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.

Example, this question is in the CA18 FAQ

Q: Do units that do not ‘take up slots in a Detachment’ (e.g. Death Cult Assassins, via their Ecclesiarchy Battle Conclave ability) allow you to exceed the maximum number of allowed slots for a Detachment? For example, a Patrol Detachment only allows for two Elites units. Can I exceed that by including a third unit with a similar ability?
A: Yes, unless the Detachment is an Auxiliary Support Detachment: their Restriction allowing only a single unit is not bypassed by such units.

Why in the name of Gork and Mork is this question hidden away in the CA18 FAQ and not in the main rulebook FAQ? This applies to a fair amount of armies. It's already bad enough that we have important core questions spread out over now 4 FAQs (Designers Commentary, Stepping into a New Edition, Rulebook FAQ and now CA18 FAQ) but several codex FAQs have important answers that should apply to all armies but technically don't (such as the Extra Relics/Stratagems answers in the Death Guard FAQ).

Is it too much to ask for even a base level of competence when it comes to this? We're already being fleeced on the rules and models.

I can certainly agree that some consolidation is much needed. Part of the issue is also the sheer ridiculous amount of sources to be FAQ'd. But that's a train that is never returning to the station, unfortunately.

It would really be nice, however, to have 1 "core" FAQ that covers all issues that are not Codex specific (so it would include CAs, Designers commentary, etc) and then each Codex has it's own after that.

-

Welcome to the “Living Nightmare Ruleset”

I think the CA should sweep the FAQ's into one source and wipe all the FAQs.

The actual rules for 40K are pretty small. I think the CA should maybe just reprint them, with all new updates, and additions.

A core rule set, then with all additions from the FAQ, and then a small section of the FAQ for each DEX, then new stuff, and then Beta, and then the Point rehash.

GW is going to be hobbled by this until they and (the player base) are willing to go fully digital or release an official app that is updated regularly. They have been more active than ever before in trying to clarify rules and fix perceived issues with the game. The problem is that you can't actively re write a physical book, so you instead end up with pages and pages of corrections and contradictions.

They should be redoing the rules pamphlet and use CA to update these things every year. Having these FAQs with information scattered all over is just unsustainable and causes confusion among the player base.

True the fact that half the FAQ is gated behind a paid book doesn't help either. CA is a separate FAQ, they have to list separate. So stuff will always get mixed up. Maybe it would have been better to have 2 CA per year, as long as they don't cost it too high. I doubt they will ever make rule updates free.

8th edition's ruleset is turning out to be pretty unwieldy. I do my best to keep up with the rules but I don't even know whats going on anymore. We have the main rulebook, index (in limited instances), codices, forgeworld books, CA's, FAQs, rules in the new campaign book from what I hear & more rules will be rolling out via future White Dwarfs?

Its getting a little out of hand.

i agree that this is a problem and it is only getting worse.

I took a break from playing 40k about 6 months ago. Several FAQs and CA18 later I no longer think I have a good handle on the current rules.

When 8th came out I decided to go all digital for my codexes. Now I am wondering if any of my digital codexes have been updated. If so, which ones? Or do I just need to keep referring to the FAQs and CA18? And if any digital books do get updated (I have heard they did update some) at what point did it happen? Was it before or after the last FAQ?

I only play imperium but that still leaves me with 6 codexes I have to use. I like to combine 2 imperial factions to make fluffy lists. Any combination of the following; Space Marines, SM Imperial Armor, Astra Militarum, AM Imperial Armor, Deathwatch and Sisters of Battle.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
8th edition's ruleset is turning out to be pretty unwieldy. I do my best to keep up with the rules but I don't even know whats going on anymore. We have the main rulebook, index (in limited instances), codices, forgeworld books, CA's, FAQs, rules in the new campaign book from what I hear & more rules will be rolling out via future White Dwarfs?

Its getting a little out of hand.

It’s totally out of hand and only going to get worse. The living nightmare ruleset indeed!!!

C'mon now guys, everything is perfect! Why so negative?

I bet none of you actually play the game, instead you just come here to complain. /sarcasm

Everyone sees this is getting out of control with rules bloat, then with reinstatement of WD Index Astartes, Campaign Books with their 'special detachments' and all the related FAQs the rules bloat is going to be just insane in coming months if everything continues like previously. Combine this with GW's liberal approach towards souping up, you might soon see people playing their armies with easily 15-20 associated documents.

Another round of fixing problems, another “but it isn’t perfect!” BCB thread...

I jest, GW could do FAQs better now there are so many to keep track of, but the appearance of this thread was as predictable as the sun rising this morning.

While i agree that consolidation is required and rules that set precedence for something should be copied across to all applicable faqs, i can't help but feel like they could also cut the amount of stuff in them dramatically due to irrelvence. Take BCB's example in the OP - that faq should never need to exist in the first place to anyone that reads a unit with that rule. Why people think that a unit that doesn't take a slot... takes a slot... is beyond me.

I personally think the faqs are now getting to a point where they need an independent review to reset everything, as i don't think the faq team have the time and ability to consolidate everything, nor the overall understanding to do so.

We need a new rulebook that incorporates all these changes... its time for... a 9th edition.

Reemule wrote:
I think the CA should sweep the FAQ's into one source and wipe all the FAQs.

The actual rules for 40K are pretty small. I think the CA should maybe just reprint them, with all new updates, and additions.

A core rule set, then with all additions from the FAQ, and then a small section of the FAQ for each DEX, then new stuff, and then Beta, and then the Point rehash.

This, its a perfect way to use Chapter Approved, a re-written core rule set for the following year, with Errata included and rules re-written to provide clarification, and maybe side boxes to explain previously confusing points

I normally don't agree with you GreasyFelineInsecta but yes... this is why I think GW should have a free pdf of the main rule book with an update date plastered on the front. So many other companies now have the rule book on their website (free to download) and fully updated with all the FAQ's and crap.

8th Ed is streamlined, stop being salty!!!!

Kidding, your right its a total mess with the FAQ's, I would prefer it all to be rolled into one big 40k FAQ, this may fix the problem or not i dont know, but I would like to see them try

My invite to the 2019 Grumpy Gits Convention must have got lost in the mail, I see the first item on the agenda is an oldy but a goody "Complaining about GW rules for the sake of it" Lets see if anyone can have any fresh ideas this year

 Rolsheen wrote:
My invite to the 2019 Grumpy Gits Convention must have got lost in the mail, I see the first item on the agenda is an oldy but a goody "Complaining about GW rules for the sake of it" Lets see if anyone can have any fresh ideas this year

Let's just expect the next rulebook to be error free! That's a pretty novel idea, isn't it?

nekooni wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
My invite to the 2019 Grumpy Gits Convention must have got lost in the mail, I see the first item on the agenda is an oldy but a goody "Complaining about GW rules for the sake of it" Lets see if anyone can have any fresh ideas this year

Let's just expect the next rulebook to be error free! That's a pretty novel idea, isn't it?

Spoiler:

Thought of the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Taketh thine exalt.

I love that GW is being more active and actually fixing at least some things with in an edition instead of the past of here is your book, hope you like it, see you in 2 to 15 years. However I am disappointed that we are drifting back to or are now at a worst level of things I need to play my entire army. To play just marines I need a codex, an index, a FW index, who knows how many FAQs, CA and now they are starting with campaign supplements and things like city fight 2.0. That's three to four books just for a mono faction.

I would pay money (the thing that GW really wants) for GW to release some kind of consolidation.

Personally, I think they should compile all the FAQs into a single pdf and have it available for free download on their website.
If they keep churning out FAQs like this, creating updated rules for sale, you are going to have a game group with 5 different sets of rules and no one will know which one is correct.

They are just likely to answer the same question in multiple different FAQS if the issue arise (like they already repeat the same rules in multiple codexes).

But if it is so annoying, I suggest you consolidate into one document whatever you think should be consolidated and then send it to GW and link it to us. Everyone wins, you have the document you wanted, GW knows your opinion and we have something that might become useful.

Who knows, you might even earn an internet cookie or something.

Also, the two examples provided were self explanatory to start with, like 75% of the stuff in most FAQs. Do we need to be reminded in the rule set that if we concede, we lose ?

I agree with all of you, 8th edition is bloated beyond reason and a physical BRB is no longer viable.
I compiled all rules and rule changes into a single document and just print them out, put them in a binder and if something changes with the next Errata/FAQ, I just change it and reprint the page.

I strongly feel an 8.5 small softcover reprint coming soon, because GW has to be blind to not see the problem they caused for new players or even players that just took a break for a few months.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
I agree with all of you, 8th edition is bloated beyond reason and a physical BRB is no longer viable.
I compiled all rules and rule changes into a single document and just print them out, put them in a binder and if something changes with the next Errata/FAQ, I just change it and reprint the page.

I strongly feel an 8.5 small softcover reprint coming soon, because GW has to be blind to not see the problem they caused for new players or even players that just took a break for a few months.

I truly hope so, because rules FAQ in the early documents are still LIVE and also contradicted in several later documents without any clarification about which has standing.

but for those who feel GW have made it perfectly clear and easy to lookup rules .. I ask you (without already knowing the answer to the question) which of the following should/would you find the answer to

is the Relic battle cannon a Turret weapon?

One - Big Rule Book
Two - Index
Three - Codex
Four - Designers commentary
Five - Stepping into a new edition
Six - Chapter Approved 2017
Seven- Chapter Approved 2018
Eight - Big FAQ
Nine - Big FAQ 2
Ten - Big Rule Book FAQ
Eleven - Index FAQ
Twelve - Codex FAQ
Thirteen - Chapter Approved 2018 FAQ
Fourteen - Vigilus
Fifteen - Vigilus FAQ

The last game of 40k I played was either 5th or 6th edition. I took a long break and missed out on 7th, but I've taken the hobby up again and 8th has been a 'fresh start' for me.

I like the streamlined core rules - they only take up ten or so pages of the BRB and are easy to remember. The core rules really only scratch the surface of the game, however. Matched play - the de-facto standard of the game for the majority of people - is tucked into the 'advanced rules' section of the book. To me, 'advanced rules' imply an optional level of complexity, as in many board games. Not so in 40k, as matched play is the best power equalizer when you go to your local store and plop down a list across someone you've never met.

The problem with that is GW keeps rolling out CAs that update rules and points values. Basically, points - the measure of balance - is getting locked behind a pay wall. GW has done this to AoS with the General's Handbook, and partially to 40k with the CAs. If you want to go to the local store and roll some dice and push minis around, well, you're going to have to pay for it!

This is frustrating for new players - imagine a budding kid takes his just-finished first army to the LGS and is eager to play his first game. He shows his opponent his list and is told "These points aren't right, X got FAQ'd, Y got updated in CA 2018, etc. etc." Now he has to buy a book he never asked for and reference pages of revisions. It quickly stacks up. No longer are you just exchanging army lists with your opponent before a game - you're also going down the list of FAQs you know and seeing if you're both on top of the changes.

It’s almost as if basing 40k’s rules off of one of the legitimately worst games systems ever devised (AOS) was a bad idea. I guess only 12 pages and over simplification of rules doesn’t work? And now we need more pages of FAQ’s than there are pages of rules to clear up a terrible mess of a system, further complicating the game when writing it properly to begin with would have worked. Who could have foreseen this error? I for one am shocked.

nekooni wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
My invite to the 2019 Grumpy Gits Convention must have got lost in the mail, I see the first item on the agenda is an oldy but a goody "Complaining about GW rules for the sake of it" Lets see if anyone can have any fresh ideas this year

Let's just expect the next rulebook to be error free! That's a pretty novel idea, isn't it?

Spoiler:

Thought of the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Core rules look free to me:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Battle-Primer-2017-ENG

 mokoshkana wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
My invite to the 2019 Grumpy Gits Convention must have got lost in the mail, I see the first item on the agenda is an oldy but a goody "Complaining about GW rules for the sake of it" Lets see if anyone can have any fresh ideas this year

Let's just expect the next rulebook to be error free! That's a pretty novel idea, isn't it?

Spoiler:

Thought of the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Core rules look free to me:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Battle-Primer-2017-ENG

If you think that's all you need to play a game of 40k, I have a bridge to sell you. The quote "free core rules" is marketing gimmick and nothing more.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 mokoshkana wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
My invite to the 2019 Grumpy Gits Convention must have got lost in the mail, I see the first item on the agenda is an oldy but a goody "Complaining about GW rules for the sake of it" Lets see if anyone can have any fresh ideas this year

Let's just expect the next rulebook to be error free! That's a pretty novel idea, isn't it?

Spoiler:

Thought of the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

Core rules look free to me:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Battle-Primer-2017-ENG

If you think that's all you need to play a game of 40k, I have a bridge to sell you. The quote "free core rules" is marketing gimmick and nothing more.

That plus an index will do the job. Now if you want to play cutthroat cutting edge, then yeah, you'll need more.