FAQ - GW is asking players what question they want to be answered

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.

**Wulfmar**

Haha yea

I might have FAQs / Errata questions if I actually played, but as it is those armies are shelved as they're too awful to even bother with against most opponents who haven't taken pity

pm713 wrote:
The questions wouldn't be answered because none of them are relevant.

Runic understood the point I was making - see above though ^^

**Yarium**

Wulfmar wrote:
I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.

1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?

2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?

3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?

4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?

5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies

6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger

None of these are rules questions, and would not be answered. They're questions on design and scheduling decisions. So you're right, they will not be answered substantially, meaningfully, or probably at all. I'd take this opportunity to edit your question if you submitted any of these.

EDIT: Yeah, I missed the point too

**Wulfmar**

Lol yea xD

**Brennonjw**

Wulfmar wrote:
I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.

1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?

2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?

3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?

4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?

5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies

6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger

You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."

**Wulfmar**

Brennonjw wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:
I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.

1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?

2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?

3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?

4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?

5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies

6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger

You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."

Read the whole thread, go on now, don't be afraid.

**Tactical_Spam**

Wulfmar wrote:
Brennonjw wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:
I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.

1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?

2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?

3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?

4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?

5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies

6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger

You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."

Read the whole thread, go on now, don't be afraid.

Brennon is 100% correct, dude. Ask about rules clarifications and don't be a smart

**Wulfmar**

I didn't even post those questions on the site. As I clarified earlier, I don't have FAQs because my armies aren't worth the time and effort to go to tabletop unless it's a sympathy match.

If you don't understand the sarcasm / point then comment on something else.

**Tactical_Spam**

Wulfmar wrote:
I didn't even post those questions on the site. As I clarified earlier, I don't have FAQs because my armies aren't worth the time and effort to go to tabletop unless it's a sympathy match.

If you don't understand the sarcasm / point then comment on something else.

Then why are you commenting here?

**Wulfmar**

Ugh, fighting mental treacle, I'm out

**Slayer-Fan123**

Wulfmar wrote:
Ugh, fighting mental treacle, I'm out

It wasn't even like your post was particularly funny or insightful. That's why everyone was confused by it.

**geargutz**

My question was
orks....what does the cybork upgrade do to models if they already have a base 5up fnp? Is it a bonus to fnp, or is it nullified?
Example...mad dok grotsnik has both fnp (since he is a painboy) and cybork.

**Davor**

Question is, "How Legal will this be?"

I mean if they are not answered and printed in the GW FAQs can we really call these "Official" just like how "official" White Dwarf is, and gets stuff wrong.

**Gamgee**

It doesn't sound like they will be posted there, but actually made into a FAQ which will be linked. At least the way I read it implied that.

Still never be too hopeful with GW.

**svengarr**

That Facebook post could be filtered down to literally 20 different questions or so. seriously why are so many people wish listing and asking for added rules. Feels like players are trying to self destruct getting an FAQ

**pm713**

Probably because it's the first time GW have interacted with the community for a while so they're taking their chance. Plus there's the question of whether they read what it's for.

**Tactical_Spam**

If we have people asking stupid questions they may not read through all of them.

**Orock**

Crimson Devil wrote:
Orock wrote:
I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.

Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.

they did it to avoid a massive unofficial imperium boycott. the same reason they allow superfriends, and other blatant favorism.

**eosgreen**

how sick would it be if instead of AOS we got new factions for 40k, new sisters, replaced all of the finecast.

eyy sry

**wuestenfux**

Nevertheless, the game itself is a mess. Not really useful as a pickup game, although it can be played very well in a closed group where players make some commitments.

**Kilkrazy**

Brennonjw wrote:
Wulfmar wrote:
I doubt my questions would be given a substantial or meaningful answer. But then, I'm not playing along just yet.

1) Why is the new Dark Eldar codex essentially the old one with a load of rules cut out and the pages on a number of named characters ripped out?

2) When will CSM be given attention? As in, good attention?

3) Ahriman, where's his spell familiar or equivalent so he doesn't peril every single time he casts?

4) Abandoned Sons... I mean Thousand Sons, fix them any time soon?

5) While we're on codices, What about making orks worthwhile? I'm 3 for 3 here on stuffed over armies

6) Tomb Kings - not actually a question, just my middle finger

You, and questions like yours, are the reason these sorts of things fail: "ask us about rules clarifications!" "OK! feth you, why no codex? Why game not the same as 3 years ago."

GW is a grown-up company, not a bunch of kindergarten children. They are capable of reading all the user queries and ignoring the ones that are irrelevant, without getting into a huff and sulking in the corner all afternoon.

**Furyou Miko**

You say that, but GW has a policy of only hiring fans, and look at most GW fans on the internet.

**wuestenfux**

Furyou Miko wrote:
You say that, but GW has a policy of only hiring fans, and look at most GW fans on the internet.

No, they are not hiring fans.
They hire people with attitude in the first place.

**Furyou Miko**

Every of their recruitment documents makes it very clear that the 'attitude' they want is 'We love games workshop games!'

**nekooni**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Every of their recruitment documents makes it very clear that the 'attitude' they want is 'We love games workshop games!'

And why wouldn't they? Being passionate about a game does not mean you're blind to it's downsides. I love 40k but I can still admit that there are a lot of balance issues and that their codex release model simply sucks.

The game could be much better than it is, and someone who doesn't care for the game won't care to improve it.

**casvalremdeikun**

I know it is a fairly stupid question, but I went ahead and asked if Pedro Kantor's Dorn's Arrow is a Storm Bolter for the purposes of the Bolter Drill rule. The fluff section says it is, but nowhere else does. Mostly just want clarification. Since he is BS5, he only misses on 1s, so being able to reroll those 1s gives him a bit of a boost while not making him overpowered. It is just a Str4 AP4 Assault 4 weapon. It would essentially make Dorn's Arrow Master-Crafted without it actually having the rule.

**Furyou Miko**

nekooni wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
Every of their recruitment documents makes it very clear that the 'attitude' they want is 'We love games workshop games!'

And why wouldn't they? Being passionate about a game does not mean you're blind to it's downsides. I love 40k but I can still admit that there are a lot of balance issues and that their codex release model simply sucks.

The game could be much better than it is, and someone who doesn't care for the game won't care to improve it.

You're missing my point.

My point is that as a result of that recruitment requirement, you're looking at a company staffed by the same kind of people you find on Dakka.

**Crimson Devil**

Orock wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:
Orock wrote:
I did the ITC a favor and asked how the tau combined fire decursion benefits work. Since they choose to ignore raw and rai in favor of their favorite armies and players not having to do something drastic like changing their army composition ever. Mabye if its not the same 4 armies in the top every tournament with their rules every time, they might even benefit and get more attendance.

Yes the massive Tau boycott certainly hurt the LVO's attendance.

they did it to avoid a massive unofficial imperium boycott. the same reason they allow superfriends, and other blatant favorism.

I know the horrible ITC is oppressing you. Tau lives matter and all that.

**koooaei**

geargutz wrote:
My question was
orks....what does the cybork upgrade do to models if they already have a base 5up fnp? Is it a bonus to fnp, or is it nullified?
Example...mad dok grotsnik has both fnp (since he is a painboy) and cybork.

That's pretty clear from the brb. You get 5+++.

That might be the main problem there. 95% questions allready have clear answers in brb or not rule questions at all. It might lead to really important stuff to be missed.

**wuestenfux**

Furyou Miko wrote:
nekooni wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
Every of their recruitment documents makes it very clear that the 'attitude' they want is 'We love games workshop games!'

And why wouldn't they? Being passionate about a game does not mean you're blind to it's downsides. I love 40k but I can still admit that there are a lot of balance issues and that their codex release model simply sucks.

The game could be much better than it is, and someone who doesn't care for the game won't care to improve it.

You're missing my point.

My point is that as a result of that recruitment requirement, you're looking at a company staffed by the same kind of people you find on Dakka.

No, certainly not.
We at Dakka are addicted gamers.
GW recruits people with attitude but no clue how to play 40k competitively. Go at GW HH I and you will see what I mean.

**KaptinBadrukk**

Here's one:

Does the Ork KFF include All models within 6 inches or just Friendly models?

Here's the argument we had. Link for reading not posting.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/659420.page