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.

Grakmar wrote:

yakface wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Agreed. We still run into problems with Necrons and the stealth reprint. There have been countless times people (myself included) quote a first printing Necron rule that was changed in the 2nd printing. It adds SO much confusion that could easily have been avoided.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people refer to the Necron update as a "stealth" update. At the time they printed the changes as cut-and-paste corrections in the chapter approved annual, and the revised rulings were also referenced in the FAQ of the day.

Could GW have done more (such as offering the corrections as a PDF)? Of course, but it most certainly wasn't a "stealth" update unlike some of the other 3rd edition codexes they legitimately changed without any notice.

They should have done something with the cover to make it different. People identify which edition codex it is by what the cover is. By not changing the cover at all and just adding some small print on a page everyone skips over anyway saying "Second Printing" they left themselves open to players not realizing they have the outdated codex.

Even if they didn't want to take the time to come up with a whole new cover, the words "Second Printing" or "Updated" or "2.0" or something like that should have appeared right below the word "Necrons" on the front of the codex.

They did make people aware that the changes happened, but now that it's 8 years old, people have forgotten. It may not have been stealth at the time, but now, it isn't nearly as obvious.

Alternatively, they shouldn't have redone the codex at all and just left it as errata and FAQs.

or ya know they could of just redone the codex before people forgot about the update, almost a decade since last edition

Rymafyr wrote:

BuFFo wrote:

MasterDRD wrote:By that logic, the official rules in the rulebook don't matter either then, as long as someone else doesn't agree with them...
Ami doin it rite?
/sarcasm

They don't.

Read the first page in the introduction at the very top, under the Most Important Rule. No rule is set in stone. 40k is a fluid game where players are ENCOURAGED to invent their own rules to improve the narrative of the game. 40k has never been a 'set in stone' rules based tournament game, and it never will be. It will always be a relaxing hobby of painting toys and drinking beer over a friendly game on a rainy afternoon. The rules presented in any rule book are just guidelines for players to follow, which is clearly stated under the Most Important Rule.

And while this is a broad statement...I agree. This game breaks down into roughly two camps: The players that just want to have some fun and the players that want to be competitive. Honestly, you really can't be in both camps, at least simultaneously. However, since I have no real gaming club of my own, I very much like that GW has updated and officially recognize their errata and faq's. So yeah, I tend to have a lot of disgust for those competitive, tournament, rules-lawyering types as they suck the fun right out of the game for me but I respect that they themselves are having fun in that fashion. Really, make of the official FAQ what you want of it.

Well I may be opening a can of wurms here, (not a misspelling) but as a Warmachine player I see no reason why following the RULES OF THE GAME and playing in a friendly manner with the purpose of having fun must be mutually exclusive. If anything, as a Warmachine player I've noticed that when the inevitable rules disputes occur midgame, it is a godsend to have a clear, detailed explanation of the correct way to do things, rather than spend countless minutes arguing over such foolishness as the 'definition of special rules' and 'which faq is the right faq', and the infamous 'I say it works this way and if you dare disagree I will pack up and leave! *whinesniffmoan*'.

It would be great if GW could print in White Dwarf or their website when a codex is reprinted. I remember the 4ed CSM codex had four printings and they kept going back and forth on Doom Siren. It was really confusing and you had to check which printing a CSM player was referring to make sure it was the most up to date.

3rd ed codex....the current codex is the 4th ed one.

they also kept changing stats for the Obliterator, and the Glaive...

It was considered to be one of the first true 4ed codices. There was a prior one written for 3ed.

No, it really wasnt. The wrote one, bad, 3rd ed codex, and another one - hence it being called "3.5"

The CURRENT codex is considered the first 5th ed codex, as it introduced the concept of Defensive grenades, but the 3.5 codex was a 3rd ed book.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The CURRENT codex is considered the first 5th ed codex, as it introduced the concept of Defensive grenades, but the 3.5 codex was a 3rd ed book.

The current Codex CSM came out in 2007. Didn't Codex: Tau Empire have defensive grenades in 2006?

Not that I am aware of - they have Photon Grenades, which are functionally equivalent, but CSM was the first to call them defensive grenades (Blight Grenades, specifically)

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the Chaos Daemons codex, Nos.

It states that models "count as armed with Defensive Grenades" when there was no definition for "Defensive Grenades".

The first codex in the current style was actually Eldar, but it wasn't noticed that much because the eldar had always had a fairly limited armory. It wasn't until Dark Angels that people really noticed the changes. Of course, being a weaksauce niche book, it wasn't a major impact on the hobby.

The chaos book was the first book with the full range of modern style writing (unit profiles up front, army list in back, no armory, etc) however it (and DA) are the leanest of the 5th edition style codices in terms of options, while it replaced the most wide open book since 2nd edition. Since Chaos was a very popular army, everybody really noticed.

The first rulebook written that's completely compatible with 5th edition was Demons, which even included rules that didn't work in 4th edition. (assault grenades in particular) Orks were close, but there are some definite remnents of 4th in that book (namely the KFF making vehicles "obscured" instead of also giving them a 5+ cover save.)

Dark Eldar players are going to LOVE this bit of RAW.

Q: Can a unit with the Fleet special rule assault after
disembarking from a transport? (p75)
A: No, it cannot. The Fleet rule simply removes the
prohibition of assaulting after running.

(I'm aware that open-topped vehicles are a clear exception but they could have worded it a little better for the lawyers. )

That rule has been there forever and would be true even if that question wasn't there?

I know. No unit can assault after disembarking from a vehicle. An exception is made on p.70 "The passengers of open-topped vehicles may assault, even if the vehicle has moved before their disembarkation."

As written, the 'Fleet' USR now disallows assaulting after disembarkation with no exceptions. Oops.

See, this is why people like Gwar! ignore the GW FAQs, because they are written by people who don't know their own rules, can't spell and don't even proofread their stuff before releasing it.

Not to mention the shear number of moronic and "lets ignore the clear rules completely" answers.

Just look at YMTC. When an FAQ causes MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS, there needs to be a serious round of firings. Why GW don't just get Gwar! to write clear and concrete FAQs is beyond me.

I'm willing to take the latest FAQ in defence, it does answer more than it causes. It's just human to get upset over the parts that are flawed.

GW don't write hard rules. AT ALL. No one needs to be fired - GW don't cater to competitive gamers and they have always made this perfectly clear.

To answer the OP, it says in the FAQ introduction on the website that they are soft rules.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:GW don't write hard rules. AT ALL. No one needs to be fired - GW don't cater to competitive gamers and they have always made this perfectly clear.

To answer the OP, it says in the FAQ introduction on the website that they are soft rules.

+1

We often times overlook the fact that 40k is played hundreds (thousands?) of times a day, and everyone manages to get by just fine.

GW means for 40k to be a relaxed friendly game. That's why they have the rules "Have Fun", "Feel free to modify rules as you see fit", and "If in disagreement, roll-off"

Could they do a better job of clarifying gray areas? Definitely. Do they need to? Not really.

You know it's really irritating when people make excuses for GW's piss-poor rules writing because the rules aren't 'hard rules' and the game is a 'casual game'. That's such a pathetic argument. (And before you start, I thought the same exact thing a loooong time before I started Warmachine, so no I'm not being the 'snide WM player' here.)
Look at Chess, or hell even Checkers! They have clear, defined rules. Hundreds if not thousands of people play those 2 games every day, but does that make them 'competitive', 'tournament', 'hard' games? No.
If that's too simple for ya, try any board game ever. Try Monopoly. Risk. How about the trading card games, like Magic? Now that isn't to say that people don't houserule things even in the simplest of games. But the difference is that the KNOW and UNDERSTAND that they aren't following the rules. They don't try to claim that the game is a casual game and that the OFFICIAL RULES are 'open to interpretation'. If they change something or decide not to follow a rule, they know and accept the fact that in doing so, they are in fact breaking the rules.

I'm surprised how much debate (and... angst?) there is about the 40k FAQs.

For fantasy, everyone I've met has been very appreciative of how often the FAQs are being updated... it helps clear things up that players were interpreting for themselves, and they've done a great job of it so far since 8th edition.

/fantasy tie-tin

It isn't just you MasterDRD. Some folks simply cannot fathom enjoying competition--especially when there are rules in it.

I think you guys are discussing two different things.

The desire to have hard and fast for rules for competitive 40k is independent of the fact that 40k is a complex hobby game that is played according to local tastes.

Major League baseball is probably the most competitive game in the world, and one league has a major rule difference from the other. In the early days of the stanely cup, Western teams played with six skaters plus a goalie, and when they played in the east they would literally ue the house rules of the home team.

Competition thrives under consitent rules, but GT level 40k is still a part of the overall hobby, which is rooted in the idea of playing by house rules.

Polonius wrote:
Major League baseball is probably the most competitive game in the world

Football ("Soccer")?

Morans wrote:Not to mention the shear number of moronic and "lets ignore the clear rules completely" answers.

A lot of those really come down to your perspective on the rules. A lot of those 'clear rules' that get 'ignored' are rules that cause a lot of debate because many players don't think they're actually all that clear, or because the way the rule inadvertently reads if you're looking for loopholes is not the way it was intended to work.

So GW, as a company making a beer-and-pretzels toy soldier shoot-em-up game, uses their FAQ to point out how it's 'supposed' to be played... and yes, sometimes that runs counter to what the rules appear to actually say.

When an FAQ causes MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS, there needs to be a serious round of firings.

And when that actually happens, there might well be.

Polonius wrote:I think you guys are discussing two different things.

The desire to have hard and fast for rules for competitive 40k is independent of the fact that 40k is a complex hobby game that is played according to local tastes.

Major League baseball is probably the most competitive game in the world, and one league has a major rule difference from the other. In the early days of the stanely cup, Western teams played with six skaters plus a goalie, and when they played in the east they would literally ue the house rules of the home team.

Competition thrives under consitent rules, but GT level 40k is still a part of the overall hobby, which is rooted in the idea of playing by house rules.

I've been involved in very few Monopoly games that didn't involve house rules, and I highly doubt that the creators intended that. The example of the baseball leagues is irrelevant, as according to my knowledge there isn't a single, central rulebook baseball. There is a single, universal rulebook for 40k. (the fact that said rulebook is frequently poorly written doesn't invalidate this, it just makes things frustrating.)

A new or revised FAQ will always cause the rules to be questioned again. Thats just natural and consistent with human nature in general. We as players can either applaud GW for bringing some clarity to the game or condemn them for making things more mirky. For me the revised FAQ is a big step towards clarity. That is just me though and I dont expect everyone else to see it the same way. Complaining for the sake of complaining helps no one.

I think the discussion being had here is the EXACT REASON that GW has that blurb about their FAQs not being 'hard' rules. Because people can't seem to grasp that a FAQ (in any situation) are *not* rules, but answers to questions about the rules.

You cannot divorce the answer from the question and you cannot divorce either of those from the rules text itself and the reason for the question in the first place.


So in the case of the Fleet vs. disembarking ruling it does not mean that units that disembark from an open-topped transport can no longer assault because the answer IS NOT RULES. It is an answer to a question about whether or not the act of running (and having the fleet special rule) means a unit can disregard the normal restriction against assaulting after disembarking.

Since open-topped vehicles do not have any such restriction against assaulting, the FAQ question and answer cannot possibly relate to it.


But because people want to try to treat FAQ questions/answers like they are 'RULES' (when they aren't) we get this pointless kind of discussion everytime a new FAQ is released.

The problem is exactly that.

GW need to actually become a responsible business and support it's games properly with proper errata, not some wishy washy FAQs that ignore what the rules actually say (and quite clearly say) and also ignore what the community does.

They say that Monoliths can never arrive from reserves normally for crying out loud. If that doesn't set off your "this ship is captained by monkeys" alarm, nothing will.

As YakFace said, the FAQ is there to clarify misconceptions that may occur from the rule set. Errata are there to fill holes in the rules or make new ones.

The FAQ provides a context within which to interpret the rules, but you cannot necessarily take these answers and use them to draw conclusions about a situation that is completely different.

Morans wrote:They say that Monoliths can never arrive from reserves normally for crying out loud.

Monoliths can move on from Reserves just fine, as they are a fraction under 6 inches across.

MasterDRD wrote:You know it's really irritating when people make excuses for GW's piss-poor rules writing because the rules aren't 'hard rules' and the game is a 'casual game'. That's such a pathetic argument. (And before you start, I thought the same exact thing a loooong time before I started Warmachine, so no I'm not being the 'snide WM player' here.)
Look at Chess, or hell even Checkers! They have clear, defined rules. Hundreds if not thousands of people play those 2 games every day, but does that make them 'competitive', 'tournament', 'hard' games? No.
If that's too simple for ya, try any board game ever. Try Monopoly. Risk. How about the trading card games, like Magic? Now that isn't to say that people don't houserule things even in the simplest of games. But the difference is that the KNOW and UNDERSTAND that they aren't following the rules. They don't try to claim that the game is a casual game and that the OFFICIAL RULES are 'open to interpretation'. If they change something or decide not to follow a rule, they know and accept the fact that in doing so, they are in fact breaking the rules.

Who cares? You're expecting too much in my opinion. Warhammer and 40K are not competitive games, but some people play them competitively. Competitive players need to decide on some of the unclear rules beforehand or there will be problems, but they sure as hell aren't GW's problems. They are simply 'games' and you may play them as you see fit.

The MOST IMPORTANT RULE - as defined by the 40K rulebook - is that the rules aren't that important. The suggested solution to issues in-game is a roll-off. I suggest that if you have serious real-life issues with a deliberately casual ruleset you ought to seek immediate counselling.

I'm a competitive gamer and I can deal with it, so why can't you?