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.

 Red_Ink_Cat wrote:

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.

Right now, they're only drafts, and are being published on Facebook so that people can give feedback on them.

Presumably they'll be added to the GW website once they're finalised.

 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.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689817.page

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/689817.page

Thank you. That was quite helpful.

I would be mad, but they just appear to be RAW interpretations and generally common sense things that would have otherwise been assumed... although I guess any assumptions fall into RAI. But, I only know the rules well enough to interpret Craftworld and Harlequins.

I am disappointed that they would not use the opportunity to make some of these rules make more sense or apply in a more logical manner (Autarch gets no Flickerjump but has the equipment that one would assume would allow him to do such a thing - thus making it entirely pointless to give him the generator), but honestly I expect nothing less of GW.

People are forgetting these are draft FAQs: They are not final. Some of it is clearly wrong or lazy when viewed how the game and codices have been designed and will be removed (e. g. one melta bomb at a time, drop pods). However, they are asking for feedback, which is unequivocally good, so they can improve the FAQs.

 ChazSexington wrote:
People are forgetting these are draft FAQs: They are not final. Some of it is clearly wrong or lazy when viewed how the game and codices have been designed and will be removed (e. g. one melta bomb at a time, drop pods). However, they are asking for feedback, which is unequivocally good, so they can improve the FAQs.

Well, yes and no. I don't think they will change any of their rulings. When they started the comments, they said as much with their "don't tell is if you don't like the rule; only tell is if you can't understand it" crap.

I'm pretty sure the grenade ruling will stand, even though it is clearly against the intention of whomever wrote the original rule. I really don't think they care that much, tbh.

Red_Ink_Cat wrote:

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.

HOW WROOOD. (In a Jar Jar voice.) Well that was quite rude. Asking for help someone gives it to you and they it's not good enough? Heaven forbid scrolling down is a lot of work.

He's not wrong. Facebooks timeline is a bull crap place to be hosting rules for a game. Granted these are just the drafts and I am sure the website will be updated with the faqs when it's all said and done. But those rulings don't count for gak until they appear on the actual website.

Good to see what direction they are heading in. But we should all be waiting for the final versions.

 Lance845 wrote:
He's not wrong. Facebooks timeline is a bull crap place to be hosting rules for a game. Granted these are just the drafts and I am sure the website will be updated with the faqs when it's all said and done. But those rulings don't count for gak until they appear on the actual website.

Good to see what direction they are heading in. But we should all be waiting for the final versions.

Except, that's the opposite of what we should be doing. these are drafts; meaning that we should be testing them and finding out what works, what doesn't, and what needs further clarification. Ignoring them means that any inconsistencies that they have literally asked us to help them deal with will go unseen, and the rules will be worse off for it.

I find it very, very easy to believe that many game developers have little clue about the games they're making.

For example, in World of Warcraft, where all the gameplay takes place on servers that the developers have full access to, the PvP developers found it bizarre that so many Rogues were choosing one option over another. So they actually asked Rogue players why they were totally ignoring that one option no matter how much they buffed it.

High-end Rogue players had to explain to the developers that the option that was going unused had the sole function of making a particular buff active more often, but without the option, it was already active almost 100% of the time anyways.

They also had to explain to the developers, very slowly, the myriad of possible uses for an ability which teleports the player immediately behind a target player. Because the devs believed it would only be used to reach distant enemy players and were oblivious to the usefulness that would come from being able to use it to teleport to a friendly healer who came under attack, or to escape an unwinnable situation, among a variety of other things it was being used for. In 40k terms, the developers made an Independent character with a rule letting it teleport into base contact with any model within 18" and never considered it would be used for anything other than ignoring the random charge distance to automatically get into melee combat with an enemy unit.

The way I've always seen it is that a broken game comes from the players, not the writers. When they design a mechanic, they have ideas about how it should work and when it would be used. The players find ways to abuse this and break it causing imbalances.

They try to fix this imbalance the inly way they really can. Write a more powerful thing on par with how the players broke the previous one. (Yes they could do a rules update, but they would have to charge for it. They're having to put in more work for something the playerbase messed up). Unfortunately the new powerful thing on par with the player made op thing, gets exploited pushing it's power level up. The cycle repeats.

The reason things get left un updated when it's very underpowered is probably because everyone calls them out on updating something so soon calling it money grabbing.

Admittedly there are things that could be done, but could quickly get out of hand. They could do an errata for every codex when they do a new codex. But they would probably charge for it because they would have to put serious time and effort in. And this would happen with every major codex update. So you could end up buying a £1 errata every 2 months as well as a new codex every year or so.

Everyone seems to want major changes and buffs/nerfs. That requires work and effort and playtesting so it doesn't make something else need major buffs/nerfs. Would you be willing to spend time doing that for free instead of working on something that makes you money? Just because you don't want to pay for something doesn't mean someone can do it for free.

Overall the FAQs are that, frequently asked questions that needed an answer. We got that. Nothing more, nothing less (except for a few errata that were genuinely needed). People will always complain and stamp their feet no matter what. If we get meaningful changes we most likely will have to pay "GW are overpriced and charge for things too much". If they don't we get left were we are " GW are terrible at rules and I know how to do it better with my 30+ years of business and market knowledge with the system I created"

Playerbase broke it? You can't break it. You can use it only to the letter it is written. If it is abusable, then it's poorly written. In a game this big, that will inevitably happen, but you could severely limit it by playtesting. Look at Malifaux. The amount of abusable rules compared to warhammer is a fraction of a fraction, because they thuroughly playtest. Before they start playtesting they're almost as bad as gw units, but they let the whole playerbase abuse it before they write the final versions.

 HANZERtank wrote:
The way I've always seen it is that a broken game comes from the players, not the writers. When they design a mechanic, they have ideas about how it should work and when it would be used. The players find ways to abuse this and break it causing imbalances.

They try to fix this imbalance the inly way they really can. Write a more powerful thing on par with how the players broke the previous one. (Yes they could do a rules update, but they would have to charge for it. They're having to put in more work for something the playerbase messed up). Unfortunately the new powerful thing on par with the player made op thing, gets exploited pushing it's power level up. The cycle repeats.

The reason things get left un updated when it's very underpowered is probably because everyone calls them out on updating something so soon calling it money grabbing.

Admittedly there are things that could be done, but could quickly get out of hand. They could do an errata for every codex when they do a new codex. But they would probably charge for it because they would have to put serious time and effort in. And this would happen with every major codex update. So you could end up buying a £1 errata every 2 months as well as a new codex every year or so.

Everyone seems to want major changes and buffs/nerfs. That requires work and effort and playtesting so it doesn't make something else need major buffs/nerfs. Would you be willing to spend time doing that for free instead of working on something that makes you money? Just because you don't want to pay for something doesn't mean someone can do it for free.

Overall the FAQs are that, frequently asked questions that needed an answer. We got that. Nothing more, nothing less (except for a few errata that were genuinely needed). People will always complain and stamp their feet no matter what. If we get meaningful changes we most likely will have to pay "GW are overpriced and charge for things too much". If they don't we get left were we are " GW are terrible at rules and I know how to do it better with my 30+ years of business and market knowledge with the system I created"

They could try letting players playtest the crap out of the rules with free draft versions available online before committing anything to print.

And see where that has us now? The complaints about the faqs and how terrible they are.

As a player myself I'll admit that most of us are useless when it comes to that. Most people want whats best for their army, and will want it buffed because most players want more. Opponents will want less. They would have to also do a set for proper rules testing, as average joe has not much clue about balance. What I would suggest is set up a system where only people that apply and get accpted get to rules test. This keeps it more consistent and fair by having a large player set of roughly equal amounts for each faction. In a game this big what people perceive as being a fair balance can throw the next thing to be op. A focused group of game veterans that know what they're doing is whats needed. Offer an incentive for doing it such as a run of 'playtester special models' and let people apply.

And in regards to purifier. An iphone can be jailbroken through user interference, that doesn't make it poorly designed. It's people looking for ways to break it. In a game this big it's hard to balance it all without a complete redo, such as sigmar did. Do every codex at once along with the main rules.

 HANZERtank wrote:
An iphone can be jailbroken through user interference, that doesn't make it poorly designed.

First of all, that is a terrible analogy. A piece of technology and a ruleset have nothing to do with each other. You jailbreak the iphone to make the technology do something it is already capable of, but that a company doesn't necessarily want you to do. The ruleset is written in a way where it restricts you from doing certain things and allows others. If you find something that it allows that GW didn't think about when allowing it, that's still playing something they have specifically allowed.

Second, it actually *does* make it poorly designed. They've specifically designed measures to stop it from being used in any way but their own, and yet those measures are being circumvented. Obviously it's not doing what it was specifically designed to do. That's poor design.

 Purifier wrote:

 HANZERtank wrote:
An iphone can be jailbroken through user interference, that doesn't make it poorly designed.

First of all, that is a terrible analogy. A piece of technology and a ruleset have nothing to do with each other. You jailbreak the iphone to make the technology do something it is already capable of, but that a company doesn't necessarily want you to do. The ruleset is written in a way where it restricts you from doing certain things and allows others. If you find something that it allows that GW didn't think about when allowing it, that's still playing something they have specifically allowed.

Second, it actually *does* make it poorly designed. They've specifically designed measures to stop it from being used in any way but their own, and yet those measures are being circumvented. Obviously it's not doing what it was specifically designed to do. That's poor design.

Rules are technology, as noted in copyright and trademark laws. And both the jailbreak example and your own counter argument showcase why this specific rule set is poorly designed.

SJ

 JimOnMars wrote:

 ChazSexington wrote:
People are forgetting these are draft FAQs: They are not final. Some of it is clearly wrong or lazy when viewed how the game and codices have been designed and will be removed (e. g. one melta bomb at a time, drop pods). However, they are asking for feedback, which is unequivocally good, so they can improve the FAQs.

Well, yes and no. I don't think they will change any of their rulings. When they started the comments, they said as much with their "don't tell is if you don't like the rule; only tell is if you can't understand it" crap.

I'm pretty sure the grenade ruling will stand, even though it is clearly against the intention of whomever wrote the original rule. I really don't think they care that much, tbh.

I agree that many of the FAQs (if not all of them) will stand in the official draft whenever released. There may be a few that change, but I don't think the grenade ruling will be one of them. It isn't even " clearly against the intention of whomever wrote the original rule". One could make the argument (and indeed that is what GW is doing with this draft) that the original rule always intended for only 1 grenade to be "thrown" per unit, per phase. Whether shooting it, or in assault. GW never defined "thrown" to mean "shooting attack", so applying the "1 per" rule to assault is still perfectly within the bounds of the BRB as written.

It actually only effect very few armies in a negative way. Ork Tank Bustas are the most unfortunate case, but every other army is fine. Marines only get 1 MB per unit anyway and the Eldar units affected (Fire Dragons & Swooping Hawks) are still Eldar.

As for the FAQ's, I am treating the drafts as official until the official FAQ drops. it just makes sense and provides a clear answer to so many situations. Even if you don't agree with the answer, it's better than no answer at all.

-

IMO the worst one was grenades.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 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.

That source would be GW's standard operating procedure for the last 20 years? They tend not to release anything until its in a final or near final form, the only exception being some FW experimental rules stuff. As noted, most of this is also FAQ clarification of intent and meaning of their own writing, not feedback based Errata. If we get numerous radically changed answers, I'll eat crow, but I'm willing to bet that the final FAQ's won't be substantially different, if at all.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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 have to quote this just for the sheer truth of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
IMO the worst one was grenades.

It's a change that needed to happen.

Why did it need to happen?

pm713 wrote:
Why did it need to happen?

To make vehicles have a bit more of a fighting chance.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Why did it need to happen?

To make vehicles have a bit more of a fighting chance.

Grenades do not make a meaningful difference. Vehicles don't have a chance because of things like scatter spam not grenades. The change only made the game have one more stupid mechanic.

And the grenade thing helped mcs, too.

Martel732 wrote:
And the grenade thing helped mcs, too.

It helped MCs that needed help, and didn't effect MCs that you would need them against. Seriously, what DK or Riptide is dying to Krak Grenades? Meanwhile my Carnifex will get pulverized.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

Grenades do not make a meaningful difference. Vehicles don't have a chance because of things like scatter spam not grenades. The change only made the game have one more stupid mechanic.

No. The fact that a unit that is good at killing light infantry (Swooping Hawks) could also annihilate any vehicle at will takes away from the feel of a "specialist" codex.

Scatterlasers are irrelevant to this conversation, as we all know how broken they are, and no FAQ can change that.

To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

No mc needed help. They get a truckload of amazing rules. But krak grenades were never really viable vs 3+ armor anyway.

Martel732 wrote:
No mc needed help. They get a truckload of amazing rules. But krak grenades were never really viable vs 3+ armor anyway.

Say that to my Toxicrene. And I've also lost Carnifexes and Hive Tyrants to them. And my C'tans are scared of them.

Kraks let a tac squad cause a wound before all being mulched by op smash attacks.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

pm713 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, grenade attacks were stupidly powerful with all attacks hitting rear armor, 95% of vehicles having rear AV10, almost all having 2 or 3 HP's. Basically it meant any basic troop unit getting into base contact would autokill a tank, which was stupid.

But the problem was not inherently grenades, but the vehicle mechanics that similarly make things like scatterlasers so capable as well.

Last I checked the only army with troops with grenades like that was space marines. Plus saying it's an auto kill is an exaggeration it wasn't that good and you also have to catch the tank. Tanks move faster than Infantry.

Not if the tanks are shooting. Which, if they're not, then they're probably not as much of a target.

And space marines includes BA, DA, Grey knights, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Vanilla. Also you have Eldar and harlequins. Oh yeah, and Chaos Space Marines, though they didn't need a nerf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Kraks let a tac squad cause a wound before all being mulched by op smash attacks.

Ah yes, the OPness of my two WS3 attacks. Fear me!