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.

So it is already may .
Any news? Rumours? Anything?
I cannot find any information about FAQ being postponed or cancelled neither.

Pft! Being able to write an FAQ from home? Preposterous!

Really GW seem happy with how the game is so I'm not we'll have a Big FAQ. By "big" I mean they won't change anything fundamental about how the game plays like when they changed the Deep Strike rules or Smite.

Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

In imagine there will be something (even if it's a post saying no changes needed), but certainly not until the pandemic it's over, and games workshop is back to normal. This has delayed everything, and I can imagine an faq isn't high on the list of priorities atm ha ha.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

Perhaps they could finally get around to fixing Assault weapons.
It's only been four years, after all!

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

Perhaps they could finally get around to fixing Assault weapons.
It's only been four years, after all!

Maybe this is a non-problem for them, as BCB is the only guy on the planet to misunderstand that rule

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

Perhaps they could finally get around to fixing Assault weapons.
It's only been four years, after all!

Maybe this is a non-problem for them, as BCB is the only guy on the planet to misunderstand that rule

It'd still nice if they fixed the wording up.
and by far it not the only exemple of RAI and RAW beeing heavily in conflict and notthing beeing done about it, cough command vox net cough...

What's the issue with assault weapons? I've never had a problem with how they work.

 jaredb wrote:
What's the issue with assault weapons? I've never had a problem with how they work.

By strict raw the text as written disalows the use of them after advancing, even though RAI is pretty clear.
it's mostly consistency issues of the writing with it. Nothing too important but it'd be still nice if they'd have fixed it by now.

Yeah, I believe the wording is (roughly) that Assault weapons allow a model to shoot after it Advanced when the unit would be able to fire, but the wording of Advancing precludes you from selecting the unit with such models in to be able to shoot.

Most people won't even notice, and play it as everyone - even BCB, I think - agrees the RAI interpretation is, but RAW you can't shoot after Advancing with Assault weapons.

Which may be worth keeping in the back pocket if you end up playing against a tool of a TFG...

As to the Spring FAQ question, it might be worth bringing it up on one of the Twitch streams, or emailing GW about (or asking on FB, etc). Even if they just put up a post on WHC saying they're not doing one this time, people would appreciate knowing.

I would expect there to be no faq. There has not been enough time since the december faq with actual games happening to see what the current state of the game is and if something needs changing.

 Dysartes wrote:
Yeah, I believe the wording is (roughly) that Assault weapons allow a model to shoot after it Advanced when the unit would be able to fire, but the wording of Advancing precludes you from selecting the unit with such models in to be able to shoot.

Most people won't even notice, and play it as everyone - even BCB, I think - agrees the RAI interpretation is, but RAW you can't shoot after Advancing with Assault weapons.

Which may be worth keeping in the back pocket if you end up playing against a tool of a TFG...

As to the Spring FAQ question, it might be worth bringing it up on one of the Twitch streams, or emailing GW about (or asking on FB, etc). Even if they just put up a post on WHC saying they're not doing one this time, people would appreciate knowing.

You are correct, even I realise what the rule probably, maybe, is meant to do. The fact it doesn't do it doesn't change because you really wish it did though.

GW literally have to release errata for books before they go on sale, hiring someone for minimum wage to work from home to write FAQs is clearly too complicated for them.

After the changes on the February FAQ to marines, there has not been enough tournament data to see how things are panning out. In general, the FAQ has worked and the diversity has skyrocketed, space marines aren't dominant anymore.


So I doubt we will have a April FAQ, at least one that changes things significatly. Probably , if it exist, will be small things.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Yeah, I believe the wording is (roughly) that Assault weapons allow a model to shoot after it Advanced when the unit would be able to fire, but the wording of Advancing precludes you from selecting the unit with such models in to be able to shoot.

Most people won't even notice, and play it as everyone - even BCB, I think - agrees the RAI interpretation is, but RAW you can't shoot after Advancing with Assault weapons.

Which may be worth keeping in the back pocket if you end up playing against a tool of a TFG...

As to the Spring FAQ question, it might be worth bringing it up on one of the Twitch streams, or emailing GW about (or asking on FB, etc). Even if they just put up a post on WHC saying they're not doing one this time, people would appreciate knowing.

You are correct, even I realise what the rule probably, maybe, is meant to do. The fact it doesn't do it doesn't change because you really wish it did though.

GW literally have to release errata for books before they go on sale, hiring someone for minimum wage to work from home to write FAQs is clearly too complicated for them.

I'm still curious if you would actually try to enforce it in a game though since you know what it actually means and you are just being pedantic about it to show how bad the wording of the rules are (which we all agree on)

Wayniac wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Yeah, I believe the wording is (roughly) that Assault weapons allow a model to shoot after it Advanced when the unit would be able to fire, but the wording of Advancing precludes you from selecting the unit with such models in to be able to shoot.

Most people won't even notice, and play it as everyone - even BCB, I think - agrees the RAI interpretation is, but RAW you can't shoot after Advancing with Assault weapons.

Which may be worth keeping in the back pocket if you end up playing against a tool of a TFG...

As to the Spring FAQ question, it might be worth bringing it up on one of the Twitch streams, or emailing GW about (or asking on FB, etc). Even if they just put up a post on WHC saying they're not doing one this time, people would appreciate knowing.

You are correct, even I realise what the rule probably, maybe, is meant to do. The fact it doesn't do it doesn't change because you really wish it did though.

GW literally have to release errata for books before they go on sale, hiring someone for minimum wage to work from home to write FAQs is clearly too complicated for them.

I'm still curious if you would actually try to enforce it in a game though since you know what it actually means and you are just being pedantic about it to show how bad the wording of the rules are (which we all agree on)

As can be attested by several people, I am a generous god and allow my opponents to not follow the RaW. However, I require myself to follow the RaW strictly, which means no shooting after advancing without a detachment/warlord trait allowing me to do so, and I don't fall back from combat unless the unit has FLY, etc. Argent Shroud and Exemplar of the Mont'ka are very important to my lists and makes some units such as Shoota Boyz and ABR Intercessors sub-optimal for my purposes.

I feel this is a fair middle ground.

My part of europe has a long standing tradition of rules and laws being passed or put in action, where different intentions were claimed by the law givers and where the extrem was claimed to never happened, because all people would know that the rule shouldn't effect some specific something, yet in the end the stuff people feared always happened in the ends, sometimes worse then people imagined.

Lazy or shody rules writing can not be excused with the argument that people will just fix it themselfs, or that they will house rule it.

Also expecting a new player that the book they just bought, with real money, is full of errors, and in fact the rules say something different, is something that can make people very unhappy at best, and quit the game at worse.

I disagree. If I bought a rulebook, read the rules, went for a game and everyone there told me "We don't like the rules so we changed them", I'd be frustrated.

They need to clean up the mess they made with Tempestus Scions in the Greater Good....that would be nice.

 Galas wrote:
After the changes on the February FAQ to marines, there has not been enough tournament data to see how things are panning out.

You don't need tournament data to figure out what's wrong with 40K.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Usually they used tournament Data for their FAQs, with most tournaments now cancelled they might be waiting for when games start again.

Perhaps they could finally get around to fixing Assault weapons.
It's only been four years, after all!

They're not broken. RAI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
After the changes on the February FAQ to marines, there has not been enough tournament data to see how things are panning out. In general, the FAQ has worked and the diversity has skyrocketed, space marines aren't dominant anymore.


So I doubt we will have a April FAQ, at least one that changes things significatly. Probably , if it exist, will be small things.

I think marines are still pretty broken, but only time will tell. I really wish they had just made them cheaper.

Considering we are pretty close to 9th ed and there have been next to no tournaments since the last update, I'm guessing no big FAQ. When will GW announce 9th ed, right after they are done selling us all of PA for 8th ed.

This ^^^^^^^^^.

Are we actually close to 9th Ed though? It's only been three years of 8th.

There's been more than enough change. I still think GW is going to get of tripointing, too.

Martel732 wrote:
There's been more than enough change. I still think GW is going to get of tripointing, too.

I dunno about the first part, but nixing some of the fiddly parts of the game like tripointing would be nice, as long as there's some other mechanic to lock up combats.

Oh, there won't be. It's GW. They had no idea tripointing existed when they wrote fall back. They've just declined to faq it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Are we actually close to 9th Ed though? It's only been three years of 8th.

Sure. We're closer to 9th today than we were yesterday.

Insectum7 wrote:Are we actually close to 9th Ed though? It's only been three years of 8th.

That's one more year than 6th isn't it?

Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There's been more than enough change. I still think GW is going to get of tripointing, too.

I dunno about the first part, but nixing some of the fiddly parts of the game like tripointing would be nice, as long as there's some other mechanic to lock up combats.

A return to the 3rd edition trial assault rules would be nice.

I don't know, but I find it impossible to believe the same company and playtesters that missed conscripts and bobby G stormravens somehow intended tripointing.