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 6th drops, and a whole slew of FAQs come with it.

"Great!", we think, "Now finally all those things that were confusing will be rectified!"

Well, yes, SOME of those things were cleared up, but a lot weren't.
In fact, some of the more heavily debated rules (the ones most in need of FAQ-ing) were made even more prone to debate (eg. JAWS vs Jump Infantry).

But wait, aren't we in the digital era? Doesn't GW even release the rule book and codices in digital format now? Surely updating the FAQs shouldn't be too hard now-a-days, right?

... right?

:(

...what's the deal with JOTWW and Jump Infantry anyway?

I don't know about the general consensus, but for me, it's a RAW vs RAI thing.
(eg. "Just because they have jump packs doesn't mean they should be able to escape from the giant hole the just opened up beneath them… by jumping away… like they would given any realistic situation… b-because the rules say they have to stand there and fall in!… and not activate their jump packs to get out.")

It's clear in 6th that JOTWW works on Jump Infantry as Jump Infantry is now clarified as a sub-type of Infantry.

Yes, from a RAW standpoint, the rules dictate it has to be played that way (because someone forgot to factor it in when writing the rules? wouldn't be the first time GW had made such a minor slip up that result in a major stink)... but from a "let's stop and think about this for a second" standpoint, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense (see "why the hell don't they just jump away from the hole?" example).

Really, it's JOTWW that needs to be FAQ'd, not the entry on Jump Infantry... well, okay, both should be FAQ'd, but mostly Jaws.

Not it shouldn't; This is a game and you have to make allowances for unrealistic things in order for it to work. This isn't a case of RAI vs RAW, this is fluffy wishing and that's always asinine.

I don't thing that JotWW is unrealistic for jump infantry.

The action of jumping away from a hole would be covered by the initiative test JotWW causes. In the same way a normal infantry model has to jump away, the jump troop would also have to react. Maybe they do it too slow and fall to their doom.

There's lots of ways to look at it. Maybe it takes time for the jump pack to charge up, maybe they weren't paying attention, maybe the hole in the ground has some kind of magical suction, maybe the weight of their hubris drags them down. I dunno.

But I will agree that FAQs should be answered a bit more regularly. Especially when a Frequently Asked Question gets an answer that causes more Questions to be Asked in Frequent intervals. Just things to settle disputes. Like the Necron Nightscythe troops getting put in reserves or taking S10 AP1 hits.

It's not this alone. Erratas should be made a bit more often. I don't see why they can't make a simple errata to fix a unit in a codex every so often instead of waiting for 5 years to get a new codex/brb. I'm not asking for major changes, just simple things to tide a codex over sometimes or fix something that should have been in there in the first place. I don't think it's happening nearly as often as they should.

Maybe the hole acts like a giant maw, and after opening, bites upwards?

Maybe the hole is filled with candy.

Well this got off topic quickly.

GW has a nasty habit of screwing with things in FAQs, and I for one am glad I don't need to check their website and print out yet another version before every game.

I think the amount of FAQ required is a statement about GW's rulesets.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I think the amount of FAQ required is a statement about GW's rulesets.

That they have old codices?

Gasp.

 Kaldor wrote:
Well this got off topic quickly.

GW has a nasty habit of screwing with things in FAQs, and I for one am glad I don't need to check their website and print out yet another version before every game.

There's a happy medium between "every week I need to print another damned FAQ!" and "I can't believe that haven't FAQ'ed that in 3+ years!". Nothing wrong with doing an update quarterly, or every 6 months or something.

My opinion is that GW is afraid to do the updates regularly, they don't want someone accidentally shifting balance in the game and it affecting sales either directly or indirectly. They also don't want to upset the "casual" gamer, you know, those guys that don't spend hours a week researching the game online, they don't want them getting "ambushed" by rules changes by the more hardcore players. It's a gakky policy and makes for a twitchy competitive scene to pander to the casuals. GW doesn't realize that a tighter rule set benefits all the players, and they should be striving to iron out all the oddities possible.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Well this got off topic quickly.

GW has a nasty habit of screwing with things in FAQs, and I for one am glad I don't need to check their website and print out yet another version before every game.

There's a happy medium between "every week I need to print another damned FAQ!" and "I can't believe that haven't FAQ'ed that in 3+ years!". Nothing wrong with doing an update quarterly, or every 6 months or something.

My opinion is that GW is afraid to do the updates regularly, they don't want someone accidentally shifting balance in the game and it affecting sales either directly or indirectly. They also don't want to upset the "casual" gamer, you know, those guys that don't spend hours a week researching the game online, they don't want them getting "ambushed" by rules changes by the more hardcore players. It's a gakky policy and makes for a twitchy competitive scene to pander to the casuals. GW doesn't realize that a tighter rule set benefits all the players, and they should be striving to iron out all the oddities possible.

I think part of the problem is the way GW's rules development team actually develops rules, and how the marketing and production team get them out there. For example, the 1.1 edition rulebook for Dystopian Wars was a collection of changes and FAQs that happened organically over a period of time. After a while, Spartan Games decided enough was enough, and printed a newer version of the rulebook that collected and codified all the changes that had occurred. Thus one rulebook developed into the next one. They even gave a discount to people who had bought the previous book, as it was now outdated, and the FAQ'ed rules were included in each subsequent printing of the book. If I buy the 40K rule manual, I'm dropping $140 on a book, and then I have to go and print out an FAQ article to carry around with it. Poor form, GW.

GW's rule development, in contrast to Spartan Games, is very different. Each new edition basically chucks the old one out, and starts again from scratch. While I do enjoy the refreshing change of pace each new edition brings, I think the way GW releases new editions is a huge waste of potential. Instead of collecting the FAQ'ed rules, the erratas and implementing beneficial changes and having the book develop organically, they create whole new raft of problems with each edition, which then require a new sheaf of FAQs and Erratas. None of which will be implemented in later printings of the books or codices, and which will all be required for gaming purposes until the next edition, when we go through the whole process again.

And with regards to the FAQ's, I think there are many reasons they aren't updated more frequently and with more comprehensive results. I honestly doubt there is any kind of studio meeting that deals with FAQ's, I think maybe one of the crew logs on whenever they feel like it, and updates whatever they feel like. It just doesn't seem like a structured process with group input. Further, I think the desire to not have more casual gamers feel 'ambushed' as you put it, is very strong.

Because they are lazy old nerds that live under illusion of being business sharks, a combination that could lead them to sad end all sitting in the last 2 square meters shop sleeping on landraider boxes and chewing finecast to survive.

 skoffs wrote:
Yes, from a RAW standpoint, the rules dictate it has to be played that way (because someone forgot to factor it in when writing the rules? wouldn't be the first time GW had made such a minor slip up that result in a major stink)... but from a "let's stop and think about this for a second" standpoint, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense (see "why the hell don't they just jump away from the hole?" example).

Really, it's JOTWW that needs to be FAQ'd, not the entry on Jump Infantry... well, okay, both should be FAQ'd, but mostly Jaws.

Do not even start trying to make sense of the rules. It will drive you mad and make ya become a bitter man.

Just one thing to think about: the biggest vehicle in the game lacking deepstrike immunity.

Thanks, I'm out.

 Trickstick wrote:
I don't thing that JotWW is unrealistic for jump infantry.

The action of jumping away from a hole would be covered by the initiative test JotWW causes. In the same way a normal infantry model has to jump away, the jump troop would also have to react. Maybe they do it too slow and fall to their doom.

you know some jump infantry dont use any form of jet or jump packs , they just hover .

Makumba wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
I don't thing that JotWW is unrealistic for jump infantry.

The action of jumping away from a hole would be covered by the initiative test JotWW causes. In the same way a normal infantry model has to jump away, the jump troop would also have to react. Maybe they do it too slow and fall to their doom.

you know some jump infantry dont use any form of jet or jump packs , they just hover .

Do 'Nid Gargoyles fall into the Jaws hole? If so... don't those guys have wings?

But anyway, the JOTWW vs Jump Infantry might not have been the best example to use.
I'm a Necron player, so how about the two most ridiculous examples from that codex: Deathmarks marking multiple units via Veil Of Darkness, and units embarked on a Nightscythe taking crash damage.

Both are examples of rules that were overlooked while the most recent FAQs were being written.
RAW advocates claim that, because it's written that way, that's the way it's gotta be played.
Though anyone who takes a look at things in context can see that OBVIOUSLY that's not how these things are meant to be played!

TL;DR- how do I get in contact with GW quality control?

It's magic. That's how everything gets sucked into it. Space viking magic. It's hardly the least believable thing in the game.

 Brother SRM wrote:
It's magic. That's how everything gets sucked into it. Space viking magic. It's hardly the least believable thing in the game.

Space Viking Magic that totally isn't Warp Magic, honest!

 Brother SRM wrote:
It's magic. That's how everything gets sucked into it. Space viking magic. It's hardly the least believable thing in the game.

Well I for one believe in Viking Space Magic (TM).

GW have no interest in making a coherent well balanced and edited rule set. They certainly have little interest in errating,

Senior members have stated that they don't give a gak.

Because FAQ's aren't about collecting models, which GW has said they consider the priority of "the hobby".

 Harriticus wrote:
Because FAQ's aren't about collecting models, which GW has said they consider the priority of "the hobby".

So why did they release about 15 of them a week after the 6th edition release? And then another completely new set about a month after?

Honestly.

... because it would help sell models?

 Testify wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
Because FAQ's aren't about collecting models, which GW has said they consider the priority of "the hobby".

So why did they release about 15 of them a week after the 6th edition release? And then another completely new set about a month after?

Honestly.

After sending the rules to print months before release, they THEN decided to let people test them....
At least it was only a week after release.

The 1.1 FAQs were a result of the furore from the customers.
This proves that the playtesting was not good enough before the rush to release, and still not good enough before retail-day.

The real question is still "Why does GW not regularly update their codices?".
It's lack of effort, and driven by the new models they release for each codex. No models, no codex

 Kaldor wrote:

GW has a nasty habit of screwing with things in FAQs, and I for one am glad I don't need to check their website and print out yet another version before every game.

They clearly don't spend much time on FAQs, with the posted ones chok full of spelling, grammar, and just plain errors.

I agree that for a signifigant part of their base, finding the rules updated too often or too drastically would be an issue. I do think they need to do more serious updates though, for fluff, feel and balance.
I cant believe the FAQs that came out with 6th were so poorly written and thought out. It seems like 15 people wrote them without so much as meeting or talking to one another. Some of them look as if they weren't done with the codex in hand or at least not done in English.

I suggest that the codexes should be Errataed once a year, on a specific date. Advertise it, like on May 1st new Erratas are going to come out, get ready. You could speculate that the price of vendettas, mandrakes and grey hunters will change, but who knows. What you would know is that on May 1st or sometime shortly after you would need to go online and print out a page or two for your army, after that you wouldnt need to worry about it for another year. The random, poorly done, minor updates are worse than a scheduled, well thought out, major update annually.

^
excellent Idea!
(though, they'd probably need to make it bi-annually at first, until they fix all the current ridiculous crap and bring it all into line)

The issue with JotWW is annoying, because the rules as written in the codex specifically state that Jump Infantry are not impacted, but because the BRB changed the wording for Jump Infantry to Infantry,Jump, the natural rules lawyer approach is that JotWW now hits Jump Infantry.

RAI is pretty clear that it shouldn't impact those units, and that is how my friends and I play it. Did the Rune Priests do some extra studying between 5th and 6th to make it suddenly impact units it normally couldn't before??? From a common sense approach, there is no justification beyond a poor choice of word phrasing in the BRB to change those units impacted by JotWW.

I don't have my books with me at the moment, but I seem to recall that Jetbikes weren't hit by JotWW originally, but with the most recent FAQ, it does now with no real explanation. If that's true, all I can say is, "WTF GW?" Feel free to correct me on that one, because I honestly can't remember.