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.

Just played a game where my opponent set up a dreadnought on top of a ruin. I complained, but after checking the rules there is nothing preventing a vehicle being set up on the first/second/third floor of a ruin. All the rules say that the vehicle must end its movement on the buttom floor, or something like that. If it doesnt move it can stay there. Or did i overlook something ?

Sigh. This is why we can't have nice things. There's always some guy who thinks this is great and fun and claims it's "RAW" to make them seem clever.

HIPWI is that if a vehicle can't end a move there, it has no right to be there at all. YMMV.

Off hand I would say that after the movement phase the dreadnaught had better be on the ground floor of the ruin. Just because you choose to move your model 0" doesn't mean he didn't move it just means he didn't go anywhere.

'Claims to be RAW' implies that it's not. AFAIK, there is no rule stating where a vehicle can set up, only where it can finish its move and no FAQ clarifying it. And think of it as an airdrop gone wrong, or a very inventive commander. The narrative is as strong as your imagination!

Have we forgotten the FAQ?

"Page 248 – Ruins
Change the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Unless they can Fly, Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry and Bikers can only be set up or end their move on the ground floor of ruins.’"

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Have we forgotten the FAQ?

"Page 248 – Ruins
Change the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Unless they can Fly, Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry and Bikers can only be set up or end their move on the ground floor of ruins.’"

This guy gets it.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Have we forgotten the FAQ?

"Page 248 – Ruins
Change the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Unless they can Fly, Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry and Bikers can only be set up or end their move on the ground floor of ruins.’"

Ok, missed that one.

 Mr. Shine wrote:
Have we forgotten the FAQ?

"Page 248 – Ruins
Change the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Unless they can Fly, Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry and Bikers can only be set up or end their move on the ground floor of ruins.’"

Oh I had! Nice to see they patched it to match the obvious intent. Shame they had to.

Pretty sure I've had a whoopsie or two recently where I didn't bother to think of checking the FAQ. Happens to the best of us

This is an excellent case in point as to how blooming scattered GWs rules are, however.

Really? They're all in one place. Easy to find, referenced in chronological order.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Really? They're all in one place. Easy to find, referenced in chronological order.

And for a BRB question you have to trawl through three documents, that really should be collated into one now.

For an AM Relic question you need to look at the Custodes FAQ.

For a 2nd relic in a combined Imperium force you have to look at the Death Guard FAQ.

For a Tyranid Hive Tyrant query you have to refer to the Index Xenos 2 FAQ.

Etc.

Now do you see why people say the info is scattered?

They really should sort their FAQs into a searchable database.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Really? They're all in one place. Easy to find, referenced in chronological order.

And for a BRB question you have to trawl through three documents, that really should be collated into one now.

For an AM Relic question you need to look at the Custodes FAQ.

For a 2nd relic in a combined Imperium force you have to look at the Death Guard FAQ.

For a Tyranid Hive Tyrant query you have to refer to the Index Xenos 2 FAQ.

Etc.

Now do you see why people say the info is scattered?

No. Again they're all in one place and ctrl + f exists.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Really? They're all in one place. Easy to find, referenced in chronological order.

And for a BRB question you have to trawl through three documents, that really should be collated into one now.

For an AM Relic question you need to look at the Custodes FAQ.

For a 2nd relic in a combined Imperium force you have to look at the Death Guard FAQ.

For a Tyranid Hive Tyrant query you have to refer to the Index Xenos 2 FAQ.

Etc.

Now do you see why people say the info is scattered?

No. Again they're all in one place and ctrl + f exists.

Ok, so when the Death Guard answer applies to a different army's differently named but same effect abilities, how do you search for that?

I get what you're saying but you're busy defending an unwieldy, non-user friendly system.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Really? They're all in one place. Easy to find, referenced in chronological order.

And for a BRB question you have to trawl through three documents, that really should be collated into one now.

For an AM Relic question you need to look at the Custodes FAQ.

For a 2nd relic in a combined Imperium force you have to look at the Death Guard FAQ.

For a Tyranid Hive Tyrant query you have to refer to the Index Xenos 2 FAQ.

Etc.

Now do you see why people say the info is scattered?

No. Again they're all in one place and ctrl + f exists.

But you can't control + f all of those together. You have to open each faq and control + f all of them. Also what do you search for some queries when they're more or less answered for you but in a different army's faq in a scenario with different units? And there are 3 separate faqs you'd have to search for brb stuff so you'd need to open and search them all. Its unwieldy.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Really? They're all in one place. Easy to find, referenced in chronological order.

And for a BRB question you have to trawl through three documents, that really should be collated into one now.

For an AM Relic question you need to look at the Custodes FAQ.

For a 2nd relic in a combined Imperium force you have to look at the Death Guard FAQ.

For a Tyranid Hive Tyrant query you have to refer to the Index Xenos 2 FAQ.

Etc.

Now do you see why people say the info is scattered?

No. Again they're all in one place and ctrl + f exists.

But you can't control + f all of those together. You have to open each faq and control + f all of them. Also what do you search for some queries when they're more or less answered for you but in a different army's faq in a scenario with different units? And there are 3 separate faqs you'd have to search for brb stuff so you'd need to open and search them all. Its unwieldy.

A) I read each FAQ when it comes out (they're maybe 2 pages in most cases) so I rarely have to search
B) I keep a document of important changes with the FAQ listed

Now I'm not asking everyone to do either of these - however I don't really think most people (who have the mental capacity to play 40k) lack the cognitive skills to skim a document or form a coherent search query. Again - everything is listed on one page, in chronological order. Taking a few minutes to familiarize one's self with the main book FAQs and then relevant FAQs for ones armies really isn't that much to ask.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
Really? They're all in one place. Easy to find, referenced in chronological order.

And for a BRB question you have to trawl through three documents, that really should be collated into one now.

For an AM Relic question you need to look at the Custodes FAQ.

For a 2nd relic in a combined Imperium force you have to look at the Death Guard FAQ.

For a Tyranid Hive Tyrant query you have to refer to the Index Xenos 2 FAQ.

Etc.

Now do you see why people say the info is scattered?

No. Again they're all in one place and ctrl + f exists.

But you can't control + f all of those together. You have to open each faq and control + f all of them. Also what do you search for some queries when they're more or less answered for you but in a different army's faq in a scenario with different units? And there are 3 separate faqs you'd have to search for brb stuff so you'd need to open and search them all. Its unwieldy.

A) I read each FAQ when it comes out (they're maybe 2 pages in most cases) so I rarely have to search
B) I keep a document of important changes with the FAQ listed

Now I'm not asking everyone to do either of these - however I don't really think most people (who have the mental capacity to play 40k) lack the cognitive skills to skim a document or form a coherent search query. Again - everything is listed on one page, in chronological order. Taking a few minutes to familiarize one's self with the main book FAQs and then relevant FAQs for ones armies really isn't that much to ask.

They shouldn't have to wade through all the different FAQs (considering things like the Death Guard answer on relics, you may have to comb every single FAQ, not just the main rulebook FAQ, Designer's Commentary and Stepping Into a New Edition). I think expecting people to have to do that to find anything isn't appropriate. They really should at least consolidate the main rulebook FAQ, Stepping into a new Edition and Designer's commentary into one FAQ and include questions that would apply to more than one army (like the CSM/Death Guard getting relics from each faction question). I't's not a case of cognitive skill, it's a case of having to search through all the different FAQ's. Especially if you're in a tournament, the amount of time it could take is beyond what it should be if the FAQs were done properly.

You should absolutely not be at a tournament and needing to search FAQs like that. You or your opponent should have a printed copy of ALL (including if necessary the DG FAQ) relevant FAQs.

That said this is tremendously off-topic so I'm going to leave it alone.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Taking a few minutes to familiarize one's self with the main book FAQs and then relevant FAQs for ones armies really isn't that much to ask.

Compiling all the FAQs so that you just need to ctrl-f one document is not that much to ask for either.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
You should absolutely not be at a tournament and needing to search FAQs like that. You or your opponent should have a printed copy of ALL (including if necessary the DG FAQ) relevant FAQs.

That said this is tremendously off-topic so I'm going to leave it alone.

Your statement is incorrect. You play something and the opponent challenges you on it. Now you have to find it. It doesn't matter if you have printed copies of all of the FAQs (I'm assuming you have them); you still are taking time to look through the FAQs to find the proof. Or, you're calling for a TO to make a ruling and have to wait on that. Either way, it's wasting time that wouldn't be wasted if the FAQ's were set up properly.

As a GK player my FAQ has like 3 questions so I bring it along. However, I think that it's a little much for me to bring along all of the FAQs for all of the books. I don't know who I'm going to be playing in any event and I can't count on them bringing all of the relevant FAQs. There needs to be a better way to find answers since it could take a while to find an answer to a codex question (not to mention if there is a related question in an unrelated codex).

 doctortom wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
You should absolutely not be at a tournament and needing to search FAQs like that. You or your opponent should have a printed copy of ALL (including if necessary the DG FAQ) relevant FAQs.

That said this is tremendously off-topic so I'm going to leave it alone.

Your statement is incorrect. You play something and the opponent challenges you on it. Now you have to find it. It doesn't matter if you have printed copies of all of the FAQs (I'm assuming you have them); you still are taking time to look through the FAQs to find the proof. Or, you're calling for a TO to make a ruling and have to wait on that. Either way, it's wasting time that wouldn't be wasted if the FAQ's were set up properly.

No - if you are using a ruling that is challenged you should be aware of where the answer is located. You know what you're going to get challenged on.

Maybe yes, maybe no. You might not know everything you are boing to be challenged on. Assuming you do is foolish. The FAQs shouldn't put you in a place where you have to hunt for all the answers if it's something you can't remember quickly; that's a problem of them of not consolidating FAQs, not a problem of the person trying to remember.

Exactly. If you have to take a guess which of the three main Rulebook FAQs your query is in then all you know is the three should be compiled into one, for the sanity of all. It's not about mental capacity or ability, it's about the documents no longer being fit for purpose. Easy enough to compile and revise, and hopefully the March update will do just that.

 ikeulhu wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

Taking a few minutes to familiarize one's self with the main book FAQs and then relevant FAQs for ones armies really isn't that much to ask.

Compiling all the FAQs so that you just need to ctrl-f one document is not that much to ask for either.

This is a pretty simple solution that GW could do. I myself have done this but it's annoying to update my own files when they release a new faq

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
You should absolutely not be at a tournament and needing to search FAQs like that. You or your opponent should have a printed copy of ALL (including if necessary the DG FAQ) relevant FAQs.

That said this is tremendously off-topic so I'm going to leave it alone.

Your statement is incorrect. You play something and the opponent challenges you on it. Now you have to find it. It doesn't matter if you have printed copies of all of the FAQs (I'm assuming you have them); you still are taking time to look through the FAQs to find the proof. Or, you're calling for a TO to make a ruling and have to wait on that. Either way, it's wasting time that wouldn't be wasted if the FAQ's were set up properly.

No - if you are using a ruling that is challenged you should be aware of where the answer is located. You know what you're going to get challenged on.

Sounds like what TFG would do with his seemingly illegal but legal as per RAW would do...

"wait, no I don't think that's legal."

"WELL, HERE ARE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT PROVES THAT I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG."

Why would you be in a situation that you KNOW you're gonna be challenged on if it isn't on the grey line to begin with?

Because its a tournament? Also what's grey in some people's minds isn't in others (see the plethora of threads of people who don't understand why people are using Saim-Hann bikes in a Ynnari detachment). I know the portions of my army that people are going to ask questions about because I know which parts are weirder than average rules interactions. This is just as much about having to explain that no they FAQ'd it to work this way when the common understanding was different before the FAQ. But feel free to assume I'm TFG.

Niw if only GW had a publication maybe one a year that could have compiled all the FAQ's into a single source along with and clarifications or points changes, so you only needed codex plus Rules plus the new book say 40k 2017, 40k 2018. Wouldn't that be helpful and worth buying?

If they remember to include the complied FAQs in the book.