GW FAQ update

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.

**Mymearan**

No one asked if you can shoot OUT OF combat? They only answer if you can shoot into combat, and the question below it kind of implies you're not meant to be able to shoot out of combat, but doesn't state it explicitly.

**JimOnMars**

TedNugent wrote:
:O they're even asking what we think of the FAQs.

Whoever did this is an angel.

This. I can't actually believe yet that we get to preview the FAQs and find clean up all the unintended consequences.

And the fact that they digested all of that crap and got this out in 3/4 weeks...absolutely gobsmacked.

**auticus**

It doesn't state that you cannot shoot out of combat. In fact they say in shooting if you have missile weapons you can shoot them even if you are in combat. It would be a stretch to think that they would disallow shooting out of combat when they are so free in letting you shoot your missile weapons into combat when engaged in combat.

**Bottle**

RoperPG wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bottle wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:

Bottle wrote:
Although they didn't address if summoned models immediately count towards casualties regardless as to if they are slain or not during the battle.
It says "Do the casualties your opponent inflicts on summoned units count against your casualty total? Yes", which seems to suggest that only casualties inflicted are considered in your casualty total. So, I guess, summon all you want - just don't lose them...

Or it means they misunderstood where the confusion is with the rule lol. I think you're reaching with your answer there tbh, and it is still unclear if summoned units are automatically counted as casualties even if they don't die.

Well, it doesn't bother me, I haven't once played a game where we counted casualties to decide winner (and if I did - it would be with a comp to count points anyway).

Glad they finally debunked the "seeding" idea too (I.e. Warscrolls having to be present in the army for other units to be summoned from them.)

I don't know about reaching - my understanding/impression of summoning has always been that addition is unlimited, but that summoned units aren't a meat shield because if they die they count as a 'starting model'.

I meant that lots of people read the 4 page rules and think that summoned units count towards casualties regardless to whether they are slain or not. i.e. As soon as you summon, that unit counts towards your casualty pile. It's an odd rule that only makes sense due to the way the sentence is worded. But it hasn't been clarified either way in the FAQ, suggesting they are unaware of the debate around it. :-)

**SickSix**

Wow they are actually seeking feedback on something before its published?

holy crap

**Kanluwen**

Uriels_Flame wrote:
Q: On the warscroll for the Lord-Celestant on Dracoth, there isn't any description about the shield he carries.

A: The ability for his Sigmarite Thundershield, if he has one, is exactly the same as the Lord-Celestant on Stardrake’s shield. We’ve added this to the version of the warscroll on the website and in the app.

I'm still not seeing this. Anyone else? I just always thought my LC didn't come with a shield.

If you're asking about the model?
The plastic version from the main starter box didn't come with one. It's only the version that comes in the box of 2 that has them.

And they are showing a sense of humor folks!

Q: The Saurus Oldblood on Carnosaur is the only Saurus that cannot ‘bite’. Is this a mistake? Has he gotten so old he no longer has teeth?

A: He is just too old to jump down from the Carnosaur to bite people. He’s called an Oldblood for a reason

I had a good chuckle at that.

**insaniak**

Kanluwen wrote:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I can't believe they said multi-Nagash is legal.

To be fair, the wording is:

Yes, unless specifically noted otherwise. Players can always agree to use only one of each ‘named character’ or other model that represents a unique unit of which only one can be found in the Mortal Realms if they wish.
.

Players can always agree to change the rules however they see fit, so that's a bit of a pointless statement, really.

The general approach to these FAQs does definitely seem to be a step in the right direction, though.

**JimOnMars**

Q: The Saurus Oldblood on Carnosaur is the only Saurus that cannot ‘bite’. Is this a mistake? Has he gotten so old he no longer has teeth?

A: He is just too old to jump down from the Carnosaur to bite people. He’s called an Oldblood for a reason

This is doubly unbelievable. Not only is there humor; they are answering questions that are clear in the rules but some have raised for balance/fluff purposes. Too good to be true for the hundreds of similar questions in 40K? Like maybe the ones that asked whether they actually intended to delete the green tide...

hoping hoping hoping

**BorderCountess**

Mymearan wrote:
No one asked if you can shoot OUT OF combat? They only answer if you can shoot into combat, and the question below it kind of implies you're not meant to be able to shoot out of combat, but doesn't state it explicitly.

No, this was pretty clearly answered:

Games Workshop wrote:Q: The rules allow units to use missile weapons, even if the attacking unit is in melee combat. Is this correct?

A: Yes. A model armed with a missile weapon may attack with it in the shooting phase, even if the enemy unit is within 3".

Seems pretty clear that you can shoot while in combat, either at a unit you're engaged with or another unit (ie, 'out of combat').

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bottle wrote:
RoperPG wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bottle wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:

Bottle wrote:
Although they didn't address if summoned models immediately count towards casualties regardless as to if they are slain or not during the battle.
It says "Do the casualties your opponent inflicts on summoned units count against your casualty total? Yes", which seems to suggest that only casualties inflicted are considered in your casualty total. So, I guess, summon all you want - just don't lose them...

Or it means they misunderstood where the confusion is with the rule lol. I think you're reaching with your answer there tbh, and it is still unclear if summoned units are automatically counted as casualties even if they don't die.

Well, it doesn't bother me, I haven't once played a game where we counted casualties to decide winner (and if I did - it would be with a comp to count points anyway).

Glad they finally debunked the "seeding" idea too (I.e. Warscrolls having to be present in the army for other units to be summoned from them.)

I don't know about reaching - my understanding/impression of summoning has always been that addition is unlimited, but that summoned units aren't a meat shield because if they die they count as a 'starting model'.

I meant that lots of people read the 4 page rules and think that summoned units count towards casualties regardless to whether they are slain or not. i.e. As soon as you summon, that unit counts towards your casualty pile. It's an odd rule that only makes sense due to the way the sentence is worded. But it hasn't been clarified either way in the FAQ, suggesting they are unaware of the debate around it. :-)

This type of reasoning sounds like a ham-fisted attempt to 'punish' players who can summon.I find it unlikely that any reasonable person would interpret the rules that way.

**Vector Strike**

TedNugent wrote:
:O they're even asking what we think of the FAQs.

Whoever did this is an angel.

Yep. Looks like they finally learnt the power of feedback.

**Munga**

Wow. Positive steps from GW. Baby steps, but hey, it's something.

**morganfreeman**

Munga wrote:
Wow. Positive steps from GW. Baby steps, but hey, it's something.

There have actually been a lot of positive steps from GW as of late.

The "start collecting" boxes offering massive discounts, the various board-games which come with an excess of high-quality minis + an actual board game to play with them, this FAQ and such.. Whilst 2016 is far from over it seriously seems like the company is trying to get its act together, which is fantastic.

**TedNugent**

Munga wrote:
Wow. Positive steps from GW. Baby steps, but hey, it's something.

This is not even baby steps. This is outstanding.

**MasterSlowPoke**

Kanluwen wrote:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
I can't believe they said multi-Nagash is legal.

To be fair, the wording is:

Yes, unless specifically noted otherwise. Players can always agree to use only one of each ‘named character’ or other model that represents a unique unit of which only one can be found in the Mortal Realms if they wish.

There are some things which "specifically note otherwise"(Celestant-Prime) but making it be on the player is an okay way to do it.
Someone wants to be TFG and bring multi-Nagashs and Archaons? Awesome!

He can have fun playing by himself at home.

It would be better to just update Nagash and all his friends from before GW realized they forgot to make a Unique keyword with that wording. They have the power with the app, why not use it?

**Kanluwen**

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

It would be better to just update Nagash and all his friends from before GW realized they forgot to make a Unique keyword with that wording. They have the power with the app, why not use it?

I have no idea. It might just be that for some of it they consider it a big "who cares?" or "is it really so difficult for people to actually just talk to each other and say 'Hey don't be a dick'?".

**auticus**

Because they don't want to dissuade people from collecting multiple nagashes.

**MasterSlowPoke**

The number of people that would actually buy more than one Nagash for the purpose of fielding them all at once has to be inconsequential. It's baffling that that would be the ruling.

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
The number of people that would actually buy more than one Nagash for the purpose of fielding them all at once has to be inconsequential. It's baffling that that would be the ruling.

If the number of people who would do it is so small, there is no reason to disuade those who would from buying multiple nagash models. Either way, it is very unlikely to affect someone's game. Why guarantee the loss of a couple sales?

**Ksullivan**

Such a good plan to go thru AoS before 40k. Gotta crawl before you can walk.....

**MasterSlowPoke**

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
The number of people that would actually buy more than one Nagash for the purpose of fielding them all at once has to be inconsequential. It's baffling that that would be the ruling.

If the number of people who would do it is so small, there is no reason to disuade those who would from buying multiple nagash models. Either way, it is very unlikely to affect someone's game. Why guarantee the loss of a couple sales?

Integrity? Stopping one of the most common criticisms of how little thought GW put into the ruleset?

**Kanluwen**

MasterSlowPoke wrote:
The number of people that would actually buy more than one Nagash for the purpose of fielding them all at once has to be inconsequential. It's baffling that that would be the ruling.

Have you ever met powergamers?

Some of them have more money than sense. I know of at least one person with not one, not two, but three Archaons.

**Frozocrone**

Kanluwen wrote:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
The number of people that would actually buy more than one Nagash for the purpose of fielding them all at once has to be inconsequential. It's baffling that that would be the ruling.

Have you ever met powergamers?

Some of them have more money than sense. I know of at least one person with not one, not two, but three Archaons.

Holy...are they even painted? Or is this true power gaming where grey is the new black?

**Ashiraya**

Is it not impossible to powergame in AoS because there are no points?

**Swara**

Ashiraya wrote:
Is it not impossible to powergame in AoS because there are no points?

It's incredibly EASY to do so as there are no points.

**Kanluwen**

Frozocrone wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
The number of people that would actually buy more than one Nagash for the purpose of fielding them all at once has to be inconsequential. It's baffling that that would be the ruling.

Have you ever met powergamers?

Some of them have more money than sense. I know of at least one person with not one, not two, but three Archaons.

Holy...are they even painted? Or is this true power gaming where grey is the new black?

Do you really need to ask that question?

**RiTides**

Okay, that's far enough on the tangent, please

Back to discussing the GW FAQ update...

**Deadshot**

Misc;
Red or brown sauce on bacon sandwich?

Red you fool! Brown sauce is for sauasage sandwiches

**Alpharius**

In case anyone somehow missed it:

RiTides wrote:
Okay, that's far enough on the tangent, please

Back to discussing the GW FAQ update...

**Accolade**

Very exciting this is going along as it has! It's amazing to see how much of a 180 GW has been taking, and it's even more indicative of the effect someone at the top (ie Kirby as the CEO and Chairman combined) can have on the entire atmosphere of the company.

I'm not much into AOS, but it will be interesting to see how the FAQ's for 40k (a game that is arguably much harder to re-jigger) shape up!

Here's to hoping I can keep seeing news about GW that doesn't induce an eye roll!

**kodos**

I am not very confident for the 40k FAQ after I have seen the AoS one.
But still excited about how it would turn out in the end