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.

So, I know GW has never been exactly timely in coming out with FAQs, however, it's been 6 months since they've FAQed ANYTHING.

Around that same time, the FAQs were moved from the Black Library to the main web site. I think, somewhere in the transition from the Black Library web site to the Webstore, the responsibility for updating the FAQs online was transferred to a new department, and that department missed the memo or something. They've released 7 codices since the last time they made a single rules update to ANY FAQ. There has to be something wrong here. Thoughts?

Yeah, they don't care.

Simple fix: bring a print out of your own FAQ to friendly games, hand it to your opponent and there ya go. If you use ITC format, use that FAQ. If you don't, use it as a guideline for some of the more messed up rules. I keep a digital copy of their FAQ to refer to if there's something I don't usually encounter. Most folks nod and go along with it in interest of time. My Astral Claw list has a couple rule changes included at the top when I play the army since the base codecies have been updated multiple times since IA:9.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Yeah, they don't care.

+1

They really don't. FAQs cost money to produce with no quantifiable sales return. Therefore, no FAQs for you.

They seemingly don't simply not care, but are actively avoiding rules support at all. Even FW, when it comes to relatively new books (stuff that's come out in the last couple of years) that have issues or are in need of update, simply resort to the "well just work something out with your opponents". It very much feels like a top-down directive.

Your theory is somewhat incorrect. GW has explicitly stated that they don't want to tell you how to play with your toys, so they aren't going to FAQ anything. So they've deliberately refused responsibility for writing FAQs, they haven't just accidentally forgotten who was supposed to do it. The end result is the same though.

They just can't be bothered.
It would take an ounce of effort and they got more imbalanced codicies to write.

I really don't think it goes deeper than money.

Having people sitting around writing FAQs costs money and doesn't generate revenue. Why have people writing rules for free when you are in the business of selling (by their own admission) sub-par rules in pretty books for premium prices?

"Forge the narrative" is nothing but corporate speak for "now you get less content and support for more money". What company wouldn't love an idea like that?

No FAQs but I find my electronic books get updates pretty frequent. Perhaps they just expect everyone to have the electronic versions and are only updating those?

When and where have they come out and said they aren't going to do FAQs?

tilarium wrote:
No FAQs but I find my electronic books get updates pretty frequent. Perhaps they just expect everyone to have the electronic versions and are only updating those?

Yup, Codex Inquisition, the Assassins Dataslate and Adepta Sororitas codices (which, to be fair, are all digital), and as far as I know many of the 6th codice got updated. It's just annoying they can't just post the revision of rules (which they've already gone through the effort of making, btw) somewhere on the GW website or BL. They spent money for this already, and they are to alienate their physical copy consumers by not giving them the same thing they gave to their digital product consumers, why? Makes no sense...

 statu wrote:
When and where have they come out and said they aren't going to do FAQs?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/618953.page

Linked to that sentiment and principle is our belief that any 'cult of personality' is not helpful either. We do not wish to hand out official 'rulings' from 'personalities', and we see no need to - by and large our customers enjoy engaging with each other and making their own minds up about what rules (if any) to use, how to interpret a particular phrase or line and so on. Again, we do not wish to be prescriptive in that regard.

Yes, the people running GW really are that stupid.

 Peregrine wrote:

 statu wrote:
When and where have they come out and said they aren't going to do FAQs?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/618953.page

Linked to that sentiment and principle is our belief that any 'cult of personality' is not helpful either. We do not wish to hand out official 'rulings' from 'personalities', and we see no need to - by and large our customers enjoy engaging with each other and making their own minds up about what rules (if any) to use, how to interpret a particular phrase or line and so on. Again, we do not wish to be prescriptive in that regard.

Yes, the people running GW really are that stupid.

So another words if someone has a higher status in a gaming circle he can more or less force his opponent to do anything. That is suppose to be something that people like ?

 Peregrine wrote:
"... by and large our customers enjoy engaging with each other and making their own minds up about what rules (if any) to use, how to interpret a particular phrase or line and so on."

"We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants." - Tom Kirby, 2014

 Peregrine wrote:

 statu wrote:
When and where have they come out and said they aren't going to do FAQs?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/618953.page

Linked to that sentiment and principle is our belief that any 'cult of personality' is not helpful either. We do not wish to hand out official 'rulings' from 'personalities', and we see no need to - by and large our customers enjoy engaging with each other and making their own minds up about what rules (if any) to use, how to interpret a particular phrase or line and so on. Again, we do not wish to be prescriptive in that regard.

Yes, the people running GW really are that stupid.

The (if any) is where I cracked up. Do they actually imagine us standing around making pew-pew noises in lieu of actual rules?

 Purifier wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 statu wrote:
When and where have they come out and said they aren't going to do FAQs?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/618953.page

Linked to that sentiment and principle is our belief that any 'cult of personality' is not helpful either. We do not wish to hand out official 'rulings' from 'personalities', and we see no need to - by and large our customers enjoy engaging with each other and making their own minds up about what rules (if any) to use, how to interpret a particular phrase or line and so on. Again, we do not wish to be prescriptive in that regard.

Yes, the people running GW really are that stupid.

The (if any) is where I cracked up. Do they actually imagine us standing around making pew-pew noises in lieu of actual rules?

"We sell toys to kids." - Tom Kirby, some year I couldn't be bothered looking up and probably every year after.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 statu wrote:
When and where have they come out and said they aren't going to do FAQs?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/618953.page

Linked to that sentiment and principle is our belief that any 'cult of personality' is not helpful either. We do not wish to hand out official 'rulings' from 'personalities', and we see no need to - by and large our customers enjoy engaging with each other and making their own minds up about what rules (if any) to use, how to interpret a particular phrase or line and so on. Again, we do not wish to be prescriptive in that regard.

Yes, the people running GW really are that stupid.

The (if any) is where I cracked up. Do they actually imagine us standing around making pew-pew noises in lieu of actual rules?

"We sell toys to kids." - Tom Kirby, some year I couldn't be bothered looking up and probably every year after.

Remember, Pokemon is just a passing fad.

Look at their release schedule. The rate they're going, it feels safe to say that they aren't doing FAQs, they're just going to release a new $50 codex in its place.

Sothalor wrote:
Look at their release schedule. The rate they're going, it feels safe to say that they aren't doing FAQs, they're just going to release a new $50 codex in its place.

This.

Just look at the Wave Serpent.
Codex: Eldar Craftworlds fixed the wave-gun, but then broke a lot of other things.
Mix rules fixes with codex escalation and codexes end up with 2-year lifespans.

You mean that you folks didn't pick up a Farsight Enclaves army so you could play Titanfall on table top?

A question, would GW support a crowdfunded ruleset (whether Codexes or FAQs), or if there were rumors of it would they send cease and desist orders?

 Peregrine wrote:

 statu wrote:
When and where have they come out and said they aren't going to do FAQs?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/618953.page

Linked to that sentiment and principle is our belief that any 'cult of personality' is not helpful either. We do not wish to hand out official 'rulings' from 'personalities', and we see no need to - by and large our customers enjoy engaging with each other and making their own minds up about what rules (if any) to use, how to interpret a particular phrase or line and so on. Again, we do not wish to be prescriptive in that regard.

Yes, the people running GW really are that stupid.

Out of interest has it been said else where? I'm not trying to be a dick, but one e-mail, that potentially could have been faked, doesn't convince me that this is their actual view

 carldooley wrote:
A question, would GW support a crowdfunded ruleset (whether Codexes or FAQs), or if there were rumors of it would they send cease and desist orders?

I mean, in the proposed rules forum of this site there have been several threads.

I think what we need is a central repository (i.e. website) where you post your minor rule change, and if it's voted up enough by the community, it gets put into the official rule "build".

Something like that.

Games Workshop would probably shut it down, though.

 carldooley wrote:
You mean that you folks didn't pick up a Farsight Enclaves army so you could play Titanfall on table top?

A question, would GW support a crowdfunded ruleset (whether Codexes or FAQs), or if there were rumors of it would they send cease and desist orders?

cease and desist is their MO. They don't support anything that isn't directly connected to themselves and their sales numbers.

I thought GW just re-released Codexes instead of making an FAQ?

Why fix what you can't monetise?

 Purifier wrote:
cease and desist is their MO. They don't support anything that isn't directly connected to themselves and their sales numbers.

Then we could send it to GW, they could put it in a special edition of WD that they could charge an exorbitant amount for and could say in effect, 'Here you go you competitive spankers**! Now leave us alone.'

** I apologize to the mods. I wasn't aware that was a banned word.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your theory is somewhat incorrect. GW has explicitly stated that they don't want to tell you how to play with your toys, so they aren't going to FAQ anything. So they've deliberately refused responsibility for writing FAQs, they haven't just accidentally forgotten who was supposed to do it. The end result is the same though.

ebook edits are different from FAQ's they are not the same thing

Peregrine is right. If you haven't ever read the investor relations mission statement, I suggest you should. http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/

IMHO the no FAQ has a more dubious reasoning on top of what Peregrine pointed out (again my opinion). FAQ's would hurt sales of problematic models via faq rulings that would nerf them or limit them. They don't want to give someone a reason to buy just one wraithknight. They want TFG to buy 4-5.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carldooley wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
cease and desist is their MO. They don't support anything that isn't directly connected to themselves and their sales numbers.

Then we could send it to GW, they could put it in a special edition of WD that they could charge an exorbitant amount for and could say in effect, 'Here you go you competitive spankers**! Now leave us alone.'

** I apologize to the mods. I wasn't aware that was a banned word.

I like to dream too.

For a third party rules set to work, critical mass is the only thing that's really needed.

To get a better ruleset than GW is easy. Take GW's rules set. Restrict Windriders to one Heavy weapon per three models.

Voila. Better than stock GW. But some will complain about how we should just bump their prices. Others will complain about how we did nothing about WWP scytheguard. Some will actually complain about how we hate Eldar. Hell, some will even complain about how we clearly love Eldar more than all the other races.

My first point is, throwing together a crowdfunded rulesset won't fix things. Its trivial to make a better-than-GW rules set. The problem is getting critical mass. Getting people to use said rules. ITC manages that to some extent. Perhaps their rules will diverge more and more, and it'll get more and more obvious. Zagman has put together an interesting set of patches in Proposed rules. It may be an improvement to the game as is. But it almost certainly never will replace GW as the default rules. Without buyin, a new rules set doesn't help.

My second point is how do you balance it? Lightest-possible, only changing what needs to? When do you adjust points vs changing a rule? How substantial do you want the changes to be? What design goals do you want? There are a lot of tradeoffs, and you can't always make everyone happy. Its easiest when taking just a couple steps from the current set. Being more balanced than any individual rules set will typically be easy. But once you start getting close to balance, getting agreement on anything keeps getting harder and harder.

Also, be careful what you wish for. After all the previous releases, with the exception of the Decurion in the Necron book, were so great, I was really psyched about them updating my Eldar. But then we got this drek.

And a final point. If there were a community rules set, a crowd funded direction is probably not the best option. Not only is that risking going commercial (which would be very bad), but also the whole Open Source style would probably be optimal.

So don't rush out there to start a campaign for a new rules set.

FAQ's would hurt sales of problematic models via faq rulings that would nerf them or limit them.

Conversely it might help those in need of a buff, pyrovore et al.
Its a two way street and entirely dependant on whether GW want to open their eyes to the possibilities.

and as mentioned why do they bother updating the ebooks if it makes them no money? Someone, somewhere is working on that so to extend it to FAQs cant be that hard surely.

Keep in mind, GW is not making a competitive game in their eyes. It's a beer and pretzel game where you are supposed to relive the epic moments of calgar fighting off the ork horde at a gate, laugh with friends about the silliness of it all. If there is a slight complication of the rules, forge the narrative harder.

 Bonachinonin wrote:
Keep in mind, GW is not making a competitive game in their eyes. It's a beer and pretzel game where you are supposed to relive the epic moments of calgar fighting off the ork horde at a gate, laugh with friends about the silliness of it all. If there is a slight complication of the rules, forge the narrative harder.

but (he cried in a whiny voice) the excitement comes from close games!
GW are robbing us of excitement, and telling us that if we're not excited it's because our imaginations are lacking.

BlackSwanDelta wrote:
I really don't think it goes deeper than money.

Having people sitting around writing FAQs costs money and doesn't generate revenue. Why have people writing rules for free when you are in the business of selling (by their own admission) sub-par rules in pretty books for premium prices?

"Forge the narrative" is nothing but corporate speak for "now you get less content and support for more money". What company wouldn't love an idea like that?

Coming soon: FAQs you have to pay for?