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.

Gwar! wrote:Again, I don't think I will be playing 40k for a while. At least not until GW stop being complete morons.

I still will follow 40k, answer rules and write about it as much as I want.

You understand that now?

You're entirely free to post what you want within the rules of the forum Gwar, but if you're not prepared to concede that there is a strong message to 'absolute RAW' adherents in the FAQs, then it's highly likely your opinion will not carry nearly the validity and weight you'd wish it to.

'Absolute RAW at all costs' has been shown to be out of step with those who create the rules of the games we on this site play.

I would suggest it is high time for serious revision to the thinking in certain camps on this site and especially on this area of the boards.

That perhaps 'You Make Da Call' should be about you, each of you, working out the solutions to playability issues based on what 'seems like the best solution' rather than combining unrelated rules or taking words or emphasis out of context.

Or waste your time and energies on creating FAQs and providing answers which will be rendered wrong on the release of the Official documentation from GW.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Or waste your time and energies on creating FAQs and providing answers which will be rendered wrong on the release of the Official documentation from GW.

So I cannot call the GW FAQs wrong (when they are), but you can call my ones wrong (when they follow the actual rules)?

Hypocrite much?

Here I thought this was about the FAQs and not another thread about Gwar!

/shrug

MeanGreenStompa wrote:'Absolute RAW at all costs' has been shown to be out of step with those who create the rules of the games we on this site play.

You mean the ones who shamelessly steal FAQs and don't bother to write half of the "official" FAQs (the ones written by Yakface and co)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I would suggest it is high time for serious revision to the thinking in certain camps on this site and especially on this area of the boards.

Have you considered that instead that it is high time GW get their act together and make a half decent ruleset? Or perhaps hire proofreaders? Or perhaps hire someone who actually knows the rules?

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:None of it's 'messed up'. It says what it says, as GW want it to say.

Because copying My FAQs and using parts of the INAT faq clearly is what GW wants to say and clearly RaI! </sarcasm>

Event the INAT FAQs always bow to the Official GW FAQ.

Which imo makes them worse than useless, even discounting the Rules Changes hidden as Clarifications.

Really? You are still on this song and dance?

How can GW "Steal" what they own?

* Do you own GW?
* Do you own It's trademarked items?

Answer: No

If you feel that strongly about it. I suggest you go to court and sue Games Workshop for stealing "Your Ideas". Your case is air tight no? I will even help you out and offer my assistance and give you the number for a few good lawyers that I know if you want.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Or waste your time and energies on creating FAQs and providing answers which will be rendered wrong on the release of the Official documentation from GW.

So I cannot call the GW FAQs wrong (when they are), but you can call my ones wrong (when they follow the actual rules)?

Hypocrite much?

Yes people can call you wrong Gwar and not GW. GW owns the game and IS the final say. What they say goes.....end of story. Your "FAQ" is nothing more then a fan wishlist filled with what you think the rules say, and not what according to GW, the rules actually are.Therefore my good sir...

Your...

Ideas...

Are...

Wrong!

BlueDagger wrote:Nids really got pummeled on this one lol. SITW not effecting embarked units.... not really sure where that came from..

I have to say that this is the only one that really seems strange to me. I don't even really mind the Lashwhip ruling, as it doesn't really have much practical effect on game play ('Nid Warriors with 'Whips will still go before I2 FC opponents).

Wouldn't surprise me if we saw a reversal of this ruling in the next few days, a la the change made in the SW FAQ a few months ago....

Saldiven wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:Nids really got pummeled on this one lol. SITW not effecting embarked units.... not really sure where that came from..

I have to say that this is the only one that really seems strange to me. I don't even really mind the Lashwhip ruling, as it doesn't really have much practical effect on game play ('Nid Warriors with 'Whips will still go before I2 FC opponents).

Wouldn't surprise me if we saw a reversal of this ruling in the next few days, a la the change made in the SW FAQ a few months ago....

Banshees hitting at I10 though could make a difference.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Or waste your time and energies on creating FAQs and providing answers which will be rendered wrong on the release of the Official documentation from GW.

So I cannot call the GW FAQs wrong (when they are), but you can call my ones wrong (when they follow the actual rules)?

Hypocrite much?

Ok, we'll take this slowly and I'll explain this to you, even ignoring the personal insult you just used, as you and I are under a ceasefire.

The manufacturer makes the figures, the rules and everything else, they release an update or amendment to those rules and the world uses it.

You, on the other hand, are a guy on the internet, using their rules, game and intellectual property to make a set of amendments to the game that you'd like to see. Your FAQs are, on release of the FAQs from the creating company, very different from theirs. Your answers are therefore not in keeping with theirs and they are the creators of the game.

In most people's version of reality, the creators of the game have made a series of FAQs that hold more validity than yours do.

Those people that wish to keep your home-made FAQs may do so, whilst a good many (perhaps dare I suggest most) players will adopt the FAQs put forward by the creators of the game.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Those people that wish to keep your home-made FAQs may do so, whilst a good many (perhaps dare I suggest most) players will adopt the FAQs put forward by the creators of the game.

Except these FAQs are not written by the creators in the majority of cases, so why would they hold any more weight than anything else?

Furthermore, the FAQ page itself invalidates any sort of "weight" the FAQ portion has.

You seem to assume GW is perfect. It isn't and they need to get their act together soon or 40k will not survive as a popular game for much longer.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:'Absolute RAW at all costs' has been shown to be out of step with those who create the rules of the games we on this site play.

You mean the ones who shamelessly steal FAQs and don't bother to write half of the "official" FAQs (the ones written by Yakface and co)?

They have given credit to Yak and co though, which makes me wonder at your suggestion they 'stole your work', I'd have thought they'd just contact you and say 'hi, can we use this?' like they did with the INAT guys.

I wonder why they didn't just do that and instead resorted to clandestine means to use your work!

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Those people that wish to keep your home-made FAQs may do so, whilst a good many (perhaps dare I suggest most) players will adopt the FAQs put forward by the creators of the game.

Except these FAQs are not written by the creators in the majority of cases, so why would they hold any more weight than anything else?

Furthermore, the FAQ page itself invalidates any sort of "weight" the FAQ portion has.

You seem to assume GW is perfect. It isn't and they need to get their act together soon or 40k will not survive as a popular game for much longer.

Once again, this is YOUR opinion.

Care to back it up in fact?

BlueDagger wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

BlueDagger wrote:Nids really got pummeled on this one lol. SITW not effecting embarked units.... not really sure where that came from..

I have to say that this is the only one that really seems strange to me. I don't even really mind the Lashwhip ruling, as it doesn't really have much practical effect on game play ('Nid Warriors with 'Whips will still go before I2 FC opponents).

Wouldn't surprise me if we saw a reversal of this ruling in the next few days, a la the change made in the SW FAQ a few months ago....

Banshees hitting at I10 though could make a difference.

So, exactly one unit in the game gets to strike the LW wielding unit first, and only on the turn they charge.

Game breaking....

jp400 wrote:Once again, this is YOUR opinion.

Care to back it up in fact?

What, that GW aren't perfect?

What about all these "boycotts" and all the threads on Dakka and other forums complaining about GWs actions (this thread included)?

But I am sure you will find some way to worm out of those facts.

Gwar! wrote:
Furthermore, the FAQ page itself invalidates any sort of "weight" the FAQ portion has.

You seem to assume GW is perfect. It isn't and they need to get their act together soon or 40k will not survive as a popular game for much longer.

Then, if FAQs aren't to be used, we should no more use yours than theirs.

I have no illusions about GW's perfection, but I do know who writes the books and who gets to amend them Officially and that's not you, gwar. Perhaps, as I said, you really should start your own game/rules set for sci-fi skirmish at 28mm.

The only person "worming" out of stuff is you. Answer my question and drop the strawman.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Then, if FAQs aren't to be used, we should no more use yours than theirs.

I have no illusions about GW's perfection, but I do know who writes the books and who gets to amend them Officially and that's not you, gwar. Perhaps, as I said, you really should start your own game/rules set for sci-fi skirmish at 28mm.

Except they DON'T amend them. That's the whole bloody point. If they made an errata that allowed for Doom to not Affect units in transports, then we would all be happy.

As it is, they are just being wishy-washy with it and not respecting their fanbase at all.

Add to that the fact they don't bother to do the work themselves, why should we listen to them any more than anyone else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jp400 wrote:The only person "worming" out of stuff is you. Answer my question and drop the strawman.

I did answer the question. And again, you're not a mod, so don't tell me what to do.

Gwar! wrote:

jp400 wrote:The only person "worming" out of stuff is you. Answer my question and drop the strawman.

I did answer the question. And again, you're not a mod, so don't tell me what to do.

No you didn't. You avoided the question and tried to use a strawman as cover.

So I will ask you again:

Care to back your statements up in any real facts?

Why then did you create FAQs and not 'errata'?

FAQs relate to specific instance in most cases. None the less, across the 40k playing world, regardless of the 'caveat' that preambles the FAQ section, these will be used and used as Official.

Bored now, you can scream till you're blue in the face about how much you don't like the outcome, they exist now. If they are changed, they change, but they are Official now and will alter the game at international level.

What part of

Gwar! wrote:What about all these "boycotts" and all the threads on Dakka and other forums complaining about GWs actions (this thread included)?

did you not understand?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If they are changed, they change, but they are Official now and will alter the game at international level.

Except, it doesn't, because even GW says the FAQs aren't official and don't actually do anything.

I for one (were I to bother continue playing 40k) would continue to play by the rules.

This thread is not about who is doing their job or who is better at righting arbitrary rulings on vague rules in an incomplete rulebook.

Frankly, I'm glad GW has finally put out the faqs so we have some kind of word from them regarding what they intended for some very vague rules.

Gwar, you do a fair job of interpreting 'rules as worded', but this does not make you an authority with any true sway over how 40k is played or what GW decides to clarify rules. Please humble yourself.

Others- Gwar does a good job of filling a hole in GW's rules clarification and for those looking for some kind of ruling, I'm sure his rules interpretations do help. Picking a fight on an interweb forum is silly and petty. Especially in a thread that is unrelated to Gwar in any sense.


They could have made Doom of Malan'tai so much less confusing by saying "in line of sight". No silly embarked unit arbitration. Shadow in the Warp not affecting embarked units seems very backwards though...

I'm glad they've clarified the Hive Tyrant + Tyrant Guard bits... saying "like an independent character" is just too confusing. Why didn't they just apply them as a "retinue" doesn't that solve all of the problems?
Now we just need a ruling on how the unit can be targeted, gain cover, and allocate wounds..... /sigh

What part of answering my question without a strawman do you not understand?

And since for a second time you can't produce any real, physical evidence I am going to assume that you have none.

jp400 wrote:What part of answering my question without a strawman do you not understand?

And since for a second time you can't produce any real, physical evidence I am going to assume that you have none.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/302877.page

Evidence.

Gwar! wrote:
I for one (were I to bother continue playing 40k) would continue to play by the rules.

But you are NOT playing by the rules, you are playing by what YOU think the rules are/should be Gwar!

jp400 wrote:But you are NOT playing by the rules, you are playing by what YOU think the rules are/should be Gwar!

Actually, I am playing by the rules, as written in the rulebook and errata.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:You're entirely free to post what you want within the rules of the forum Gwar, but if you're not prepared to concede that there is a strong message to 'absolute RAW' adherents in the FAQs, then it's highly likely your opinion will not carry nearly the validity and weight you'd wish it to.

'Absolute RAW at all costs' has been shown to be out of step with those who create the rules of the games we on this site play.

I would suggest it is high time for serious revision to the thinking in certain camps on this site and especially on this area of the boards.

That perhaps 'You Make Da Call' should be about you, each of you, working out the solutions to playability issues based on what 'seems like the best solution' rather than combining unrelated rules or taking words or emphasis out of context.

I have a dream!

I think actually having a forum like that would be really cool, but waaaaay too productive for the interwebs! I think the obsession with RaW and knowing what the most brutal and sometime outlandish readings of something are, is mainly due to the metagame and being as prepared as possible for insane tournament rulings. Just in case more than this is the way every game should be read.

Btw, any mods want to check this thread its more about individual personalities than adding anything to the FAQ's themselves now.

Apparently not, cause you have already stated that you are going to ignore what GW says and "continue to play by the rules"

... which means that you are going to play how/as you see fit and not as the producers of the game say you should.

At any rate, I am done with you Gwar!. You have been trumped time and time again by multiple users yet continue to argue moot points while grasping for straws for any hope of a lifeline.

Have a nice day.

Gwar! wrote:

jp400 wrote:But you are NOT playing by the rules, you are playing by what YOU think the rules are/should be Gwar!

Actually, I am playing by the rules, as written in the rulebook and errata.

No you're not; playing the game RAW is not what GW intends players to do, as evidenced by TMIR. GW wants players to have fun in their games of 40k, and not engage in exactly the kind of pedantry you seem to enjoy so much.

Mortified Penguin wrote:GW wants players to have fun in their games of 40k, and not engage in exactly the kind of pedantry you seem to enjoy so much.

I have fun by playing by the rules.

And yet you complain about them, indicating frustration or annoyance with the rules, which is at at odds with having fun with them.

Mortified Penguin wrote:And yet you complain about them, indicating frustration or annoyance with the rules, which is at at odds with having fun with them.

I do not complain about the rules.
I complain about the FAQs.