Willow brings us a Guest Editorial on the GW First Draft FAQ:
As we all probably know by now, Games-Workshop dropped a huge 40k FAQ bomb on Facebook, asking fans to make sure the questions and answers are clear before they finalize. Since then they’ve been releasing codex specific FAQs in the same fashion. If you haven’t seen them yet, check it out in their mass of photos here.
The FAQ changes a ton, and really destroys a lot of current armies. Battle Brothers can’t begin the game embarked in friendly transports, so goodbye Flesh Tearer’s Rent-A-Pod service and my Dragonaiders. Jinking vehicles make passengers fire Snap Shots as well, meaning my poor Dark Reapers can’t use Venoms as protective firing platforms anymore. There’s so much more in the FAQ that changes how we play the game and will most certainly shake the Meta. But there are also many questions that simply clarify rules, like how vertical movement does not count for overall movement distance for jump pack and jet pack movements, Void Shields are affected by Grav and Gauss and Melta and Haywire, Super Heavy Flyers with Hover cannot Thunderblitz, units with grenades can only use one grenade for the unit in the Assault Phase, and more. These don’t change army list restrictions and just show GW’s original intent. However, as I play games with people, discuss rules, play in tournaments, everyone seems to say ‘Oh it’s just a draft, it isn’t official yet, we ignore those rules.” It has me scratching my head, because while I know it’s a draft and we shouldn’t necessarily adopt all the rules that suddenly ruin a vast majority of people’s army compositions, many of these little rules clarifications show GW’s true intent in regards to rules we’ve decided to interpret differently as a community. Now, I’m a fan of starting to run tournaments using the entire draft, but at minimum I beg of the community to let all the simple rules clarifications that don’t make army builds illegal to be incorporated into our tournaments. There’s no reason my Fire Dragons should each be able to attack with Melta Bombs any more, as GW has shown their intent that the ‘one grenade per unit’ rule is not limited to shooting, and was clearly their intent the whole time. Void Shields weren’t meant to be godlike like they are in our current ITC format. Move Through Cover wasn’t meant as an alternative to Assault Grenades. Etc. Etc.
Last weekend at Guardian Cup I had three or four separate occasions where my opponents and I used or tried to use rules as written in the GW Draft FAQ only to realize we’re supposed to be completely ignoring those rules. I took out a D-Thirster without taking a single wound, in close combat, with Fire Dragons and a couple characters, in two phases. It felt dirty to win that game when I know GW didn’t intend for my Fire Dragons to be better monstrous creature killers in assault then many other close combat units in the game. We’re all ready, we’re all thinking about them, preparing our new lists and strategies. Death from the Skies is already here and changing up the Meta. Change is coming, and I say there’s no better way to prepare than by playing the GW FAQ in our tournaments. Forcing players to adapt to new rules as rapidly as they arrive will bring variety in lists, less net listing, and emphasize the truly skilled players. Plus, who actually likes drop pod armies anyways?
Let us know in the comments section how you feel about the GW First Draft FAQ and using it before its finished?
Well said! Our local gaming club has been using the draft FAQs since they were released. The grenade ruling in combat is really annoying and makes Knights and other monstrous creatures far more durable to certain armies, but that is obviously the intention.
The biggest change for my White Scars and Ravenwing is allowing Scout moves after rolling to seize. This is huge and makes Scouting even more powerful and much less of a risk.
Agreed. There’s really no reason not to use the drafts. There’s a decent chance most of them will be the same once they’re official.
We are using it locally and the ATC has decided to use it as well. Our thought was this: do we really want to ignore a ruling from GW? This is their game afterall.
My local store used a hybrid in the last tournament I ran. We used GW FAQ for just about everything but used the ITC FAQ for “balance” related changes like ranged D weapons and Invisibility. I say we use them.
The only reason we have other FAQ currently is because GW wouldn’t do their own FAQ. Now we can let them do the FAQ and just fill in the gaps and tweak things for balance (like Drop Pods. lol)
regarding the grenade ruling… It is my opinion that the FAQ (Facebook Team’s interpretation) is incorrect. Remember, this is not the design studio – the Facebook team is a different group of people just attempting to answer the questions they asked the community for. They are just reading the rules and providing an interpretation just as you and I are – and they are sifting through thousands of questions as quickly as they can.
While it is true that the grenade rules say you can only ever “throw” one grenade per unit per phase (ie. your shooting phase, your opponent’s assault phase as an overwatch attack and I think there are some psychic powers that cause a unit to “immediately shoot…”), the rules break to a new section (Vehicles, Gun Emplacements and Monsterous Creatures), and later go on to say that a model with grenades can “use” them in place of their close combat attack (only 1 attack per model). Again, in the sections explaining each of the grenade types, they mention that a single model from a unit can choose to throw a grenade in place of its other shooting attack, under the heading “Shooting”. And again, for each of the types under “Assault”, it goes on to say that models equipped with (whichever) grenades can (whatever effect). In my opinion a very clear distinction between what occurs in the assault phase and when grenades are used as a shooting attack. The primary distinction being that a grenade is not “thrown” in the assault phase, merely “used” (the weapon profile says Range: – ). I realize this sounds like splitting hairs, but this is how I had interpreted the rules from the beginning.
If it is maintained that they meant that only one grenade can be “used”, then how many models would benefit from frag grenades? According to this ruling, only one model would not suffer the initiative effects of charging through terrain. I believe the Facebook team made (in my opinion), an incorrect interpretation. To support this, I would simply say that they have given a number of responses that have left the community scratching their collective heads.
But these FAQs aren’t coming from the Facebook team. These are coming from the design studio and being published by the Facebook team.
“If it is maintained that they meant that only one grenade can be “used”, then how many models would benefit from frag grenades? According to this ruling, only one model would not suffer the initiative effects of charging through terrain.”
The FAQs also state that if you’re equipped with a weapon, you don’t need to use it to gain the benefit. A model with Assault Grenades gains the benefit of charging through cover even if they don’t use the grenade itself. Pretty clear there.
Oh, well that’s easy, then- I gain the benefits of my Meltabombs without using them.
Don’t be obtuse.
It’s like Goredrinker from KDK – if you have Goredrinker and a Power Sword, you get the Bonuses from Goredrinker (+1S, Rampage, etc) even if you swing with the Power Sword. Because Goredrinker says that the model gains those bonuses, not the weapon itself.
For Assault Grenades, it says a model equipped with them ignores the Initiative reduction. The model has that rule, even if they don’t use the Grenade to swing.
in that same interpretation, a model with a chain fist and a lightning claw would gain both armourbane and shred while utilizing both weapons. A chaos lord with the black mace and a power fist would also gain the daemon weapon rule while utilizing the powerfist. If you are not actively using a weapon, but merely gaining “extra attack” off of it, then you should not gain the benefits that the weapon has on it.
Except you have to USE a grenade in close combat (per the wording in the rulebook) to get its attack profile. And the no-initiative-loss explicitly says “any model equipped does not suffer…” Pretty easy to see the difference there.
I agree that RAW it appears you can use more than one model with a grenade in CC, that’s exactly why as a community we ruled it that way. However, as my article states, this isn’t GW’s intent, regardless of how poorly they worded the rules in the first place. Someone also already pointed out that the FAQs are coming from the design team and just being published by the Facebook team. Regardless of that it’s still GW and I’m sure that the Facebook team either has the authority or the permission to literally change 40K.
As far as assault grenades, I’m pretty sure the BRB just says if units are armed with frag grenades or assault grenades they don’t suffer initiative penalties for charging through cover. This makes sense, because remember GW is a cinematic company, so fluff wise only one guy really needs to throw a drag grenade to make the enemies hunker down or get out the way and prevent Overwatch from happening.
You realize the FAQ isn’t done by the “Facebook team” don’t you? They explicitly stated many times that the RULES GUYS are the ones coming up with these FAQs. And their Facebook team always says “we’ll pass your questions for clarification on to them” whenever they are asked a question. Just because the pictures were posted on Facebook doesn’t mean the social media people were the ones who made them up…
You can want to rule it however you want, but the ones who made the rules made their intent pretty clear.
Couldn’t agree more Willow!
People may not agree with all of the new rulings but then again nobody agrees with all the current rulings so I say whats the big deal? At least adopting the new FAQ’s we are at least moving into the new rulings and getting use to them ahead of time.
I understand that people are saying ‘QQ its still a draft’ but the site specifically states that the new rulings are going to be implemented and all they want in terms of “feed back” from the community is based on ‘clarity in their rulings’ which indicates to me that these are 99% set in stone.
My 2 Cents anyway 😛
Nice article regardless Willow!
There are people NOT using it? That’s the bigger shock to me! Are they waiting for the second draft? Third? It takes YEARS for GW to actually FAQ this shit and there are people not using it? Gamers will never cease to perplex me. 🙂
haha. Humans don’t like change, specially when it affects how their favorite armies are composed/played.
I also agree that these FAQs should be used ASAP.
We’re playing with the rules we expect to see in tournaments and like the writer said, tournaments aren’t using it yet. So yeah, i think it makes sense to wait until big tournaments start using it.
Rough draft means rough and not finished. After the feedback they are getting now, i would expect alot of these interpretations to be changed in the “final” draft. Rough draft means nothing to me and my club, i would refuse to play any rough draft rules the same way i refuse to play against experimental FW unit rules. Its either official, or its not.
If you’re waiting for a “final” draft, you’re going to be waiting a LONG time. Also, the images all display “first draft” not “rough draft”, most likely their rough draft was a word doc passed around the office long before they committed to making the one they shared online.
Most likely there will never be a “final” draft, since that would be kind of the dumbest thing they could do. Once they call it final, they are saying they’ll never answer questions again.
Not to mention…. they were very clear about what they wanted feedback on. They wanted people to tell them if an answer *was not clear.* They explicitly said “we don’t care if you don’t like our answer, that’s not our problem.” (Some ad libbing, but you get the point).
They aren’t going to tone back their rulings because people don’t agree with some of them. The clarifications are the way they originally intended for this all to be designed.
1. People want FAQs to clear things up.
2. FAQs clear things up but nerf people’s armies in the process by eliminating loopholes.
3. People whine they don’t want FAQs.
100% agree. Even if they’re only “drafts” right now, they’re going to be official soon (maybe later rather than soon, but eventually), and plugging your ears to it is just holding off the inevitable.
Even the FAQs will probably need a tournament/ITC pass for things like Drop Pods, though, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use them.
Wow I honestly wasn’t expecting everyone (for the most part) to agree with me. Just more proof we should use them 🙂
Which draft? The image documents or the word documents? Because if you didn’t notice even those didn’t agree with each other. So yeah maybe they do still need to figure stuff out… if not I will gladly attach my IC’s to skyhammer. You children nowadays just can’t wait for anything.
They’ve clarified that the Word Documents are the version to use in case of disparity.
Calling me a child makes your argument look very professional and mature 😉
They’ve explicitly stated the word document is what to go by. They are not allowed to edit pictures once you post them to Facebook. If you would read instead of acting like a petulant child who just got his favorite toy taken away, you’d know these things.
I did read and that’s exactly my point. By the time they posted their first post to Facebook they had two different versions of the FAQ. So it’s perfectly plausible that they would have another draft based on feedback , unless of course the image files created themselves, then I’m totally with you.
Or someone… you know… copy pasta’d wrong.
My rationale for not wanting to use the first draft/WIP of these is because they have already changed them several times. If we were to take it all and bring it in to the ITC and then they change in a week or month, it will cause a great deal of confusion. Our preference is to wait until GW says: here, the FAQ is done. Then we don’t have to adjust to every alteration while they’re hammering it out and still asking for feedback.
As for some of these clarifying intent, we can only speculate at that. In all likelihood the team writing the FAQs are not the same people who wrote the original rules. They’re doing their best to interpret these rules just like us, so I wouldn’t attach too much rigidity to the reading of them.
Which draft will you start using? Like I said above, if you’re waiting for a “final draft” then you could be waiting for something that was never intended to come. I doubt they’ll use the words “Final” to describe an FAQ, because that’s like saying they never intend to do another FAQ ever again.
Uh pretty sure GW has a place for “final” FAQs on their website and these aren’t there.
Most, if not all of those have had previous versions and iterations… They are not final.
But they are posted on their website. I feel like that is at least something that differentiates them from the current FAQ drafts.
The problem is if their website is the old way and Facebook is the new way… You’re choosing to ignore the new way, because it’s changed from how they did it before.
That is your opinion. But in my opinion, you are choosing to ignore that it is specified as a first draft and that they are asking for feedback before they provide a finalized version.
You have mentioned several times in here about how it could be years if at all before they release a final FAQ, how could you possibly know that unless you work for GW which you dont. New CEO, new direction for the company, the final FAQ could be all out by the end of the year for all you (or i) know. Me and my club will be waiting for the final drafts.
Hey Reece,
Our local TO Just ruled that ITC FAQ had priority then GW FAQ would apply for any other questions.
I feel this is the best way to address these incoming FAQs.
By using FAQ priority, it Gives a lot of flexibility to adjust/tweak rules on the fly.
I can understand the intent, but they haven’t really updated any FAQs more than a couple days after their release (as far as I know). I think waiting a week per FAQ and then accepting it is pretty reasonable (as in, SM would be viable tomorrow, but the next one won’t be used for a week to let people get acclimated).
Holding off on using them “in case they change in a month” is a bit iffy. There are so many releases between codexes, dataslates, campaigns, Get Started formations, etc, that new FAQs are just another part. People are already keeping up and expected not to be confused that I don’t understand why the FAQs should be treated any differently.
Yeah most tournies wait 30 days for new releases to be allowed in play, why not do the same with the FAQs? Seems fair to me.
These are not new rules. They are clarifications on rules that have been around more than 30 days
I understand what you’re saying, but GW on the FB page is still actively asking for feedback on the FAQs and saying that they are considering making more changes. My guess is that they are going to go through all of the codexes before finalizing anything. To me, the giant “First Draft” in red letters is indicating that this is not the finished product. They moving along at a swift clip though, I don’t think it is too far off before they give their stamp of approval.
Also, we could simply ask them on their FB page what the timeline is, too. They’ve been fairly responsive.
It was not just typos, they reversed rulings in several instances, too.
As I stated, we’re not challenging rulings (well, in a very few instances we are) or unhappy with it, we just do not want to adopt this document as is, have them go in for another round of changes and revisions and create a great deal of confusion. We judge it to be prudent to wait until they say, here’s the finished FAQ, which I think anyone that stops to think about it, would agree is a good course of action. The fact that they put them out asking for feedback with the intent to adjust things is very indicative to me that this is not a final product meant to be used out of the box, so to speak.
At the local level, where you’re dealing with a lot smaller group of people, by all means, feel free to adopt these rulings now if you want. Anything that changes can be adjusted on the fly. For the entire ITC things are not that simple as we now communicate with TOs on 4 different continents. Things move a bit slower.
What about some of the big obvious ones, like order of declaring targets for Super Heavy vehicles weapons (i.e. Surges aren’t that OP if you play by the rules) or LOF Arcs on Imperial Knights (turret mounted missies are turret mounted).
It’s annoying to have FAQ’s from the official source, but then be told by organizers that they aren’t official, but their fan-made ones are…
I agree that most of the clarifications are nice and many would probably be fine to implement. However, every single FAQ page on facebook has comment after comment, sometimes over a 100, asking for clarification. That is a lot of uncertainty still surrounding them for me to think we should just implement the entire FAQ as is.
Which rulings did they reverse?
I have only seen them state that there were typos in the images.
What about multiple grenades thrown by a single unit? That rule has zero support in RAW. The LRB makes it super duper clear and says it at least 4 times in two pages: 1 grenade may be thrown by 1 model from 1 unit in 1 phase. There is zero RAW basis for throwing more than 1 grenade from a unit in any 1 phase.
You are right. There is zero RAW basis for “throwing” more than one grenade per phase. What people are arguing, however, is that there is quite a bit of RAW basis that throwing a grenade is not the same thing as using one as a weapon in the assault phase.
Page 180: LRB, on the top, Bolded:
Only one grenade (of any type) can be thrown by a unit per phase.
They Bolded it so everyone would see it. RAW leaves no room. The only RAI argument is that you pay 2 points per model to get photon grenades, but that just means any one of the models can be the 1 guy who throws a grenade in a phase. The Bolded phrase would always trump everything.
If someone tries to throw more than 1 grenade from a unit (of any type) in 1 phase, I am not going to take it. The RAW is too clear.
How did the ITC ever get to tossing more than 1 grenade?
That’s not an ITC ruling, it’s how the vast majority of players simply read the rule and were playing it. I have literally never seen anyone play it differently and I play 40k all around the country. Not to say some didn’t play it that way, but it was a minority of players.
Farther down that same page it states,”Some grenades can be used against vehicles, gun emplacements (pg 109) and/or Monstrous Creatures (including Flying Monstrous Creatures in Gliding mode), but have
to be clamped in place to maximise effect.
And then again under Unusual Grenades it states, “Some grenades do not have a profile. Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules. Unless specifically stated otherwise, these grenades cannot be thrown or used as a Melee weapon.”
Two spots where it differentiates between throwing a grenade and using one in close combat.
Also using more than one grenade in combat is not even an ITC FAQ. They didn’t need to FAQ it because that is how everyone plays it.
The only things I can think of that they have changed is the apothecary ruling but that was just them clarifying that it was a typo. They stopped printing the faq below.
The first FAQ had typos in the image but the text below was accurate.
Is there something else you would say was changed?
I say vote. isnt the ITC meant to be a democracy?
We won’t be using them for our events until they’re finalized and on GW’s website – same as I wouldn’t allow leaked rules, rumours, etc… before their actual release date at a tournament.
For casual play, as always, do whatever you enjoy.
Seriously, how awkward would it be if two people had two different printed versions of the FAQ they got from online.
You’re assuming that there will be “final” ones and that they’ll be on GW’s website at some point… Which basically means if they’ve changed how they are doing things (which obviously they have) then you’ll never use their FAQs.
You seem to be assuming that these drafts are all we are going to get. They have clearly said that these are for the purpose of comment and feedback, whether they call them done or whether they call them revision 2 it seems clear to me at some point they will release a revised version and say here are our current FAQs, rather than here have a look at these and let us know what you think.
I do not understand how calling the current ones final would mean that they will be stating that they will never be updated again. They could release a final version now, and then in a years time come back and update them to address any new issues or new releases.
FAQ-Final, FAQ-Final-2, FAQ-finally-the-acutal-final… people don’t use “final” to describe files they intend to update. Implying that they need to call it “final” for you to use it means you’re insisting we wait until they do something you want them to do, which is quite possibly something they never intend on doing!
Do you see why waiting for a “final” version may very well be waiting for something that is never intended to come?
Except that they specifically state that they want feedback so that they can clear up any issues before releasing them again.
Them asking for feedback does in no way imply that there will be a finaly version. All it does say is that the document can still change. And if it is intended to be a living FAQ that will be a permanent state.
They have confirmed multiple times, by email, by PM, and in responses to posts, that the final versions of the FAQs will be PDFs on their website.
Precisely.
YAY!
Well I just checked GWs/Black Library website and they still have yet to put any of these changes into the official FAQ PDFs. If you want to “beta test” this draft go ahead. But until it hits the official GW/Black Library site it’s just like a bill that’s yet to be passed by the government. It’s not law until it goes thru all the official channels, and gets signed into law. We’re not even at the point where it’s up for a first vote.
So what about the fact that one of the FAQs states that you can snap fire Ordnance when the BRB clearly states that you cannot. You all believe that that was their original intent?
What about moving through walls? Are you disallowing that, because according to the FAQ you should be.
And what about their FAQ on re-rolls to hit and gets hot which is a direct contradiction to the rules.
Well actually non of those are real issues. Only templates and blasts cannot be snap fired. The moving through walls was a hold over from 6th just like the ruin rules that people just didn’t notice weren’t there anymore. The gets hot rules just state that you can re-roll your to hit roll not if you can re-roll 1s.
These are all just clarifications.
Pg. 527 from the electronic version of the BRB states “Ordnance weapons cannot fire Snap Shots.”
I am not arguing that GW didn’t actually tell us that we can no longer move through walls. I am arguing that this is something that can’t, or at least shouldn’t, be implemented into casual or tournament play. Don’t you find it odd that they got rid of levels for blast weapons because it was too difficult to implement with all the different pieces of terrain out there, yet they clarify that we cannot move through walls. A majority of the terrain I have seen at tournaments and what we have at my local shop is not GW terrain. It is scratch-built and doesn’t always have windows and doors. So sure, GW can tell us that we can’t move through walls, but I do not think that they or you have considered what that does to gameplay.
I agree that the gets hot ones is up for debate. Does re-rolls to hit include just re-rolling ones? However, GW didn’t say that re-re-rolling ones is the problem. They said, “No. The roll to see if a Gets Hot Blast weapon overheats is not a To Hit roll.” Which tells me they didn’t even read their own rules.
Gets Hot and Re-rolls
If a model has the ability to re-roll its rolls To Hit (including because of BS6+ or the Twin-linked special rule), a Wound is only suffered if the To Hit re-roll is also a 1; it may also re-roll Gets Hot results of 1 for weapons that do not roll To Hit.
So all they did was tell us that re-rolls of any kind do not allow you to re-roll the gets hot result on a weapon that does not roll to hit.
On the issue of the gets hot rerolls it only says that re-rolling ones doesn’t allow you to re-rolling scatter or a gets hot roll. So the section in the brb about re-rolling gets hot remains in tact and twin linked still works. Just not selective re-rolling like preferred enemy. I just looked and that was all it said.
I’ve been playing with the new FAQ for some time now and while not going through walls takes some getting used to it is quite manageable.
As for the ordinance snap shots it only says vehicles can so there may be something there.
“I am not arguing that GW didn’t actually tell us that we can no longer move through walls. I am arguing that this is something that can’t, or at least shouldn’t, be implemented into casual or tournament play.”
Just look at that sentence. What on earth made people ever think that walking through walls is something models should be able to do? We might just as well have replaced all terrain with fields of pebbles, called them ruins and be done with it.
It comes from previous editions, where it was explicitly stated to assume that Units were armed with breaching charges, grenades, chainfists, or just sheer badassery that would allow them to Kool-Aid freely through Ruin Walls. It’s a legacy Rule, not one that just came out of nowhere.
Tradition aside, it just makes the game a whole lot easier to manage. Infantry are already slow enough without them having to walk around a 12 inch building. It also equalizes terrain, which comes in all shapes and sizes.
It may be easier to manage but I can think of a whole lof of other things that would do that. If we start like that we can go about ignoring every rule you don’t like. Which to be fair seems to be the way the ITC is going anyway with the way Death from the Sky is treated.
So here’s a brilliant solution… if your TO has a lot of walled, scratch-built terrain… have him rule that you can walk through the walls.
If you haven’t noticed, GW took out basically any and all support for terrain in the newest edition. Ruins used to be an entire section. Now its basically one page. And there’s one more page that covers the rest of the terrain in general.
When it comes to scratch-built terrain… play it how you and your opponent agree to. GW isn’t going to write rules for every conceivable piece of terrain someone else might build.
We all know carnifexes, dreadnaughts, and vindicators have never broken through walls in anything fluffy… right?!
Except if you read page 592 under “Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons” it gives specific permission for vehicles to snap shot ordnance weapons. They were clarifying the intent of vehicles to snap shot ordnance weapons with the FAQ.
I too, want to throw my vote in for using the FAQs.
I think Adam has a point here. At this rate it will take months until they are done with every Codex and even then they might not put up a “final” version as we were used to in the past but keep it as a living document.
We’ll end up still allowing allied transports, combined capther tatctcs, etc for a year by just waiting this out.
So maybe they will change again in a few month but what is new about that? We got a whole Codex Space Marines changed within a year last time. We will get something at least 4 new Decurion stlye detachments from various sourcebooks before they even finish this first draft for all Codices and those will change the meta just as much but we don’t wait until people get to use those.
I agree. People are acting like it’s going to be the blink of an eye and we’ll have all of the FAQs and they’ll all be “finalized.”
If anyone hasn’t noticed, they’re releasing about one batch of FAQs a week. And they’ve either been one major codex or a few smaller, easier factions. At this rate it will take 3-4 months, if not longer, just to get the first draft out for every single army. Then we have to wait for them to publish a second draft (if they do).
That’s the thing though. It equalizes terrain so much that none of it matters. Could just place some flat markers in which you get cover saves at this point. As for infantry, there is a reason there are transport options for those. Does it even happy outside of Battle Company? And they even get their car park for free. Sure it doesn’t help if they take drop pods but the game shouldn’t actualy be designed to make those a better option than anything else anyway.
Well this comment doesn’t belong here. Can’t post today, haz teh dumb.
Yes time to start using it.
*Checks time*
Well it seems we’re about ready for that ITC quarterly vote.
“Should major ITC events use the GW FAQ?”
“If yes, should we ignore battle brothers not being able to embark in allied transports at the start of the game?”
“If no, should we implement simple rules clarifications such as using a single grenade in close combat, vertical movement not counting when moving jet/jump units, and so forth?”
“Should the Void Shield Generator stay OP af so we can sell more of our amazing kit that Willow has yet to paint but is entirely grateful of?”
“Do you like piña coladas and getting caught in the rain?”
“Detachments, 3, 4, or unlimited?”
You know, the important questions
“Should the Void Shield Generator stay OP af so we can sell more of our amazing kit that Willow has yet to paint but is entirely grateful of?”
careful your hidden marine player is showing. Grav is ridiculous and no marine player need take anything but grav because its so strong, its nice to see other special/heavy weapons in a marine army once in awhile, and ITC void shield ruling makes it happen.
Ah yes. The illustrious “grav is too strong so let’s fix it by making a piece of broken terrain even more broken against grav” balancing technique. Such a wondrous accomplishment of fine-tuning.
And by the way… I play Chaos (both daemon and marine variety). So I’ve never taken a grav gun myself.
You clearly don’t know me. Hi I’m Willow, and I’m a Dark Eldar player. I don’t even own a marine army. And I won’t build one either, I love DE and I’m sticking with it. That and I’m way too poor as a college student. 🙂
Fortunately, as a TO, I don’t cherry pick rules to use and interpret current rules in a way that benefits my army, I do what seems most reasonable.
Are you really trying to say that we would not change certain rules so that we could make money on a kit we produce?
*tinfoil hat*
No reason that grav (etc…) vs VSG can’t be part of the vote (or a future one) regardless of the GW FAQs 🙂
Not at all Frankie, I’m just joking around 🙂
I bought the kit, as far as my army is concerned let it be as good as possible for as long as possible. It’s an awesome kit that’s easy to build and looks great. It just so happens GW rules against the ITC ruling 🙁
Glad I’m not the only one thinking this. I’ve been lamenting from the very first generic FAQ that they failed to distinguish between actual errata and real FAQ clarifications. It’s unfortunate that the attitude taken towards it has been to either allow all of it or none of it. I’ve been list building and playing already with the intent of playing in a meta that’s post-FAQ so I guess I’ll just have a head start on everyone who’s insisting on taking things that won’t exist once the words ‘first draft’ are taken off of these FAQs.
With all due respect, WH40K was never really intended for tournament play. Naturally, with human nature (competitiveness) being what it is, tournaments are indeed popular.
I would then distinguish between normal and tournament play – for tournament play its important which rules are used, just so there is no two different interpretations, and these interpretations would then naturally influence what armies are brought to fray. So yes, using beta FAQ, would influence the Meta – but at the end of the day if you are competitive you are going to be playing a unfluffy list, and don’t really care what faction it really is. If you already have an ITC list, and also an ETC list, having yet another one (GW beta FAQ) won’t really be a problem. In the long run probably it will be a plus, as you’ll get better acquainted with new rules sooner than later – and tweaking the list as the FAQ changes also won’t hurt you much. Only real issue is if you have few people with different version of the FAQ – while there is always a chance someone picked a “wrong” one intentionally, in general the error will be more of “oh, they released a newer version in the meantime?” nature. This of course makes it quite impractical for tournaments (but doesn’t prevent the organizers from using parts of the beta FAQ for their house rules).
For casual play, I think using the beta FAQ is definitely a plus – to play test how these rules work, and then give feedback to GW. Eventually the game will be made clear on how things work. That’s the most important part IMHO – that the rules are clear, so there is no discussion/arguing (which in itself, in a friendly match, isn’t really a problem – but time lost is), and everyone can have fun.
In general I think people care too much about tournament play, in a game that is clearly unbalanced and vague. I think more effort should be put into getting armies well painted, etc, than thinking of winning lists. Personally, I am VERY competitive by nature, but I restrain myself from competitive play, as I realized it was killing the fun and joy of a hobby which is very dear to me.