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 guess they did hear the screaming.  The more important thing is that it sounds like they're reviewing some other FAQs.  Maybe there's hope after all.

From the Eye of Terror:

A message from Alessio about the Tyranid FAQ:

When compiling the FAQs, we now try to apply the RAW principle explained by Jervis Johnson in his Standard Bearer article in this month's White Dwarf.

In the case of the Tyranids, this would mean that they should be killed by weapons of Strength 9 or more. That's what the book states.

The feedback we received from some of our customers has highlighted that in the case of the Tyranids we might have applied the principle too strictly, as one could argue that if a weapon has a Strength of "more than double their Toughness", it also has a Strength of "double their Toughness". We found out as well that some of our international studios had translated the sentence as "double or more their Toughness", so that the rules were different in different parts of the globe.

We therefore decided to change the second Q&A of the Tyranids in line with the more commonly accepted reading of the rule (check the Errata for the latest version).

We'd like to point out that this is an exception to the rule, and that in general we will stick to the RAW principle as much as we can.

We are sorry for any confusion this issue might have caused for Tyranid players and we'd like to thank all the customers that have sent us their feedback.

Alessio Cavatore, Games Development

+++++++++++++

Also:
We have taken down the old postings with some designer responses to rules questions as many of these were out of date, covered in new books, or in general due for rethinking (or all three). All have been gathered together for the studio FAQ team to review and use in new FAQ files though. Thanks again to everyone for suggesting new items to cover, and special thanks to the people who are working on consolidating them up for us!

 

SWEET! I want to work on the GW FAQ Team. Two years of collecting a paycheck and not having to produce a single line of written work. It's almost as good as having a government job.

Seriously though...maybe they will finally listed and we can look forward to some useable FAQs.

Well, hats off to them for admitting their mistake.

And shame on them for not realizing ......THIS IS WHY YOU NEED VERSION NUMBERS.

Two steps forward, two steps back.

-The design team motto

Now if they would just admit to all of the other mistakes

Alrighty, this means they learned from their mistake and probably will not post designer notes again to avoid this kind of FUBAR situation.  Nice.

I THOUGHT I saw a pig fly by...

At least they're being steered towards the RAW concept rather than "Rules As Intended". I agree with the concept of adding revision numbers as well, or even a date of publication.

Pig! Fly!
I saw it too.

Well... I guess there are some cold people in Hell today... I wonder how long the cold-spell will last.

I think I prefer two steps forward, one step back and one step to the left. Not as concise as yours I admit but will draw a nice little circle as they wrap themselves in further knots.

Now, lets all restart the WBB argument with this in mind .......

Surely I must be dreaming (pinches self)... hmmm, nope. Ok, who hijacked Teh Intarnet and put that hoax up? Come on, speak up!

But...... it has not been changed yet on the website. Will they be changing the errata?

I always could deal with fearless creatures who have IB, even it makes Lictors the WORST scouts ever.

The more than double T thing, that was just a stupid way to word that rule.

I believe they already fixed the FAQ today. I was just reading it and it appears updated.

Darrian

Two small steps, but actually listening to their player base and admitting/correcting a mistake are two steps in the right direction for GW.

*insert applause*

Where are you looking, I just tried US and UK and saw no changes?

So now that they've realized their mistake with the 'Nids, what's it gonna take to get them to figure out how bad they are shafting Tau Pathfinders?

The Tau get no love.

The feedback we received from some of our customers...

Made my day!

Tau will get love. Just look at the sales charts

I'm sure that it will be another two years before the FAQ is updated to reflect this.

Hell, look at the thread they had for the "fourth printing" of the chaos codex that was going straight to the Dev desk.. that one got put up pretty fast.

 

 

Umm... Yeah... I just compared the "updated" FAQ with the old one I saved and they are identical... So is this just another example of GW excelling at all they do or some sort of Jedi mind trick gone awry?

I am impressed that all of us emailing them has actually done something, but they still need to fix that IB ruling. Or is it just too much to ask? Only one miracle per decade?

Yeah, the one I've downloaded is unchanged.

And I was just finishing painting up my 4 Raveners...I'm going to wait and see this 'corrected FAQ' before I bother.

I sincerely hope tha tthis is not a hoax, it would be great to see some sensible changes.

I thought it was refreshing to see Alessio's name attached to it.  He does seem to be the guy who cares.

Alessio was the guy that translated the English "double" to the Italian "double or more" so he's partly responsible for the situation.

I'm impressed that GW took 11 months (?) to issue an FAQ for 4th edition Nids and then about a week to issue a correction. It makes you think the storm of protest on EoT and elsewhere had an effect.

It also makes you wonder why it should be so easy to change things when it took so long to decide about them in the first place. Not to mention the quality control that led to different rules being in effect in different languages.

And what about the other FAQs? The Tau Empire FAQ is still an utter disgrace, a pathetic excuse for product support regardless of how popular Tau are or not. (Actually Tau being popular might act to delay their fixes. Nids are not a popular army -- I think they're third from bottom -- and got jumped onto damn quick once players started complaining.)

One swallow does not a summer make...

"Pig! Fly!
I saw it too"

You think that's amazing, guess where that monkey friend of his flew out of!!!

Wait just a damn minute.

They didn't retract anything! They just UNDERLINED a few different words and told us that this is an EXCEPTION to the rule?

The rule being that "strength double toughness" should read "strength double OR MORE toughness"...

At least that's what I am getting out of this...

I mean break this down... the stuff in red is what I am gathering this theory about.

 

The feedback we received from some of our customers has highlighted that in the case of the Tyranids we might have applied the principle too strictly, as one could argue that if a weapon has a Strength of "more than double their Toughness", it also has a Strength of "double their Toughness". We found out as well that some of our international studios had translated the sentence as "double or more their Toughness", so that the rules were different in different parts of the globe.

We therefore decided to change the second Q&A of the Tyranids in line with the more commonly accepted reading of the rule (check the Errata for the latest version).

We'd like to point out that this is an exception to the rule, and that in general we will stick to the RAW principle as much as we can.

So what they are saying is that anywhere else in the rules that it says "Strength of double toughness" that it literally translates to 'strength of at least double toughness'.

They underlined the words in the FAQ to show that in this case ONLY is it EXACTLY strength double toughness.

They didn't change anything, they just addressed the whirlwind feedback they got about the WBB and such....

They have not changed the FAQ yet. The FAQ is still the same underlined one that was up last week. I am sure it will take them a bit to change it and roll it out to all the websites.