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.

Ok, this came right from the company so here goes:

A. You may take 2 LOW units with a double force org.

B. You may NOT take two waves of withering with the Transcendent C'tan (apparently this is a typo due to be corrected in the next faq/errata).

C. When taking Deathmarks in a kill team this is how it works: If you deploy second or if you give one of your deathmarks the infiltrator special ability, you may place your Hunters from Hyperspace ability on one unit of your opposing players forces. In this case unit is defined by how the troops are chosen, not as they are deployed as a kill team. What this means is say your opponent has chosen to take 5 space marines in his kill team (I don't own the Space Marine Codex so don't flame me if that number is wrong...it's just a throwaway number) and that was his unit size for a squad of space marines and you chose to make them...every model of space marines from that unit would be marked.

I just talked to them too ... They said that I could lower the price of SS/TH Termies in the Blood Angels codex to 10 points per model as the rest of the Codex is overcosted right now. This will be changed in the next FAQ/Codex release.

*sigh* I actually did call them with those rules questions....didn't expect to get flamed for it.

Calling customer service wont do much with rules questions.

and unless its directly from a Dev AND written into an FAQ no one will care.

Deleted.

joemarra052075 wrote:
*sigh* I actually did call them with those rules questions....didn't expect to get flamed for it.

Don't take it personally. People are frustrated with GW for not being timely or responsive with official rules questions.

joemarra052075 wrote:
*sigh* I actually did call them with those rules questions....didn't expect to get flamed for it.

And if you call again you will get a different answer.

It means nothing, it's just the opinion of some random employee.

Unfortunately, we've all called about a rules question before. You don't get the writer on the phone, so the customer service guy just makes a 'best guess' designed to get you to walk away happy and buying more. It's not a bad strategy for them, but it really doesn't help us at all. If the guy answering the phone called the writer directly for every question, the writer would never get anything done.

Unless and until these notes appear in a published FAQ or Codex or whatever, it remains the same as "I heard from a guy at a pub who knows a guy who's girlfriend is friends with a gal who is a sister to a GW writer".

ahh ok...I thought I was doing the community a service by sharing those results. Thanks.

Call them again and tell them to publish some FAQs, that'll be a good service!

(But I'm not expecting results..., I didn't even get an automated response to FAQ e-mails lately)

Sorry Joe, but this is basically worthless to us. Even if we believe you (and I think most do), the complete ignorance of GW to their own ruleset and the countless times they screw things up in these situations, removes any legitamacy.

Thanks for sharing though.

joemarra052075 wrote:
ahh ok...I thought I was doing the community a service by sharing those results. Thanks.

If GW was a sensible company then you would have been. Unfortunately GW's rule questions "service" is notorious for having no clue how the rules actually work and giving different answers every time you ask them the same question, depending on exactly which incompetent person happens to be answering the phones that day. You might as well flip a coin to see what the rule is, at least then you don't have any illusion of getting a real answer.

Sorry if it came across that I was flaming you ... I assure you that I was not. I was trying to inject some humor into the thread BEFORE people got all "CS is stupid and have no idea what they are talking about, you wasted our time!" We need a font type for identifying our comments as meant to be taken as humor and not so serious. Sorry if I offended you guy.

You didn't exactly offend but I wasn't thrilled either. On the other hand I didn't know the extent of how bad that particular service was. I won't be posting anything like that again because I won't be calling them again. I will however post rules answers my GW store manager gives me. She actively plays and has gone out of her way to help my daughter and me so I tend to give her answers more weight. (She is also willing to be proven wrong or *gasp* actually read the rules* when she isn't sure about something to make sure she gets it as right as she can. If it is still in doubt she rules by what she feels is the spirit of the rules rather than by what is popular.

I wouldn't bother posting her answers either. Given she has no input from the actual rules writing team she is no more of an authority on how to interpret the rules than any given poster in YMDC. She may have a lot of experience, and sounds like an excellent store manager, but unless anyone here is playing in her store her interpretation of the rules has no authority backing it.

Fair enough

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Second tenet of the YMDC forum.

got it

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Unfortunately, we've all called about a rules question before. You don't get the writer on the phone, so the customer service guy just makes a 'best guess' designed to get you to walk away happy and buying more. It's not a bad strategy for them, but it really doesn't help us at all. If the guy answering the phone called the writer directly for every question, the writer would never get anything done.

I've never called with a rules question... I have a rulebook for that.

Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Unfortunately, we've all called about a rules question before. You don't get the writer on the phone, so the customer service guy just makes a 'best guess' designed to get you to walk away happy and buying more. It's not a bad strategy for them, but it really doesn't help us at all. If the guy answering the phone called the writer directly for every question, the writer would never get anything done.

I've never called with a rules question... I have a rulebook for that.

If your rulebook makes every rule in every situation clear, it's not an official GW product and you're playing homebrew rules.

I was not aware they still do FAQs. It's been, what, a year since the last one?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I was not aware they still do FAQs. It's been, what, a year since the last one?

Jesus, you're right. It's been 11 months since the last major FAQ/Errata writeups for every last army. Only ones since have been little one-liners here and there to do with codexes, errata'd before they even got released because they realized as it went to ship there were errors in the books.

Once, during the 3.5 CSM codex, I battled the brother of the store owner with my NM army. He had a CSM army and during the game turned CS Marines into Spawn. This was illegal but he instisted that it was possible. So after 3 turns he had about 30 Spawn on the field. My units were deployed behind a forest so that he splitted his force so that the two forces reached my front ranks in consecutive turns. Never understimate NM. Each time the Spawn lost cc and were starting to run so that I won the game.

Next day he called GW and they granted him exclusively to convert CSM in Spawn. But it was still illiegal. He never battled me again.

The morale of the story. Never call GW asking for rule clarification.

Why would he turn his soldiers into spawn? Weren't they terrible back then?

I mean, I never played against any CSM who had spawn during 3.5. It was usually Iron Warriors basilisks, and berserkers.

How funny... I have only called GW on rules a couple of times, and they seemed to set me straight. But I am a simple gamer, and only play with friends. When it comes down to debating how a rule is implemented, we eventually roll off on it and get past it. Typically my old gaming group would write down the settled rule in a book and refer to that later on. Like an ammendments book or something.

Since I really dont like playing with peeps I dont know, and would never play tourneys, not only do I not need to worry about keeping up with the specifics of the grey areas, I also avoid being taken advantage of.

I just dont like playing against people who bend rules, if not break them, just to win. I would rather lose honestly than to win by cheating.

The problem is determining what "honest" is.

Martel732 wrote:
The problem is determining what "honest" is.

Exactly.
When a rule is in a grey area, and it can be bent two ways, why is one way honest and the other dishonest?

In my group it's give and take. It works so long as no one in the group just has to have it his way, and the more people you play with, the bigger the chance you'll meet that guy. In some places it's all that guy. They've been placed in an environment where you have to rules lawyer to not be trodden on and have adapted to it. Doesn't mean they are bad people, but if they are then dumped in a group like mine where we just go "can I shoot this guy?" "yeah, it seems reasonable enough that your weapon teams would have set up their weapons so that they could shoot straight down from the window." then the rules lawyer is gonna seem a bit TFG.

To us, the game is better if you don't take the rules too literally. It's supposed to be a social game after all.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I was not aware they still do FAQs. It's been, what, a year since the last one?

Jesus, you're right. It's been 11 months since the last major FAQ/Errata writeups for every last army. Only ones since have been little one-liners here and there to do with codexes, errata'd before they even got released because they realized as it went to ship there were errors in the books.

Still waiting for a FAQ to fix the massively obvious screwup with the pyrovore ID rule.

Maybe they think we will shell out 50 dollars for a hardback of FAQs (or 35 dollar digital download) and rule revisions this summer.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Unfortunately, we've all called about a rules question before. You don't get the writer on the phone, so the customer service guy just makes a 'best guess' designed to get you to walk away happy and buying more. It's not a bad strategy for them, but it really doesn't help us at all. If the guy answering the phone called the writer directly for every question, the writer would never get anything done.

I've never called with a rules question... I have a rulebook for that.

yet again you missunderstand the whole purpose of the thread. And if youve never had a rules question your playing the game wrong.