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.

Or, they could employ a technical writer to edit the rules before release....I know, I know we can't have professional editing of documents from a multi-national company...

Here is the funny thing, the official BL page still does no have the new FAQ's up......


EDIT: and just found a the buried link on GW site to the GW FAQ links. Wow they make this hard.

Its a shame (and a sham) that as a community us GW geeks are so divided and lazy, otherwise we could actually do something about this kind of utter disregard for actually providing a good service and product.

This kind of thing happens when companies release clearly buggy or unworkable products and do next to nothing to fix the issue.

http://www.easportslitigation.com/

Id happy start it myself but getting GW fans to agree on anything and actually make an effort rather than just complaining is like herding cats.... with an elephant....

There was the change.org petition, but anything like that requires the petitionee to give a gak.

yeah I remember that, but you do see what I mean right Azrael?

Herding cats mate. That and the remarkable ability for people to not notice stuff that's right in there faces.

I have every confidence that if you had a thread on the topic, top of page 1 for days on end, there'd still be a significant percentage of people who logged on who either wilfully ignored it or just didn't notice.

 Talys wrote:

Accolade wrote:Why can't people just admit GW screwed up the writing of this? Their version of the explanation was unnecessarily complicated and it should have been re-structured into something that didn't leave ambiguity, it didn't have to be left in the bizarre clause format that it was.

Putting something out for the benefit of frequently asked questions, which typically represents questions about topics with nuanced rules or explanations, should *probably* be pretty clear if GW is actually trying to resolve the issue.

I'm pretty happy with stating that GW often has rules that use ambiguous language. It just doesn't bother me or diminish my enjoyment of the game or hobby. Frankly, I see way more discussion on the internet about what rules actually mean, than I do at games. There are a couple of guys that most people avoid like the plague because they seem to enjoy rules lawyering, but most people are pretty easy going about rules interpretations. After all, it is, just... a game

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not rules-lawyering this issue to death (and honestly wouldn't bring the FAQ up except for joking about how GW's writers seem to enjoy being unnecessarily verbose...think Tom Kirby's usage of "otiose" to describe market research). Just initially with this thread we saw some people point out the mistake in wording and then there were others who (a) tried to argue that the wording was definitely right (after all, how can GW be wrong?) or (b) that it was the fault of the English language that these discrepancies came up...when all GW's writers had to do was (as always it seems with them ) avoid the urge to make something sound wordy and intelligent. That's why PP's rules are so liked- they're very straightforward, to the point and written as to avoid multiple interpretations of statements.

But, it seems like GW *may* have taken an idea from PP in that WHFB may soon become much more similar in scale to WM/H, so perhaps there's hope they'll start seeing crystal clarity of rules as a boon. I mean, I'm not betting on it, but it's worth the hope!

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:

Reese wrote:
Hello everyone,

Is the Sternguard point cost in the Marine Codex incorrect? I apologize if this is addressed somewhere, but I have no luck finding a related topic. FAQ also seems a logical place to ask instead of starting a new thread.

I ask because when you calculate every other unit in the Codex that has equivalent starting models/stats, the unit cost is A x B. Where A is the base points cost and B is the number of models.

For example Vanguard = 5 x 19 = 95, Tacticals = 5 x 14 = 70 or any other unit is the same. However, Sternguard are not 5 x 22 = 110, but rather 120.

Thoughts on this? Is that extra 10 supposed to be a Special Ammunition tax or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

Extra 10 points for the sergeant, or squad leader or whatever they call him in Sternguard.

Look at the Tactical Squad. It's 14x5 = 70. But 10 more points to upgrade the sergeant to a veteran sergeant. That 10 points is built into the Sternguard unit.

Thanks for the response, but I think you misunderstood my question.

Yes, there is +10 points for a Tactical Sergeant with improved stats.

But like the Vanguard and Terminator Sergeants, the Sternguard Sergeant has no extra stats. Plus, the Vanguard and Terminator squads are 19 x 5 and 40 x 5. But Sternguard is not 5 x 22 = 110. It is 5 x 22 + 10.

The extra 10 points makes no sense.

Reese wrote:

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:

Reese wrote:
Hello everyone,

Is the Sternguard point cost in the Marine Codex incorrect? I apologize if this is addressed somewhere, but I have no luck finding a related topic. FAQ also seems a logical place to ask instead of starting a new thread.

I ask because when you calculate every other unit in the Codex that has equivalent starting models/stats, the unit cost is A x B. Where A is the base points cost and B is the number of models.

For example Vanguard = 5 x 19 = 95, Tacticals = 5 x 14 = 70 or any other unit is the same. However, Sternguard are not 5 x 22 = 110, but rather 120.

Thoughts on this? Is that extra 10 supposed to be a Special Ammunition tax or am I missing something else?

Thanks!

Extra 10 points for the sergeant, or squad leader or whatever they call him in Sternguard.

Look at the Tactical Squad. It's 14x5 = 70. But 10 more points to upgrade the sergeant to a veteran sergeant. That 10 points is built into the Sternguard unit.

Thanks for the response, but I think you misunderstood my question.

Yes, there is +10 points for a Tactical Sergeant with improved stats.

But like the Vanguard and Terminator Sergeants, the Sternguard Sergeant has no extra stats. Plus, the Vanguard and Terminator squads are 19 x 5 and 40 x 5. But Sternguard is not 5 x 22 = 110. It is 5 x 22 + 10.

The extra 10 points makes no sense.

Chaos Furies in the Chaos Daemons codex are the same. 35pts for 5 and then 6pts each.

Someone in my local store who plays deathwing. Told me that my KFF doesn't work the same way it does in the book. It says in my codex that any character that has a KFF that embarks on a vehicle that vehicle and anything 6" around it get a 5+ invul save. Did they change this or not?

TheMisterBold wrote:
Someone in my local store who plays deathwing. Told me that my KFF doesn't work the same way it does in the book. It says in my codex that any character that has a KFF that embarks on a vehicle that vehicle and anything 6" around it get a 5+ invul save. Did they change this or not?

Not trying to be a Dick, so sorry if it comes out that way. I say play your way unless it is mentioned in the FAQ. What does the FAQ say? Also he has to prove you wrong since you showed in your book that you are correct. Now you have a problem.

Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Davor wrote:
Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Why would you use an older FAQ over a newer one, regardless of which website it is on?

TheMisterBold wrote:
Someone in my local store who plays deathwing. Told me that my KFF doesn't work the same way it does in the book. It says in my codex that any character that has a KFF that embarks on a vehicle that vehicle and anything 6" around it get a 5+ invul save. Did they change this or not?

That's not what it says in the Ork codex.

Are you using the 4th edition codex?

 Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:
Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Why would you use an older FAQ over a newer one, regardless of which website it is on?

Which one is the current one? Easy to say it's the GW one because its on their site. Problem is, we have been going on the BL site so they are just as legal. Since they are legal but haven't been updated which one do you use? By that I mean for the person who got their FAQ from Black Library and doesn't know GW has the current one and he makes his list from that BL thinking it's the current one and then you have his opponent who is saying he is wrong not realizing he is using the BL FAQ which is legal as well since we have been using that site for the last year for the FAQs. All it can do is start a lot of arguments since the opponent will say it's in the FAQ and the player saying no it's not and he pulls out his updated FAQ.

All this does now is add another lawyer of lawyering before having a game saying "What FAQ do you have? GW or BL one?" Other wise it's not fair for both parties since they are going by what they think is the updated FAQ.

GW has official FAQ on there own site now too?

 Desubot wrote:
GW has official FAQ on there own site now too?

Bottom of the GW website. Been there for a long time -- although it used to link to a page on the BL website (I think?). On the home page of GW, look under "Here to Help" -- it's called "Rules Errata".

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Rules-Errata

WARNING: if you click on that link, you will change your country to Canada. So don't start a new thread saying that all the prices were jacked up 20%.

Huh.. I though that got removed a while back

Davor wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:
Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Why would you use an older FAQ over a newer one, regardless of which website it is on?

Which one is the current one? Easy to say it's the GW one because its on their site. Problem is, we have been going on the BL site so they are just as legal. Since they are legal but haven't been updated which one do you use? By that I mean for the person who got their FAQ from Black Library and doesn't know GW has the current one and he makes his list from that BL thinking it's the current one and then you have his opponent who is saying he is wrong not realizing he is using the BL FAQ which is legal as well since we have been using that site for the last year for the FAQs. All it can do is start a lot of arguments since the opponent will say it's in the FAQ and the player saying no it's not and he pulls out his updated FAQ.

All this does now is add another lawyer of lawyering before having a game saying "What FAQ do you have? GW or BL one?" Other wise it's not fair for both parties since they are going by what they think is the updated FAQ.

You do realize that both FAQs are dated and both FAQs have version numbers? So why would you use the one on the Black Library website (version 1.0, updated 24th July 2014) instead of the one on GW's website (version 1.1, updated January 2015)?

It also hardly seems like a particularly big deal if someone doesn't have the latest FAQ, given the ridiculously small handful of things actually covered by those FAQs currently.

Desubot wrote:GW has official FAQ on there own site now too?

Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Davor wrote:
Question now is what FAQ do you use? Do you use the Black Library 40K FAQ or the GW 40K FAQ? They are not the same. Well at least not the same when I last checked.

Why would you use an older FAQ over a newer one, regardless of which website it is on?

Which one is the current one? Easy to say it's the GW one because its on their site. Problem is, we have been going on the BL site so they are just as legal. Since they are legal but haven't been updated which one do you use? By that I mean for the person who got their FAQ from Black Library and doesn't know GW has the current one and he makes his list from that BL thinking it's the current one and then you have his opponent who is saying he is wrong not realizing he is using the BL FAQ which is legal as well since we have been using that site for the last year for the FAQs. All it can do is start a lot of arguments since the opponent will say it's in the FAQ and the player saying no it's not and he pulls out his updated FAQ.

All this does now is add another lawyer of lawyering before having a game saying "What FAQ do you have? GW or BL one?" Other wise it's not fair for both parties since they are going by what they think is the updated FAQ.

You do realize that both FAQs are dated and both FAQs have version numbers? So why would you use the one on the Black Library website (version 1.0, updated 24th July 2014) instead of the one on GW's website (version 1.1, updated January 2015)?

Do I realize? Yes I do. But what has that anything to what I said? Look above. Someone who didn't know there is more updated FAQs on the GW site.

What did I say? What about people who don't know and only use the Black Library site? As I said they don't know the GW site exists. So in their eyes the BL is the current one. So they make their army to the current FAQs.

So again, who is right and who is wrong. The player A makes his army to the BL FAQ. His/her opponent, player B says, "Incorrect you are using an old FAQ".
Player A says "No my army is playing legally."
Player B says "No you are using 1.1, there is 1.2 on the GW site."
Player A says " Well I didn't know. If I knew I would have played differently then."

Now Player A is not having a fun game because he was thrown a curve ball to no fault of his own. So should he suffer because he didn't know. Should player B suffer because he knew and is playing by what he thought is the current version because he knew the latest version is on the GW site.

So again, who is correct, and who is not? I say both are correct and nobody should suffer when they are playing a game. Problem is someone is going to feel shafted and have a less fun time playing now for that game. Hopefully a compromise can be done between to grown up men.

So what do you do when you play someone who is playing by the "current FAQ" in their eyes and don't know about the GW more updated FAQs.

You asked which FAQ was the current one. You were given the answer. If one player doesn't know about a newer FAQ then the two agree which FAQ applies to their game at that time. Even if the FAQs were all in one location, there's no guarantee that either player won't necessarily miss an updated FAQ. You're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It's not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

Davor wrote:
So what do you do when you play someone who is playing by the "current FAQ" in their eyes and don't know about the GW more updated FAQs.

The same thing you do any other time you come across a rule that one of the players isn't aware of: You remember that it's just a game, and get on with it.


Even when the FAQs were all in one place, there were an awful lot of players who weren't aware they existed. And a lot of players don't find out about FAQ updates the instant they happen. It's really not a big deal.

I find a scenario where a person knows FAQs exist but doesn't keep up with their release.

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
So what do you do when you play someone who is playing by the "current FAQ" in their eyes and don't know about the GW more updated FAQs.

The same thing you do any other time you come across a rule that one of the players isn't aware of: You remember that it's just a game, and get on with it.


Even when the FAQs were all in one place, there were an awful lot of players who weren't aware they existed. And a lot of players don't find out about FAQ updates the instant they happen. It's really not a big deal.

It's not, it's just another example of a piss poor job done by GW.

Sure, no argument there. I'd go further and say that the FAQs as they currently stand are next to useless, since they cover a bare handful of issues and ignore most of the actual problems with the current game.


But that's also a part of why I don't think it's a big deal if someone doesn't have the latest one.