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.

The fact that the game needs an FAQ the day it is released says a lot about the quality of the rules writing.

Aren't the things their clarifying the sort of things that should be picked up in quality control (playtesting) and sorted out before the rules went to print?

Also they seem to add even more oddities into the system. Things like flamers auto hitting flyers are just dumb. Plasma weapons being more likely to overheat at night / when shooting something in cover just do not make any logical sense. They are bad mechanics.

I think this shows that 40k players are just looking for anything to exploit, just because they can. Like that keyword nonsense. There's zero reason it would work that way other than rules lawyers would point out that technically by the wording it does.

Ridiculous.

Yeah, from those posted questions only a couple were genuinely reasonable questions. The others were gamey/cheesy/loophole nonsense.

Normally I'd say GW shouldn't even address this stupidity, but they are probably trying to make sure Tournament Organizers have something to quote when someone brings up some stupid game-breaking nonsense.

If you measure from the model rather than the base, won't it be difficult to get a flyer into flamer range to begin with?

 Tamereth wrote:
The fact that the game needs an FAQ the day it is released says a lot about the quality of the rules writing.

Aren't the things their clarifying the sort of things that should be picked up in quality control (playtesting) and sorted out before the rules went to print?

Also they seem to add even more oddities into the system. Things like flamers auto hitting flyers are just dumb. Plasma weapons being more likely to overheat at night / when shooting something in cover just do not make any logical sense. They are bad mechanics.

They are trying to write rules to include a vast variety of content from decades of work so I dont think its weird things get messed up. Compared to, for example, a new game that comes with a small number of units for a small number of factions. And even those games tend to mess up pretty badly.

But it does feel strange that the rules seem so inconsistent in application and wording. Not as if by accident but by choice, which only serves to make a simpel rulesystem annoyingly difficult to overview.

 Elbows wrote:
Normally I'd say GW shouldn't even address this stupidity, but they are probably trying to make sure Tournament Organizers have something to quote when someone brings up some stupid game-breaking nonsense.

I'd argue that by addressing this as much as possible, it creates an atmosphere of sensible rules interpretation. If there are a large number of examples of rulings going this way then people will be far more likely to argue and interpret rules the "sensible way". It may not be a great help but it is something.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I feel bad for the FAQ writers. Most of the document is basically "no you ass that's not what we meant, read english like a normal person!"

What is normal English? I mean those writers don't ride escalators or is it elevators? They ride lifts. They don't have French Fries they have chips. So what is normal English? After all Americans don't have U's in some of their words when they should. So again normal English is different for a lot of us.

 vipoid wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I have seen people arguee about that
"But what if negative Command Points gives your opponent more command points?!"

If you're referring to me then that's rather disingenuous.

I suggested that as a possible house rule; I never argued that it was in any way RAW (or even RAI for that matter).

To be honest I didn't remembered who said that, so I wasn't thinking about anyone specifically, but if I remember correctly some people said the same thing. I apologize if you tought I attacked you, wasn't my intention!

 Elbows wrote:
Overcharging plasma is for when you're trying to take out that final wound or two from a vehicle or monster/character...for that epic moment when Private Jenkins incinerates himself while blowing up a traitor Knight.

Okay, you've just sold me on 8th!

Alcibiades wrote:
If you measure from the model rather than the base, won't it be difficult to get a flyer into flamer range to begin with?

p126, left-side column. You measure from bases unless the model did not come with a base. I believe wave serpents have their own rule that says they always measure from the hull, however.

This is not an official document in any regard. Considering Warhammer-community has made rules errors in the past, should we really start 8th off on the wrong foot with a series of 'house rules' by the PR team?

pointless818 wrote:
This is not an official document in any regard. Considering Warhammer-community has made rules errors in the past, should we really start 8th off on the wrong foot with a series of 'house rules' by the PR team?

Nah, your're right. Let's start off assuming you can name an SM chapter and Tau sept both "Wu Tang Clan" and have them buff each other. That sounds much more reasonable.

pointless818 wrote:
This is not an official document in any regard. Considering Warhammer-community has made rules errors in the past, should we really start 8th off on the wrong foot with a series of 'house rules' by the PR team?

Its from the design team who works at GW and made the game.
How is that not official?
And they aren't House Rules, they are clarifications of rules that are in the rule book. That was designed by them.

pointless818 wrote:
This is not an official document in any regard. Considering Warhammer-community has made rules errors in the past, should we really start 8th off on the wrong foot with a series of 'house rules' by the PR team?

By PR team you mean Devs? Lets all ignore clear and sensible clarifications from the game designers because they haven't posted them in the place you decided they have to. Bravo, you win.

 Luciferian wrote:


Nah, your're right. Let's start off assuming you can name an SM chapter and Tau sept both "Wu Tang Clan" and have them buff each other. That sounds much more reasonable.

That was already not permitted in the rules and did not require any further clarifications. Just because your Sept has a custom name does not make magically it a <kabal>.

I like that they explained the intention behind them, and included examples. Good for them. Most of these actually are needed rules clarifications that were not apparent from the basic rules. Cover and re rolls/modifiers being my top two. The real win would be for them to re write the PDF/eBooks to include these changes so you don't need the FAQ going forward.

Loopstah wrote:

By PR team you mean Devs? Lets all ignore clear and sensible clarifications from the game designers because they haven't posted them in the place you decided they have to. Bravo, you win.

It's from warhammer-community, which is the PR team. It's not official, which is why it's not posted with correct formatting on GWs site, with all the other official documentation, for all their other games.

pointless818 wrote:

Loopstah wrote:

By PR team you mean Devs? Lets all ignore clear and sensible clarifications from the game designers because they haven't posted them in the place you decided they have to. Bravo, you win.

It's from warhammer-community, which is the PR team. It's not official, which is why it's not posted with correct formatting on GWs site, with all the other official documentation, for all their other games.

Riddle me this: why it's not official if it's posted in warhammer-community. Furthermore, how can it not be official when it was introduced by a member of


If you have questions about the rules in the new edition, you’ll want to read the Designers’ Commentary. We’ve had all sorts of queries about the rules and our team have written a document designed to explain the core principles behind the game, from coherency to characters, to dice rolls themselves. Whatever your level of experience, it’ll be sure to be a valuable resource in any of your games.

Refers to the dev-team

 Luciferian wrote:


"Wu Tang Clan".

Over the Vox they would have ODB yelling "ZOOOOOOOOOOO" while they arrive as reinforcement.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Riddle me this: why it's not official

because he don't likes the answers

pointless818 wrote:

Loopstah wrote:

By PR team you mean Devs? Lets all ignore clear and sensible clarifications from the game designers because they haven't posted them in the place you decided they have to. Bravo, you win.

It's from warhammer-community, which is the PR team. It's not official, which is why it's not posted with correct formatting on GWs site, with all the other official documentation, for all their other games.

Aren't the free 8th ed primer rules also on the community website? If so, I take it those aren't official either?
If those rules are not official, then does that mean GW would have to sue itself, for posting clearly pirated (unofficial) rules on their own website?

Lord Kragan wrote:


Riddle me this: why it's not official if it's posted in warhammer-community. Furthermore, how can it not be official when it was introduced by a member of


If you have questions about the rules in the new edition, you’ll want to read the Designers’ Commentary. We’ve had all sorts of queries about the rules and our team have written a document designed to explain the core principles behind the game, from coherency to characters, to dice rolls themselves. Whatever your level of experience, it’ll be sure to be a valuable resource in any of your games.

Refers to the dev-team

Our team, the PR team, has been asked the questions, they compiled the document.

pointless818 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Riddle me this: why it's not official if it's posted in warhammer-community. Furthermore, how can it not be official when it was introduced by a member of


If you have questions about the rules in the new edition, you’ll want to read the Designers’ Commentary. We’ve had all sorts of queries about the rules and our team have written a document designed to explain the core principles behind the game, from coherency to characters, to dice rolls themselves. Whatever your level of experience, it’ll be sure to be a valuable resource in any of your games.

Refers to the dev-team

Our team, the PR team, has been asked the questions, they compiled the document.

they likely took the questions, down the hall to the dev team and asked them, wrote their responses down and then put the responses up. seriously man do you think the other FAQs are written down and posted by the game devs?

pointless818 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Riddle me this: why it's not official if it's posted in warhammer-community. Furthermore, how can it not be official when it was introduced by a member of


If you have questions about the rules in the new edition, you’ll want to read the Designers’ Commentary. We’ve had all sorts of queries about the rules and our team have written a document designed to explain the core principles behind the game, from coherency to characters, to dice rolls themselves. Whatever your level of experience, it’ll be sure to be a valuable resource in any of your games.

Refers to the dev-team

Our team, the PR team, has been asked the questions, they compiled the document.

Except, you know, its called the designer's commentary. Unless you mean to tell me that the PR team designed the game.

Why are some people up in arms when some people say this isn't "official"? We are not saying it's wrong or it's not correct. All it is is not an FAQ or should I say Errata/FAQ.

When GW made comments that wasn't in an Errata/FAQ like White Dwarf or some other format and the GW rulings have been proven wrong many times. That is why we say it's not an official FAQ. Imperial Knights for everyone for instance? How many people said Tyranids couldn't take Imperial Knights when they came out when Games Workshop through White Dwarf said they could? Same for Chaos as well.

Some people are getting their knickers in a knot for no reason when some people say it's not "official". If it's so Official how come it's not on the GW website FAQ page then? If you mean by official that it's a Frequently Asked Question then yes, it's official, but if you are saying it's official for game rulings then no it's not just like how White Dwarf or Community statements are not official and in fact been proven wrong.

If anyone who would say that the rules are not correct because the Designer's Notes are not "official" is just not worth playing. I wouldn't play them and let them have their "win/victory" and go and play with someone else who is more fun to play with.

Davor wrote:
Why are some people up in arms when some people say this isn't "official"?

2 reasons really-
One, dealing with two sets of rules is really a pain
Two, denying 'officialness' is usually means the individual is intending to cheese something out that the clarifications say no to.

This isn't a tweet or a WD error, its clarification of some of the vague areas of the rules from the devs, as well as stomping down on some of the ridiculous scenarios brought on by intentionally ignoring the metadata attached to keywords.

Strangely enough, some auras just got a lot weaker.

Guilliman's re-roll to-hit/to-wound aura is for "failed" rolls.
Cawl's re-roll to-hit during shooting phase doesn't mention failing the roll.

So an icarus array targeting non-fly units normally has a 3+ BS but with a -1 to-hit modifier. Yet with Cawl, because his re-roll rule doesn't mention failing the roll, still lets you re-roll 3's. The equivalent situation for Guilliman doesn't let you re-roll 3's, as they aren't modified to be a failed hit roll yet.




In other news, 8" flamers are officially unable to target units making a 8.5" charge during overwatch.

1 thing I wished they overlooked was 'saves of a one always fail' because scarab occult would be hilarious

So, just to see if I'm getting this right, people are arguing that this "FAQ" isn't an "FAQ" using much the same logic as the argument of "you can't use Forgeworld models because the rules say Citadel models" because of semantics and/or the location the FAQ is downloaded from?

More or less, but remember this is also the forum that:

Argued that the Drafts weren't official because they are just "drafts"

That they would not even use it until all the kinks have been ironed out (despite the draft explicitly being put out for players to test out).

Once the Draft became final, that it wasn't "Official" because it wasn't posted on the GW website.

And once that it was posted on the website, I still remember a few saying that it's "FAQs, not Erratas, therefore only count as house rules".

Of course, everyone who said that were known to have used armies explicitly exploiting some loophole that was closed by the FAQs and were unhappy that their army was "nerfed".

Again, I pity the FAQ writers. I'm willing to bet most of them would give anything to shout at the fandom "Read English!" without repercussions.