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.

Hopefully the massive response will make it clear they need to something more substantial than just a FB effort.

How about actually answering rules queries sent to their mails in an actual FAQ

Actually, that "they've already done the FAQs and this is just a PR thing" theory sounds pretty plausible.

 Shandara wrote:
Hopefully the massive response will make it clear they need to something more substantial than just a FB effort.

How about actually answering rules queries sent to their mails in an actual FAQ

FB comments are just as good as an email. Plus it's public, so you're not sat there wondering if they've received it or if it's gone in the spam folder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
Actually, that "they've already done the FAQs and this is just a PR thing" theory sounds pretty plausible.

Tin hat much?

Someone should compile all the questions for the community rep into a pictute doc attached to the fb post. Not that we should do the work for GW but because I seriously doubt he will transfer all the questions correctly and it's over 1100 comments and not even a day out.

Also they need one of these for fw rules.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Hopefully the massive response will make it clear they need to something more substantial than just a FB effort.

How about actually answering rules queries sent to their mails in an actual FAQ

FB comments are just as good as an email. Plus it's public, so you're not sat there wondering if they've received it or if it's gone in the spam folder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
Actually, that "they've already done the FAQs and this is just a PR thing" theory sounds pretty plausible.

Tin hat much?

Actually I wouldn't be surprised, no need to accuse him of sporting aluminum foil. If I worked in PR this is exactly the type of effortless move that can only make you look better without the impossible task of filtering that crapshow. I mean lets be honest, some poor bastard would need to not only filter out all the redundancy but also the language and then split it all into appropriate categories for factions and rules, and supplements. That's a nightmare. Unless you have already been addressing most issues and this is just a token olive branch.

 Shandara wrote:
Hopefully the massive response will make it clear they need to something more substantial than just a FB effort.

How about actually answering rules queries sent to their mails in an actual FAQ

They responded to my post asking that saying that they were including questions from the emails as well.

We may actually get an answer to the Psychic Shriek/Roll to hit/Can the Patriarch fire it out of his ass question.

While there may be hundreds of different rules conundrums, it doesn't seem to me to be a monumental effort to get the game designers to go over all the pertinent questions and write an answer. It's a night's worth of homework really.

I find it amusing to imagine that we're all in the process of turning the GW Studio into a real life, really heated, YMDC thread.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I find it amusing to imagine that we're all in the process of turning the GW Studio into a real life, really heated, YMDC thread.

Exalted

I asked if you have to roll to hit on any focused witchfires. None of them have weapon profiles...

And the validity of these answers is... ?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the validity of these answers is... ?

Since they're giving them to the rules team to answer, 100%.

 skoffs wrote:
Actually, that "they've already done the FAQs and this is just a PR thing" theory sounds pretty plausible.

It's what I'd do.

Go through the major tournaments comp packs beforehand and answer the questions in their faq's (not necessarily with the same answers). Add a few questions from this facebook survey and job's a good 'un.

This said. I'll believe they will actually release a comprehensive and official FAQ once I see it. Not before.

Asked about KDK FMC summoning.

Not the only one who asked this.

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the validity of these answers is... ?

Since they're giving them to the rules team to answer, 100%.

Actually you mean the design studio. The rules team AKA the mail order guys over the phone have no more validity than you or I, traditionally giving contradictory answers to the same question.

I asked them about Multi-trackers on Overwatch. Just fair warning to anyone who also wants to ask that.

If this is for genuinely Frequently Asked Questions then duplicates should not be filtered out. If 110 people out of 1,100 ask a particular question, it shows the point is very widely misunderstood.

It won't take much effort for GW to download the whole thread and sort it into genuine queries, suggestions and wish lists.

They can then generate answers as they feel appropriate. For instance if someone asks a question that is answered in the rulebook -- Can Centurions ride in Drop Pods -- they can do an answer saying this is covered on p.XX of the rules. If the query is a real question caused by confusion in the rules, they can make a definitive official ruling.

Naturally it would be nice if GW would take more care writing their rules in the beginning, rather than wait and do FAQs every few years.

Would it be worth asking about levels under blasts or template/blast weapons on MCs (I think) having skyfire?

I'm glad they are doing this. It might not be organised but at least they recognise that they need to do it

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Asked about KDK FMC summoning.

Not the only one who asked this.

I hope you 'liked' those other similar questions too, then.

The FB post with 1.6k comments reminds me of desperate children trying to get any kind of attention from a severely neglectful parent.

How this could actually turn into a decent FAQ (When the main tournament circuits already produce better FAQs) is beyond my understanding.

The various tournament circuits produce decent FAQs for tournament players,

but they aren't official GW FAQs (and lots of people only care about what GW says),

and they are aimed at tournament players who are on the high end of understanding the rules so may well not be asking (all) the questions that mater to the larger, occasional player base

And let's be honest if these faqs come out they will influence every tournament faq.

Has anyone asked if flickerjump is a warpjump and thus limited to one a turn?

Has anyone asked if shrike is intended to be solo because infiltrate makes it so he can't join most units?

Of course they're going to influence tournament FAQs. With some exceptions, most tournaments defer to GW rules unless there's actual confusion as to how to rule/play something, which is where their personal FAQs come in. Anything other than that is changing rules, which in my experience are few and far between (Invis changes, 2+ rerolling, etc).

These FAQ updates will invariably force an update in all tournament FAQs. Likely, many of the answers will overlap since they're common sense or based off RAI (1 Spyder per Canoptek Harvest, for instance), but others may not.

I do not expect to see the FAQs create any actual rule or point changes, however, unless it's to correct a typo or accidental misprint.

Asked whether GMCs get cover just from being in area terrain or if they need to be 25% obscured. I know it's pretty clear in the rulebook, but I figure it's worth a shot.

Requizen wrote:


These FAQ updates will invariably force an update in all tournament FAQs. Likely, many of the answers will overlap since they're common sense or based off RAI (1 Spyder per Canoptek Harvest, for instance), but others may not.

I wouldn't be sop sure actually, in the past they have FAQ'd things that were not even up for debate and made a massive change to a unit. Off the top of my head the most noteworthy being helldrakes gaining 360 degree firing out of nowhere. I can't think of a formation FAQ to date however meaning there isn't much precedent if any. I would NOT be surprised for example if multiple spyders were allowed in a CH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 O'Whelk wrote:
Asked whether GMCs get cover just from being in area terrain or if they need to be 25% obscured. I know it's pretty clear in the rulebook, but I figure it's worth a shot.

It's funny how many times a possible FAQ question comes to mind only to realize the rule is clear but just monumentally stupid to begin with .

 Thokt wrote:
While there may be hundreds of different rules conundrums, it doesn't seem to me to be a monumental effort to get the game designers to go over all the pertinent questions and write an answer. It's a night's worth of homework really.

This is what I was thinking also. It would really only take a couple of days to go through even 5000 replies. Most of them are going to be "psychic shriek again" or a complaint about not having a codex. It really won't take long to skip those. They will probably distill all of that down into about 100 valid rules conundrums, then they'll solve 30 of them, if we're lucky. But that's better than zero.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And the validity of these answers is... ?

Since they're giving them to the rules team to answer, 100%.

Actually you mean the design studio. The rules team AKA the mail order guys over the phone have no more validity than you or I, traditionally giving contradictory answers to the same question.

In the very first comment on the post they refer to the Design Studio as the "Rules Guys", so unless you're actually going to argue the "Rules Guys" are a distinct group from the "Rules Team", you're wrong

 Red Corsair wrote:

Requizen wrote:


These FAQ updates will invariably force an update in all tournament FAQs. Likely, many of the answers will overlap since they're common sense or based off RAI (1 Spyder per Canoptek Harvest, for instance), but others may not.

I wouldn't be sop sure actually, in the past they have FAQ'd things that were not even up for debate and made a massive change to a unit. Off the top of my head the most noteworthy being helldrakes gaining 360 degree firing out of nowhere. I can't think of a formation FAQ to date however meaning there isn't much precedent if any. I would NOT be surprised for example if multiple spyders were allowed in a CH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 O'Whelk wrote:
Asked whether GMCs get cover just from being in area terrain or if they need to be 25% obscured. I know it's pretty clear in the rulebook, but I figure it's worth a shot.

It's funny how many times a possible FAQ question comes to mind only to realize the rule is clear but just monumentally stupid to begin with .

I will say, that if they do follow through with this in a significant way, that there will be some solid head scratchers in the bunch.

 Kirasu wrote:
The FB post with 1.6k comments reminds me of desperate children trying to get any kind of attention from a severely neglectful parent.

How this could actually turn into a decent FAQ (When the main tournament circuits already produce better FAQs) is beyond my understanding.

Surely the first step in compiling a list of answers to frequently asked questions is to compile a list of frequently asked questions...?


Or am I misunderstanding the concept?