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.

 insaniak wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:

For 90% of players yes...but...there are many who treat the game competitively and don't play against just their friends. The people who try really hard to win at local/bigger tourneys. To them you have to imagine as is if there is money on the line, as if they gambled $10 grand on the game (who knows think of it as the amount of time/money they spent on their army).

Imagine if someone bet on a football or baseball game 10 grand...and the ref made a bad call or got a rule wrong and they lost the game. And their 10 grand.

That is how competitive players feel about the game (passionately) and why they want the rules to be clear.

And I think all of us have a little competitive spirit in us. Even in a friendly game there are moments where I get frustrated when things aren't going according to plan and people are double checking rules.

It's not about there being something on the line... For me, it's just irritating having to stop in the middle of the game to figure out how something is supposed to work, That's valuable game time a-wasting.


That doesn't necessarily require rules to be written like a legal document, but if they're written the way GW writes rules, then they at least need to be supported and clarified. Hence why the lack of FAQ support from GW for so long has been so annoying for so many players.

Again yes and no - GW was remiss to a huge extent in not releasing faqs - but as soon as they do - people immediately look at the exact word structure and tense to see if they can twist and exploit................ Look at all the stuff about what is or is not movement on this thread,,,,,,,,,,

You're assuming that people are pointing out unclear wording with the aim of exploiting it, rather than because it's bad wording...


If someone is genuinely looking for exploits, they'd be better off keeping it quiet, to spring on unsuspecting opponents...

They would be better off but from just my experience the folks that try to exploit also argue why they are right to death as if by arguing why makes it any better. That's just what I've run ijto and thankfully it been maybe three people over the course of 10+ years.

Back to the FAQ though, I've snagged most of the contested or unclear things that people are debating condensed them down with examples and posted them in the corresponding FAQ pages. Hopefully this gets things straightened out and we can all spend more time playing than pouring over text.

 JimOnMars wrote:

Neronoxx wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
A couple of these rulings are janky as all heck / directly in contrast with what's in the BRB. =/

Yup, but seeing as how these are the reference used for the rulebook, I see no reason to pretend they 'forgot' about the rulebook. More likely than not, this is them going back and saying "oops, that wasn't worded how we'd like, let's just kill this argument definitively here and now."

I wish they would admit their mistakes. If the BRB is wrong, according to their original intent, just say so, and release an errata. This whole bs of writing an FAQ that is the exact opposite of what the BRB says, and then pretending they were right all along, just sucks.

Well, it won't be long now, hopefully. I wonder how far they will comb through the grenade rants before they just give up and do it our way. Or will they just give up and say "screw you, grenade users! Buy 10 and use 1!" We'll know soon.

UHH....
WHAT?
They have never said/claimed to be right all along, or anything else you've said. Furthermore, why do they need to say they are wrong? Why is that important to you? We have the FAq - we know what we can and can't do.
That's all we've wanted. But now you want to come along and 'rules-shame' them for clarifying intent or grammar structure?
That really sounds like your problem, and I think it should stay that way. After all, why the hell would they reverse the grenade change just because we all have been playing it wrong? What kind of crazy entitlement is that? If that is what they originally meant, so be it. Eat your cereal and be a big kid. My main army is Blood Angels, I also play normal marines and Tempestus Scions. If anybody was shafted by this clarification it was me but you don't hear me crying do you?
Play the game. Have fun.

Neronoxx wrote:
Furthermore, why do they need to say they are wrong?

Clarity, mostly.

When they change a rule in an FAQ without any explanation for the change, we're all left wondering if the FAQ answer is a mistake, if the original rule was a mistake, or if the rule was written as originally intended but some reason had cropped up since then for changing how it worked.

Don't know if its been mentioned but witchfires that dont require a roll to hit just got a mega boost vs FMC's

Not really, because they Auto-Hit and are shooting attacks they can't be snap fired and therefore can't be used against FMCs and Flyers.

gungo wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Can the "captain" in a battle company(or equiv) be upgraded to a "chapter master"

I would say no based on the FAQ.

They haven't stated 100% yet but this question has been asked and they are still going to do book specific stuff separately over the next few months.

Not on that specific upgrade but they did flat out say you can't upgrade other armies commanders. The faq he was likely referencing was the one where a tank commander is upgraded to pask. That is not allowed.

This and the spyder model versus the spyder unit rule.

Aside from the fact that the FAQ actually agrees with me on a lot of things (only 1 grenade per phase, including assault phase), no rerolling blast templates because of PE, etc. (though I am still dumbfounded by the Gets Hot! ruling), I also wish to note:

In answer to one of the questions, they actually prefaced the answer with: "Ok, we actually have to use a little common sense here."

So, for the people who frequent the You Make Da Call subforum:

GW agrees with me. They are assuming that you are using basic common sense when you interpret the rules.

Traditio wrote:
Aside from the fact that the FAQ actually agrees with me on a lot of things (only 1 grenade per phase, including assault phase), no rerolling blast templates because of PE, etc. (though I am still dumbfounded by the Gets Hot! ruling), I also wish to note:

In answer to one of the questions, they actually prefaced the answer with: "Ok, we actually have to use a little common sense here."

So, for the people who frequent the You Make Da Call subforum:

GW agrees with me. They are assuming that you are using basic common sense when you interpret the rules.

Cool. Broken clocks are right at least twice a day too.

Sorry, but literally nobody played grenades like in this FAQ.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but literally nobody played grenades like in this FAQ.

That's how I was playing it even before the FAQ. That's why I don't like playing against armored lists. "But tactical marines all have krak grenades!" rings hollow when you can only use one per assault phase.

I think that's part of the disparity between my opinion of armored lists and other peoples' opinions. LRBT probably don't seem tough when 5 marines can krak them per assault phase. They seem much tougher when only 1 can.

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but literally nobody played grenades like in this FAQ.

That's how I was playing it even before the FAQ. That's why I don't like playing against armored lists. "But tactical marines all have krak grenades!" rings hollow when you can only use one per assault phase.

I think that's part of the disparity between my opinion of armored lists and other peoples' opinions. LRBT probably don't seem tough when 5 marines can krak them per assault phase. They seem much tougher when only 1 can.

also makes that melta bomb a much more tempting offer eh

Formosa wrote:also makes that melta bomb a much more tempting offer eh

Yes. Even with meltabombs, though. What's the likelihood of charging that LRBT, getting sarge in unharmed, rolling a 3 to hit, a cumulative 2 to pen and then a 5+ on the vehicle damage table?

Traditio wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sorry, but literally nobody played grenades like in this FAQ.

That's how I was playing it even before the FAQ. That's why I don't like playing against armored lists. "But tactical marines all have krak grenades!" rings hollow when you can only use one per assault phase.

You would literally be the only person I've ever heard of playing it that way before this FAQ, from 3E's release in 1998 all the way up through May 2016.

I think that's part of the disparity between my opinion of armored lists and other peoples' opinions. LRBT probably don't seem tough when 5 marines can krak them per assault phase. They seem much tougher when only 1 can.

Absolutely, though to be fair, the HP system made them wayyyyy too easy to kill, though I don't think that's the reason for this change.

Traditio wrote:

Formosa wrote:also makes that melta bomb a much more tempting offer eh

Yes. Even with meltabombs, though. What's the likelihood of charging that LRBT, getting sarge in unharmed, rolling a 3 to hit, a cumulative 2 to pen and then a 5+ on the vehicle damage table?

A little better than one in five.

Vaktathi wrote:You would literally be the only person I've ever heard of playing it that way before this FAQ, from 3E's release in 1998 all the way up through May 2016.

I think I played it the common way once or twice, a few times at most, because my opponents claimed that this is the way that it worked.

I then checked the rulebook, saw the "throw one grenade per phase" rule, thought "Oh, this clearly applies to the assault phase too," and then proceeded to use one grenade per phase in all subsequent games That's why my assault squads and my non-stationary tactical squads have meltabombs. Because 1 krak grenade just doesn't cut it.

A little better than one in five.

That's just rolling to hit, pen and explode.

2/3 X 35/36 X 1/3 = 70/324 = 35/162

That's a little better than 1 in 5.

My concern is getting sarge there in the first place.

Traditio wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:You would literally be the only person I've ever heard of playing it that way before this FAQ, from 3E's release in 1998 all the way up through May 2016.

I think I played it the common way once or twice, a few times at most, because my opponents claimed that this is the way that it worked.

I then checked the rulebook, saw the "throw one grenade per phase" rule, thought "Oh, this clearly applies to the assault phase too," and then proceeded to use one grenade per phase in all subsequent games That's why my assault squads and my non-stationary tactical squads have meltabombs. Because 1 krak grenade just doesn't cut it.

I think the big thing here was "throw", people didn't really think of using Krak grenades as "throwing" them, it didn't make sense within the context of the assault phase, and every previous edition allowed full use of grenades in the assault phase.

Iirc, it also said "may throw as a shooting attack," making at least me think that the throwing part was only relevant to shooting them.

It never said anything about "throwing" in the melee part.

I think this one might be reconsidered in the final draft. We'll have to see.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Iirc, it also said "may throw as a shooting attack," making at least me think that the throwing part was only relevant to shooting them.

It never said anything about "throwing" in the melee part.

I think this one might be reconsidered in the final draft. We'll have to see.

I'm hoping that they reconsider the Gets Hot FAQ. The BRB clearly allows you to use PE and other things like that to let you reroll gets hot. And it makes sense for it to do so. Normally, Gets Hot and the to-hit roll are the same thing. Blast weapons don't roll to hit; that's why you roll for Gets Hot separately. But that would normally be your to hit roll.

Why should I be able to reroll gets hot for plasma guns, but not for plasma cannons, if I am using, say, the tactical or devastator doctrines?

Traditio wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Iirc, it also said "may throw as a shooting attack," making at least me think that the throwing part was only relevant to shooting them.

It never said anything about "throwing" in the melee part.

I think this one might be reconsidered in the final draft. We'll have to see.

I'm hoping that they reconsider the Gets Hot FAQ. The BRB clearly allows you to use PE and other things like that to let you reroll gets hot. And it makes sense for it to do so. Normally, Gets Hot and the to-hit roll are the same thing. Blast weapons don't roll to hit; that's why you roll for Gets Hot separately. But that would normally be your to hit roll.

Why should I be able to reroll gets hot for plasma guns, but not for plasma cannons, if I am using, say, the tactical or devastator doctrines?

Indeed, it was answers like that one that make me think they had "all hands on deck" and some of the questions were handled by "the new guy" or something. You know, like the rules writer that was just hired a month or two ago. The one that if we were given the opportunity to talk to his manager in a different business, we'd get a "sorry he's new, let me fix that for you" correction.

Thus why I'm assuming that some of these might change in the final draft.

Traditio wrote:

So, for the people who frequent the You Make Da Call subforum:

GW agrees with me. They are assuming that you are using basic common sense when you interpret the rules.

I'm not sure that would be a revelation to anyone.

It doesn't actually help anyone resolve rules disputes, though, particularly on more evenly split issues, because what 'makes sense' to one person isn't necessarily what makes sense to the next guy.

insaniak wrote:I'm not sure that would be a revelation to anyone.

It doesn't actually help anyone resolve rules disputes, though, particularly on more evenly split issues, because what 'makes sense' to one person isn't necessarily what makes sense to the next guy.

It would be a massive revelation to at least some people. At least some rules interpretations ultimately originate from grammar nazis trying to find loopholes.

Don't be a grammar nazi trying to exploit loopholes.

Play fair. Use common sense. Read the italics.

Try to get at the general sense of the passage as opposed to the minutiae of the wording.

That would probably put people more in the mindset of GW.

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:I'm not sure that would be a revelation to anyone.

It doesn't actually help anyone resolve rules disputes, though, particularly on more evenly split issues, because what 'makes sense' to one person isn't necessarily what makes sense to the next guy.

It would be a massive revelation to at least some people. At least some rules interpretations ultimately originate from grammar nazis trying to find loopholes.

Don't be a grammar nazi trying to exploit loopholes.

Play fair. Use common sense. Read the italics.

That would probably put people more in the mindset of GW.

The problem then is that sometimes GW turns around and rules that the RAW stands, no matter how silly or in direct contradiction to similar rules. They're so monstrously inconsistent that there's no good way to anticipate something much of the time.

Except common sense, despite its name, isn't a commonly shared thing. Different groups of people have different common sense.

To many, common sense would dictate you play by the rules how they are written and not to try and think if GW intended the exact opposite, unless the rules don't function as they are written.

Plus as can be seen in many of the FaQs GW will change rules that worked perfectly fine in the first place and say they actually intended it to be done differently.

Vaktathi wrote:The problem then is that sometimes GW turns around and rules that the RAW stands, no matter how silly or in direct contradiction to similar rules. They're so monstrously inconsistent that there's no good way to anticipate something much of the time.

I'm talking about RAW. RAW, there was nothing which specifically permitted blasts to reroll because of PE. You could try to read that into it, but it certainly wasn't obvious from the texts.

However, if you think about what PE is supposed to do, what the mechanics for a blast are, etc. and apply simple common sense, it's pretty obvious that you don't get a reroll. It would probably most likely occur to you that you would if you are a grammar nazi trying to rules lawyer a victory at a tournament. Why? Because a result of 1 can't show up on a scatter die. In order to pull off the opposite interpretation, the grammar naziism must begin.

Apparently, GW agrees with me on that one.

And to some, common sense was that PE applied a re-roll bonus against certain enemies and therefore should work. This view was then further supported by similar wording for a different but semi-related rule allowing a similar trigger to re-roll.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Except common sense, despite its name, isn't a commonly shared thing. Different groups of people have different common sense.

To many, common sense would dictate you play by the rules how they are written and not to try and think if GW intended the exact opposite, unless the rules don't function as they are written.

Plus as can be seen in many of the FaQs GW will change rules that worked perfectly fine in the first place and say they actually intended it to be done differently.

Here's a criterion of common sense:

What if you had a week to read the rulebook (or just enough time to give it a thorough, fair reading, but not enough time to scrutinize every line and their interrelations) and then, all of a sudden, all of the rulebooks were burned.

Everyone has to play from their general understanding of how the game works and the justifications presented in italics.

That's probably how GW employees themselves play.

And again, I wish to reiterate:

For the most part, GW agreed with me. Common sense, as I understand it, basically prevailed throughout most of the FAQ.

Traditio wrote:

insaniak wrote:I'm not sure that would be a revelation to anyone.

It doesn't actually help anyone resolve rules disputes, though, particularly on more evenly split issues, because what 'makes sense' to one person isn't necessarily what makes sense to the next guy.

It would be a massive revelation to at least some people. At least some rules interpretations ultimately originate from grammar nazis trying to find loopholes.

Don't be a grammar nazi trying to exploit loopholes.

Play fair. Use common sense. Read the italics.

Try to get at the general sense of the passage as opposed to the minutiae of the wording.

That would probably put people more in the mindset of GW.

Common sense would dictate that one army codex wouldn't be monstrously better than the rest, or that they knew what they were saying when they said preferred enemy lets you reroll gets hot on blasts in the rulebook.

....and yet here we are.

niv-mizzet wrote:Common sense would dictate that one army codex wouldn't be monstrously better than the rest, or that they knew what they were saying when they said preferred enemy lets you reroll gets hot on blasts in the rulebook.

....and yet here we are.

I said "most of!"

And again, common sense is different among different groups of people.

And in that instance common sense would be to not play the game as you can't use a rulebook to check. Play on memory is hard enough as it is after 2 years of this edition, let alone only having a week to learn the rules.

Also note the FaQ isn't done yet and is still a draft (and as we've seen the draft itself had some major changes before it was released with whole answers being given the 180 treatment) so your common sense hasn't technically prevailed.

For the most part a lot of the changes are in line with what people thought, but many go against the rules, like the grenade thing. Just because you misread a section and happened to be 'right' doesn't mean you're some superior god-being.