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.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:If my FAQ is epic fail I'm sure I'll know from feedback here. I appreciate all the questions posted here and I will make sure to address each and every one.

I'm sure you'll be told that its epic fail regardless of how it turns out. This is YMDC afterall.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I'm not going to answer questions in this thread as that would defeat the purpose of creating a FAQ in my opinion. I can say that you should not expect all my answers to strictly follow RAW. I think the INAT FAQ is an excellent example of how to go about creating a FAQ except that for the most part I'll just be a one man band. To me a FAQ created by a body of people has it's advantages but I also think that a well informed person working alone can also do at least a reasonable job.

I hope you don't mean that you won't listen to advice and constructive criticism.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I hope that people who like my FAQ will use it as a reference should a question arise in a game. I don't expect or think anyone should consider it as official and to me that is obviously the case. If it should help some people have more enjoyable games then I will have accomplished my goal.

I think expecting people to use it is a bit optimistic, but it is possible.

For this FAQ, are you going to be attempting to bring the codex up to speed? Y'know, update the daemons, fix Fast Shot (the Eversor ability to fire twice that got shot down by 5th edition), etc?

Gwar! wrote:All the RaW issues in the SW codex are inconsequential, as they all apply to sup par selections.

No, they aren't. You've changed things that are not inconsequential, and the fact you changed anything makes you a complete hypocrite after you have gone on and on about how you refuse to use pieces of GW FAQ's that change RAW.

Did you not expect to be laughed at after repeatedly saying that, and how many times you have berated people as cheaters for not following RAW to the letter even when it is blindingly obvious the function by RAW is not intended?

So what's the plan by the way, is the FAQ suddenly going to become 1.3 so my name gets removed, or will it be a new rendition behind the scenes of 1.2? Don't forget if you want to backtrack to ignore my contributions, you have to remove the majority of your first post of the thread asking for the help, since it says "Many Many thanks to Kaaihn for finding most of these", and then a long list of quotes of me finding most of the major broken or inconsistent RAW.

Can't have people seeing that now!

Pure comedy gold!

This started out defending Afrikan Blonde, but has derailed a bit into gut busting laughter at Gwar!. No more off topic posts from me here, I promise. If there is a ridiculous response following, I'll create a new thread for the hilarity or take it to PM's.

The main goal is to properly align the old codex with 5th edition and eliminate the inconsistencies. It will address topics such as fast shot for the Eversor assassin.

I'd hate to see this thread get locked due to OT arguments. If you gents could be so kind as to take it elsewhere that would be very appreciated. Thanks.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:The main goal is to properly align the old codex with 5th edition and eliminate the inconsistencies. It will address topics such as fast shot for the Eversor assassin.

I'd hate to see this thread get locked due to OT arguments. If you gents could be so kind as to take it elsewhere that would be very appreciated. Thanks.

If that's your goal I'd suggest working with the dice like thunder folks on their 'fluid 40k' system (which is exactly what you seem to be talking about):

http://dicelikethunder.com/files/Fluid40k_052509.pdf


This is a 'living document' so if you give them feedback on stuff you think needs to be addressed (like 'Fast Shot') then they can add it to their existing document. I mean, no sense in trying to create something from scratch that others have already put some time and effort into creating and promoting, right?

Not necessarily. I will have to check it and see if it is up to snuff. One of the reasons I picked the DH codex is because everyone has access to these rules.

yakface wrote:If that's your goal I'd suggest working with the dice like thunder folks on their 'fluid 40k' system (which is exactly what you seem to be talking about):

http://dicelikethunder.com/files/Fluid40k_052509.pdf


This is a 'living document' so if you give them feedback on stuff you think needs to be addressed (like 'Fast Shot') then they can add it to their existing document. I mean, no sense in trying to create something from scratch that others have already put some time and effort into creating and promoting, right?

Interesting document. While adding more options to Daemonhunters, it also hurts them a bit with all the price increases and reduced effects. I'll have to see if anyone will let me try out those rule change suggestions in an actual game.

SJ

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Not necessarily. I will have to check it and see if it is up to snuff. One of the reasons I picked the DH codex is because everyone has access to these rules.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say with that last sentence. . .what does everyone having access to the Daemonhunter's codex have to do with what we're talking about?


My only point is that the document I linked you to is not set in stone, it is a living document and its goal is exactly what you stated before: an attempt to make things in the DH codex be consistent with the 5th edition rules, which is decidedly *not* the goal of a basic FAQ following GW's current tenants (which is that the wording in the codex is king).

So if your goal is to help create a document to make the Daemonhunter's codex to be consistent with the 5th edition rules and this is the SAME goal as 'Fluid 40k', which has already been substantially researched, published and promoted, why not put your efforts into helping them make a better document by identifying which areas you think they've missed instead of trying to create something completely from scratch especially when you're likely to reach way less people than they?

i like that Fluid 40k document. Gonna have to learn Army Builder programming now...

Yakface did you use their document as a reference for the INAT FAQ?

I am getting the feeling that you expect me to do as you have suggested. Please don't take it the wrong way if I don't.

Thank you.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Yakface did you use their document as a reference for the INAT FAQ?

I am getting the feeling that you expect me to do as you have suggested. Please don't take it the wrong way if I don't.

Thank you.

Reference for the INAT? Definitely not. Our FAQ is not all about attempting to make the codices consistent with each other since that isn't GW's stated goal for 5th edition (not to mention AFAIK the INAT was produced before fluid 40K). I just heard about it on their podcast.

I'm not expecting you to do anything, your time and energy is your own and if your dream is to create the best Daemonhunters FAQ ever, then of course it doesn't matter what anyone else suggests.

My only point was that if you're trying to create something that helps players have a consistent set of rules, then just having a Daemonhunters FAQ doesn't really do anyone any good since that just makes the Daemonhunters play differently while the Witch Hunters, Black Templars, etc are still left playing a completely different way.

If you're going to take the leap and try to address the consistency issues that GW won't then IMHO it makes sense to do so across the entire game, which is exactly what the dice like thunder guys have attempted to do with their fluid 40k thing.

To me it makes sense to collaborate with others who are like-minded to help produce the best possible thing that will be as useful to as many people as possible. . .but again, that's just me!

I must admit that I agree there isn't much that I have read in the core rulebook as compared to the FAQ and Codex for the Daemonhunters that I find is shady or ill represented.

I suppose I will have to watch for what you are working on and see what happens.

Yakface that is very interesting what you said about the INAT FAQ. I appreciate your advice here.

afrikan blonde sounds like the name of a hot chick...
(not implying your a chick, just thats the image I get from your name)
gwar! sounds like the name of some kind horrible monster living at the bottom of the ocean or some kind of lagoon.

There's a true difference however; while Gwar might have some credit for his different answers here on dakka, the only posts I saw of Afrikan blonde are trolling posts on battle reports made by regular posters such as "must be good to be so in love with yourself".

Horst wrote:afrikan blonde sounds like the name of a hot chick...
(not implying your a chick, just thats the image I get from your name)
gwar! sounds like the name of some kind horrible monster living at the bottom of the ocean or some kind of lagoon.

I dunno where Gwar got his name, but I know theres a metal band named GWAR.


@afrikan: I like the fluid 40k page Yakface put up there, (thanks fer that), but they did miss some things you could address, namely: rites of exorcism, the thing you mentioned about the eversor pistol, and they've got some confusing wording issues through out the codex I didnt see addressed. Im confused as on the callidus assasin, can word in your ear move vehicles? Do GK dreadnaought's benifit from shrouding? (i doubt it, but I've had people tell me they do) and in the wargear secttion it uses an * to mark terminator only gear, so are models in terminator armor the only ones who may take this gear, or is it the only gear available to them?

I'd also like to see support for forgeworld models, like the LR redeemer etc. I'm not sure if it's something that goes in FAQ or something I'll have to wait for a new codex to get, but is it possible to reduce the points cost of units in the codex to make the options more economical? 25 pt PAGK is probably my biggest complaint about the codex, Is this something the GW FAQ could remedy?

Thanks for taking the time to work on this, I look forward to seeing it. Can you PM me when you finish the FAQ?

I only ever thought that the single most serious problem with the DH dex, was the exact description and use of Nem. force weapons. did the GW or INAT facts deal with this? Btw, never knew what INAT stood for...?

Sure

Did you start on the FAQ yet Blonde?
or are you listing them here 1 by 1 and have people comment on them
before compiling it together ?

Whichever mod/admin cleaned this thread up, thank you.

As for the FAQ itself, it seems you're trying to update the codex to fully integrate into 5E and the current ruleset so I'd take yakface's advice. At the very least look at the work of Fluid 40K, it's very good for what it sets out to be imho.

I'd also be clear about what you're trying to accomplish, because I don't think you're trying to create a traditional FAQ, but more of a patch for the DH codex.

Neconilis wrote:
I'd also be clear about what you're trying to accomplish, because I don't think you're trying to create a traditional FAQ, but more of a patch for the DH codex.

I agree. Afrikan Blonde should change the misleading title of his Original post.

I want to create mine independently then use theirs as a benchmark.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I want to create mine independently then use theirs as a benchmark.

I suppose I'm confused, then.

Are you looking to interpret the rules as they exist, or are you looking to modify the rules based upon your opinion of how they should exist and operate in the current edition?

The former is a FAQ, the latter isn't.

The former I'd be interested in reading. The latter, not so much.

In either event, you shouldn't be discouraged one iota by the fact that someone out there is already doing it. Just make yours better, it's that simple.

-GK

Thanks brother. That means a lot coming from you.

I'm am excited about this

Questions I would add: (i know the answers to all of these, but its an FAQ and I'd like to contribute)


1) how many Leman russ can be allied in?
2) What does Fast shot do now?

3) Codex DH has a list of Deamons, what does this mean for interactions with codex deamons?

4) what does the term "chaos" models mean?

5) do inquisition land raiders have machine spirit?

6) what is the stat line for the assault cannons in this codex?

7) is a storm shield an extra close combat weapon and therefore give bonus attacks based on the way it is worded.