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.

Is anyone else reading the FAQs that GW is putting out and thinking to themselves "Wow these clowns have no idea what they are doing?" So many simple fixes could have happened with this FAQ and instead I feel like they are either adding more questions to the mix or they are taking already sub-par units/armies and nerfing them even further. So far from what I have read very little has been helped in the FAQs, some notable exceptions aside. And of course the nerfing stick hitting weak armies is a bit ridiculous at this point. My favorite so far has been the GW teams reasoning behind Mad Dok Grotsnik having a Cybork Body.

Yeah, there's a lot of inconsistencies, as is tradition, and a lot of "was that really a question that was frequently asked?", as is tradition, and even more "yeah this totally broken thing really does that, no that totally unplayable unit really was meant to be unplayable", again, as is tradition.

I'm not sure what people were expecting, I know hope springs eternal, but the FAQ stuff is directly in line with how GW has operated for the last two decades.


:(

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, there's a lot of inconsistencies, as is tradition, and a lot of "was that really a question that was frequently asked?", as is tradition, and even more "yeah this totally broken thing really does that, no that totally unplayable unit really was meant to be unplayable", again, as is tradition.

I'm not sure what people were expecting, I know hope springs eternal, but the FAQ stuff is directly in line with how GW has operated for the last two decades.


:(

But it started off quite well...

And it's not exactly in line with how they've acted for two decades. It opened up a venue that had previously been closed off as we were stonewalled as far as any kind of explanation on rules went.

You were expecting changes? They are to clarify unclear parts on how it's intended to be played...

But as for rule changes...That's not FAQ's job.

tneva82 wrote:
You were expecting changes? They are to clarify unclear parts on how it's intended to be played...

But as for rule changes...That's not FAQ's job.

Actually FAQs can change how rules are done. For instance they could have specified that Mob Rule could be used against Fear checks. That would have fit in line with the rest of the terrible rule and made Orks a bit better against a lot of CC units. Instead they took the easy road and said, "Nah feth the orks".

So many missed opportunities to help the community and make people think that GW actually gives a feth.

You have to remember that the FAQ's are not meant to "nerf" or "buff" armies, but rather just to help everyone play the same game. Almost all answers have actually been expected, with some notable exceptions. Even of these exceptions, some of them are actually in the rules, but just verbalized in a way that no one expected to mean that way. Some examples:

#1 - Grenades; one per phase, even in assault. They said "throw", which we took to mean "shooting attack", but "throw" isn't actually described elsewhere in the rules as a shooting attack, and it seems like units in close combat are also "throwing" the grenades then.

#2 - Battle Brothers not allowed to start in each other's transports. The rules actually only say that Battle Brothers can embark in each other's transports, which means they are performing the in-game action of being on the table, and then getting into the transport, not starting the game already "embarked".

Aside from that, the only times they've really done a major errata has been in these cases:

#1 - Increased Dreadnaught's (and Helbrute's) attacks so they all match.

#2 - Made Warp Spiders "one jump only".

#3 - Gave the Tankbusta Nob a Close Combat Weapon.


From this, it stands to reason that GW want a player who picks up the book with only a casual knowledge of the game to be able to play "correctly", and for that to match what everyone else is already playing. Players assume that a Tankbusta Nob can take a Power Klaw, because all other Nobz can, and it even says they have access to the armoury. So many people make that mistake, that they brought in the Close Combat Weapon. A player might also honestly assume that because the Warp Spider's rule in the codex says that can't make the special move during their next turn, that this move in the shooting phase should only happen once as well. Lastly, the Dreadnaught one really was I think GW hearing how weird it was that two things with the same name had different stats in different codex's, but had players not made a stink about it nothing would have happened.

Aside from that, GW is keeping things as they are written as often as possible. I'm sure some of these things actually caused GW to say "huh, you know what, it SHOULD have kept Lumbering Behemoth", but to that, someone probably decided "Yes, but only players who had the last codex would know that. A newer player won't realize that it should have a rule that they've never seen and never heard of and have no idea what it does. Just go with it, and we'll note it down for the next time we write a codex."

(followed by that first employee saying "sir, you're not writing anything down.", "don't worry, we'll remember it. I promise" fingers-crossed-behind-back)

Why would they bother to "fix" things in 7th when they can save the changes for 8th and make ou pay for the fixes instead of handing them out with free FAQs?. [/sarcasm] - "7the ed is a flaming pile of gak. They fixed it all in 8th, so I'm buying that ruleset and using it instead!"

Personally, I do believe these FAQ's ARE fact-finding endevours for 8th edition; a way for GW to locate and consider rule questions/hole that they can then address in the next version. I don't think they're being intentional in rule-screwing any faction, but instead finding out what people don't understand or don't like so they can incorporate it into a better ruleset with the next (hopefully better playtested) edition. A clean rules break with a new, improved edition with everyone on equal footing is, in theory, better than attempting to patch up a broken system that people might equate rule changes to house rules.

I still like how BA went from two useful formations to one.

Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

the problem is tha increasingly its not a game for anyone. Its not a game for those looking for a tactical wargame scenario simulator (by GW's own admission), its too expensive for little timmy who just wants to play with cool toys, it's totally worthless as a narrative story or campaign framework, and its obscenely overcomplex and overburdened with rules for a beer and pretzels game.

I still wish the writing of the Codices would be contracted out to Fantasy Flight or WizKids and then slapping the GW label on it and sell it. We'd definitely get better rules.

SG

 jreilly89 wrote:
Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

GW has made these FAQ DRAFTS with the goal of fixing problems in the game currently. GW is pushing out even MORE IoM factions and sub codices in the hope of selling MORE models and rules. What they should have done was take a fething minute to look over what they currently have and find a way to fix it. The FAQs offered a lot of useless fixes to problems that a lot of us didn't know existed. They clarified very little and then to add insult to injury they ridiculed actual concerns about game design and played it off as if that was what they intended.

Turning a 5++ into a 6+ FNP and sticking it on a character with a 5+ FNP already and then attempting to tell us that the reason Mad Dok lost his invul and gained a useless 6+ FNP is because he is "Mad". that is insulting to those who play the game and it speaks volumes to how they treat that faction.

I honestly think Orks get more releases and extra stuff the any other faction except IoM, specifically SMs. BUT all of our extras and supplements tend to suck. The fact that GW just phoned in another Ork release (New Ork Flyer, still AV10 all around and no dakka) and then a few months later gave SMs an assault flyer with good stats and relatively cheap price makes it that much more unbearable.

As I said in previous posts I have boycotted GW stores and products. I buy entirely from 3rd party websites that don't support GW at all. I actively still play the game because I have invested a lot of time and money into a hobby which I love. I just am holding out for a new edition/codex where my army isn't the NPC race that gets obliterated.

GW: If a Template weapon with Multiple shots (E.G the Frag Cannon) fires overwatch, it does its number of shots in D3

Players: Does the Frag Cannon get multiple Wall of Death?
GW: No

Wut?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

the problem is tha increasingly its not a game for anyone. Its not a game for those looking for a tactical wargame scenario simulator (by GW's own admission), its too expensive for little timmy who just wants to play with cool toys, it's totally worthless as a narrative story or campaign framework, and its obscenely overcomplex and overburdened with rules for a beer and pretzels game.

And? If you'll notice I never said 40k was a great game or anything, my last sentence was "Find a new game". If you spent hours and hours complaining about a game, maybe get a new hobby?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Considering they're all DRAFTS, no, I'm not that hurt about it as others. Semper, you're just looking for another excuse to grind your axe against GW. Have you considered another game? 40k obviously isn't for you.

I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

Where did I take it personally or tell you to throw away stuff? You've posted time and again how GW hates Orks and how it's a terrible game. I'm being bad by telling you to try a new one?

But sure, if you want suggestions:
-Play test the FAQs, they're drafts, give feedback
-Wait it out, a new edition will roll around
-Build a better army. Recognize Orks are bad in this iteration and start an Eldar/SM army that's OP
-Find a new game

SemperMortis wrote:
I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

*shrug* Switching game and keeping models aren't mutually exclusive. Don't know where you get the idea that you need to throw models away just 'cause you would dump the 40k.

SemperMortis wrote:


I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

I stopped playing 40k at the start of 7th ed, but I saw no need to throw out any of my codexes or models because of that. It sucks that they don't see the battlefield anymore and just sit on a shelf, but it's given me a lot of time to work on painting them to a new level while I play games that supply more fun, such as X Wing.

If you have a good group of friends at your LGS, you could even get your heads together and create a house ruleset to play by, or even work on an entirely new game such as I am doing at this very minute.

As I said in previous posts I have boycotted GW stores and products. I buy entirely from 3rd party websites that don't support GW at all. I actively still play the game because I have invested a lot of time and money into a hobby which I love. I just am holding out for a new edition/codex where my army isn't the NPC race that gets obliterated.

I get not supporting GW's rules, but why boycott Citadel models? I think codex writers and model sculptors fall into two very different halves of GW as a whole, and I still find myself happy to buy their models.

I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a good codex for your army. Sounds very much like a certain definition of insanity to me, as does continuing to play a game that you hate because you feel you haven't got your money's worth from what you spent. Incoming vague comparison here, but I've played a lot of crap video games I paid for. Doesn't mean I keep playing them till I'm dry as a bone, I just toss them out and get back to more Overwatch/Space Marine/Insurgency/DOW

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


I do love to grind my axe against GW. And again it boils down to you taking criticism of the game personally and instead of offering advice or suggestions that are useful you resort to "find a different game" because clearly this game isn't for me. I should just take the hundreds of hours i have spent modeling and painting and the hundreds of dollars I have spent on the game and just throw it all away because the current game is borderline unplayable.

I stopped playing 40k at the start of 7th ed, but I saw no need to throw out any of my codexes or models because of that. It sucks that they don't see the battlefield anymore and just sit on a shelf, but it's given me a lot of time to work on painting them to a new level while I play games that supply more fun, such as X Wing.

If you have a good group of friends at your LGS, you could even get your heads together and create a house ruleset to play by, or even work on an entirely new game such as I am doing at this very minute.

As I said in previous posts I have boycotted GW stores and products. I buy entirely from 3rd party websites that don't support GW at all. I actively still play the game because I have invested a lot of time and money into a hobby which I love. I just am holding out for a new edition/codex where my army isn't the NPC race that gets obliterated.

I get not supporting GW's rules, but why boycott Citadel models? I think codex writers and model sculptors fall into two very different halves of GW as a whole, and I still find myself happy to buy their models.

I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a good codex for your army. Sounds very much like a certain definition of insanity to me, as does continuing to play a game that you hate because you feel you haven't got your money's worth from what you spent. Incoming vague comparison here, but I've played a lot of crap video games I paid for. Doesn't mean I keep playing them till I'm dry as a bone, I just toss them out and get back to more Overwatch/Space Marine/Insurgency/DOW

G.A

I actually get a lot of fun games still because my local area is crammed with Orks, BA, Nid, and CSM players. So all of us at the bottom can still play games relatively easily against each other. We do have a few SM and Eldar players and occasionally I play against them when I feel I might surprise them with something they aren't used to or because of a tournament or local event.

I LOVE warhammer40k I just HATE the current rules and the HUGE power imbalance that exists between the top tier (Eldar, Tau, SMs) and the Bottom tier (CSM, Nid, BA and Orks).

And I am not one to spend all that money and time on a hobby just to let it sit on a shelf for a few years because the game creators are idiots and dont know how to write a balanced game.

But this is a bit off topic, to get back to the original point, GW themselves created an amazing opportunity to fix a lot of the issues with the current imbalance. Instead of doing that they doubled down and made it very clear they don't give a feth about balance and nothing they did was a mistake.

SemperMortis wrote:
I actually get a lot of fun games still because my local area is crammed with Orks, BA, Nid, and CSM players. So all of us at the bottom can still play games relatively easily against each other. We do have a few SM and Eldar players and occasionally I play against them when I feel I might surprise them with something they aren't used to or because of a tournament or local event.

I LOVE warhammer40k I just HATE the current rules and the HUGE power imbalance that exists between the top tier (Eldar, Tau, SMs) and the Bottom tier (CSM, Nid, BA and Orks).

You me both - I hated how I now had to spin around at the bottom where once my Orks used to be strong. I think the difference between me and you is that you still manage to get good games in with people who are practically forced to play friendlies with their armies; my LGS became one huge group of top tier players, and I was pretty glad that I ended up leaving it behind. In fact, when I visited 2 years later, 40K had vanished and been replaced by Magic.

And I am not one to spend all that money and time on a hobby just to let it sit on a shelf for a few years because the game creators are idiots and dont know how to write a balanced game.

But this is a bit off topic, to get back to the original point, GW themselves created an amazing opportunity to fix a lot of the issues with the current imbalance. Instead of doing that they doubled down and made it very clear they don't give a feth about balance and nothing they did was a mistake.

Perhaps you should try writing your own ruleset as I am currently doing. I have no idea who would play mine as I don't know anyone here, or if it'd be any good, but it certainly makes me feel better about my collection's lack of field service. If you wrote something up, at the very least have people to play it with, and it could work a lot better than what you compromise for your gaming experience now.

As you said, GW don't care, and that is unlikely to change. I'm sure you don't want to be stuck in the same cycle of playing a crap game for years to come.

SemperMortis wrote:

But this is a bit off topic, to get back to the original point, GW themselves created an amazing opportunity to fix a lot of the issues with the current imbalance. Instead of doing that they doubled down and made it very clear they don't give a feth about balance and nothing they did was a mistake.

Again, guys, let's all say it together: IT'S A DRAFT! It's meant to be played, commented on, etc.

Honestly this feels like more whining it's an FAQ not a rebalance of the whole game. Everyone wants rule changes deal with it.

Yes it's a draft, but they're probably not going to go back and add in a bunch of new items or radically change answers, a draft is typically something in a near completion state looking for polish and critical error checking.

By and large I've been very satisfied with the FAQs. The few answers that have displeased me have still made sense, for the most part.

The FAQ's aren't nerfing anything.

The nerfs originated when the codexes were written. These units that appear now to be getting a nerf were nerfed all along; GW's English was just too poor to fully document the nerf.

The FAQs are just fixing the units were mis-nerfed.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes it's a draft, but they're probably not going to go back and add in a bunch of new items or radically change answers, a draft is typically something in a near completion state looking for polish and critical error checking.

And your source is? They explicitly stated they wanted these to be play tested and reflected back on. Even if they're changes in the form of 8th, no need to proclaim the end of the world yet.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes it's a draft, but they're probably not going to go back and add in a bunch of new items or radically change answers, a draft is typically something in a near completion state looking for polish and critical error checking.

Yeah, GW probably means "draft" as in "check our spelling, but the answers aren't changing"

I'm actually quite hopeful. I have never wanted a rules overhaul as it takes time to relearn a whole new system. By reaching out to the community via Facebook, GW can "take the pulse" of what needs to change, address certain issues that don't require them to rewrite whole sections of a codex, then they can apply those REAL changes to 8th edition.
The core of the game is not broken, but the lack of structure in list building/allies and bloat of the rules has created some nasty situations.

Where are you finding some of these FAQ? I have been looking for some of these for the better part of a day, and all I have found are the official Errata.

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:
Where are you finding some of these FAQ? I have been looking for some of these for the better part of a day, and all I have found are the official Errata.

https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/?notif_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1468883832353351

Scroll down till you find what you looking for or look at the pics on the right.

Yes it is a FAQ ant not a rule change Errata, but I hoped that GW will use a little bit more RAI and not strict RAW to answer them

 Galef wrote:

The core of the game is not broken, but the lack of structure in list building/allies and bloat of the rules has created some nasty situations.

Depends on what you define as core.
the simple rules that are still the same since 3rd are not broken, but if you are talking about 7th edi rulebook than I have to disagree because those rules are defiantly broken and need a complete re-write (without missing essential things but keeping outdated paragraphs because it was to much work to check to read it twice before it got printed)

And GW will not do it better with 8th, just because their way of writing rules is not working that way.
They have core rules and add with each faction special rules that have nothing to do with the core mechanics and because they don't care about wording you will get those small problems that a simple new special rules causes a lot of problems.
AoS is also written that way, they just needed 6 months until a nice idea of simple core rules was broken again and needed a fix.

Davor wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/?notif_t=notify_me_page¬if_id=1468883832353351

Scroll down till you find what you looking for or look at the pics on the right.

What are they doing posting rules updates to FB only? That's fething garbage! Unless it's off the PDF downloads on their website, it does not exist to me. I am not going to dig through an FB page to find rules errata.

They will add it as pdf to the website when everything is finished