Damon Nightman Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 SM1981: Hopefully they were ignored due to those things already being included next codex and don't want to spoil the surprise?!? One can dream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 It's not on an Imperial Fist, it's on a Death Watch, and it isn't even the same. They probably didn't answer them because that isn't what FAQs are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 29, 2016 Author Share Posted June 29, 2016 Did anyone else get their question completely ignored? Across myself and 2 other friends we asked: Is there a reason that tacticals can use a heavy flamer by devs can't? (Can you fix or address this)? Is there a reason that our devs can't take grav canons, but other troop choices have access to grav weaponry (can you fix or address this)? Is there a reason that a frag canon (supposedly a blood angels specialist weapon) appears in an imperial fist miniature in overwatch as a heavy weapon, when it is unavailable Le to blood angels marines as a heavy weapon? (Can you fix / address this). Or words to that effect. All 3 questions completely ignored! They were ignored because they aren't really pertinent to the discussion and nature of the FAQ. Those are big changes and a bit wishlisty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
appiah4 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Time to paint my 10 cc scouts and aobr cassor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 29, 2016 Author Share Posted June 29, 2016 Moritat Prime (Cypher) and recon Marines (scouts) are go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM1981 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Surely all FAQs are a bit wish listy - Fix our scouts, fix our dreads, let Meph use more psychic powers, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM1981 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 I'm happy with the changes made, we get closer to parity with C:SM. But not enough yes's to be equal, and not enough yes's in other areas to make up for what we drop (not being able to use formations without the use of allies etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 29, 2016 Author Share Posted June 29, 2016 Surely all FAQs are a bit wish listy - Fix our scouts, fix our dreads, let Meph use more psychic powers, etc... Sort of. The changes we got were clarifications on existing things and small stat changes, that had grounds already. Your questions were however requesting additional new options with no previous grounds. Sadly, Tac squads getting heavy flamers are not grounds for Devs to. Grav cannons werent available to Devs until the new marine codex either, so it makes sense we don't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indefragable Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Surely all FAQs are a bit wish listy - Fix our scouts, fix our dreads, let Meph use more psychic powers, etc... The "fixing" of BA Dreads and Scouts are exceptions to the rules. In fact, as much as I love the result, it does confuse things a bit. They have stated time and time again that the purpose of these FAQs are to clarify rules as they are currently written, NOT to change the rules themselves. Many of the "changes" that have come about as a result of these FAQs are not really changes so much as GW clarifying what the rule was supposed to mean and how it was supposed to be played....even if everybody on the planet who plays 40k did so the 'wrong' way (i.e. you're only supposed to get to attack with a single Krak grenade per unit in melee against vehicles). Many of these things feel like "changes" but they are really just GW's team ultimately trying to learn how to word rules better for a possible 8th edition (that's my hope, anyways). The fact that they have issues Errata changing the stats of some of our units is a boon for us, but a bit of a slippery slope. In fact, seeing how much has NOT changed for us via these FAQ's gives me hope. Think about it...if they made so many wishlist items happen via Errata/FAQs right now, that means a Codex is VERY far off. Which do you want....a bunch of bags of Cheetos right now or a 5-course Prime Rib dinner* in a few months? *I don't care if you're vegan or vegetarian....it's the BLOOD Angels. I guarantee they eat red meat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 29, 2016 Author Share Posted June 29, 2016 Really, they changed scouts and dreads because of the community outcry and because it was thier own fault and negligence that meant it had fallen out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Yeah, and your questions were why things worked, faqs are for how they work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Did anyone else get their question completely ignored? Across myself and 2 other friends we asked: Is there a reason that tacticals can use a heavy flamer by devs can't? (Can you fix or address this)? Is there a reason that our devs can't take grav canons, but other troop choices have access to grav weaponry (can you fix or address this)? Is there a reason that a frag canon (supposedly a blood angels specialist weapon) appears in an imperial fist miniature in overwatch as a heavy weapon, when it is unavailable Le to blood angels marines as a heavy weapon? (Can you fix / address this). Or words to that effect. All 3 questions completely ignored! You're asking them to justify their decisions as if they owe us, the gamers, that justification for their choices. They dont. It's not a rules question or something that needs clarification - its a just another gamer thinking choices should be more in line with their ideals than the designers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teetengee Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 I'm glad that the stat changes were delivered via errata and not faq, as it helps things. (Faq means that we should take it as precedent for future rules debates, errata means that it is explicitly different from what came before) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverson Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 well that was a letdown, but I guess its what the faq was for and not giving us new things, keep strong brother we will get new shiney things some day :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiasco Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Did anyone else get their question completely ignored? Across myself and 2 other friends we asked: Is there a reason that tacticals can use a heavy flamer by devs can't? (Can you fix or address this)? Is there a reason that our devs can't take grav canons, but other troop choices have access to grav weaponry (can you fix or address this)? Is there a reason that a frag canon (supposedly a blood angels specialist weapon) appears in an imperial fist miniature in overwatch as a heavy weapon, when it is unavailable Le to blood angels marines as a heavy weapon? (Can you fix / address this). Or words to that effect. All 3 questions completely ignored! You're asking them to justify their decisions as if they owe us, the gamers, that justification for their choices. They dont. It's not a rules question or something that needs clarification - its a just another gamer thinking choices should be more in line with their ideals than the designers. I think this demonstrates a problem that a large section of the 40k community is struggling with. That is understanding what an faq actually is. It's rules clarifications, not rules updates, rules changes, rules wish list granting, or rules justification. The fact that they've given us a few errata should be seen as icing on the cake. But we all saw this kind of stuff coming the moment they asked for faq suggestions and an avalanche of wish listing demands were thrown at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indefragable Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Did anyone else get their question completely ignored? Across myself and 2 other friends we asked: Is there a reason that tacticals can use a heavy flamer by devs can't? (Can you fix or address this)? Is there a reason that our devs can't take grav canons, but other troop choices have access to grav weaponry (can you fix or address this)? Is there a reason that a frag canon (supposedly a blood angels specialist weapon) appears in an imperial fist miniature in overwatch as a heavy weapon, when it is unavailable Le to blood angels marines as a heavy weapon? (Can you fix / address this). Or words to that effect. All 3 questions completely ignored! You're asking them to justify their decisions as if they owe us, the gamers, that justification for their choices.They dont. It's not a rules question or something that needs clarification - its a just another gamer thinking choices should be more in line with their ideals than the designers. I think this demonstrates a problem that a large section of the 40k community is struggling with. That is understanding what an faq actually is. It's rules clarifications, not rules updates, rules changes, rules wish list granting, or rules justification. The fact that they've given us a few errata should be seen as icing on the cake. But we all saw this kind of stuff coming the moment they asked for faq suggestions and an avalanche of wish listing demands were thrown at them. The best way we can help ourselves as BA players is to A) be grateful. Show GW our support and thanks for the things we like and the bones/Errata they have thrown our way B) show that we understand the difference between rules clarifications and rules wishlisting C) continue to ***politely*** stay on top of those changes/updates (Techmarine, VV, Squadrons, etc....) that we feel we fairly deserve. It can't hurt to let them know at every Turn that we, the player base, are aware of those discrepancies. That being said, take hope, brothers! As I stated above, the fact that more things were NOT Errata'd suggests that a new Codex is not far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vel'Cona Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Overall, nothing earth-shattering for BA. At least not enough to give them parity with C:SM (or DA, really). As has been said, these are for clarification and not correction, though we should note that the awful Drop Pod rulings from C:SM are NOT copy-pasted here. Methinks GW is working to flip that one around based on the strong negative reaction, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teetengee Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 For anyone still upset about what was not errata'd I am going to hazard a guess as to why what was was and what wasn't wasn't.The Erratas here involve all things on base models and not upgrades that were mutually inconsistent between two codices that had once been consistent. They were inconsistencies that no two players could fail to notice regardless of army construction. Army/formation options, and unit options are a different category, as they either have not been the same at any point or because one unit could just choose not to take an option and then the inconsistency would disappear. Basically, these errata seem to be only to change things that violate the notion that two units are the same except for intentional differences, and always suffer that problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont-Be-Haten Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Not a terrible FAQ. At least they fixed Cassor and scouts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont-Be-Haten Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Not a terrible FAQ. They fixed scouts and adjusted Castor. Pretty neat on the first turn charge stuff; never even noticed that before! I love how they contradicted themselves on the frag cannon Overwatch. Everything else was as expected. Edit: sorry for the double post. Terrible internet in the casino, please delete accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenith Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Awesome, the errata on scouts and cassor is great. The other issues are too big for Facebook, and people need to realise that. Just enjoy your WS4, s5 on the charge scouts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frater Antodeniel Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 · Hidden by Jolemai, June 29, 2016 - Agenda Hidden by Jolemai, June 29, 2016 - Agenda Ok, so today : => An Average FAQ => Check => A laughable BA formation (The one of the Get Started Set) => Check => Games Workshop Rules team hatred of the Blood Angels => Check Ok, Games Workshop....I was planning to do some AOS sylvaneth buying....but the FAQ and the Formation put to the ground all my "ambitions". I will not invest in another Range while my main, and still "not finished" is hurted so badly. I have 0 confidence in the Rule team for the Sylvaneth when i look how they do for the Blood Angels. So, to any GW guys, you better thanks your rule team coworkers, for they did a good job. I will save quite a lot of money by not buying a Sylvaneth army...even if the miniatures are beautifuls... Link to comment
Jolemai Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Keep it constructive as per the board rules please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM1981 Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 I get the difference between FAQ (clarification), Errata (official re-working), and a new codex / new set of rules... What I would say is that there is some pretty fine hair splitting going on there. To suggest that scouts and dreads were addressed as blood angels suffered a disadvantage due to c:ba coming out before the c:sm, but then not address access to grav canons which occurred because c:ba came out before c:sm seems pretty picky... Any how, enough said from me, I'll wind it in before the reclusiarch hits me with his crozius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indefragable Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 I get the difference between FAQ (clarification), Errata (official re-working), and a new codex / new set of rules... What I would say is that there is some pretty fine hair splitting going on there. To suggest that scouts and dreads were addressed as blood angels suffered a disadvantage due to c:ba coming out before the c:sm, but then not address access to grav canons which occurred because c:ba came out before c:sm seems pretty picky... Any how, enough said from me, I'll wind it in before the reclusiarch hits me with his crozius. I feel you. Although I love having "normalized" Dreads and Scouts now (I mean, what are we going to do, throw the rules back into the pond?), the fact that they Errata'd them just adds to the confusion. Muddies the waters even more. I see the Dreads/Scouts thing as GW throwing us a bone. Take it and wait for the real meal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.