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 the GW FAQ draft has been out for a while now, is ITC going to decide if they are going adopt it? It would be nice to know sooner or later since it affects people's future style/tactics and list building.

And delaying the judgement base on "waiting for it to be official" is not good enough since ITC can decide to put in "interim rules" for their FAQ at a whim... like the new SM psychic powers....

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
So the GW FAQ draft has been out for a while now, is ITC going to decide if they are going adopt it? It would be nice to know sooner or later since it affects people's future style/tactics and list building.

And delaying the judgement base on "waiting for it to be official" is not good enough since ITC can decide to put in "interim rules" for their FAQ at a whim... like the new SM psychic powers....

So they decide to implement it and GW changes something in the final version...then ITC has to figure out which parts weren't accepted and re-issue their FAQ. That's just confusing. Since a lot of the rulings already coincide I don't think it's a big deal to wait. The only things that are truly different is the grenade thing and blasts hitting all levels of a building.

I don't think it's unreasonable to first wait for GW to figure out what they're doing before re-organizing everything.

EDIT

Also, if you really really want the non-final version of the GW FAQ, talk to your TO and see if you can get others on board.

Another big change would be Void Shields and the VSG. I'm pretty sure ITC will follow GW on that ruling when it gets finalized, but for now, enjoy it while it lasts.

Basically, the only thing you need to concern yourself with at the moment is the current ITC FAQ's, not GW FAQ's. And as bogalubov mentioned, check with the TO of the tourney that you are interested in what his decision is with regards to the FAQ that he will be using in his tournament.

Other then a thinly veiled attempt to complain about electro displacement and the ITCs recommended interim rule interpretation. What's he rush in pushing the GWs faqs when the Facebook community rep already stated he final official non draft faq will be out next week (btw he said that last week).

It's funny how the last time we had this kind of ITC debate it was tau players complaining about ITC was about favoring space marine players and how the ITC ruling on rearm and refuel was wrong and they should be allowed to enter and leave reserves the same turn ( which the GW faq disallows) and full strength meant piranhas would respawn after destroyed (which GW hasn't gotten to yet).

bogalubov wrote:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
So the GW FAQ draft has been out for a while now, is ITC going to decide if they are going adopt it? It would be nice to know sooner or later since it affects people's future style/tactics and list building.

And delaying the judgement base on "waiting for it to be official" is not good enough since ITC can decide to put in "interim rules" for their FAQ at a whim... like the new SM psychic powers....

So they decide to implement it and GW changes something in the final version...then ITC has to figure out which parts weren't accepted and re-issue their FAQ. That's just confusing. Since a lot of the rulings already coincide I don't think it's a big deal to wait. The only things that are truly different is the grenade thing and blasts hitting all levels of a building.

I don't think it's unreasonable to first wait for GW to figure out what they're doing before re-organizing everything.

EDIT

Also, if you really really want the non-final version of the GW FAQ, talk to your TO and see if you can get others on board.

Well ITC implemented the "interim rules" for those psychic powers, they can do the same with the grenade and the battle-brother transport GW Faq rulings. Hopefully GW published the complete official FAQ prior to any major GTs so players can prepare adequately.

The battle-bother can't share transports is actually pretty huge... Admech with drop pod taxi-ride lists are still one of the tier 1 ITC armies.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Other then a thinly veiled attempt to complain about electro displacement and the ITCs recommended interim rule interpretation. What's he rush in pushing the GWs faqs when the Facebook community rep already stated he final official non draft faq will be out next week (btw he said that last week).

It's funny how the last time we had this kind of ITC debate it was tau players complaining about ITC was about favoring space marine players and how the ITC ruling on rearm and refuel was wrong and they should be allowed to enter and leave reserves the same turn ( which the GW faq disallows) and full strength meant piranhas would respawn after destroyed (which GW hasn't gotten to yet).

The Piranha Wing wing ruling ITC made was a "interpretation", they went wit RAI over RAW(which yes is pretty broken) and the GW FAQ draft proved RAI was the correct way, no problem there.

Going with this Phase Form power ruling: "we recommend altering this psychic power to be Warp Charge 2, and to allow the targeted unit to either ignore Line of Site or to Ignore Cover, but not both simultaneously." This is NOT interpreting a rule, it is out right changing it!

Phase form is also an interim rule before it is voted upon.
At no point Did i claim the ITC community doesn't change rules.
However right now the only official non rule interpretation rulings that are brb changes are
1) 2+ rerollable
2) invis nerf
3) roll of 6 on str d table

Beyond that everything else are just interpretations and I'm not talking about recommended interim decisions that are clearly labeled and seperate from the rest of the ITC rules. When that rule comes up for a vote I wouldn't vote for it. Clear Rules changes should only be reserved for really broken rules. However conservative rules interpretations are fine in my opinion. That's the way I vote. The whole idea of RAW is a joke obviously after seeing how the faq turned out, because so many of the rules are truly obscure and debateable. You really have no clue what is RAW in most cases. You only attempt to justify your own interpretation as RAW to justify your own stance.

I love how people claim the faqs are RAI. RAI goes out the door when GW clarifies thier obscure rules writing. The fact was rearm and refuel was always RAW, you just interpreted the wrong way regarding reserves.