New FAQ (April)

[Brother dean]

 

Guys let's try and ask GWFAQ team for hotfix with that Deathwing terminators.

 

My proposition:

Instead of:

 

“• Any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist

with:

To

“• Any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist/powersword

with:

 

gamefaqs AT gwplc.com

Did that yesterday with the exact same wording...  Great minds right?

 

 

 

 

 

I reccomend this.  I also said something about a fix for the flyers but that one is a lot less clear cut...   I laid out some reasoning and pointed at the missiles not being worth 80 points more than a storm talon.   I also added in that this is a $75 model that wont sell until it gets better vs the other flyers.

 

If you point out the financials then they begin to take notice...

[elphilo]

Guys let's try and ask GWFAQ team for hotfix with that Deathwing terminators.

My proposition:

Instead of:

“• Any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist

with:

To

“• Any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist/powersword

with:

gamefaqs AT gwplc.com

Already being done in this thread.

[Gumo9]

 

Have to say guys that I'm dissapointed with some of the reactions of people here about the FAQ.

The issue with the terminator sergeant having a power sword simply brings it in line with the current codex:space marines terminator sergeant which has very similar upgrade options/restrictions.

Simply ignoring the ruling or interpreting it to suit your own needs is not playing the game. Why bother with rules at all in that case.

This argument reminds me of the deathwing assault argument a while ago where people were twisting the rules to advantage themsevles. Not very sportsman like behaviour.

G

Playing devils advocate here, people are just ignoring a rule that takes away their fun and makes them also waste their hard earned money. So why chastise so greatly some people here? If their gaming group can accommodate the fact that they want to play RAI instead of RAW, why not? I personally won't do it, but wouldn't lose sleep over it if a friend wanted to do it.

"Ignoring a rule that takes away their fun..."? That sounds like breaking the rules, otherwise known as cheating. New Codex and subsequent FAQ inevitably change things. I have had to shelve models from previous editions and other armies that are no longer legal following a new rules update. I don't have to like it but I follow the rules.

 

I am not chastising anyone, I am expressing my disappointment over what I see people doing here. This particular sub forum tends to have a disproportionate amount of "ignoring the rules" compared to the others on B&C - another example was the guy who didn't like the weapons loudout for the Nephilim so he put mega bolter AND lascannons on it! It's all very well saying that your gaming group is ok with it but it is still cheating because it is not following the rules of the game and ultimately disadvantages your oponent.

 

As for RAI instead of RAW, who says your interpretation of the rules is what GW intended? The rules on sgt weapons seems perfectly clear to me and requires no clarification at all. If GW wants to do another FAQ to the contrary, that's fine by me because I too would like more versatile termy sgt's.

 

My gripe is that of rules breaking, so please don't chastise me for that. I follow the rules. Everyone I play with follows the rules. If at some point I don't like the rules of the game then obviously I need to stop playing it, I don't just make up my own rules to suit myself without considering others. That seems a very childish and egocentric thing to do.

 

I appreciate that you and others might disagree with me but that won't change the fact that breaking the rules is cheating. My original post said I was disappointed. Yes, I am very disappointed that some Dark Angels players may fall into the category of "cheats". I feel the need to voice this concern and I am further disappointed that I am now criticised for speaking out against cheats.

 

G

[notmattlythgoe]

 

 

Have to say guys that I'm dissapointed with some of the reactions of people here about the FAQ.

The issue with the terminator sergeant having a power sword simply brings it in line with the current codex:space marines terminator sergeant which has very similar upgrade options/restrictions.

Simply ignoring the ruling or interpreting it to suit your own needs is not playing the game. Why bother with rules at all in that case.

This argument reminds me of the deathwing assault argument a while ago where people were twisting the rules to advantage themsevles. Not very sportsman like behaviour.

G

Playing devils advocate here, people are just ignoring a rule that takes away their fun and makes them also waste their hard earned money. So why chastise so greatly some people here? If their gaming group can accommodate the fact that they want to play RAI instead of RAW, why not? I personally won't do it, but wouldn't lose sleep over it if a friend wanted to do it.

"Ignoring a rule that takes away their fun..."? That sounds like breaking the rules, otherwise known as cheating. New Codex and subsequent FAQ inevitably change things. I have had to shelve models from previous editions and other armies that are no longer legal following a new rules update. I don't have to like it but I follow the rules.

 

I am not chastising anyone, I am expressing my disappointment over what I see people doing here. This particular sub forum tends to have a disproportionate amount of "ignoring the rules" compared to the others on B&C - another example was the guy who didn't like the weapons loudout for the Nephilim so he put mega bolter AND lascannons on it! It's all very well saying that your gaming group is ok with it but it is still cheating because it is not following the rules of the game and ultimately disadvantages your oponent.

 

As for RAI instead of RAW, who says your interpretation of the rules is what GW intended? The rules on sgt weapons seems perfectly clear to me and requires no clarification at all. If GW wants to do another FAQ to the contrary, that's fine by me because I too would like more versatile termy sgt's.

 

My gripe is that of rules breaking, so please don't chastise me for that. I follow the rules. Everyone I play with follows the rules. If at some point I don't like the rules of the game then obviously I need to stop playing it, I don't just make up my own rules to suit myself without considering others. That seems a very childish and egocentric thing to do.

 

I appreciate that you and others might disagree with me but that won't change the fact that breaking the rules is cheating. My original post said I was disappointed. Yes, I am very disappointed that some Dark Angels players may fall into the category of "cheats". I feel the need to voice this concern and I am further disappointed that I am now criticised for speaking out against cheats.

 

G

It's only cheating if the rest of your gaming group does not agree to it. This hobby encourages players to play the game that they want, as long as everybody is happy with it. Your game is to play to the strictest interpretation of the rules, other groups are not. Just like some groups allow Forge World models and others do not. Because a group uses different rules does not mean that they are cheating.

[Gumo9]

Hi notmatty, thanks for you comment, it is a very valid point and you are perfectly correct.

 

I can't help wondering, what if one person in the group does not agree? Would everyone else take a hacksaw to their models or would they pressurise the individual to conform or leave? The individual is actually right, but in the minority.

 

It just seems so alien to me that some DA players are taking this cavalier attitude. When the Blood Angels codex came out there was a lot of anger at the Captain's lack of relic blade, artificer armour etc. but not once did I recall anyone say that they were going to ignore the rules and arm their captains as they damn well pleased anyway. The BA players simply changed their lists and adapted their strategy. No drama.

 

Just a thought, that's all.

 

Obviously you guys can play the game however you want. That's fine.

 

G

[Brother dean]

Well ATM I have 3 DW "assault" squads and 10 DW "Tac" squads.  Right now the meta is for shooty armies so I am set and will just run shooty till they fix the FAQ.  However the new "Hammernator" squad might be on hold...

[WatchCaptainAzrael]

Gumbo9 pls go

[notmattlythgoe]

Gumbo9 pls go

Well now, that's kind of harsh.

[Upstartes]

 It just seems so alien to me that some DA players are taking this cavalier attitude. When the Blood Angels codex came out there was a lot of anger at the Captain's lack of relic blade, artificer armour etc. but not once did I recall anyone say that they were going to ignore the rules and arm their captains as they damn well pleased anyway. The BA players simply changed their lists and adapted their strategy. No drama.

 

 

It's all about context. If the DA codex had come out and sergeants couldnt' take TH/SS, and the first FAQ didn't change that, we'd all grumble & complain and then change our models and our lists.

 

What has actually happened is different. The codex came out and the TH/SS option was there just as before. However, there was an ambiguous bit about CML and TH/SS. First FAQ came out, the sergeant's options continued to be the same, as did the ambiguous CML wording. Then a second FAQ came out with new wording that fixes the CML ambiguity. However, this new wording also removes the old options for sergeants out of the blue, while retaining some aspects of wording that would normally be used to allow the sergeant to have those options (even though the full wording clearly denies it).

 

Because of all this context, a lot of us are left scratching our heads and wondering, "Is this really what they meant to do?" Personally, I think odds are decent that a future FAQ is going to re-allow the TH/SS sergeant, so I'm not going to rush to my mini cabinet and rip all the hammers and shields off my sergeants. With my friends, I'll present them the controversy and ask "how do you feel about this?" If they also think this is a typo kind of thing, then I may still play with my TH/SS sarges. If they prefer playing by the letter of the FAQ, then I just won't play with those models. This may hamstring my lists a little bit, but I have all kinds of models and I like building new and different lists. I rarely play against strangers, but if I do, I'll stick to the FAQ. Having arguments with strangers at the start of a battle just doesn't sound like the path to a fun game.

 

I would not, however, say my attitude is "cavalier." I'd say it's more "cautiously optimistic based on the information available."

[Bryan Blaire]

Why does everyone else care what rules get used in their personal games? Is it a superiority thing, because that's what it sounds like: "I'm better because I only use RAW", "I'm better because my RAI is better than yours", "I like my RAD, because the RAW is stupid", "I play tournaments only, so my games are more pure than your beer & pretzel games." In the end, it is ALL stupid and childish, we all play a game with little plastic models. Who gives a crap? I don't know a single person that depends on GW games to determine whether they eat that month or have shelter to live in.

 

Personally, I really don't care what GW says about the rules, my game group plays with their own house rules anyway. Being slavishly devoted to the rules doesn't mean you play 40K and someone else doesn't, it means you like gaming a certain way and someone else doesn't. Jeez. There's a lot more to 40K than just being slavishly devoted to a rules set, there's history, fluff and models, the narrative experience of the game, etc. If I like playing the game a certain way and you don't, and we can't come to some sort of compromise, we don't play a game we both like. Simple as that.

 

We should all be more disappointed and ashamed that there are other players who feel disappointed or ashamed of other people for playing a game the way they want in a manner that doesn't affect the ashamed party.

[Brother Landrain]

If GW actually decided to get off their backside, and sponsor Tournaments, and Leagues...

 

Then people would have the right to claim... "You are cheating!!!"

 

But since they have completely forgone that, any TO or group that want to come up with their own rules are completely allowed to do that.

 

You bought the Miniatures, You bought the books, You can play them however you wish, as long as you have people to play.

 

 

SO SICK and tired of hearing people whine... CHEATER!...

.

[Bryan Blaire]

Seriously, let's put the cheating crap to rest. Cheating has a lot of definitions, but almost all of them boil down to some kind of dishonest/deceptive/trickery action garnering a reward. It isn't cheating if you are up front and honest about it and the person you are playing allows it.

 

Altering the rules so that the game is more enjoyable is not cheating if both parties agree to it. It may not be using the official rules, but it isn't cheating and it isn't "You're not playing 40K". You are still playing the game, but modified. If you aren't playing an official game, so what? Are you enjoying yourself? Is your opponent?

 

It is cheating if you conceal that you aren't following the rules and thereby gain some advantage.

[Gillyfish]

Gents, let's not make this personal.

 

My view is that the issue with Deathwing sergeants is likely to be an oversight - it would seem odd to suddenly remove the option of paying for upgrades for your sergeants. It's not like it was over-powered. Maybe the wording for the FAQ was done in a rush, who knows? It's certainly not the first time that there has been this kind of oversight. We've had two FAQs in four months, so hopefully we'll get another soon which clarifies the situation.

[Gumo9]

Seems I've rattled a few cages

 

Watchcaptainazreal, it's gumo actually, not gumbo... whatever.

 

Upstartes, excellent post and I see exactly where you are coming from. I completely agree actually and really like your approach. I would be very happy if you explained that to me prior to our game. Thanks.

 

Brother landrain, I don't whine. Neither do I field units with options that are not in the codex. I'm entitled to my opinion (as are you), if you don't like it or agree, that's fine. Play the game how you want by all means but please don't get personal or insulting, eh? This is why I rarely get involved in forum discussions because there is always someone with an alternative view who thinks they can behave however they want on-line Would you speak that way in a face to face discussion? Please don't get angry as incidently I agree with you, you make a really good point about GW sponsoring tournaments etc. It would solve a lot of problems, especially if they got their act together with writing rules that were not so ambigous... And then muddying the waters with "clarification" !

 

Bryan Blair, again great points about the spirit of the game. I'm actually a fun player rather than a rules lawyer (always have been). I'm just struggling to get my head around why some guys feel the need to change the rules rather than changing their strategies. Does that make sense mate?

 

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread any more than I've unintentionally done already so I'll step out at this point. Thanks for you opinions everyone (well, apart from Watchcaptainazreal of course).

 

Best regards

 

Gumbo... Sorry, I mean gumo.

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

This thread is full of whiners.

 

Yes, GW did something stupid. Yes, it sucks. It's still an official errata. Them's the breaks.

 

Don't want to remodel your sergeants, do as I did with my lasgun-equipped IG sergeants: counts as. If that isn't enough for you I suggest you find a different hobby, or else you'll end up spending more time whining than gaming.

 

This tiny little errata mess is nothing compared to what is in the past. Be thankful that GW are actually trying, instead of simply ignoring us, as they did in the past.

[Brother dean]

This tiny little errata mess is nothing compared to what is in the past. Be thankful that GW are actually trying, instead of simply ignoring us, as they did in the past.

dont know that I agree with his tone but he does have a point.

[RayJ]

I would like to chime in on this a little bit. As Brian points out, there is of course the spirit of the game to consider, and accusing people of cheating for a casual tweak is a little overboard. However, the two sides will have different experiences with matchups and rules interactions based on using the literal printed rules vs something else. It is important to consider that this board's primary purpose is about helping each other get better with the codex and units we love. If Player A is using a different set of rules than Player B due to interpretation, house rules, or whatever possible scenario then any advice given based on those rules differences could be inaccurate.

 

That is the underlying reason so many people closely adhere to RAW (myself included). We aren't necessarily the kind of people that want to pee in your kool-aid because you're doing something different (and if we/you are, we/you probably won't get along with many people). We just want conformity on rules and aknowledgement that you are working under different assumptions.

 

As a tournament organizer and local promoter for 40k, I find it dishonest if someone asks for advice on improving a list and I tell them to ignore the rules that they find unfun.

[Brother Landrain]

This is the whole reason the INAT Faq was started, for TO's

[RayJ]

INAT, however frequently makes house rules / errata for the sake of 'balance' and is not an honest representation of the rules for all circumstances.

[Polythemus]

As a tournament organizer and local promoter for 40k, I find it dishonest if someone asks for advice on improving a list and I tell them to ignore the rules that they find unfun.

Sorry, do you mean these two statements in conjunction with each other, or each separately? Just wanted some clarification before commenting.

 

Ps i like your avatar pic.

[Ronin_eX]

The DW sergeant thing is likely an oversight, in which case it will get fixed.  Until then I can cope with the forced SB+PS sarge.  Not a huge deal.  It is a small thing and likely to get fixed on the next pass.  And if you talk to your group and they decide to let you ignore one bit or another then I don't see why there would be any drama.

[RayJ]

@Polythemus:  I meant them each seperately. I am a TO (and competitive player), and I also promote the game and try to bring people into it. I try my best to be honest with people when they ask questions about it.

 

I think I modified the logo from one of the banners on the black fortress to make this one. It was a while ago, and I don't have the original illustrator files I made any more. You're welcome to copy it if you like!

[IndigoJack]

INAT, however frequently makes house rules / errata for the sake of 'balance' and is not an honest representation of the rules for all circumstances.

 

I met some of the writers of the now defunct INAT FAQ this weekend at adepticon actually. I meant to ask them about some of their wonky rulings. There's a new FAQ going around now for tournament use. Adepticon used it this year. The best part about it is that it's only 4 pages or so, not the 100+ pages of the INAT (which I never fully read).

[Brother Landrain]

 

INAT, however frequently makes house rules / errata for the sake of 'balance' and is not an honest representation of the rules for all circumstances.

 

I met some of the writers of the now defunct INAT FAQ this weekend at adepticon actually. I meant to ask them about some of their wonky rulings. There's a new FAQ going around now for tournament use. Adepticon used it this year. The best part about it is that it's only 4 pages or so, not the 100+ pages of the INAT (which I never fully read).

The purpose of INAT is/was to have a standard set of 'house' rules for tournaments that would be consistent across the country.

[march10k]

The way I read it, the different wording indicates that they wanted the sgt to be able to replace his weapons. The only models that have a storm bolter and powerfist are the ones that aren't a sergeant. So "any model" here is practically the same as "any Deathwing Terminator". The reason you would want it to say "any model" would be that you also wanted the sergeant to be able to take LCs or TH/SS. So, in my mind, this is even more evidence that there's a typo of sorts going on here, and that they really intended it to be "any model can replace his storm bolter and powerfist or powersword..."

Or, maybe "any model" is shorter than "any deathwing terminator?" ;)