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.

Well, that's depressing....

What do you bet kirby axed them because he feels that acknowledging any mistake or problem with a product to be anathema to their current egotistical donkey-cave business model.

 Ovion wrote:
Ah, my mistake.

Codex specifies Gun, Marker and Sniper drones.

Though it'd still be pretty nasty with the Sniper Drones, as they benefit from the stealth too.
And at 3pts cheaper than just buying a missile pod, I would defiantely pay that 24pts per Sniper Squad + Ethereal for 2.

Sniper drones are a fairly sexy model (at least as far as the drones go).

 Crablezworth wrote:
Well, that's depressing....

What do you bet kirby axed them because he feels that acknowledging any mistake or problem with a product to be anathema to their current egotistical donkey-cave business model.

That's what I am most concerned about. GW might feel having FAQs implies that their rules are not perfectly thought-out, and therefore not worth their premium price. Customer Service could simply be instructed to say "it'll be here eventually" indefinitely, waiting till the issue simply fades away. Whether it fades away or not, however...

Still, I will try to be hopeful that this is not the case. I always *try* to give GW the benefit of the doubt on these things, though it's been a frustrating situation in the past.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Ovion wrote:
Ah, my mistake.

Codex specifies Gun, Marker and Sniper drones.

Though it'd still be pretty nasty with the Sniper Drones, as they benefit from the stealth too.
And at 3pts cheaper than just buying a missile pod, I would defiantely pay that 24pts per Sniper Squad + Ethereal for 2.

Sniper drones are a fairly sexy model (at least as far as the drones go).

Yeah, I like them... just not the price tag, especially when I run 18-27 of them...

I made my own that I really like which are basically a sleeker version of the actual model, there's a how-to in my P&M blog I think...
I've made improvements since too, but keep forgetting to take pictures.


ALSO: so as far as I know, these are all the latest WH40K FAQs for those that don't have them:
http://www.mediafire.com/download/7hp0f11f34ao5p7/WH40K-FAQs.rar

If the FAQs are gone for good, I'd be done with 40k. We limp on with books that work because of FAQs/errata that keeps thing somewhat sane, more so with the 4e/5e books in 6e.

I have the crazy hope that someday, the FAQs would all rollover in one big wave and we'd be like 'bout damn time! But we'd have fixes (hopefully for the better, but an official answer is still an answer, love it or hate it).

The act of zero facts would kill the entire support of the gameplay part of their product. That'd be the last straw for me.

 TheKbob wrote:
If the FAQs are gone for good, I'd be done with 40k. We limp on with books that work because of FAQs/errata that keeps thing somewhat sane, more so with the 4e/5e books in 6e.

I have the crazy hope that someday, the FAQs would all rollover in one big wave and we'd be like 'bout damn time! But we'd have fixes (hopefully for the better, but an official answer is still an answer, love it or hate it).

The act of zero facts would kill the entire support of the gameplay part of their product. That'd be the last straw for me.

Agreed.

It's the crux of the problem facing jervis, if he wants to make it d&d without a game master, the rules better make some god damn sense. Paying someone to tell you to flip a freakin coin is the real definition of insanity.

1 year without FAQ's is a freaking joke.

Get it done, peeps!

 kronk wrote:
1 year without FAQ's is a freaking joke.

Get it done, peeps!

What are you talking about, kronk?

The game has been perfect for a whole year now!

Technically won't be a year till September...but yes, more FAQs are better than less.

This thread seems to have a lot of unnecessary drama. GW has a new web-site, which has been up for less than a day, and they have not added the FAQ section yet.

I also suspect that rapid release of FAQs and Erratas is not as severe an issue as many on this thread are positing. Codices are not released very frequently to begin with, and the issues that are present are not outside the reach of careful reading and prudent thinking.

madric wrote:
This thread seems to have a lot of unnecessary drama. GW has a new web-site, which has been up for less than a day, and they have not added the FAQ section yet.

I also suspect that rapid release of FAQs and Erratas is not as severe an issue as many on this thread are positing. Codices are not released very frequently to begin with, and the issues that are present are not outside the reach of careful reading and prudent thinking.

Lack of availability screws players over when it comes to options in codexes (missile drones, cost of Helbrute, all the missing DA wargear....). Not only that, but it includes erratas for old books (DE's access to AP2 to instance) and rule disputes that were cleared up by the FAQs.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Technically won't be a year till September...but yes, more FAQs are better than less.

Nobody counts a tweak on servo-arms as an update. Because that's all September really was. The core rules haven't been updated in a year and majority of codex issues between then and now are not being addressed.

Is Codex LotD fixed yet, even? Or are they eternal losers?

madric wrote:
This thread seems to have a lot of unnecessary drama. GW has a new web-site, which has been up for less than a day, and they have not added the FAQ section yet.

I also suspect that rapid release of FAQs and Erratas is not as severe an issue as many on this thread are positing. Codices are not released very frequently to begin with, and the issues that are present are not outside the reach of careful reading and prudent thinking.

Errata especially is often needed quite often.
FAQs potentially less so...

But look at what changes without the Errata/FAQ from Dark Angels alone!
And when questions are answered, it's often not that many, or not ones that really help.

Plus so many older books need to work with the new rules, it's pretty required.

The problem is - new website (That's honestly worse, with less info overall and is just a basic cheapo web-store.), that has NO support for the game, nor a place for it.
Add in the official response is 'eventually'...



That said, Razorwings as Skimmers again would be amazing.

 TheKbob wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Technically won't be a year till September...but yes, more FAQs are better than less.

Nobody counts a tweak on servo-arms as an update. Because that's all September really was. The core rules haven't been updated in a year and majority of codex issues between then and now are not being addressed.

Is Codex LotD fixed yet, even? Or are they eternal losers?

Eternal losers when apparently not meant to be a stand alone army.

madric wrote:
This thread seems to have a lot of unnecessary drama. GW has a new web-site, which has been up for less than a day, and they have not added the FAQ section yet.

I also suspect that rapid release of FAQs and Erratas is not as severe an issue as many on this thread are positing. Codices are not released very frequently to begin with, and the issues that are present are not outside the reach of careful reading and prudent thinking.

You're selling rules to a game at a higher cost than any other like company. You would think that having the FAQs/Errata available that makes certain armies even playable in the current game edition would be a top proirity.

You should really go back and read the FAQs and Errata for the game books and correct your second paragraph. If you think it's that easy, go fix all the problems in YMDC. Go ahead, I'll watch. Let me go grab popcorn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Eternal losers when apparently not meant to be a stand alone army.

Then why does it say Codex and not Supplement and outlines taking them as a Primary Detachment and a Warlord?

Massive oversight.

Oversight that could be fixed with a Dev note honestly. The mini Dex allows you to take them as allies (or ally an army to them) outside of needing C:SM. That's pretty much all the mini Dex s seem to be designed to do.

Come on it's pretty hilarious that you can play an army that auto loses on the first turn. I wish someone would have taken an all LOTD army to adepticon. That would have been wonderful

Hollismason wrote:
Come on it's pretty hilarious that you can play an army that auto loses on the first turn. I wish someone would have taken an all LOTD army to adepticon. That would have been wonderful

Necrons with everyone in fliers!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Oversight that could be fixed with a Dev note honestly. The mini Dex allows you to take them as allies (or ally an army to them) outside of needing C:SM. That's pretty much all the mini Dex s seem to be designed to do.

I agree, so bill it as such. The way they sold it implies it's a standalone playable army. Semantics, but we play wargames. The entire ability to discuss rules and gameplay is founded on semantics.

It's something that should be fixed and is easy to fix, but is not. Just another piece of evidence that implies things are being phoned in.


And yes, I'd have loved to build an army of all LotD so I could spend time to setup models and do all this effort. Maybe ally in the Space Marine Formation for the three flyers. Have this fancy display board, act like everything is cool... and then after my first turn shake the hand of my opponent and go "Beer?".

META. CHANGER.

I hear S6 AP 6 rending large blasts are good for 30 point? Yeah, vaul's support battery is back to being silly! (the ONE AND ONLY entry in the whole eldar faq, despite things like underslung falcon weapon exchange not having a ruling).

Already stopped playing 40k competitively due to stupid power creep. If they are just going to release the dam on all the stupidity they have printed I'm probably getting out of the game.

Please see my thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/589195.page#top

It has all the FAQs on it

 Wulfmar wrote:
Please see my thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/589195.page#top

It has all the FAQs on it

1. You didn't need to create a whole additional thread, it could have easily gone here

2. We are aware there are multiple ways to get a copy of the FAQs. That is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not GW is going to continue making FAQs, and if the current lack of FAQs on the site is indicative of them simply getting out of the FAQ-making business. They could easily bring the FAQs back, but that doesn't mean that they will continue to make more. Or maybe they will, I don't know. But still, it is disconcerting they didn't simply add them in the first place, plus the site has lost all manner of gaming-related materials.

 Accolade wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
Please see my thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/589195.page#top

It has all the FAQs on it

1. You didn't need to create a whole additional thread, it could have easily gone here

2. We are aware there are multiple ways to get a copy of the FAQs. That is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not GW is going to continue making FAQs, and if the current lack of FAQs on the site is indicative of them simply getting out of the FAQ-making business. They could easily bring the FAQs back, but that doesn't mean that they will continue to make more. Or maybe they will, I don't know.

Plus linking a thread, that just has another link in it is annoying in and of itself.

Add in that I'd already posted a direct link here a few post ago....

My apologies for trying to be helpful.

Additional apologies for making a clear thread to make life easier for people to find rather than scrawling through 5 pages of text.


I have learned my lesson and shall adjust my posting in future.

Making the thread is fine, and it's good being helpful.
But linking to your mirror here, as opposed to the other thread would have been better.

No worries, friend, And I apologize if I came off as derogatory. I think the comment in your thread about this thread being a "complaint" thread threw me off, I feel like people have being shoving a lot of discussions off as general complaints, or "hating," and so I've been getting more easily frustrated.

But yes, the FAQs are out and about, we will just have to see what GW's big plan is with them.

 Wulfmar wrote:
My apologies for trying to be helpful.

Additional apologies for making a clear thread to make life easier for people to find rather than scrawling through 5 pages of text.


I have learned my lesson and shall adjust my posting in future.

That'll teach you!

Teasing, of course. I appreciate the effort being made.

People are already upset over the rapid release schedule that kicks out units and books that need errata day one just due to poor writing. Then we just hit the one year point for any form of meaningful release. Now we have a brand new website that prioritised model sales and nothing else; if this is a hobby, where's that third pillar? You know, the game?

No worries one and all - I re-read the thread I had made - The comment about 'rant' threads was more a general comment as I've seen a fair few on different sites today - wasn't directed at any one thread in particular but I can see how it could be viewed. Have edited accordingly

The million dollar question is whether the FAQ is still legal or not. It's official GW material but it's not available through their channels. Would that make it outdated or just temporarily unavailable?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The million dollar question is whether the FAQ is still legal or not. It's official GW material but it's not available through their channels. Would that make it outdated or just temporarily unavailable?

Okay, so this is just my guess, but....

Saying that GW does NOT bring back the FAQs (i.e. they're fibbing), I would guess the FAQs will maintain legality through tournaments for a time until either:

(a) 7th edition comes out. All old FAQs won't be of value obvisouly. Now if no FAQs come out after that...pandemonium! (or perhaps some gnashing of teeth)

(b) 6.5 edition comes out. In this case, I'm guessing they'll stick around but become less and less acknowledged, especially if there are rules conflicts between 6.5 and the erratas. Eventually they would possibly fade away.

Either way I think it would create some bad blood