Brother Ambroz Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Having spent £45 on a rulebook, and £65 on a boxset with a rulebook in it, they FAQ it, and the wording in my nice shiny rulebooks is arse biscuits. Have to agree with you there. Brand new rulebook and already there are 2 huge FAQs on it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169671 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavement Artist Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hope you don't injure yourselves jerking your knees so hard folks. FAQ'ing the rules does not mean that they messed up. Certain players abuse the rules. It happens. Some people approach the game with a very competitive mindset and will therefore try to twist the wording of the rules every which way to benefit them. This is not GW simply not play testing, you just can not think of every possible interpretation some people will try to pull. Not to be funny, but people often complain GW doesn't bother FAQing many things and yet here we are, 3 months in and they've shut down a lot of the ginty tricks people were using. Does it invalidate CERTAIN sections of the rulebook? Certainly does. Does it however mean that said rulebook is now completely pointless? Of course it doesn't. Will it kill you to take a couple of printed sheets with you when you game? It's no different to bringing your codex and other equipment along. Crying over a refund is not a mature reaction. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169684 Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamv6 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Will it kill you to take a couple of printed sheets with you when you game? Would it have killed them to play test properly and maybe put some competition grade players on non-disclosure contracts to get them to try and break it? No, it wouldn't. :cuss, within 3 minutes of reading that Paladins were characters, the guys in the local GW had worked out just how badly that could be abused. If your prepared to be used at GW's play tester and pay £45 for the privilege, you go for it. I for one expect better. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169693 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavement Artist Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I see the problem here. You're under the impression that 40K is meant to be an airtight set of rules for competitive play. Do you know why they won't hire tournament players to play test the rules? Because they don't care. Not to be mean but 40k is a game. It's designed to be a fun shared experience where rules queries are solved via some intuitive in house agreements between players. People mistake this for laziness when in fact its all about fostering the correct sort of attitude. Why do you think we need FAQ's at all? Because competitive players need everything defined in black and white absolutes. No tournament player is going to be happy to agree on a ruling unless it benefits them. GW has said explicitly that competitive play has zero bearing on the development of their editions. FAQs are an anomaly brought about by a minority among the community. You want to complain about changes to the rulebook? Have a go at the competitive players who make it a necessity. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169701 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ragnarok Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Will it kill you to take a couple of printed sheets with you when you game? Would it have killed them to play test properly and maybe put some competition grade players on non-disclosure contracts to get them to try and break it? No, it wouldn't. :cuss, within 3 minutes of reading that Paladins were characters, the guys in the local GW had worked out just how badly that could be abused. If your prepared to be used at GW's play tester and pay £45 for the privilege, you go for it. I for one expect better. And this is why maybe they will not update stuff on time. Darned if you do and darned if you don't with the complaints. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169725 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pavement Artist Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 That pretty much sums it up. Luckily, general consenus is that GW have been very much on the money with the changes. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169729 Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamv6 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I think we will agree to disagree. Yes, the production of the FAQ to answer some ambiguous questions is quick and effective. I just feel that it is wrong that such a major release should have several wording re-writes and changes so soon after release. :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169734 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkmagi Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 GK Codex anyone? It had the very same issue as the new BGB Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169735 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RolandTHTG Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I am taking mine back to my local store in the morning and demanding a refund. The rulebook I was sold is less than 3months old and, by there own volition is now no longer fit for purpose, as they have rewritten several parts of it. Ok, so you are returning a book where, in a free update, they made minor changes, about half of which are clarification wording, and which total barely a page's worth out of a 400 page book? (or even 150 pages if you focus on just the rules.) This is them actually providing better support to players than they have in the past, and being more responsive to the overall community, and you throw up your hands in disgust? this is no different than PP does with warmachine http://files.privateerpress.com/op/errata/errata.pdf (oh look, 10 complete pages of errata, compared to the 1.5 in this update) or any other supported gaming system. (Malifaux example: http://www.malifaux.com/Rules/Errata.pdf (7 pages)) Sit down, count to ten, calm down and think about your reaction before you do something stupid. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169745 Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused_gordy Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I see the problem here. You're under the impression that 40K is meant to be an airtight set of rules for competitive play. Do you know why they won't hire tournament players to play test the rules? Because they don't care. Not to be mean but 40k is a game. It's designed to be a fun shared experience where rules queries are solved via some intuitive in house agreements between players. People mistake this for laziness when in fact its all about fostering the correct sort of attitude. Why do you think we need FAQ's at all? Because competitive players need everything defined in black and white absolutes. No tournament player is going to be happy to agree on a ruling unless it benefits them. GW has said explicitly that competitive play has zero bearing on the development of their editions. FAQs are an anomaly brought about by a minority among the community. You want to complain about changes to the rulebook? Have a go at the competitive players who make it a necessity. So gw don't care about competitive play, and yet they rewrite the rules to allow for what they consider to be more balanced competitive play? If its designed to be a fun shared experience then they should make a set of rules and let players do what they want with them, as long as said rules are not ambiguous. however the issue here is not a lack of clarity, it is changing the rules when they are already completely clear. If gw didnt care about how competitive their rules were, then gw wouldn't change clear rules, on the basis of players complaining about them. And if gw were interested in making the game fun, shared experience, they wouldn't nerf the deathstar playstyle to high heaven, but perhaps make a small change and see how that went, instead of altering multiple rules which all negatively effect death stars. (of course apparently we are all expected to want to play multiple medium power units, or if wanting to be actually competitive MSU). I admit i am angry to a certain degree because of my bias towards deathstars, because I personally love a small unit of elite badasses, but GW is slowly taking the option of such a play style away from me, and even in casual gaming circles such units will be completely unviable. For example, a necron player buys two doom scythes, in the previous version of 6th a paladin star would struggle, but with careful model placement could stave off a large amount of damage (by using tactical movement and the rules of the game), now two such units mean that the paladin staring player will be neutered in a few turns. In 5th edition competitive play death stars were a weak option that compared to msu (the other end of the spectrum) needed buffing, in 6th they received a buff and could actually exist, while still allowing enemies with enough sense to go around the sides, a 50% chance at ignoring wound allocation. in 6th.1 death stars are fodder for anyone who has brought a list with a decent amount of fire power. Ask a death staring player if they felt they had an easy time in 6th and you would get a similar opinion, yes the star is harder to kill as it should be, but try playing an objective game when over half of your points are put in a small slow unit, and tell me that the game is an easy win. Like I said previously, I wouldn't mind loosing the character rule, as this would be a small change (a tweak as it were), but altering the fundamental way the game is played within two months of release is more knee jerk then reasonable game design. heck within a year, people would have probably adapted and started bringing armies that could handle death stars more effectively as they would have saved points in having less mech metta to deal with, however we will never know now. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169777 Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoaDirty Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 When was the last time you bought a video game, app, or blu-ray player that didn't require an update before you used it? I think it's a bit excessive to expect a refund. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169794 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurglez Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I expected this, the rulebook needed a faq. Wyrd (who produce malifaux) have received many complaints from people because they update their rules, rejigging stat cards. They listen to their customers. Heck they have an official rule forum with official rulings being handed out by rules marshals, yet people complain because you have to be on the forum to know about it. GW put up an email address where people could send rule queries, they answered them and put them in a faq. Isn't this what we wanted? Yes deathstars are hurt by this, I shall aim to play my Draigowing how I planned it. Flyers coming out were a new thing that we had to adapt to, new psychic abilities, non assault vehicles being more annoying assault out of, no assaulting from reserves, overwatch, new wound allocation etc. I am still happy that GW updated the rules. Yes I would prefer them to not needing updating, but we all knew that it wouldn't be perfect when the rulebook came out of the packaging. I'm mainly surprised that it only took GW 3 months to release this faq. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169810 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Marcus Scipio Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I very, very rarely post on B&C, especially these days. But wanted to add a quick comment regarding death stars... They're not in any way shape or form dead. They're no longer auto-win, but just make you have to play the game. The GK codex is still one of (if not the) strongest books out there. You have great firepower across all units, coupled with decent (murderous when you add the cheez grenades) assault, and topped off by one of the toughest flyers (which also practically auto kills any psyker, making psychic defense against use a 2-3 turn tops proposition). In addition your support includes deadly riflemen, a great MC and jump infantry that can drop 30" for late game objectives. Pity the DE and their paper thin vehicles that now die faster and their assault units that die in over watch... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169848 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vash Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I think its great that they come out with FAQs in this edition. Sure GW could have hired people to game test it better. But what is better than free game testers? GW have to think about their economy and what is best for them. Sorry to say... they are a company who wants to earn money. I dont ever expect any game producer to make their game perfect from start. If someone did, kudus to them! The biggest games on PC/Console etc all have updates. Need I name a few? StarCraft, and other Blizzard games... Without updates people would be more disapointed of the unbalance. So... again I like the approach of releasing FAQs, and this fast too. Gamers are a good source to find faults. So thanks to all who helped GW. Now for all you people who dont like FAQ. Please, start your own company and try to make no mistakes what so ever, and see what the costs would be to achive this very simple task you think this is. Good luck. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169974 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Ipsa Loquitur Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Oh, the entitlement. In other news, I'm bawling like a little :tu: because the textbooks I've spent nigh on $1500 over the last three years are now "useless". You see, they made some minor changes to a few laws and didn't include cases that weren't decided when they went to press. Oh, the humanity. 98% of the content is still good, but who cares about that? The waahmbulance has been called. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3169981 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Fox Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Alright, lets turn the conversation back towards the FAQs and how the changes affect us now rather than GW's testing policy :tu: Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3170007 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm rather happy they FAQed our weapons. People here have always said it's obvious how they now worked, but I've found it wasn't so to non-GK players... I'm a bit sad they didn't clarify Thawn though... As for the Paladins, well, it didn't feel right from day one that they could swap wounds arounds... Phil Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3170150 Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLACK BLΠFLY Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I'm very happy with the new FAQs! I'll be running a tournament next month with 64 players... Couldn't have happened at a better time. Thank you GW !!! :P G :lol: Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3170266 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidoneus Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Does it bother anyone else that Nemesis Daemon Hammers are now just force weapons (obviously, in addition to being hammers), rather than following the special rules for nemesis force weapons? When the squad lights its nemesis force weapons, will the hammers activate as well? I don't think they will, because force weapons are activated individually, immediately after causing a wound. And the squad of GKs only has so many warp charges to go around, so it's going to be really hard to activate force hammers as well as all your nemesis force halberds/sword/falchions/etc I always felt that the Brotherhood of Psykers rule meant the Culexus only got +1 shot per squad, but I was pretty surprised by the fact that psychic pilot vehicles no longer add shots. Seems pretty arbitrary. Other than that, everything in our update seems pretty good. And I mean good in terms of logical and balanced. I'd rather have a fair game that makes sense, than just be overpowered because GW put the word "character" next to the word "paladin" in one of their appendices. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3170383 Share on other sites More sharing options...
confused_gordy Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 what part of the hammer faq says its not a nemesis weapon? All it does is replace a paragraph, which doesnt specifically call it a nemesis weapon anyway. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3170410 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidoneus Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 what part of the hammer faq says its not a nemesis weapon? All it does is replace a paragraph, which doesnt specifically call it a nemesis weapon anyway. You may be right. To me, it looked like the FAQ gave it the "force weapon" special rule from the BRB, as opposed to the "nemesis force weapon" special rule from C:GK, which works differently. However, upon further review, the "nemesis force weapon" rule actually references the basic "force weapon" rule, and then simply modifies it. That being the case, the Nemesis Daemon Hammer should still work the same way as before, i.e. according to the "nemesis force weapon" rules. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3170433 Share on other sites More sharing options...
bebe Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I plan on running a unit of five paladins in every list with draigo and an inquisitor with prescience - this is so good I must have it. I'll just make sure I have an apothecary in the unit (I had dropped mine before the FaQ). Paladins were arguably no better then purifiers for the cost - deathstars have their place but they can be handled by a lot of lists. I think my seven TDA guys will still do fine. Overall GK is till a fine list although I think better with Necs or SW as allies. Not that I'm going to use allies. - I have played daemonhunters since 4th edition and we did use IG and SM in the old days to shore up weaknesses but today's GK have a lot less problems. I'm pretty happy with the FaQ. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3171397 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reclusiarch Darius Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I'm pretty happy with the Knight FAQ. Raven works as intended (only idiots would argue otherwise, but hey, FAQ ruling, yay), Paladins lose character status (which we all knew was coming, it was kinda silly), greatsword is now auto-include on DK's (srsly, for the price of a powerfist, you get three sets of re-rolls at full S10?). Haven't gone over the main rulebook one properly yet, just skimmed it. Any changes relevant to our matchups/army? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3171425 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurglez Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Q: Does a Nemesis Dreadknight armed with a Nemesis greatsword have 4 Attacks at Strength 10 that, because of the Nemesis greatsword, can re-roll To Hit, To Wound and Armour Penetration rolls?(p54) A: Yes. So a DK with a greatsword has 4 attacks basic? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3172825 Share on other sites More sharing options...
thade Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Q: Does a Nemesis Dreadknight armed with a Nemesis greatsword have4 Attacks at Strength 10 that, because of the Nemesis greatsword, can re-roll To Hit, To Wound and Armour Penetration rolls?(p54) A: Yes. So a DK with a greatsword has 4 attacks basic? I don't have the codex on me, but they may be implicitly including the +1A for an offhand weapon (the fist?) or the +1A for getting the charge. How many base attacks do they in fact have? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/260448-so-it-has-come-to-pass/page/2/#findComment-3172862 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.