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.

I am not a big GW Critic. To me it is just a game with some rules issues.

This recent FAQ though really hacks me off. What a pile of garbage. Here they have a chance to prove all the whiners and complainers wrong about their lacking rule set, by simply releasing a decent FAQ, and we get this crap. Hell the rule lawyers even gave them a list of the problems, all they had to do was answer them.

Sorry GW, but FOW is looking better and better. If get into FOW I wont have to be so embarrassed that I play with plastic space warriors and monsters.

I too am disappointed. But I'm not surprised.

I just don't understand it. It doesn't make any sense. I hope they didn't spend more than a day doing these.

Posted By Mahu 08/15/2006 10:04 AM
"Further changes will be made only when we bring out a new edition of a rule book or supplement. Thus, when we next revise Codex: Space Marine we may ange the rule for drop pods (earlier he stated by RAW drop pods are immobilized because they are immobile), and you can rest assured that the next Codex: Space Wolves will not allow infiltrating Wolf Gaurd Leaders. What we won't do is alter the rules in the errata or other media. By doing so, we can ensure that all players are made aware of changes, as it's rather hard to miss a new Codex coming out!"

Well, it could be considered smart business practice. Afterall, why make a free online faq, when you can wait 2 years, make a new print run, and call it the "new" codex and make more money.

Afterall, why make a free online faq, when you can wait 2 years, make a new print run, and call it the "new" codex and make more money.

Because if they're really serious about never releasing any more FAQs, the customers might finally throw in the towel. Might.

I hope they didn't spend more than a day doing these.

Bigchris, I think you nailed it. They didn't, and that's the problem. Either release meaningful FAQs with some real thought behind them, or don't do them at all and let the hobby community come up with their own answers. We woulda done it better.

As Mahu said, they'd rather listen to the people who say they can't access errata than to the people who really want their questions answered. Here's a question for the studio...of those two groups of players, which are probably your more devoted customers?

It's a shame. I think the recent codicies/releases have been some of their best work and generally well-balanced (SM codex excepted). And I'm not an Eldar player, but I've been eager to play against the new codex and maybe pick up some of the models. But these FAQs have me thinking that if GW doesn't give a crap, why should I?

When I go to those sites, it still shows the old FAQs. Are the new ones actually out somewhere?

it is on the UK site

It seems GW's is afraid of inserting their foot in their mouth again. 3rd Edition FAQ's had some, ahem, interesting rule interpretations. It really seems GW would rather the local gamers come up with their own consensus on unclear areas.

Overall, there were some basic questions answered, some that had me shaking my head and others that I can't understand how it was even unclear.

Events like Adepticon have demonstrated that they can do a pretty comprehensive FAQ and allow everyone to have access to it. Does one agree on every ruling? No, but at least it's clear and available for all to read.

I am playing necrons now thats it. Cause now as the WBB rule is writen in the same manner as the Tyranid Synapse rule that basilisk or russ cannot prevent me from getting a WBB roll. Its strength of DOUBLE the models toughness preevnts WBB not MORE THAN double. I am not fielding warriors or zoanthropes anymore and am so disappointed I may just put the nids on the shelf for now.

Y'know... Given GW's inclination to tell people to roll off for answers to rule interpretations, I've got to wonder if that's what they did here. The answers they give are somewhat scattershot, and don't really point to any clear direction or logical process. I would like to say that I appreciate the effort, but I get the impression that little effort was actually put into it. The purpose of FAQ answers is to clarify things to make the game run more smoothly, and thereby be more enjoyable. These answers just confuse things even more in some cases.

I think that's one thing GW ought to understand... Yes, a civilized group of players can reach an amicable solution on an unclear rule, but it makes the game that much more enjoyable if you don't have to go leafing through the rulebook every five minutes. Apparently, I'm just a whiner, though, and I just don't know any better.

Personally, I'd just as soon ignore these and use Adepticon's instead.

Posted By Davian 08/15/2006 12:07 PM
Y'know... Given GW's inclination to tell people to roll off for answers to rule interpretations, I've got to wonder if that's what they did here. The answers they give are somewhat scattershot, and don't really point to any clear direction or logical process. I would like to say that I appreciate the effort, but I get the impression that little effort was actually put into it. The purpose of FAQ answers is to clarify things to make the game run more smoothly, and thereby be more enjoyable. These answers just confuse things even more in some cases.

Actually, they, for the most part, follow RAW as outlined in the Codexes (at least the Nid ones for IB and Synapse).  According to the WD article that Mahu posted, GW is now all of a sudden falling back on RAW, 'even if it doesn't make sense', rather than make changes mid-stream.

So, they're really not scattershot, they're just a far cry from what people were expecting (and hoping for).  They've apparently taken the position not to change rules mid-edition, and this is the end result. 

Like Gorgon said, I'd rather them not have bothered, and left the community to deal with it (like Adepticon, and so many local clubs).

Oh well, now its out there.  Always remember to be careful what you wish for :S .

According to the WD article that Mahu posted, GW is now all of a sudden falling back on RAW, 'even if it doesn't make sense', rather than make changes mid-stream.

So terminator ICs that can always deepstrike, even without retinue, is RAW?

They really are scattershot.

Jervis talked a lot about RAW in the WD article, and I wonder if that's the reason for the delay. Maybe they wanted to wait until Jervis's article was out there as an explanation of their mindset before the FAQs were released.

Considering this is what they said in the Tyranid design notes about synapse and IK...

"What about the rules for synapse creatures though? Well, Phil's been a bit of a clever swine here. "One of the problems that developed with the old Codex was the vulnerability of the middle-weight beasties, which led to Warriors and Raveners dropping out of players' armies. This was a shame as they were cool models. We've all seen what happens when you introduce a good old krak missile to a Tyranid Warrior! "To alleviate this problem, we've rewritten the Synapse rules such that creatures within range of the Hive Node are immune to the effects of the Instant Death rule. This new rule simulates the Hive Mind invigorating the creature despite horrific injury and gets around undesirable weakness in the list - bonus!"

...I think it's safe to assume the original intent was for general IK immunity, but the rule was written poorly in the codex. And now that they're on a RAW kick, Tyranid players just lose out on that one.

I'm not sure that all their "answers" are strictly RAW, however.

Well if GW ever wanted to see certain models just stop selling they succeeded. Speeders, Raveners, warriors, zoanthropes are all going to take a drastic drop in sales that they will be just like cultists where you can only order them online because there would be no point wasting shelf space for a model that sells even more poorly than Dark Eldar Scourges.

Posted By magine 08/15/2006 1:00 PM
Well if GW ever wanted to see certain models just stop selling they succeeded. Speeders, Raveners, warriors, zoanthropes are all going to take a drastic drop in sales that they will be just like cultists where you can only order them online because there would be no point wasting shelf space for a model that sells even more poorly than Dark Eldar Scourges.

Speeders will still sell for all those armies that aren't using them in a Drop Pod list.

And honestly if people only bought what was "effective" then the only ones they're loosing out on are Warriors and Zoanthropes.

Warriors sucked anyway, but can still work if you run your list right - if they're firing lascannons at your Warriors that means they're not firing lascannons at the Winged Hive Tyrant and other 2+ TMC's which they possibly should be just as worried about.

I used a lot of raveners and found them quite effective. As they are fast attack the generally deployed after all my opponents troops so I set them up to utilize cover and avoid bolters and such and they were quite deadly. I actually had just bought three more to beef up my list even more as I found them that effective. The only TMC I use is a Flying tyrant. I use a fast list and it works really well. However this just really took my list and screwed it.

I've only been looking at the Tau errata so far but they do not actually clarify any of the questions about drones except for the Sniper Drone Controller question. (And that effectively goes against RAW.)

Really quite a shabby effort, though considering the poor editing of the original rules and army lists it's not surprising the FAQs should be as bad.

The stupidity of this Tyranid ruling is unfathomable, and the decision not to FAQ against the RAW when the RAW ruins the game is just absurd.

Tyranid Warriors, Raveners, Lictors and especially Zoanthropes can now all just get thrown in the trash. If they had their uses before, this ruling absolutely DESTROYS them.

And as pointed out by Gorgon, by a similar train of thought the Necron WBB rule should now function the same way. Not only is it idiotic but it's also inconsistent.

Man this sucks. I so wanted to try to buck the Godzilla trend and play a Ravener heavy force, but now how can I even contemplate it?

So very stupid. . .

The EoT is a seething mass of indignation.

On first reaction GW seem to have really blown it with this release.

I have been saying it for the longest time. GW in their attempt to try and stop the cookie cutter Nid armies of bigbugs and 80 small bugs then in their own designer notes stated they wanted to put more dependence on medium bugs. This goes totally against their wishes and makes medium bug next to cannon fodder.

Like I said before the Nid Codex is just pushing for big bugs and we all know Big Bug lists are easy to do, not a high model count and makes for some good sales on the big bugs more so the 8-9 carnifexes so people. Its more of a marketing ploy and when you think about it since most people scratch build their Drop Pods; GW can freely nerf them because relatively few people can buy the forgeworld models en masse.

But the only upside to this is the arguments on how droppods are dealt with when they are immobile and the 2 twin linked devourer question. Although I really did want someone to field a 10-15 emperor's champion army.

The EoT is a seething mass of indignation.

Yes. That's how it always is.

Isn't it interesting that GW is paralleling their 40K universe quite perfectly.  In the 40K universe, Tech is a mystery to them, and coming up with new tech is impossible, so they make do with the old.  The current inheritors of the 40K game seem to have no real idea how to fix the rule system, so they just bury their heads in the sand and try to make do.  They make new armies and hope they can fit into the current system.  If a product doesn't fit as they'd like it to, they change the rules for that unit and alter the fluff to make it fit.

It appears they're on a rudderless ship, with no captain, and grots manning the sails.

Clearly slowed. Since, y'know, it's in the rulebook and all. Read page 85. Any vehicle that is immobile at the end of the game gives half VP's to the enemy. Never says anything about being immobilised by enemy fire, only that it's immobile at all. Let's not call people slowed when you're wrong anyway.

I concede, that according to RAW, the vehicle would give up half of its VP's, however, the reason i had stated that the ruling was slowed, was becuase this is an obvious (IMHOP) case of the letter of the rule vs. the spirit.

In no circumstance should a unit (no matter how good it is), upon entering play, instantly give up half of its VP's without the other playing doing anything to earn them. That is just plain stupid. You ropponant should have to commit SOME resources to gaining those VP's. To my knowledge, no other vehicle in the game is immobile (apart from a necron pylon, which no one i have ever seen has used) and as such, the rule was written without the forethought that a vehicle could come in to the game immobile and remian that way till the end.

So, i feel that this ruling is a blind and thoughtless adherence to RAW when an intrepretation of the rules would serve so much better. As is the case with many of this game's rules, the poor writting leaves far too much room for wiggling.

Its a shame that the game dev staff didn't have the moxy to actaully make some rulings based on the spirit of the rule sin order to make the game more enjoyable. this is truly a poor effort.

It would be another matter entirely to stick to RAW if the BGB was so well written that it would put any rules arguments to rest, however, it is not. far from it, so sticking to a bad foundation does not leave much room for growth on GW's part.

[Headhunter sez:] "Isn't it interesting that GW is paralleling their 40K universe quite perfectly. In the 40K universe, Tech is a mystery to them, and coming up with new tech is impossible, so they make do with the old."

Awesome post.
*darts off to begin preparing for a deep space STC expedition.

To my knowledge, no other vehicle in the game is immobile

And any VDR monsters (if anyone still uses them). Imagine giving up half the points on one of those!

In all the FAQ was a let down but at least it answered SOMETHING.

And isn't it killer that for that brief time period between the release of 4th ed and now that he Nid warriors were brilliant!??! I mean just prior to the release of the codex they could fleet if they had leaping... but then GW killed that. Ok so they aren't fast anymore, BUT they can still laughed off a lascannon bolt!!! Nope, they are cannon fodder again....

*sigh*

At first I was rather upset with the rulings. But then, after a bit I have come to the conclusion that they aren't that big of a deal. I used Zoanthropes and Warriors in the last edition. I use them about the same now. My opponents are usually not marines, so I don't see much of an effect. I think the biggest offender here is marine armies with the multiple access to Str 9 weapons. Most other armies don't have access (except IG, but they are easy to deal with). But the ruling won't change much how I play. Just more hiding from Lascannons.

I can see the ruling on Land Speeders, not a big deal either. I don't DS, and it still gets glancing. Sure, it doesn't get to waylay the first turn it comes down. Oh well, I thought at times that was cheesy anyway.

Drop pods. Well, it fits within the rules. No real other way to deal with it except by making a specific rule for it. In a way though they are expendable items. So I see why the ruling would go that way anyway. Makes sense to me.

But maybe I am just a little odd...

As mentioned the necron pylon will automatically give *210* free victory points under this ruling. Just for being deployed.

The hydra flak platform will give 72 free VP for being deployed.

Something smells....

Both not being "official" anyway, so no reason to use those rules as long as consented upon by the opponent. Otherwise you are screwed...

Gabe:

Forgeworld has started including rules (as of IA3) how their immobile vehicles give up VPs (you have to actually cause an immobilizing hit on them), so there vehicles (at least those that have such a rule) aren't affected by this ruling.


Af for Drop Pods, the only reason I'm not against the ruling is because of how incredibly awesome Drop Pods are for the points. Making them give up 1/2 VPs automatically actually makes them somewhat balanced (in VP games at least).

ok, I don't have IA3... thats good to know that FW cleared that issue up.