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.

what makes me chuckle is that we gamers expect consistency from race to race.

Especially on 'core/key/seeming universal rules'

I really think that rules and codex writers deliberately make changes therefore seeming to make races unique. This is partly the reason why older dexes are not upgraded like stormtroopers and chimeras costs not being in line with the current IG dex, why DA TH/SS are different from current ed Th/SS.

It saves GW time and effort to create errata and FAQS for instances like these by saying 'hey they are unique but play them how you want too'.

I also think that producing errata and FAQ's annoys the living hell out of GW. I mean they explicitly tell us gamers, repeatedly, that its supposed to be a fun game and that the rules they themselves produce do not have to be adhered to.


'Hey guys the community are still bitching about shield of Sang'
'FFS! cant they roll for it or something?'
'erm. they want RAW'
'RAW IS ROLL FOT IT!, ROLL FOR EVERYTHING, THEY DONT WANT IGYG? ROLL FOT IT' DoM CANT HIT EMBARKED UNITS? ROLL FOR IT! WH USING ALLIES? ROLL FOR IT! BANEBLADES IN STANDARD GAMES? ROLL FOR IT!'.
'..................... They also want Squats brought back.....'
'Right, screw em, raise the prices again! (I wish we were a 3D role-play company again)'.

I bet GW never envisioned arguing over rules on an evangelical scale.

I'm going to be generous to the point of borderline insanity and say they do extensive play testing with any Errata/FAQ rules they consider for publication. I mean, really, REALLY extensive testing. With that monstrous generosity in consideration it would take all of a week to play an army one or two times a day with the new rules and see how the units actually perform against a variety of opponents.

Is it really THAT ****ing hard to see how much some of these ruling suck for no reason other than to suck before you spew them all over a webpage and into people's armies?

insaniak wrote:Probably because GW takes it for granted that people will figure out for themselves that if a vehicle is granted a cover save, it can use it...

derp, what? I don't understand! It needs to say 'vehicle counts as obscured for it to be valid!', just saying 'vehicles get a cover save' isn't enough!

and that was before the times of the super bubbles we live in now

SumYungGui wrote:Even better is how the FAQs are inconsistent within ithemselves. The latest FAQ says 'do Hive Tyrant reserve bonuses stack? No. But Hive Tyrant and Swarm Lord reserve bonuses do'

Barely a page later it says 'Is the Swarm Lord a fancy version of the Hive Tyrant? Yes'

Some army reserve bonuses stack, some army reserve bonuses don't, varying from FAQ to FAQ. This creature's don't stack unless it's a named version of the same creature giving an identical bonus, then it does. Because it's different. With the same effect. On an 'elite' version of the same creature, as stated within the very same FAQ, but it's still different. Somehow.

I swear the more of these I read the more I become convinced that it's not anyone actually looking at the game and making wise decisions for the betterment of all, it's like a pile of sticky notes on the back of the GW game room door where everyone writes down the result of 4+'ing it every time someone raises a rules question during what passes for 'quality assurance'. Eventually the new intern is told 'hey, grab all those sticky notes and shove them up on the internet!'

Swarmlord's bonus is under it's "Alien Cunning" special rule.

Hive Tyrant bonus is purchased as "Hive Commander" special rule.

It's not the same ability, so it stacks. Two Tyrants would have two "Hive Commander" abilities and not stack.

hyv3mynd wrote:

Swarmlord's bonus is under it's "Alien Cunning" special rule.

Hive Tyrant bonus is purchased as "Hive Commander" special rule.

It's not the same ability, so it stacks. Two Tyrants would have two "Hive Commander" abilities and not stack.

So as long as the name is different that's all that matters? Impact on the game is meaningless, as long as the name of the ability is different? Is that seriously your position in this fiasco?

Yes, that is the point. Otherwise items would NEVER stack...