Master Sheol Posted April 28, 2013 Share Posted April 28, 2013 I undestand your point elphilo... but what worries me is that people really need clarification about rad grenades... it's a really simple and clear rule... And i think that this kind of question subtract attention to what is really broken in C:DA... m2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted April 29, 2013 Author Share Posted April 29, 2013 I've added the question to the list but I understand Master Sheol's point. If some of you thinki this point doesnt' need clarification by GW then feel free to erase it ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Immolator Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I wonder.... Do we even understand that we are arguing for the arguments shake? The very fact that there are people saying whether a FAQ is needed or not for something, is an arguement and as long as an arguement cant be resolved thereby raising questions it needs to be adressed. I undestand your point elphilo... but what worries me is that people really need clarification about rad grenades... it's a really simple and clear rule... And i think that this kind of question subtract attention to what is really broken in C:DA... m2c And thats my second reason to wonder. Is this endeavour an attempt to 'fix' a 'broken' codex or to clariffy rules and allow us to play our games, question and conflict free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasmaspam Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I wonder.... Do we even understand that we are arguing for the arguments shake? The very fact that there are people saying whether a FAQ is needed or not for something, is an arguement and as long as an arguement cant be resolved thereby raising questions it needs to be adressed. I undestand your point elphilo... but what worries me is that people really need clarification about rad grenades... it's a really simple and clear rule... And i think that this kind of question subtract attention to what is really broken in C:DA... m2c And thats my second reason to wonder. Is this endeavour an attempt to 'fix' a 'broken' codex or to clariffy rules and allow us to play our games, question and conflict free? Both - the title of the thread is "clarifications/minor changes" - thus to clarify rules ambiguity and propose small changes for reasonable and justified impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elphilo Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I wonder.... Do we even understand that we are arguing for the arguments shake? The very fact that there are people saying whether a FAQ is needed or not for something, is an arguement and as long as an arguement cant be resolved thereby raising questions it needs to be adressed. I undestand your point elphilo... but what worries me is that people really need clarification about rad grenades... it's a really simple and clear rule... And i think that this kind of question subtract attention to what is really broken in C:DA... m2c And thats my second reason to wonder. Is this endeavour an attempt to 'fix' a 'broken' codex or to clariffy rules and allow us to play our games, question and conflict free? Both - the title of the thread is "clarifications/minor changes" - thus to clarify rules ambiguity and propose small changes for reasonable and justified impact. But threads can evolve. Just because the title says one thing doesn't mean the topic/point of the thread can't change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasmaspam Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I suppose, but, a thread titled "...minor changes" is going to motivate and attract folk that are keen on petitioning for changes. If folk want a call for proposals specifically for an FAQ submission, then start a thread called that. ***this is going off topic we should be careful*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apahllo Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 That's why I think we have to ask the questions : The SS : most of us think the exact contrary. The wording says that you cannot claim the +1A bonus if the model BEARSa SS (not USES), so... The rift cannon : it comes just after explaining that you resolve shot against flyer like snap shots, and snap shots don't work with blast weapons. so is it an additionnal rule for flyer weapon or simply a reminder about snap shots? the storm shield not being used, is like deciding to punch some one instead of stabbing them in cc, but it seems like the rules state that if a model has that equipment they dont have a choice. the sentence in the rule book very clearly states that template, blast and large blast cannot hit zooming flyers. there are 2 points on the hard to hit rule that determine if and how you can shoot at flyers. first, if you dont have skyfire and you elect to shoot a flyer, you are resolving your shoots at bs1. 2nd, if a weapon is template or blast it cannot hit flyers in zoom mode. this second sentence is not a side note or reminder, i dont understand your point. the rule is not ambiguous in any way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Blaire Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Why doesn't everyone just pick what exactly they think needs answering/clarification rather than trying to agree on what to submit? That way GW can decide what they want to answer (since they will do that anyway), and those that only think certain things are important can make sure that's what they highlight. This thread can just be a clearing house for collected questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted April 30, 2013 Author Share Posted April 30, 2013 I second to Bryan Blaire here. The list is just a gathering of ideas. If some of you think that only 5 of those questions deserves answers then pick those 5 and send them to GW. The fact that GW receive a load of emails asking clarifications (no matter how much questions they'll find inside) will alert them for the need to take a little time and re-read what they've done. As long as they re-write the termi entry correctly, I'm fine with that :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasmaspam Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I second to Bryan Blaire here. The list is just a gathering of ideas. If some of you think that only 5 of those questions deserves answers then pick those 5 and send them to GW. The fact that GW receive a load of emails asking clarifications (no matter how much questions they'll find inside) will alert them for the need to take a little time and re-read what they've done. As long as they re-write the termi entry correctly, I'm fine with that :lol: Avoghai - nooooo! I won't be happy until the Neph has Melta missiles and Quantum Shielding!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted April 30, 2013 Author Share Posted April 30, 2013 Yeah... That too... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Immolator Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 @ plasmaspam / elphilo. I was not going vocal against it, merely wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elphilo Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 @ plasmaspam / elphilo. I was not going vocal against it, merely wondering. Hey I thought yours was a valid question edit: forgot an R, oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Immolator Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 @ plasmaspam / elphilo. I was not going vocal against it, merely wondering. Hey I thought yours was a valid question edit: forgot an R, oops Erhm....Fast typing I guess? My keyboard is read (not really)....Red ones go fasta :P! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Blaire Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I wasn't trying to knock anyone's questions, questions are valid questions, regardless of whether any of us think they are already answered or not. I think we should all feel free to add or remove any questions any one of us may have/not have from the list when you individually submit the e-mails. One thing I learned being an instructor is that if one person voices a question, it's a good chance at least a few more folks in the class had the same one anyway, even if they weren't cool with saying they did. So ask away, you never know who you might be helping by getting an answer out of GW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Guys I think we won't get more question to ask for now. What I propose is the maximum of us copy/paste the list and mail it to GW. Feel free to remove/ rewrite questions if you need. When we'll get answers each of us should post the GW reply he receive. That way, we'll see if we get a coherency in the answer and if a major consensus may apply. Thanks for your participations! :tu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cielaq Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Mail sent, got automatic reply. Let's hope they will indeed read those questions and answer at least some of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasmaspam Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Will send tonight from the laptop - infuriating trying to do so from this phone. Avoghai - do you want us to send it unedited so they know it's a group effort? Or reword to our preferences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cielaq Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I've fixed some typos, added an explanation, and also added one question from me, plus put extra lines between questions for ease of read. So I think we are safe with small editing - after all, questions are the same. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted May 2, 2013 Author Share Posted May 2, 2013 Avoghai - do you want us to send it unedited so they know it's a group effort? Or reword to our preferences? Do as you will. I'm just the one who tries to gather information. I think cielaq's way to do it is fine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elphilo Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 Email sent, automatic response received. Lets hope they actually read them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Immolator Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I am thinking of sending the email too, but if somebody notices that we are sending a copy pasted questions catalogue (even reworked) they might think we are trolls. Might I humbly suggest we say that it is the result of our brainstorming here in the forum or would you guys think its unessesary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elphilo Posted May 2, 2013 Share Posted May 2, 2013 I am thinking of sending the email too, but if somebody notices that we are sending a copy pasted questions catalogue (even reworked) they might think we are trolls. Might I humbly suggest we say that it is the result of our brainstorming here in the forum or would you guys think its unessesary?I actually put that in mine and then just copied and pasted the bullet points on the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Avoghai Posted May 3, 2013 Author Share Posted May 3, 2013 Indeed do as you wish Brother Immolator. This topic is just a gathering but it's true that a simple copy/paste is not enough. Minor explanations could be useful as well as minor changes in formulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 How about Combat Squads for Deathwing Terminators And Deathwing Knights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.