other interpratation to Vulkan's rules. Other than your own opinion and bias.

It was written that way so dreads and speeders could benefit. The unintended(or perhaps intended) consequence is that allied forces gain it to.

[carmachu]

The way you've gone about the thought process to conclude otherwise has been quite Ignorant.