I've never done this before...

[C.of.N.finity]

...But I think I'm going to ignore the GK FAQ. This is pretty serious to me for several reasons, but the main reason is that I believe we need a FAQ system to be a third party in disputes. I don't believe we ever really look at it that way, we take a FAQ as law instead of playing it the way we intend and then using it to settle any disuputes that may occur but that's understandable as playing it as law avoids the disputes entirely.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, I'm going to get people saying "good luck finding a person to play with", etc. But I just can't accept the GK FAQ as it is. Most of the things it cleared up were common sense, like a DK not being jump infantry, or helpful interpretations of RAW, such as a nemises doomfist not doubling strength becuase RAW it only works on walkers.

However, there are three things that keep me from accepting this book. The first is a selfish one - there is no way, in my opinion, that falchions should only give one attack. It's not about practicality on the table so much as it is that one of the few equipment choices present in my army is worthless so early into a book release. I base this on a few things, the lightning claw situations, the single CCW per models hand, but mostly on page 54 where it says "further abilities"; the purpose of the following paragraphs are to highlight the further abilities of the weapons in which the falchions give +1 attack is it's ability. An ability that's in addition to BRB given abilities. Moreover, I use the fluff to justify that decision as it indicates that they would strike faster than a person normally armed with two CCWs, thus the additional attack as it's 'further ability'.

Before I hear that fluff doesn't equal rules, I have to point out that it now does. I'm not sure if it's just my experience with these games, but I've seen rules that represent fluff but NEVER fluff that equals rules. GW in this FAQ has broken precedent twice in terms of using fluff to justify what is a deamon and what equals a plasma weapon. To me, this is game breaking as it does open the door (which no one really has examined closely yet) to interpreting fluff as rules. Sure, the falchions thing is a pesonal gripe but this is something new as far as I know and really needs to be examined as to how it can change the game dramaticly if we're allowed to use fluff as a basis for determing how rules and models work.

I know I have no say in this and my opinion here changes nothing. Tourneys will enforce FAQs and other plays will too as, up till now, they've been a helpful tool for resolving or avoiding disputes. However, I think this FAQ has opened a Pandora's Box filled with interpretation.

[Denzark]

Obviously people will point out that the most important rule is 'have fun'. BuFFO and me in our callow youthful days always seemed to be arguing about the FAQ being optional, the errata compulsory. On those grounds, crack on.

But...

Now you can go beyond RAI and what MAY have seemed to you obvious. you have it in writing - RAW and RAI. So why would you ignore it? The only time we ever veto rules round my way, is when it is particularly game breaking - the only one routinely that goes by the board is banning OUTFLANK from Apocalypse to stop Reavers appearing in backlines turn 1 and killing other super heavies with chain fists.

None of these things is game breaking, thems the breaks and I for one unless in your houserule environment, would want you to stick to FAQ.

Would you let me ignore the Khan FAQ that says 'the Hitting on a roll of a 2 is ONLY for targets with a WS' - so I hit turbo boosting super speedy vehicles on a 2+ because thats what my 1st print codex says?

I think not baby puppy...

[C.of.N.finity]

Obviously people will point out that the most important rule is 'have fun'. BuFFO and me in our callow youthful days always seemed to be arguing about the FAQ being optional, the errata compulsory. On those grounds, crack on.

But...

Now you can go beyond RAI and what MAY have seemed to you obvious. you have it in writing - RAW and RAI. So why would you ignore it? The only time we ever veto rules round my way, is when it is particularly game breaking - the only one routinely that goes by the board is banning OUTFLANK from Apocalypse to stop Reavers appearing in backlines turn 1 and killing other super heavies with chain fists.

None of these things is game breaking, thems the breaks and I for one unless in your houserule environment, would want you to stick to FAQ.

Would you let me ignore the Khan FAQ that says 'the Hitting on a roll of a 2 is ONLY for targets with a WS' - so I hit turbo boosting super speedy vehicles on a 2+ because thats what my 1st print codex says?

I would unless it wasn't FAQed but errata'd like the wolftooth necklace was, which since your a champion of this issue you must recognize the difference.

I see your just addressing only the falchions issue. That really was a selfish gripe of mine and, as I pointed out several times, I can't do anything about the FAQs interpretation of it for those legitimate circumstances where FAQs are endorsed. However, they may not be game breaking, but the are fun breaking. Having a equipment option that is practictally useless when your the newest book isn't fun for anyone and SINCE it's not game breaking, is further why I choose to ignore the FAQ in addition to the reasons I listed above.

I think not baby puppy...

Please keep your childish, condescending insults to yourself, this topic doesn't need to burst into flames.

[Denzark]

I think you need to get over yourself. That was quoting from a childrens film, 'Cats and Dogs' for emphasis. No intent to insult, believe me you'd know if I had but still, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not all out to get you, as your initial form here has been sparkling.

Fact is if I got in your wahmbulance and played straight without our respective faxes, with Khan hitting everything on 2s, no matter what puny toys you had left in your box I'd beat you 7 times out of 10 anyway.

And I never use lash prince nor oblits.

Mind you with your attitude your chance of a game is remote.

TTFN.

[Grailkeeper]

Please keep your childish, condescending insults to yourself, this topic doesn't need to burst into flames.

I don't think He was being particularly insulting or condescending. No need to send anyone to the naughty step just yet.

[C.of.N.finity]

I think you need to get over yourself. That was quoting from a childrens film, 'Cats and Dogs' for emphasis. No intent to insult, believe me you'd know if I had but still, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we're not all out to get you, as your initial form here has been sparkling.

Fact is if I got in your wahmbulance and played straight without our respective faxes, with Khan hitting everything on 2s, no matter what puny toys you had left in your box I'd beat you 7 times out of 10 anyway.

And I never use lash prince nor oblits.

Mind you with your attitude your chance of a game is remote.

TTFN.

Wow. So you end your post with a a comment thats clearly insulting, but becuase it's a qoute I never heard of from a movie I've never seen then it's my fault and I'm paranoid? I can think of many movie qoutes which you may find insulting, but I don't think mods would allow it.

Do you treat everyone so badly on these forums, or just ones looking for a decent discussion?

Fact is if I got in your wahmbulance and played straight without our respective faxes, with Khan hitting everything on 2s, no matter what puny toys you had left in your box I'd beat you 7 times out of 10 anyway.

FAQ's aren't errata and you know this, surely you must if you urged to only use them with discretion as you say you have. I'm not trying to wage a war on FAQ's or say they don't have merit, but this is the only FAQ I've seen that lets us use fluff when interpreting rules.

How many oddities must a FAQ have before people just go "uh..no, GW, you need to try this one again". Doomfists don't double strength becuase it's not a walker, yet the entry 'nemises doomfists' only ever specify walkers possessing them yet the DK has two of them?

What, exactly, is the distinction between the teleport shunt and turbo boosting that makes one possible while the other, not?

[daboarder]

SWEET!!!

I'm going to ignore the tyranid FAQ then, afterall its absolutely clear DOM works on units in vehicles and so does Shadow in the warp.


OH and while were at it my terminators in my chaos army now all have T5 FNP because thats totally what MON is SUPPOSED to do, silly games dessigners just don't know what they intended when they wrote the rules is all.

[C.of.N.finity]

SWEET!!!

I'm going to ignore the tyranid FAQ then, afterall its absolutely clear DOM works on units in vehicles and so does Shadow in the warp.


OH and while were at it my terminators in my chaos army now all have T5 FNP because thats totally what MON is SUPPOSED to do, silly games dessigners just don't know what they intended when they wrote the rules is all.

I get it. I really do. Say I disregard this FAQ becuase of the things I mentioned, using common sense in leiu of bad writing. So, falchions give +2 attacks now and teleport shunt works since turboboosting works. Everything else, while short, nondescript, sometimes contradictory and always lazy, seems to make sense.

Well, that's fine until some jackwagon comes along and says "hurr hurr, the DK is jump infantry, see him fit in mah plane", and I say, "That makes absolutly no sense. Obviously, they didn't intend for it to be that way becuase it makes no sense". Then, this 12 year old or whomeever suddenly turns into a graduated philosophy major and expounds what is common sense to me, isn't to him, while grinning like an idiot and deploying his DK via storm raven.

Despite the high probability that the writer of the book had little to nothing to do with the FAQ process, there are concearns a FAQ addresses which have more clear interpretations than others, speaking from a sensical perspective.

This FAQ just has way too many holes in it for me just readily accept, the largest and hitherto overlooked of which is the open interpretation of fluff as rules (notice how I mention that a lot, would be nice if someone else did too).

Using your Tyranid example, my problem is not so much the disagreemnt, but the lack of sense. For instance, DOM nowhere says that it should affect units in vehicles. However, if it did and then GW came out and said it didn't in a FAQ (much in the same way a model with two CCW that has a further ability of giving +1 attack ONLY gets +1 attack now) then that would be an example of what I'm talking about. Howabout this, if DOM doesn't work on unit in vehicles, but yet I have an ability worded exactly the same way that works much the same but DOES work on vehicles (much like shunting vs. turbo boosting). You can see it's not so much just the disagreement, it's as base as the logic (or lack thereof) GW used when writing this FAQ that makes me want to discard it.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Just ask any opponent you face if you could count Falchions as +2A. That's it, don't need to make it into a big thing.

Also, on the note of fluff equalling rules now: not really. Daemon is defined by a list given by a rules document, no problem there. The syphon is a bit broader, but is still fairly simple, as the user can just check for the word "Plasma" in a weapon's description. Fluff only effects rules in this one very specific instance, it can't be used as precedent for other rules.

[GrenAcid]

SWEET!!!

I'm going to ignore the tyranid FAQ then, afterall its absolutely clear DOM works on units in vehicles and so does Shadow in the warp.


OH and while were at it my terminators in my chaos army now all have T5 FNP because thats totally what MON is SUPPOSED to do, silly games dessigners just don't know what they intended when they wrote the rules is all.

Im ok with shadow in the warp part.....how metal can protect from psychic shielding couse by swarm mind??