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.

http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/assets/40k/tauempire.pdf

Noticed this on another forum.  It still seems a little rough around the edges.  It doesn't have the background of the current FAQs nor does it have the legal section at the bottom of the page.  It does however seem to confirm that they are working on the FAQs.

If that's their official count on the Pathfinders, they don't get it. That makes the unit lose the point of being fast attack and severely dents their effectiveness. Hamstringing a support unit that comes under heavy fire already is just plain stupid.

Nice. At least the FAQs make sense and agrees with the YMDC and logical RAW rulings. Of course, that won't mean anything since RAW will still be considered the badguy from the "sweep rules arguments under the rug" guys (I'd know - some of my league's players are practically clueless).

On a hunch, I replaced 'tauempire' with 'tyranids'; you get a similar-looking FAQ off of that.

On the other hand, this FAQ, like the translation we had from GW Spain, tells us that Lascannons splatter Warriors.  They may just date from the same time as the Spanish FAQs; we may be a ways yet from new, redone FAQs, assuming they're rethinking some of this.

Likewise, 'marines' works.

>>At least the FAQs make sense and agrees with the YMDC and logical RAW rulings.

Actually I would argue that the Sniper Drone point disagrees with the YMDC and RAW rulings.

The history of the Eldar FAQ answer to AP1 vs SMF shows that an FAQ doesn't stop the arguing if it contradicts the basic rules.

In response to Midnight's post,

Yeah I will have to agree...so that is why I am going to ask if my opponent will allow it.  But then again I haven't played in a really long time and don't know why I am worrying about this?  But it is nice to know that the more things change the more they stay the same.

 

I bet you if the Pathfinders had the official GW Rock as a wargear, they could move that extra distance while in the Devilfish.

Isn't that the text out of the Spanish FAQs? If GW want me to have an invisible S5 monstrous creature in a squad of eight crisis suits, well, I've very happy to oblige them!

A person posted this link in the YMDC section regarding Space Marines

http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/assets/40k/marines.pdf


Even more interesting anwers. Lord Sutekh can feel a bit of vindication. Looks like it is legal for 6 Venerable Dreads.

I love it:

Q. If a Carnifex or Hive Tyrant has two twin-linked devourers or
deathspitters (ie. four of the same weapon), does it get to fire two twinlinked
weapons? In other words, does firing a twin-linked weapon
count as firing one or firing two weapons?
A. Firing a twin-linked weapon counts as firing a single weapon, so the
Carnifex/Tyrant gets to fire two twin-linked weapons.


They answer the real question without knowing that it had even been asked. Proving yet again that they just don't get what some of the underlying problems actually are.
Well, its better than nothing!
Huzza! In the grim darkness of the far future, there might be official FAQs!

TauEmpire, Tyranids and Marines are the only ones I could dig up, and they are all definitely WIP.

Those are indeed the Spanish FAQs. Looks like they were official. Hopefully they're getting an overhaul, but again, I think we're all going to be disappointed and probably a little angered by the final result (and I'm not even usually a GW basher).

Killkrazy is right...there are a number of issues that either contradict RAW or just don't make sense. For example, I can't wait to apply the logic regarding Tyranid Synapse and instant kills to the Necron codex and WWB. Necron Warriors will be trembling in their boots from S8, but not S9! And you know, they could have used this as an opportunity to reign in Fury by saying it required LOS. But no, they saved that treatment for the mighty Tyranid Warrior, never mind that no one in the world was playing the Synapse IK rule as they describe.

I think it's best to pretend we never saw them.

Of course the Spanish FAQs were/are official.

The real question is: Why hasn't GW posted these FAQs up on the rest of their sites (or I guess in this case made them openly accessible)?

The answer that makes the most sense (which is what some people who knew about the Spanish FAQs before they hit said), that they decided at the 11th hour to go back to re-edit these FAQs. Either to add more questions and/or change the answers they were going to go with.

I never knew that *donkey*fearless creatures can fail synapse...

Ouch to droppod armies that also deepstrike land speeders (I know there are a lot of them about).  Automatic 1/2 victory points and the speeder can't fire its weapons when it lands :S !!!

- Oaka (who fears no *donkey*himself)

Actually, it's clear that fearless creatures do have to take instinctive behavior tests. It's a Ld test, not a morale check. Tyranid players (the ones who know the rules, anyway) have been playing it that way.

I've decided to just ignore these until we have something completely official.

Good point Gorgon. Their feet need to be kept to the fire.

What I really want to see are the general rules FAQ. With the multiple issues there they'd better not pop some two page "everything's cool just these minor bits" pablum. That would be insulting.

Ah, didn't realize this was merely the english translation of the spanish FAQ. I didn't pay any attention to the spanish FAQ due to its controversial source.

"The history of the Eldar FAQ answer to AP1 vs SMF shows that an FAQ doesn't stop the arguing if it contradicts the basic rules."

The Eldar FAQ merely answered the question regarding the source of the penetrating hit. It was not designed to answer AP1 vs. SMF.

Once again, the glaring bias is shown. For the terminator armor they change the wording and ignore the RAW. For other armies, they go by the exact wording even though the intent was obvious. If they do it to one, why not the other?
The drop pod thing was not new, it was an obvious issue. What got me is that they are so cheap so you only lose 15pts for taking a vehicle so obviously more able than a 50pt rhino.

Wow. You're right. I always tried to rectify the issue with gaming mates by simply stating that characters with a DSing command squad also gain the benefits of the "deepstrike anytime" rule. But now you can just ignore the terminator armor rule and deepstrike lone masters even if they aren't attached to a command squad. Yay!

However, there is good news. Landspeeders count as moving fast when deepstriking. The bad news is the banner stacking (looks more like a 7th edition WFB rumor got thrown in there). I'm sure that will be the source of more upgraded models and original weapons debates (flamers + bp/ccw yay!).

If there is bias, let's hope it's not Pete Haines' ghost.

The drop pod bit and the deep-striking land speeder bits are interesting, especially the drop pod bit. Can a vehicle be Immobilized if it was never designed to actually move over the battlefield? That just feels odd to me.

Also, the Dreadnought issue - what is the exact wording of the Venerable Upgrade? I thought that once a Dread was upgraded to Venerable it counted as Elite. How could you have 4 or more Venerable Dreads if you are only allowed 3 Elite Force Org slots?

Also, the Dreadnought issue - what is the exact wording of the Venerable Upgrade? I thought that once a Dread was upgraded to Venerable it counted as Elite. How could you have 4 or more Venerable Dreads if you are only allowed 3 Elite Force Org slots?

Grim, with RAW the six-dreadnought army is indeed legal. It's funny since people on dakka were also offended by the army at first, but then saw what it really said. You should look in YMDC for the old thread, but here is the rule verbatim: "Dreadnoughts may be taken as HS or Elites. any Dreadnoughts selected as Elites must be Venerable and the 0-1 limit is removed."

Posted By stonefox on 07/27/2006 9:36 AM ...

"The history of the Eldar FAQ answer to AP1 vs SMF shows that an FAQ doesn't stop the arguing if it contradicts the basic rules."

The Eldar FAQ merely answered the question regarding the source of the penetrating hit. It was not designed to answer AP1 vs. SMF.

Perhaps not, but that is how it was taken by a lot of players. The point being that the 4th ed rules are actually quite clear on this specific item, but got overturned because a lot of players were asking questions base on 3rd edition.

No point getting into that argument again, which is not solved by the Tau FAW but will be solved by the new release Eldar codex in the autumn.

I'm worried that Sniper Drone Teams are made less effective/more vulnerable by this FAQ. But if players shun them accordingly, it will all balance out in the end.

There will be plenty of controversies in the other FAQs as well.

Typical of GW that they should rush out a botched Tau FAQ to follow a botched codex only four months after release, yet they still not have released an FAQ for the basic rules which are about two years old.

One thing that still seems a bit unresolved to me is how to treat a Tau IC w/ drones in close combat. Yes, the IC "(and his drones)" form a separate unit in CC from the unit they joined, but you could still argue that the IC then forms a separate unit from his drones, as per the general IC rules. It seems to me that the intent of the wording is that drones CAN protect ICs in CC. However, in a few spots in these new FAQs, they used the wording "counts as an upgrade character." They could have clarified this issue by using the same wording for ICs in CC as well.

Y'know, I don't recall 2nd edition FAQs being as troublesome as the ones in recent editions. Of course, 2nd ed. was a rush job to begin with, and by the end had a ton of patches, clarifications and rules changes. The end result almost had to be better than what we started with. So maybe I'm just remembering things the way I want to.

But I'm guessing the studio lacks resources right now. And given that FAQs are probably neither a business priority nor a personal priority given all the projects they have, they can either give us shoddy products now or better ones at some later time. So I'll remain patient. And I'm just gonna give them the benefit of the doubt that the final FAQs will do a better job of answering the right questions. A lot of people on forums like this one, Warpshadow, etc. have spent a lot of time compiling the most frequent player questions and attempting to answer them. It would be a shame if they were ignored.

Do you mean 2nd Ed 40k or the v2 FAQs for 3rd Ed 40k? I don't recall 2nd Ed 40k requiring boatloads of FAQ clarifications, while the supposedly simplified 3rd and 4th ed rulesets have been plagued by terrible editing. Though that might also be indicative of changes in scale and popularity of the games, with recent editions seeing bigger armies and a larger fanbase when compared to the RT/early 2nd Edition years.

I meant 2nd ed. 40K. As I recall, those FAQs were generally either helpful interpretations or needed rules changes for balance reasons (inc. field save limitations, size classifications, wargear rarities, etc). There were lots of changes from the main rulebook, which was kind of a mess. I got a friend (Cruentus on this forum) into 40K during the late stages of 2nd ed., and frankly it would have been almost impossible to learn the "current" game without all the copies of WD.

I just cannot understand why they cannot seem to make one set of "standard rules" and stick to them. They spent all the time clarifying IC's with respect to command squads and such, yet with the Tau "clarification" it seems like they are going away from that again. Looking at the 'Nid one, why can they just not consider "instant death" an all around universal rule, defined once, then simply say the unit is or is not immune to that rule, without putting additional clarifiers into it? It would be the same for Necrons,, just use "ID", and leave it be,, and make the WBB into Feel no pain,, simple and consice without confusing people.
Or am I just crazy to want a standard, easy to follow rule set?

I've went to the link and read the FAQ, but I can't seem to actually find it when I go to the GW site. It doesn't seem to be in the errata section (or, at least GW's date when last updated is very outdated).

Is it actually in the errata section now?

A person posted this link in the YMDC section regarding Space Marines

http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/assets/40k/marines.pdf


Even more interesting anwers. Lord Sutekh can feel a bit of vindication. Looks like it is legal for 6 Venerable Dreads.

Forget vindication; I just want to be able to pull out my Dreads again without being called a cheesy bastard.

I remember when the spanish on was posted somebody mentioned then that necrons don't get a wbb from strength 8 but do on strength 9 or 10 based on the tyranid warrior synapse ruling. Oh boy necrons tick me off even more now.

The FAQs seem to have been removed. They must be on to us.

I daresay someone might have downloaded them. Are the Spanish versions still up?