A call to assist the cause of a FAQ for Codex Space Marines

[Warmongrel]

Hello everyone. Recently I wrote to GW about frustration I was experiencing over some vague codex wording. Here is the message:

 

Hello,

 

I am writing to request a rules clarification in the Space Marines Codex. I would like to know if the Company Champion retains his bolt pistol upon upgrade from a veteran. I would also like to know if the Assault Squad sergeant can replace a bolt pistol

or

a chainsword with a

pair

of lightning claws. I feel that the answers to these questions are fairly obvious but the folks maintaining the 40k files for Army Builder are being stubborn and demanding a

GW

FAQ

before they alter the database.

 

Currently, when using their product to build my army lists, a Company Champion is equipped with a power weapon and a combat shield

only

. No bolt pistol. An Assault Squad sergeant can equip a pair of lightning claws in addition to a bolt pistol, chainsword, or any other weapon available to them. I realize that Army Builder, and much less the 40k file maintainers are not your concern, but it would be very helpful if these slightly vague areas in the codex could be spelled out for the strictly literal interpretation types. I would greatly appreciate your assistance on this matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

Peter

 

Their response came quite quickly as follows:

 

Hello,

 

We will try to get this in a

FAQ

but, as this question is far from frequent, we don’t know if it will be put on the next one. You are correct about the wargear options and it is unfortunate that the individuals maintaining the Army Builder files don’t see it.

 

 

Thanks!

 

John Spencer

Customer Service Specialist

 

I need your assistance to increase the frequency. Please write to custserv@games-workshop.com to request clarifications if these (or any other) issues concern you. Heck, even if they don't, help me hold GW's feet to the fire and let's get this codex cleaned up. Thank you for your time.

[Mutt-Man!]

Might as well make this another thread like the community Chaos Space Marine FAQ project. Everyone else should poke their FAQuestions about the marine codex here that have gone un-asnwered.

 

I would like to point out for older marine codexes that dont get to have 3+inv save storm shields and other updated rules.

[Warmongrel]

I agree, Mutt-Man!, as long as a question is noted not only here, but also sent along to custserv. I would be happy to inquire after any other issues folks have been having in an effort to spur faqqing. Is that a verb? If not I call dibs on the coinage. :D Call me gleefully utopian, but I like to think that customer feedback is still a powerful force in this world.

 

Regarding admoveo: Yeah, I couldn't make up my mind if this was a rules or a community issue (or both) but I'm glad it ended up in the right place.

 

Thank you for your support.

[Praeger]

Sadly this is not a rules question and so this topic is now cosed.

 

Topics like this should be discussed with a moderator before opening.

 

I will bring this to the attention of other moderators and we will determine if we will reopen this thread - but for now it will remain closed.

[Praeger]

After discussing this with the other moderators its been decided to re-open this topic.

 

Sorry about the delay here.

[Steelmage99]

Too bad the wording of the questions kinda made the answers obsolete.

 

Also I believe you need to update your files as the Assault Sergeant can indeed take a pair of LC in exchange for either the bolt pistol or chainsword in my (the latest) version.

 

The Company Champion is a tricky one.

 

AB has always worked on an "official FAQs only-basis". I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Hymirl]

Basically you need to remember that AB is only a program for making pretty looking army lists, it is not a codex nor a rulebook and in such matters is just to be ignored.

[Ghazhkull Thraka]

[/lurk mode]

 

The gear that the Company Champion has is not clear cut. The word 'upgrade' does not indicate one way or the other if he keeps or loses his original wargear. For most cases outside of Games Workshop, if you upgrade something you don't keep the original item. For example, if any of you fly frequently and you upgrade your seat to first class do you also keep your seat in coach? Of course not.

 

Nor can you use the model provided by GW for the Company Champion to determine the intent of the rules. Although it does have the bolt pistol, it does not have the chainsword. He has kept one weapon and lost the other. That leads to even more confusion. Mr. Spencer's claims that the maintainer's "don’t see it" is because the rules are not clear.

 

In situations like this, the AB maintainers prefer to err on the side of caution. We'd rather have the datafiles produce an army list that we know is legal by disallowing a possibly legal option rather than possibly allowing a legal option. However either way the datafiles read, people will complain about it until GW answers the question. We've had bug reports no matter which way the files read on this matter. At least in this instance, there's little impact on the final roster since there is no impact on the Champion's cost.

 

I would love to have an official FAQ on this matter. It is one more item that could be put to rest, I just don't know if continuosly sending emails to John Spencer is the answer.

 

Basically you need to remember that AB is only a program for making pretty looking army lists, it is not a codex nor a rulebook and in such matters is just to be ignored.

Except when it actually catches an error in the user's army list. You'd be suprised how many people post bug reports that are actually due to the user not understanding the rules. For example, a current bug report was that AB wasn't giving a model an extra attack from a bolt pistol when used with a power fist. You may not need AB to build a legal list, but it seems that a lot of others do.

 

[lurk mode]

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Yeah, but I think some people try to play 40k without buying/using their army codex, and expect Army Builder to make up for it. A lot of rules questions (and even some batreps) I've noticed around the forums (not just here) contain basic mistakes/misunderstandings because the OP hasn't read his codex/BRB. It's frustrating to simply say 'look on pg. X and it's staring you in the face', rather than discuss something more meaningful/debatable (like the specific wording of a rule, how it interacts with BRB core rules etc).

 

I'm not knocking the program, I think it's a fine effort to try to 'digitise' army lists, but you can't substitute the core rulebooks put out by GW. People who do use Army Builder should realise it's just a tool to aid you in writing the list. Everyone should give their list the 'once-over' with the actual codex, just to make sure there isn't any errors or other weirdness.

[Praeger]

Ok guys, going to have to step in here again - to be honest this is the reason iclosed the topic tyo begin with - didnt wish this to turn into an army buider topic.

 

What the OP is asking for is 2 things:

 

1 - email call etc GW and ask them to clarify rules questions from the most simple to the most extreme

 

2 - write a list of rules problems that need answering.

 

So what IM asking you all to do is to please stop the army builder posting. Personaly I agree with Ghaz on it, but thats neither here nor there really.

 

Please post the rules that you have problems with. Not ones that confuse you (but get answered quickly and straight forward here and elsewhere) but the questions that are actualy dificult confusing and dont have any clear answer.

 

EG - dont post "now far can you move in the assault phase? - this question is easily answered with a page reference.

 

Instead post questions like this:

 

Can you deep stike into buildings in city fight with units that make dificult terrain impassible?

 

Not the best question i know but hopefully you get the idea :tu:

 

Also - please dont reply to peoples questions, you can open a new thread for that - this topic is just so we can get a list of ALL the rules questions that are in desperate need of answers (from each army as well - not just marines)

 

So unless the OP has any problems (if so please PM me) ill leave this open for you guys to strat posting :P

[Warmongrel]

Too bad the wording of the questions kinda made the answers obsolete.

 

I was trying to leave my bias and personal interpretation out of it, but I failed. A rules answer provided by email is not worth anything anyway so, my main purpose was to request a FAQ.

 

AB has always worked on an "official FAQs only-basis". I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

I totally agree with the "official FAQs only-basis" of the AB policy. Any interpretation other than precisely the words in the codex will get blasted. Calling the maintainers "stubborn" was poor choice of words, and not what I really meant. The original topic title was chosen during a rather self righteous mood and is not really the purpose of this thread. I have changed it accordingly.

 

I enjoy AB quite a bit and am using version 1.01a for my lists these days. Any changes I need to make based on personal differences in interpretation of the codex, I make to the html output. And it does make a nice looking list. So thank you 40k maintainers for all the hard and free work you do. I appreciate it and I hope there are no hard feelings.

 

I might be crazy to expect customer feedback to affect big company like GW but it's all I can do. I figured that, as a community, the B&C folks have a better chance to affect change than just me alone. If you want to give it a shot and write in to GW about something that you want cleared up, I encourage you to do so. If you write about it here, I'd be happy to write them about it too. Maybe we'll get somewhere, maybe not, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Steelmage99]

I remember back on the Eye of Terror (GWs own board).

 

A bunch of people on Dakka had compiled a document of inconsistencies and contradictions, and posted them on the Development forum there. Less than 12 hours later the thread was locked without a reason given.

This was not a "I want my favorite unit X to kick ass", nor was it "By using loophole Y with sentence Z I can make my entire army immortal, right?".

This was simply things that needed to be cleared up (so any Dakka haters, keep it in your pants :blush:).

 

I have absolutly zero confidence in GWs ability to see any flaws with their own game system. Any kind of petition, e-mail storm or other is IMO a wasted effort. Hopefully at some point the games developers will establish some kind of regular communication with John Spencer. This will allow the games developers to actually know which questions are asked frequently and worthy to be included into a FAQ.

 

As it stands now, they either use a magic 8-ball or Allesio asks his coffee-table what needs to be FAQed. :)

[Isiah]

I have absolutly zero confidence in GWs ability to see any flaws with their own game system. Any kind of petition, e-mail storm or other is IMO a wasted effort. Hopefully at some point the games developers will establish some kind of regular communication with John Spencer. This will allow the games developers to actually know which questions are asked frequently and worthy to be included into a FAQ.

Maybe this is a question for another topic. But anyway I think that's a bit harsh as gamer-pressure can work. It's always hard to see flaws in one's own work, and to this end GW say they have a progam of FAQ updating and are open to suggestions etc which is fine but as long as it bears fruit:

The questions answered in our FAQs have been gathered from many sources. Some have been submitted by members of the public, others by representatives of the online gaming community and more still are the result of face to face meetings with keen and inquisitive players at a myriad of gaming events. We are always happy to consider more questions, and aim to update these FAQs as frequently as is practical. See the "Contact Us" page of the Games Workshop website for the address to which you can send your questions.

Thanks to all those who have done so already!

[From Codex SM FAQ]

 

It seems to me they relied too heavily on Jon yakface Regul (from DakkaDakka) which to be honest has resulted in some horrible FAQs – yes the DA had three last year – all of which needed sorting out in a subsequent release. This of course was complicated by both 5th Ed 40K and 5th Ed Codex SM launching at different times but still, very confusing. And in fact the DA FAQ is still not perfect and contradicts itself in a couple of places if memory serves. I hope they've learned from that experience and can move on to a proper system of evaluation and correction.

 

So all I'd say is keep the queries going to GW, or organise something somewhere sensible to collate those queries and send them in as a job lot. I suspect that they'll cite the 'credit crunch' for lower staffing and less time available etc to produce them. But just to give up believing nothing will get done will get us nowhere.

[Race Bannon]

It is my belief that by introducing Ab into the discussion, any valid answer goes out the window. Are you wanting to fix the problem from the Codex or in AB? Rhetorical.

 

The real question, as I see it concerning the Company Champion: when you upgrade a Veteran to a Company Champion, does he replace all his wargear with the items listed for a Company Champion?

 

Alternatively: Can a Company Champion still purchase items for Veterans (i.e. Can a Company Champion have two Lightning Claws)?

 

There was a discussion on the Champ already. And although I am satisfied with the discussion, my LGS felt differently.

 

So this part, I feel, is definitely worth bombing GW to fix with a FAQ.

[Steelmage99]

The questions answered in our FAQs have been gathered from many sources. Some have been submitted by members of the public, others by representatives of the online gaming community and more still are the result of face to face meetings with keen and inquisitive players at a myriad of gaming events. We are always happy to consider more questions, and aim to update these FAQs as frequently as is practical. See the "Contact Us" page of the Games Workshop website for the address to which you can send your questions.

Thanks to all those who have done so already!

[From Codex SM FAQ]

 

Yes, GW does indeed have a system in place. The horrifying thing is that by John Spencer (the only person that answers rules questions at askyourquestions@games-workshop.com) does not have any established means of talking to the games designers. This is straight from John Spencer himself. He hasn't be asked to gather the most frequently asked questions and send them to Lenton. He hasn't been asked to give any input as to wether a given subject deserves a FAQ. He hasen't even been given a mail-address to forward any interesting issues to.

 

Yes, the games designers do want us to contact GW. Just not the games designers.

No, we are send to the guy that is told; "Just shut them up and get them back to buying our miniatures!" by the designers.

Meanwhile the games designers will go right back to guessing at which issues we have with the rules because "that has worked brilliantly so far".

 

Sigh!

[Isiah]

Maybe they ought to poke their heads in here for a feel of rules queries... :)

 

Hmm well I think Steelmage99 that if you what you say on John Spencer is true – and I've no reason to say it isn't – then even more reason for places like this to get organised with queries. Despite the promises from GW it's true to say that the INAT FAQ used at Adepticon is miles better than anything GW could ever sling together themselves (it's a pity it's houserules only) that they should have been shamed into action, but no.

 

It's a shame that the hard work and effort by the team there at DakkaDakka has gone a bit flat when they produced or helped produce GWs offerings. That's the bit I don't understand. What went wrong?

 

Anyway somebody somewhere is obviously responding otherwise no official FAQs would be ever be made at all !! I don't mind the low frequency of releases, provided they (GW) covered the ground that was required – and this is where they fail.