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.

Everyone needs to polite up or I will close this thread and ban more people. Seriously.

Lysenis wrote:Considering that both of those were just a copy and paste of Yakface's idiotic FAQ's

Speaking of idiotic, no apostrophe required in FAQs my friend.

Just think of the confusion that could have caused if you were writing rules or things!

Also, I like the INAT FAQs, they aren't Yakface's (oh look, correct usage of that pesky, possessive apostrophe here ) but are created by a group of people dedicating their free time to making the game playable in tournament, not, as in some other cases, driven by personal ego or lack of gainful employment.

Finding people to play will not be hard, even with the new rules all GW *coughs-Yakface-* has done is:

Messed up my Deployment options
Fixed a few rules that should have gone differntly
Runined my Tervigon's prowess
Made Lashwhips as useless as a Pyrovore
Made EVERY BLOODLY Psyker invincible while in a transport
as well as a few other things. . .

Even with ALL this I will still likely win or have some mesaure of "fun" because I am a Water Tactician, I flow with the tide of battle.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Very interesting to see how many of the most contentious and hotly argued questions in YMDC recently were answered here by the creators with answers very different to the 'RAW' absolutes that were proffered as 'the truth' regardless of playability.

It suggests there is a very very strong disconnect between those most vocal and supportive of 'RAW' mentality and the thinking from the Games Workshop creative studio...

Couldn't have said it better, and its not the first time this has happened (see WH and LRBT with new guard codex debate)

And though I may not agree with every ruling in the FAQ, i'm glad they at least tackled the harder questions "doom etc" and did not just ignore them, as they have done in past FAQ's.

Also the fact that there are both people happy and mad with this ruling means its probably done just about right.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Lysenis wrote:Considering that both of those were just a copy and paste of Yakface's idiotic FAQ's

Speaking of idiotic, no apostrophe required in FAQs my friend.

Just think of the confusion that could have caused if you were writing rules or things!

Also, I like the INAT FAQs, they aren't Yakface's (oh look, correct usage of that pesky, possessive apostrophe here ) but are created by a group of people dedicating their free time to making the game playable in tournament, not, as in some other cases, driven by personal ego or lack of gainful employment.

Tell me why then that an army that I love to play, that are fun to play, that all ready were considered the MOST BALANCED army of the current 40k edition needs to be neuters further? Yes they dedicate their free time for tournament play but last time I checked when they MADE the FAQ yakface said that NO ONE in INAT would be playing Tyranids. I wonder why?

As for my Grammar, I have no excuse but the lack of caring about such things. It may be vital for people to consider my credibility but if something like that is needed or such a simple thing then people are getting to shallow.

Lysenis wrote:Finding people to play will not be hard, even with the new rules all GW *coughs-Yakface-* has done is:

Messed up my Deployment options
They have merely removed a couple of options; you still have plenty of others.
Fixed a few rules that should have gone differntly
In your opinion.
Runined my Tervigon's prowess
Really?
Made Lashwhips as useless as a Pyrovore
It's hardly made any change at all. Things charging with FC will still attack after anything with a Laswhip, and the only unit that gets to ignore them are Banshees on the turn they charge. How often are you really going to run into that?
Made EVERY BLOODLY Psyker invincible while in a transport
Then pop the transport. That's what things like Hive Guard are for, right?
as well as a few other things. . .

Even with ALL this I will still likely win or have some mesaure of "fun" because I am a Water Tactician, I flow with the tide of battle.

Hyperbole much?

IMHO, you're completely over-reacting.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Gwar, whilst I understand your disappointment in GW not adhering to your stance, it's their rulebook and their FAQ/Errata.

The thing that immediately leaps to mind is that rather than waste your time writing unofficial FAQs or adjudicating according to a style that GW themselves don't hold with, that you write your own rules, from scratch.

And no, I'm not being underhand or subtly implying here, you have this passion for rules and applications and use of wording.

So apply it, write a minitures wargame, from scratch and set the bar for it precisely as you wish it, because it definately does not fit the GW design studio's ethos regarding casual play and 'the most important rule' (BGB).

Oh, I can't do that. If I did that, GW Would just send a C&D! Or threaten legal action aganst me because I had the nerve to have my FAQ stolen by them.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Gwar, whilst I understand your disappointment in GW not adhering to your stance, it's their rulebook and their FAQ/Errata.

The thing that immediately leaps to mind is that rather than waste your time writing unofficial FAQs or adjudicating according to a style that GW themselves don't hold with, that you write your own rules, from scratch.

And no, I'm not being underhand or subtly implying here, you have this passion for rules and applications and use of wording.

So apply it, write a minitures wargame, from scratch and set the bar for it precisely as you wish it, because it definately does not fit the GW design studio's ethos regarding casual play and 'the most important rule' (BGB).

Oh, I can't do that. If I did that, GW Would just send a C&D!

No, just write a totally new rules set, perhaps even locate some mini company and talk to them about their existing or a future sci-fi mini range and create your own game, from nothing.

You would have entire mastery over it and then you could have your own gwars to battle over the internet about the flaws in your rules (but how could there be any right...?)

Gwar! wrote:
Or threaten legal action aganst me because I had the nerve to have my FAQ stolen by them.

Not sure what that means? You said in a previous post you think GW released these FAQs to spite you and now you think GW stole your FAQ? Why aren't you taking legal action then?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Not sure what that means? You said in a previous post you think GW released these FAQs to spite you and now you think GW stole your FAQ? Why aren't you taking legal action then?

Because I don't gak out money and can't afford 98 lawyers.

Glad to see you are going against your previous stance with all this passive aggressive trolling. Classy.

But I give up. All that will happen is me getting banned again.
Whatever.

Saldiven wrote:

Lysenis wrote:Finding people to play will not be hard, even with the new rules all GW *coughs-Yakface-* has done is:

Messed up my Deployment options
They have merely removed a couple of options; you still have plenty of others.
Fixed a few rules that should have gone differntly
In your opinion.
Runined my Tervigon's prowess
Really?
Made Lashwhips as useless as a Pyrovore
It's hardly made any change at all. Things charging with FC will still attack after anything with a Laswhip, and the only unit that gets to ignore them are Banshees on the turn they charge. How often are you really going to run into that?
Made EVERY BLOODLY Psyker invincible while in a transport
Then pop the transport. That's what things like Hive Guard are for, right?
as well as a few other things. . .

Even with ALL this I will still likely win or have some mesaure of "fun" because I am a Water Tactician, I flow with the tide of battle.

Hyperbole much?

IMHO, you're completely over-reacting.

Do the Number Crunch, and look at the rules. Bascily I could give a nice lenghty reason as to why each of these things are a problem.

I.E. can a SM IC join a squad in a Drop Pod? They can correct? Well I can not now so my sacrifical Warriors with Twin Boneswords are going to run in at their basic weapon skill and get slaughtered by that obligatory Power Fist. (This is only one point of this as well)

FINALLY! No more bitching about Mawlocs and Dooms . . . =D

I don't even play 'Nids and I wasn happy with how they worked before, as that's how the codex was to be read. But now with these FAQs done, I just have to remember that the Doom isn't quite as hard =p

Oshova

Oh and Lysenis, sorry, but your anti-Yakface agenda in your comments, given that all I've encountered from him has been a fairly selfless and laid back individual, has led me to ceasing any humouring of your comments over your tyranids.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Oh and Lysenis, sorry, but your anti-Yakface agenda in your comments, given that all I've encountered from him has been a fairly selfless and laid back individual, has led me to ceasing any humouring of your comments over your tyranids.

Last I checked INAT was a group of minds that came together to create what people call wonderful FAQs, Yakface poseted these and has even gotten Credit from GW on a few of their FAQs from what I have seen. Nicely done and all. This does not mean that some rules that were changed should have been (I.E. A cover save for a non shooting attack? That would go against BRB instantly)

Lysenis wrote:As for my Grammar, I have no excuse but the lack of caring about such things. It may be vital for people to consider my credibility but if something like that is needed or such a simple thing then people are getting to shallow.

I think Meangreen was just noting the hypocrisy of using incorrect grammar to complain about RAW not being crystal clear due to the occasional poorly chosen word or phrase. Don't worry about it- nobody's perfect.

I am a big advocate of common sense and RAI but would like to see more consistency in these FAQs. Where a ruling is seemingly arbitrary, I would like to see the reasoning behind it (though I may just be spoiled by GWAR!'s FAQs). They have really pushed the tactical side of nids in this edition (swarmlord etc) but have taken away options people might have taken for granted (like ICs in a pod). Perhaps they just wanted more differentiation between sm and nid pods but I'd really like to know the thought process behind it.

Lysenis wrote: (I.E. A cover save for a non shooting attack? That would go against BRB instantly)

who are you to make such statements? maybe its you written BRB?

Lysenis wrote:
I.E. can a SM IC join a squad in a Drop Pod? They can correct? Well I can not now so my sacrifical Warriors with Twin Boneswords are going to run in at their basic weapon skill and get slaughtered by that obligatory Power Fist. (This is only one point of this as well)

The SM Drop Pod is a vehicle. The Spod is not. The rules for IC's joining a unit held in reserve and using their dedicated transport do not apply to a Monstrous Creature that has a special rule that mimic SOME aspects of a transport vehicle.

Don't run with twin boneswords, then. "Obligatory Powerfists" kill 1-2 of most everything; why should your 'Nids be exempt?

This is not an attack on your person; merely an attempt to show that you're completely over-reacting.

I would LOVE to see an explantion next to each question on why they came to that conclusion, if they were to do that I think people like myself would be a tad more receptive even if we hate it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

penek wrote:

Lysenis wrote: (I.E. A cover save for a non shooting attack? That would go against BRB instantly)

who are you to make such statements? maybe its you written BRB?

BRB states that a cover save can ONLY be taken against a Shooting attack, tell me where Spirit Leech is a shooting attack.

Lysenis wrote:I would LOVE to see an explantion next to each question on why they came to that conclusion, if they were to do that I think people like myself would be a tad more receptive even if we hate it.

Don't be silly. That's a Reasonable and good idea. GW are allergic to those.

Incidentally, does anyone have an explanation for why shadow of the warp would affect a lib-dread but not one in a rhino? I can't think of one by fluff, rules or general GW attitude. They might just be trying to cement that embarked units are safe? Do they think it's too complicated? Are they trying to sell more Landraiders (if that's possible)?

Saldiven wrote:

Lysenis wrote:
I.E. can a SM IC join a squad in a Drop Pod? They can correct? Well I can not now so my sacrifical Warriors with Twin Boneswords are going to run in at their basic weapon skill and get slaughtered by that obligatory Power Fist. (This is only one point of this as well)

The SM Drop Pod is a vehicle. The Spod is not. The rules for IC's joining a unit held in reserve and using their dedicated transport do not apply to a Monstrous Creature that has a special rule that mimic SOME aspects of a transport vehicle.

Don't run with twin boneswords, then. "Obligatory Powerfists" kill 1-2 of most everything; why should your 'Nids be exempt?

This is not an attack on your person; merely an attempt to show that you're completely over-reacting.

While I can agree with that on a few points, so then an option that was avalible to me is now completly useless, or if used would cause a tantamount of foolishness that could be avoided. In this sense it is like taking a Pyrovore. . . . why would you? As for me over reacting, I think not, I have tred the INAT FAQ and it has proven to weaken the codex further to just barely about C:CSM I have still pulled off win after win though because of my tactics. Now GW has further decreased their capabilities.

Soup and a roll wrote:Incidentally, does anyone have an explanation for why shadow of the warp would affect a lib-dread but not one in a rhino? I can't think of one by fluff, rules or general GW attitude. They might just be trying to cement that embarked units are safe? Do they think it's too complicated? Are they trying to sell more Landraiders (if that's possible)?

It's because GW are staffed by complete morons who don't actually know the rules.

Soup and a roll wrote:Incidentally, does anyone have an explanation for why shadow of the warp would affect a lib-dread but not one in a rhino? I can't think of one by fluff, rules or general GW attitude. They might just be trying to cement that embarked units are safe? Do they think it's too complicated? Are they trying to sell more Landraiders (if that's possible)?

Well the Lib Dread is not embarked so it does not get the "SAFE! While in a Transport" ideal that GW is pushing unless it is in a Stormraven, and it is likely to sell more Landraiders.

The bit about Shadow in the Warp not working against Psykers in transports is strange. Does that also mean Psychic Hoods are useless against embarked Psykers? The wording in determining what is eligible to defend against is pretty similar.

Being able to take cover saves against the Doom and Mawlocs only further hammers in the point that 'Nids have issues attacking things in cover and in transports.

Ah well, at least Hive Guard still work...

Frazzled wrote:Everyone needs to polite up or I will close this thread and ban more people. Seriously.

I'm just posting because I find the phrase "polite up" to be utterly hilarious.

The next question is if members in transports can be affected by a polite up attack, or if they get a cover save.

Something tells me that whichever way it's ruled (by Yakface no less!), Frazzled wins.

Lysenis wrote:I would LOVE to see an explantion next to each question on why they came to that conclusion, if they were to do that I think people like myself would be a tad more receptive even if we hate it.

I doubt this very much...There would be just as much teeth gnashing, as people would start railing against how much they thought those "explanations" were idiotic or moronic. Why would GW open themselves up to more irrational nerdrage?

GG

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Not sure what that means? You said in a previous post you think GW released these FAQs to spite you and now you think GW stole your FAQ? Why aren't you taking legal action then?

Because I don't gak out money and can't afford 98 lawyers.

Glad to see you are going against your previous stance with all this passive aggressive trolling. Classy.

But I give up. All that will happen is me getting banned again.
Whatever.

Fairly unnecessary gwar. Still, I'm bowing out of this until it simmers back and we can examine what the new changes mean for the game without the 'they're not real!!1!' screeching and self martyring you seem to be experiencing because a company that's never heard of you didn't do what you told them to.

...King Canute sat on the beach and told the waves 'Get out of reach!'...

Saldiven wrote:The SM Drop Pod is a vehicle. The Spod is not. The rules for IC's joining a unit held in reserve and using their dedicated transport do not apply to a Monstrous Creature that has a special rule that mimic SOME aspects of a transport vehicle.

Although now you're making a RAW argument in the context of an FAQ full of RAI answers.

The proper question is why GW had the *intent* to disallow Primes from joining spore-borne units. It's the only IC in the army, not overpowered, designed to accompany and buff units, and there's plenty of precedent for similar mechanics in other armies.

I think there's a lot of overreaction here, as most of the stuff that really works for Tyranids will still work just fine. However, IMO I think there are a few legitimate design and philosophy issues with the codex/FAQ.

I know i probably wont even bother finishing painting my nids, let alone playing them for the forseeable future, shame really as theyre my newest army.

I don't really know why people are complaining so much. (with the exception of the Blood Angels dread, that's just nonsense)
We have a codex update. Some of the rules changes are mislabeled errata & FAQ.
They've changed rules between codex releases. I'm a fan of this.
I'm hoping they'll take up this pattern and maintain updates to other books.

And for the Nid players complaining about shadows of the warp and transports. Get over it, really.
So Njal is protected in a Rhino. That's one less Razorback to deal with.
At least you can punch him out of the tank.
With my (initiative 2) necrons, I need to score a minimum of 3 weapon destroyed/immobilized glances to extradite him from his battle toaster.

kill dem stunties wrote:I know i probably wont even bother finishing painting my nids, let alone playing them for the forseeable future, shame really as theyre my newest army.

All because of an FAQ? Kind of an odd logic but I'd say play it anyway and see how it goes, you'd surprise yourself.