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.

Tyranid FAQ

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240364a_FAQ_Tyranids_2010.pdf

Blood Angels

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240365a_FAQ_BloodAngels_2010.pdf

From Warseer...

Homer

fail.

Wow, yet more fail from GW.

Guys, if you want to actually play a decent game, use my FAQs. The GW ones, yet again, ignore clear and absolutely fine RaW for no reason.

It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

Sorry... I sort of liked them. I thought the whole point of the Mawloc was to hit the enemy from below. I agree, their approach is an odd tack. Rather than errata-ing the codex to clarify the rules (so that it would be RAW), they resorted to FAQ-ing them from the side.

Homer

my post was referring to the issue of this being a double post...

they made 2 dumb rulings - librarian furiosos and shadow of the warp not effecting embarked psykers.

the other rulings I can get behind as RAI, but these two are just plain stupid.

It owuld have been good for them to actually errata Shield properly (so it has a save that works on Hits and not just wounds - we already *knew* it worked on wounds!) and some of the other issues.

They at least went RAW on the HT joining TG - shame theyy didnt answer if the ability works while off table...

Personally, I don't mind the ruling on the Furioso Librarians. They ruled the way that I always interpreted it; I personally didn't even think about giving additional equipment to the Librioso.

Sorry if this was a double post... I did take a look for it.

Homer

I like the rulings... pretty much all except the stacking of Nid CC weapons.

Which did follow RAW to the letter, and makes sense otherwise certain combinations of weapons are utterly useless.

@Nos.

Agreed; I thought that 'Nid CCW stacking was completely intuitive.

Wow. Some good, and a lot of bad. I suppose it's appropriate too that even the FAQ sections say "Warhammer 40,000: Errata" at the bottom of the page.

So does this mean pyschic hoods do not work through transports either?

Interesting take on . . . mech?

More reading.

Nope, not at all - that may be the intention, but ALL it means is that SitW is meaninglessly and irrationally reduced in power.

This smacks of 4th ed "the models arent on the board!" ideas around vehicles, they had gone a long way to clearing this up in 5th, but alas no more...

Saldiven - yep, completely intuitive, in fact contrary readings relied almost entirely on deciding that a rule was in fact NOT a rule and could be ignored. Bizarre.

I like the FAQ's. IT fixes common sense issues that people were exploiting knowing that was not the intent... DOOM for example..

Gwar! wrote:Wow, yet more fail from GW.

Guys, if you want to actually play a decent game, use my FAQs. The GW ones, yet again, ignore clear and absolutely fine RaW for no reason.

It actually looks like they deliberately went the opposite of my FAQs for a lot of these. How very petty and childish. -sigh-

So, there you have it. GW would rather ruin the game than have someone competent write their faqs. I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore.

You know you have a inflated ego when.........

Here is an idea:

Since you hate GW so much, STOP PLAYING THE GAME AND WRITING ABOUT IT!

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

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

Too bad Kryptman didn't get the FAQ when he was busy with the Tyranid, he could have probably warned the Imperium faster if he had just known he could have stuck his psykers in a Rhino to avoid the Shadow.

jp400 wrote:Since you hate GW so much, STOP PLAYING THE GAME AND WRITING ABOUT IT!

1) Are you a mod or a Police officer? No? Then don't you dare tell me what I can and cannot do.

Secondly, Hating GW is not the same as hating 40k. I love 40k, I just hate how GW are destroying it.

@Gwar!: Which parts of these FAQ's are messed up? I'm just curious as I'm only on the first page of the 'Nid FAQ and it seems reasonable to me...

Xca|iber wrote:@Gwar!: Which parts of these FAQ's are messed up? I'm just curious as I'm only on the first page of the 'Nid FAQ and it seems reasonable to me...

The main ones are SitW not affecting embarked Psykers (zomg, t3h metal bawkes are t3h super powehrfulz) and Lashwhipes with FC (which completely ignores RaW).

I suppose the Doom thing too and Cover saves from TotD, since they both ignore RaW and should have been errataed.

Gwar! wrote:

jp400 wrote:Since you hate GW so much, STOP PLAYING THE GAME AND WRITING ABOUT IT!

1) Are you a mod or a Police officer? No? Then don't you dare tell me what I can and cannot do.

Secondly, Hating GW is not the same as hating 40k. I love 40k, I just hate how GW are destroying it.

I am not a mod, however I am a forum user that is entitled to his opinion so long as it is within forum standings.

"I don't think I'll be playing any GW games anymore." -You

Going to argue against yourself now are you? All im saying is that you actually put money where your mouth is.

Hive Commander no dual Outflank
Tyranid Prime can't join unit in Spore
Mycetic Spores can't deploy empty
Trygon tunnel not allowing DS/Outflank models...

versus

Wings allow DS...

Tyranids got hosed on deployment.

Everything else is fine by me.

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?

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

Anyone here can say 'I disagree with them' but to suggest 'I'm right and GW's rules amendment is wrong' is frankly bizarre.

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

I strongly believe these FAQs point to the design team having no common ground with notions of 'RAW' as it's touted here. Rather that they want to emphasis playability as intended.

Okay, thanks Gwar!. Also, I noticed the Sanguinary Priest's errata still didn't fix the "power sword" bit.

Oh I understand perfectly. You are going to whine about GW on the forums here despite haveing any actual playing time to back up your "RAW Interpretations" in the future.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Rather that they want to emphasis the business model as intended.

Fix'd.


What sells more expensive models?
Transports go well with that.

And lash whips are not even sold by them in any real sense.

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.

kirsanth wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Rather that they want to emphasis the business model as intended.

Fix'd.


What sells more expensive models?
Transports go well with that.

And lash whips are not even sold by them in any real sense.

I have to admit, I chuckled at this comment.