NEW (First Draft FAQs!

Jimsolo wrote:

If I brought pods to an event that was ruled that way (scatter with doors open) I'd be irate--there's no way to interpret that in my mind other than TO deliberately trying to sandbag Marines. You're giving lazy modelers an advantage and severely punishing people who made the extra effort to articulate the doors.  

The only reasonable way to rule it, in my opinion, is that you treat all the doors that could be open (terrain permitting) as being open for LOS purposes.  Place and scatter with doors closed.  Do not treat doors hull.

Treating the doors as hull is vastly more exploitable than not treating them as hull. Insanely so.  crap, at that point Locator Beacons become one of the best pieces of wargear in the game.

Now I am infront of a PC...

I disagree with your assessment - my proposed ruling uses the FAQ (all parts of the pod count as hull and real LOS). I would argue the open pods get far more of an advantage than closed pods done by lazy modellers.

The doors being treated as hull is a 2 way street - it creates issues both ways.

nerdelemental wrote:

I'd like to ignore almost all of every FAQ issued within the last two months. They're causing way more problems than they're fixing. Across the board.

Seriously? While you might not agree with some of the rulings (I don't agree with them all) - by and large the FAQ documents have been rock solid! The fact GW is using it to complete errata and essentially set the foundations for a living rulebook (I hope they go that way!) is fantastic to see after years of indifference.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Yeah, I like the rule that is most simple for drop pods: Regardless of how the pod is modeled, assume the doors don't exist for LoS, cover, and/or impeding movement. Feel free to model them however you wish for aesthetics, but in no way will your decision ever effect or interact with any of the rules, for better or for worse.

The problem is there has never been a rule like this - even the older FAQ for a previous edition never went this far.

I do get the frustration from this ruling but its not as bad as you might at first think. Yes it a massive change and will create issues around the model and building. It is a 2 way street in effect though and I would encourage you to play it before you decry it

Massaen wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Yeah, I like the rule that is most simple for drop pods: Regardless of how the pod is modeled, assume the doors don't exist for LoS, cover, and/or impeding movement. Feel free to model them however you wish for aesthetics, but in no way will your decision ever effect or interact with any of the rules, for better or for worse.

The problem is there has never been a rule like this - even the older FAQ for a previous edition never went this far.

The ITC did, however. That's the difference here. The ITC cares about how their rulings effect the vast majority of players(even if I don't always agree with them). GW just wants to "get it over with" with the rules errata and FAQs, and it shows in how they approach it with wishy-washy things like this.

Example: One of the FAQ answers said, "Yes, it's allowed, but it isn't really the way those detachments are intended," then he continued on for a paragraph about the organisational structure of space marine chapters... In a rules FAQ. His answer to the question ended at the first word, then we got a bunch of fluff that expanded the FAQ page by a significant percentage of text for no discernable reason. It sounds like someone who lost the internal rules debate they had was tasked with writing the answer to the FAQ, and he only begrudgingly wrote the answer with a super-long explanation of why he disagreed with said answer.

Every logical person who reads that can see that the answer should just be "Yes." instead of:

"Yes, BLAHBBLAHBLBHLABLHAHLBLHAHBLLHAHLBLHBLHBLAHBLAHLBAAHLBAHLABLHALHABLHABHLABLH BHLAA BLAH BHLA BHLALABHLAH LHBAHLB LHA BLHA BHLAHLABHLAB HBLHB LHAHBHAAL HLABHALHB"

The fact that they didn't edit it so that it didn't read like it was written by a 12 year old with hurt feelings shows that they don't care about the integrity of their game as an actual game.

I personally think we're going to see a slow transition away from these type of things under the new CEO, but currently they have a lot of their old middle management still in place who were told "The game doesn't matter, we're a model company!" for the last decade. That's a difficult position to change overnight.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The ITC did, however. That's the difference here. The ITC cares about how their rulings effect the vast majority of players(even if I don't always agree with them). GW just wants to "get it over with" with the rules errata and FAQs, and it shows in how they approach it with wishy-washy things like this.

ITC means jack. Sorry but because one FLGS who runs events in an organised fashion does not make it anything more than a house rule - much like the AusFAQ (which I am a committee member), the ETC FAQ and so on. Everyone has their own interpretation and when the company comes out and says - THIS is the way it works - and it contradicts peoples assumed position - that's when people get tetchy. GW has in this instance not shown they want to get it over with - they are taking feedback for starters! I disagree the majority of things are wishy washy either - there are a few that are no doubt but most if not the majority have been very solid answers.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Example: One of the FAQ answers said, "Yes, it's allowed, but it isn't really the way those detachments are intended," then he continued on for a paragraph about the organisational structure of space marine chapters... In a rules FAQ. His answer to the question ended at the first word, then we got a bunch of fluff that expanded the FAQ page by a significant percentage of text for no discernable reason. It sounds like someone who lost the internal rules debate they had was tasked with writing the answer to the FAQ, and he only begrudgingly wrote the answer with a super-long explanation of why he disagreed with said answer.

Every logical person who reads that can see that the answer should just be "Yes." instead of:

"Yes, BLAHBBLAHBLBHLABLHAHLBLHAHBLLHAHLBLHBLHBLAHBLAHLBAAHLBAHLABLHALHABLHABHLABLH BHLAA BLAH BHLA BHLALABHLAH LHBAHLB LHA BLHA BHLAHLABHLAB HBLHB LHAHBHAAL HLABHALHB"

The fact that they didn't edit it so that it didn't read like it was written by a 12 year old with hurt feelings shows that they don't care about the integrity of their game as an actual game.

So you object to the answer being given RAW but then with a fluff addition to clarify that they think its a bit off to do so? You sound very jaded. They went RAW for heaven sake! The fact the writer (who knows who it is?!?) has added a fluff addition to the answer does not change the answer. GW put fluff in EVERY RULE.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I personally think we're going to see a slow transition away from these type of things under the new CEO, but currently they have a lot of their old middle management still in place who were told "The game doesn't matter, we're a model company!" for the last decade. That's a difficult position to change overnight.

I agree the dead wood is still being cut from the GW tree but I think the fact we are getting an FAQ at all shows how significantly the company has changed in the last 12 months compared to the prior 10 years. They still have room to improve and grow but I hold by my comments that these FAQ/Errata/Updates have been almost universally good. A few stick out as sore points and outright changes but honestly - they could have just produced 8th ed with all this in and charged you for it to play the most current version. In the past - I have no doubt that's what would have happened.

Had it happened - would you be so negative now? Is this response simply because its on a social media account and because its not what the current rule book says now that you are upset? Grenades, Jink, Pods... all significant changes that the community is up in arms about but had it been 8th ed - I think the response would be very different

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Massaen wrote:

ITC means jack.

The ITC is the largest 40k tournament circuit in the world, with more member GTs than any circuit in the world, including such well-known events as Adepticon, and many of whom's events eclipse that of even GW themselves, with the possible exception of warhammer world. I wouldn't say ITC means jack.

To be honest, even if GW themselves decided to get back into the tournament scene in North America and take over, I don't think they could wrest control of the tournament scene management from the ITC. My personal trust in GW is so low, if given the choice to attend an official GW event or an ITC event, I'd go ITC without a moment's hesitation. I think that sentiment is mostly mirrored all over north america, but particularly in the western half of NA, where ITC support is strongest, and 40k in general has the most players.

Massaen wrote:

The fact the writer (who knows who it is?!?) has added a fluff addition to the answer does not change the answer. GW put fluff in EVERY RULE.

Not in FAQs. FAQs are meant to clarify rules. If you wanted to forge the narrative, you wouldn't need the FAQ.

Massaen wrote:

Grenades, Jink, Pods... all significant changes that the community is up in arms about but had it been 8th ed - I think the response would be very different

You're wrong. People are angry about these decisions because they're large, sweeping changes that completely neuter entire units, factions, and model lines. Did people just say, "Ah, well, no big deal.." when they took away wyches haywire grenades and gave them nothing? That was a new edition of the book. But No, they complained, gave them the scarlet letter of being "worthless", and they haven't seen a major GT finals appearance since the new codex came out.

Think about that. Think about how telling that is. Not only have they not been included in any army that has won a major GT, but they haven't been included in a single list that has made it to the top 10%.

You're saying that things that do precisely the same thing to OTHER units(grenade ruling) won't be met with similar results? If so, you're insane. But that's ok. We can agree to disagree.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Probably

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

The ITC is the largest 40k tournament circuit in the world, with more member GTs than any circuit in the world, including such well-known events as Adepticon, and many of whom's events eclipse that of even GW themselves, with the possible exception of warhammer world. I wouldn't say ITC means jack.

It may be the largest circuit in the world but ultimately it does not affect the majority of games - you know - the rest of the world. ITC is essentially only played in North America and while I personally look forward to attending LVO in the next year or 2 and I will learn the house rules they use - that's all they are.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

To be honest, even if GW themselves decided to get back into the tournament scene in North America and take over, I don't think they could wrest control of the tournament scene management from the ITC. My personal trust in GW is so low, if given the choice to attend an official GW event or an ITC event, I'd go ITC without a moment's hesitation. I think that sentiment is mostly mirrored all over north america, but particularly in the western half of NA, where ITC support is strongest, and 40k in general has the most players.

I get that - I am of the same opinion that GW has stiff competition from the various regions around the world in regards to event management and gaining back the trust from long term players like you and me. Fact is though - if they ran an event - it would sell out so fast its not funny. All the players at the 100 GW stores in north America would flock to it. Its a different target demographic.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Not in FAQs. FAQs are meant to clarify rules. If you wanted to forge the narrative, you wouldn't need the FAQ.

Except they like to add narrative everywhere - there literally no harm in them adding it to an FAQ especially as they answered the question RAW

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

You're wrong. People are angry about these decisions because they're large, sweeping changes that completely neuter entire units, factions, and model lines. Did people just say, "Ah, well, no big deal.." when they took away wyches haywire grenades and gave them nothing? That was a new edition of the book. But No, they complained, gave them the scarlet letter of being "worthless", and they haven't seen a major GT finals appearance since the new codex came out.

Think about that. Think about how telling that is. Not only have they not been included in any army that has won a major GT, but they haven't been included in a single list that has made it to the top 10%.

And while they might be angry - 8th edition with these changes would be accepted and used regardless. Yes, people complained about the Wych change (I have 40 myself!) but lets be real - that was a hole in the rules for 1 unit and was something they should never have been able to do in the first place. Its also fixed with the FAQ on grenades so everyone is the same now - equality!

Just because people don't use wyches at a GT in recent memory doesn't mean no one uses them.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

You're saying that things that do precisely the same thing to OTHER units(grenade ruling) won't be met with similar results? If so, you're insane. But that's ok. We can agree to disagree.

We were doing so well and then you had to add a personal dig *sigh*

I'm not insane - no.

It all boils down to the personal flavor, what kind of game you want. I'd instantly go to the games workshop tournament because I don't expect so many munchkins there and I would hope got a campaign like structure. Not a mere match after match after match after...

But that's personal preference.
Anyway: I don't get the hate for the pod issue. It's good for us. They can't reach us in close combat? Oh, I'm mortified!

If we want to, we still can just jump over them with scourges, bikes, skimmers, etc.

CptMetal wrote:

Anyway: I don't get the hate for the pod issue. It's good for us. They can't reach us in close combat?

How about we can't reach them in close combat? With our craptastic ranged AT (3 Ravagers to take out a single Drop Pod, yay!!) we basically need to take them out in melee and Taloi are really the only units in our codex who can actually do that. So now we basically have to deep strike any melee units in order to get them into combat, which means turn 3 at the earliest before they start doing anything.

Massaen wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

To be honest, even if GW themselves decided to get back into the tournament scene in North America and take over, I don't think they could wrest control of the tournament scene management from the ITC. My personal trust in GW is so low, if given the choice to attend an official GW event or an ITC event, I'd go ITC without a moment's hesitation. I think that sentiment is mostly mirrored all over north america, but particularly in the western half of NA, where ITC support is strongest, and 40k in general has the most players.

I get that - I am of the same opinion that GW has stiff competition from the various regions around the world in regards to event management and gaining back the trust from long term players like you and me. Fact is though - if they ran an event - it would sell out so fast its not funny. All the players at the 100 GW stores in north America would flock to it. Its a different target demographic.

It's not really a demographic that attends such events. In the United States, things are far different than Australia. For one, we have 15 times your population. Further, GW stores here have ONE objective, and that is to get people STARTED in the hobby. They have no intention of getting a lot of return business. I went through much of the GW process to start managing one of their stores, and they make it fairly clear that in order for one of their stores to remain profitable, you have to continuously drive in new customers, because old customers are switching from GW stores to local gaming stores that have better prices, more space to play, and often better selection/availability. (For instance, some game stores can order stuff for you at a discount that, on the web site says "GW Online Exclusive".)

Here, those 100 stores are constantly shutting down, being gone for a year or two and moving to a new location, hoping to draw in more people, who then start the hobby, but then move to a local gaming store. In the 20 or so GW stores I've been to in North America(I travel constantly for work, all over the country), I've almost never seen a customer in there. They typically have scant playing space, so it's not really a good place to meet up with people to play. These "Stores" are often single-room introduction sites to GW products, that's it. People buy stuff there once because they think it's cool, look online and realize they can save 20-25% purchasing their stuff literally ANYWHERE but GW, and never go back.

Massaen wrote:

Just because people don't use wyches at a GT in recent memory doesn't mean no one uses them.

Dude, come on... If you're making the argument that people competitively use wyches, please stop talking to me. This is nonsense and I hate arguing over non-issues. No one competitively uses wyches. If you're just trying to win an argument online for winning's sake, you win. Just stop.

Massaen wrote:

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

You're saying that things that do precisely the same thing to OTHER units(grenade ruling) won't be met with similar results? If so, you're insane. But that's ok. We can agree to disagree.

We were doing so well and then you had to add a personal dig *sigh*

I'm not insane - no.

It wasn't meant as a personal dig. I absolutely didn't expect you to still think that, after me showing you just why it's demonstrably false. Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. That's what we were talking about above. People are people, and they'll mostly react predictably. Me saying "If you think otherwise, you must be crazy" is simply me pointing out that it's illogical and absurd to think otherwise, which you agreed to, even in your last post, saying "They might be angry about them, but..."

Look, no one ever said they wouldn't USE the rules if they were in 8th edition. No one is saying they're not going to USE the rules from the FAQs(except people saying they're not using them till they're announced as official, which is perfectly understandable). Of course everyone will use them. But they won't be happy about it, and if given the opportunity to influence change as they seem to have been here, they will act on said opportunity.

CptMetal wrote:

It all boils down to the personal flavor, what kind of game you want. I'd instantly go to the games workshop tournament because I don't expect so many munchkins there and I would hope got a campaign like structure. Not a mere match after match after match after...

ITC events, especially the big ones, have narrative campaigns and other fluffy events for people who aren't interested in the tournament side as much. I think you'd probably like ITC events and rules if you had more access to them in your location, Metal.

I live in a highly populated area so I guess I could find one of those tournaments. Especially if I would think of a 3 hour drive as "Close by".

CptMetal wrote:

I live in a highly populated area so I guess I could find one of those tournaments. Especially if I would think of a 3 hour drive as "Close by".

They use ITC in Germany?

Does the ITC have a lot of member games near you? If so, that's awesome, and I highly encourage you to try some of the events out and let us know how it goes!

I thought they were mostly limited to North America, with just that one tournament in southwest EU.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:

GW stores here have ONE objective, and that is to get people STARTED in the hobby. They have no intention of getting a lot of return business ...... because old customers are switching from GW stores to local gaming stores that have better prices, more space to play, and often better selection/availability. (For instance, some game stores can order stuff for you at a discount that, on the web site says "GW Online Exclusive".)

Think this is true the world over, my town (UK) has a GW store & 1 street over is an Indi. store that sells everything @ a 10% discount, even online only stuff. Owner is always like 'buy it from me & get a free pot of paint'

Even then casual net surfing gets you 20% off without even trying & if you do search a bit more you can get almost 25% off! Triple Helix FTW

It does make me feel sorry for the GW manager, a nice guy called James, he knows my next purchase is going to be a 2nd Ravager, but, I just can't justify buying it from the GW store. Also how their website makes any money when their 'online exclusive' stuff is cheaper elsewhere & is only 'exclusive' to their offical GW stores......

When you try & work out how they make their money, it's actually maddening! The Symantec (Norton) guys try the same thing, offer you a 'renewal price' that is more expensive than just buying a brand new copy from anywhere else.....

I know GW is under new management, but OMG, the old guys were f'ing awesome! Having the nerve to screw everyone over, knowing that 'us poor idiot customers' would still buy from them!

Balls of steel, RESPECT!

So, if I understood that correctly, GW is about to screw over the entire concept of allied transport vehicles, just so that Non-Marines stop using Drop Pods, right?

Well, according to Ask Grombrindal (the closest there is to GW answering player questions, sadly), there are three main reasons why Non-Marines don't have Drop Pods as normal transport choices:
1) Ordinary humans aren't trusted with such technology (Which is bull, because a Lasrifle is more advanced and sophisticated than an armored space capsule).
2) A Drop Pod has only 10 seats, so an IG platoon wouldn't fit in (Which does not mean an IG squad couldn't use it).
3) The landing is so damn hard, nothing short of a Space Marine would still be in fighting shape after it (Now THAT is a good reason)!

So what would be the most logical solution for this?
How about adding a rule to Drop Pods that says only Space Marines may use them!?

Rokuro wrote:

So what would be the most logical solution for this?
How about adding a rule to Drop Pods that says only Space Marines may use them!?

Easiest way to do that would be make them a dedicated transport option in the SM Codex.

Kantalla wrote:

Easiest way to do that would be make them a dedicated transport option in the SM Codex.

That would go against the trend of making empty transports fast attack choices, but yes, it would be the easiest way.

But games workshop isn't doing dedicated transports anymore.

I once saw something about ITC edition tournaments in my area but I don't care. It's 17 million people in my area that's very small compared to the average American population density so I'm quite sure I'd find something..

EDIT: my phone auto "corrected" my sentence.

CptMetal wrote:

It's 17 million people on the are that's very small die the average American so I'm quite sure I'd find something..

I have no idea what this sentence is saying.

New FAQ.

Space Wolves.

Don't get excited.

Basically says multiple times that ICs that join a unit in another Formation don't get the Formation special rule.

Also reiterates at one point that directly contradicting rules (such as Always Pass vs. Always Fail) actually cancel each other out. So a weapon that causes someone to auto-Fail a Leadership test now cancels out Fearless, meaning there are ways to cause Fear and Morale issues for Fearless units. Given that Dark Eldar have some Leadership shenanigans, have we got access to anything that causes an auto-fail on Leadership? (would cause test instead)


Space Wolf FAQ also hides a single page at the end covering Dreadnoughts, with one question only - Space Marines Dreadnoughts get 4 attacks, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, etc only get two. The ruling? Yes, they only have two, unless you house rule it with your friends.


Other than that, nothing particularly exciting to come out of the Space Wolves FAQ First Draft.

tg: i cancel out your fearless
me: flips table

Squidmaster wrote:

Also reiterates at one point that directly contradicting rules (such as Always Pass vs. Always Fail) actually cancel each other out. So a weapon that causes someone to auto-Fail a Leadership test now cancels out Fearless

Soo, if a unit is fearless & a unit causes fear, do they cancel each other out & the units fight each other as if neither had either?

No. Fear just requires a test, it doesn't make you auto fail it.

Rewind wrote:

Squidmaster wrote:

Also reiterates at one point that directly contradicting rules (such as Always Pass vs. Always Fail) actually cancel each other out. So a weapon that causes someone to auto-Fail a Leadership test now cancels out Fearless

Soo, if a unit is fearless & a unit causes fear, do they cancel each other out & the units fight each other as if neither had either?

This is what they put in the FAQ:
"How do you resolve a special rule or an item of wargear that makes you automatically pass a test against another special rule or item of wargear that makes you automatically fail? For example, the Pelt of Balewolf causes certain models to automatically fail their Fear tests, yet models with the Daemonic Instability special rule automatically pass these tests.
A: The two rules effectively cancel each other out. In the case of the Pelt of Balewolf, a model with the Daemonic Instability special rule would therefore have to take a standard Fear test."

https://www.facebook.com/1575682476085719/photos/pcb.1632423303744969/1632421943745105/?type=3&theater

I don't think there are many things that make you auto-fail a leadership test, are there? I can't think of one.

Squidmaster wrote:

New FAQ.
Space Wolf FAQ also hides a single page at the end covering Dreadnoughts, with one question only - Space Marines Dreadnoughts get 4 attacks, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, etc only get two. The ruling? Yes, they only have two, unless you house rule it with your friends.


Other than that, nothing particularly exciting to come out of the Space Wolves FAQ First Draft.

However, given the wording of this designer's note, which is to say that they think that all dreadnoughts should have 4 attacks (because 2 weren't cutting it), but that they technically don't because the update cycle hasn't caught up with the changes to the SM dex, I suspect that all major formal tournament systems will rule that the # of attacks will be 4.

They also rule differently for Resurrection Protocols vs FnP:

Q: How do you resolve the effects of Helfrost weapons against Necrons for the purposes of their Reanimation Protocol special rule, as they technically happen simultaneously?
A: The Sequencing section from Warhammer 40,000: The Rules cover cases where two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first – the player whose turn it is chooses the order.

Q: Does a wound negated by Feel No Pain count as saved or unsaved for the purposes of wargear that has an effect if a unit suffers an unsaved wound?
A: It counts as saved.

Even though both FnP and RP are written the same way. Which means......the Shadow field will be lost when we take a wound and than FnP it away.