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.

There seems to be a lot of poo being hurled about how the new 7th edition FAQs seem to ignore the rules clarifications set out in 6th edition.
There are two points of view.

1. All bets are off, reset to zero. 7th is an entirely new edition, and old rules clarifications cannot be applied to a new rule set. Logical.

2. Many rules and codexes haven't changed significantly, so it's safe to assume that if a rule is the same, the FAQ clarifying the intention behind the rule hasn't changed either. Not purely logical, but arguably more useful.

So option 1 is RAW and logical, but brings back every ambiguity of all the rules and codex entries affected by the old FAQs.

Option 2 is an assumption, but helps to clarify any ambiguities that the 6th edition FAQs also clarified. Bear in mind the large number of current codexes intended for previous editions of the game.


Clearly the best option would have been for GW to incorporate the old FAQs into the new ones and just delete the stuff that no longer applied, supporting argument 2. The fact that this didn't happen is either a sign that they support argument 1, or a sign that they didn't think it through.

Generally, GW's policy is that new trumps old. This directly supports argument 1. The fact that the digital codexes still contain errata from previous editions suggests that those 6th edition errata are still valid, supporting argument 2. Are we really in a situation where the rules are different depending on if you have a physical or digital codex?

It's annoying that even the documents that are supposed to remove ambiguity have, in themselves, become ambiguous, and the sensible course of action for the player is, as always, to agree with your opponent what to do before the game starts. It is you duty to do so, especially if your strategy relies on rules and codex entries affected by the 6th edition FAQs.

I strongly suspect that individual opinions about which argument is valid will be more influenced by whether their army was buffed or nerfed in the 6th ed FAQs and not based on which argument is objectively better. Lol.

Logically, if something has been changed by FAQ in the last edition, and there's nothing to say that has been overruled (ie a direct counterpoint in the new FAQ) then it still stands. I think most of those saying they no longer count are just looking to use loopholes that were closed in the last edition and have apparently suddenly 'opened up' again.

I think trying to play with more than just Codex + Current FAQ is a clear path to madness. If something is legitmately, grinds-the-game-to-a-halt ambiguous, I might be interested in old FAQs as a tiebreaker in lieu of rolling off. But generally, I think ignoring the old FAQs is just the best strategy. I don't like every effect of this, but it's better than trawling through a million different old documents.

I saw on another thread that the digital editions have some changes which was from the previous FAQ. So pehaps the removed the questions which were updated on the digital editions.

Which is quite silly because the physical versions haven't changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The example was about crypteks in the royal court taking the same Cryptek specific weapon.

 milkboy wrote:
I saw on another thread that the digital editions have some changes which was from the previous FAQ. So pehaps the removed the questions which were updated on the digital editions.

Which is quite silly because the physical versions haven't changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The example was about crypteks in the royal court taking the same Cryptek specific weapon.

one main issue causing headaches though is the dark angels faq. In the april 13 2013 faq gw made the pfg only work outside of vehicles the dakka banner also only effected certain bolters. Those two items are omitted in the new faq. In fact if your read the brb it explicitly allows pfg shenanigans while your inside the transport. So what would you say to your opponent in such circumstances? No your lrc with a 4++, re-roll pen's, 4+R, with salvo 2/4 hb, and hurricane bolters, is table legal now?

Old FAQs are a good place to get a glimpse of RAI, but are not RAW for the new edition. Some things were intentionally changed, so they can’t be relied on anymore.

Thjis is certainly the case with Necrons. We didn't get a new codex yet, but half of our FAQ is lost in the ether.

Total conjecture, but it makes me wonder if they already have some sort of draft o the new Necron codex in some stage of development, because why else would they think those FAQs no longer apply?

For most of the stuff we lost FAQ-wise, I think the existing codex does provide enough to enforce the rules as they used to be FAQ'd, but the amount of time required to do that...sucks.

Give us back are old FAQ until the new Codex comes out, if you please, GW!

if we also think about the point of people starting the game now, or even just starting a new army now, they can't get a hold of the previous FAQ's anymore (atleast not without searching other places than blacklibrary, which they shouldn't need to).

If I meet such a guy for a game and he uses something in a way that wasn't possible with the previous FAQ, I really can't (and atleast won't) tell him otherwise.

That's why my opinion is, however stupid it may be, that we just have to suck it up and play with only the new FAQ's until they are possibly updated yet again.

As an example I have just introduced a friend to the game and he is starting to collect Grey Knights now. I really can't tell him that the Falchions don't give him 2 extra attacks just because an older FAQ that is no longer available from a reliable source said so, so I will let him.

Many of the actual faq parts of the them, although not necessarily the errata itself. Most of the FAQs are just clarification, such as clarification that crisis suits can take two of the same weapon.

OuroborosTriumphant wrote:
I think trying to play with more than just Codex + Current FAQ is a clear path to madness. If something is legitmately, grinds-the-game-to-a-halt ambiguous, I might be interested in old FAQs as a tiebreaker in lieu of rolling off. But generally, I think ignoring the old FAQs is just the best strategy. I don't like every effect of this, but it's better than trawling through a million different old documents.

This is pretty much where I'm at on the issue.

We've gotten new FAQs?

As a Sisters player, I haven't noticed.

 ionusx wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
I saw on another thread that the digital editions have some changes which was from the previous FAQ. So pehaps the removed the questions which were updated on the digital editions.

Which is quite silly because the physical versions haven't changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The example was about crypteks in the royal court taking the same Cryptek specific weapon.

one main issue causing headaches though is the dark angels faq. In the april 13 2013 faq gw made the pfg only work outside of vehicles the dakka banner also only effected certain bolters. Those two items are omitted in the new faq. In fact if your read the brb it explicitly allows pfg shenanigans while your inside the transport. So what would you say to your opponent in such circumstances? No your lrc with a 4++, re-roll pen's, 4+R, with salvo 2/4 hb, and hurricane bolters, is table legal now?

It's apparently updated in the iBooks version.

So this lead me into a dilemma. I like to buy the physical book as part of a collection but it seems iBooks and digital editions are more practical.

Quite a pity.

I think some of the old stuff was removed because the new rules cleared up the ambiguity, and other stuff was removed because maybe they reconsidered the decision (such as the Heldrake losing the 360 degree arc of fire).

I agree with those that feel to try and reference old FAQs will just cause more problems then it solves.

They're not getting another dime out of me until they release the new hardback Necrons (and only then if its better than the current one, which is now completely compatible with 7th)...I'll just use my old FAQs as needed.

there are some rules issues where I think they may genuinely have forgotten something. like how Abbaddon can become a spawn or prince now. but a lot of things it's a question of "did GW forget this, or reconsider it?"