Is the DA FAQ complete?

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.

**Pink Myst**

Is the DA FAQ complete?

Here's the link directly to it on the GW website:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2960142a_Dark_Angels_v1.0A_JANUARY13.pdf

Its only 2 pages long and stops after 2 FAQ questions.

Is this right?

**Grey Templar**

Looks complete to me. You should have seen the CSM FAQ. it was even shorter.

It just means that this is all they had for answers at the time they made the FAQs. Which I think is preferable to waiting 8-9 months for an FAQ like we used to do.

**kronk**

It's no different than when the put out a short FAQ when Chaos came out initially, which got more questions answered this time around.

If you have questions about the codex that you need answered, email them. Daily.

**Brother SRM**

They'll add new questions and answers over time.

**xSPYXEx**

I actually find it pretty funny that it already has two pages of updates.

**pretre**

It has less than two half page columns of errata and two questions... Hardly two pages of updates.

**xSPYXEx**

I dunno, man. The fact that they had to actually add a weapon type to an entry seems pretty funny. Not great quality control on GW's part.

**pretre**

You must be new around here. GW has always had this kind of problem with their books. The difference is that they do something about it nowadays with timely FAQs.

**DarknessEternal**

xSPYXEx wrote:
I dunno, man. The fact that they had to actually add a weapon type to an entry seems pretty funny. Not great quality control on GW's part.

They didn't have to add anything. In the summary, it's listed as Rapid Fire. It's just not listed as such in its write up. There was never any conflict about what kind of weapon it was. They just made this FAQ entry for the stupider children, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand.