Hey everybody, right up on the 5th Edition release date, GW has released all the updated FAQS. Tomorrow is the big day, and the excitement in in the air!
5th Edition FAQ Index
~Well look at that! All nice and ahead of the curve. Nice Job GW! Now I need to sink my teeth into these. Feel free to use this as a comment thread onthe new FAQs guys.
61 comments:
Talk about on the ball. I don't even know what is confusing or unclear in 5th edition yet, and they already have a FAQ to help me out!
Read through the rules at work last night, Turns will take longer until people get used to the rules and they rely a lot on sportsmanship which is fine for friendly club games but will be interesting in competitions...
@seemyinnergeek - almost all of the faqs are to clarify info in the codexes, not the actual rules. For example the Dark Eldar now have some wargear that has no effect under the new rules (admittedly its only 2 items)
Wow, some of these are really underwhelming. There's no chance in the Ork FAQ, for instance, to clarify how Reinfornced Rams and Deff Rollas interact with the Ramming rules, nor is there any update to the Waaagh! rule to revise how it works out in 5th edition.
I found most of the FAQ's to be lackluster and missing important information on progressing armies into 5th. For example, Deff Rolla's and Ramming, Thornback for Nids, Holy Rage being downgraded. etc...
I am hoping this is just the preliminary and more is to come.
yeah, the one's I'm familiar with, SM and CSM, don't really seem to have changed at all. Maybe that means everything is obvious now in 5th?
Tyranids change some. I noted that fearless creatures(fexes and lichtors come to mind) no longer have to worry about synapse.
What boring errata.
Oh come on guys! There's some good new stuff in there!
-Daemonhunter Land Raiders are not Assault Vehicles and get a new version of Machine Spirit (presumably what we'll see in the new SM Codex)
-It is explicitly stated that Power Fists/Thunderhammers work normally against Monoliths. Woo!
Those appear to be the same FAQs that came out a while back. At least the DA halfjob is present in all it's glory. I assume there's nothing new for the others if they were out already?
Actually IG had some nice errata and some clarification of Commissars and a couple other units
BT is lackluster. WH is horrible. My friend who plays WH is extremely upset about the change of Holy Rage down to Rage. Most of the FAQs seem half-arsed.
WH and DH are pieces of garbage. They "solve" minor problems (ie vindicare can shoot in CC - woohoo, it's still useless for it's price).
They downgrade Holy Rage (the only thing might make Penitent engines, arcos and repentias worthwhile. They don't clarify most of the "daemons" rules for DH. No changing some useless rules (exoricism that gice -1 to instability- hahaha), banishment psychic power...
A joke, really, but a sad one.
Phil
I, for one, am angry they've insulted the players of 40k again. These FAQs are the ones we've been BEGGING for for years to fix the tweaks in 4th ed. And they release them now so they're obsolete in 6 hours?
I appreciate the fact they're FINALLY FAQing things, but come on...
They need to address:
1) Do the gun drones from a devilfish give a kill point if wiped out? (They're a separate unit)
2) Does the holy hand grenade hit on a 2+ or does it scatter being a blast weapon?
3) Does the BT righteous zeal move count as a consolidate or an assault?
The list goes on and on.
For my IG, it's good to see clearly defined rules as far as heavy weapons teams basing (plus the fact that the loader will take the gunners place if he is killed, even with wound allocation).
It's nice that we finally got FAQs, but why are they releasing 4th edition FAQs for 5th? For example, outnumbering in close combat doesn't even exist anymore.
GW did a great job with the 3rd-to-4th edition FAQs, but I see nothing 5th edition specific in these.
I think someone dropped the ball on this one.
I think that by re-releasing also old ones like SM they actually made them valid also for the 5th ed. I can easily imagine people claiming that the old FAQs would not be valid anymore.
NallTWD I can answer two of them...
1) Drones are a seperate unit from the vehicle once they seperate, so yes they would be another kill point. Just like a Rhino and Squad is 2 kill points. An IG Command squad and 2 Squads is 3 Kill Points.
2) Holy Hand Grenade uses the blast rules, so toss the scatter and 2d6, adust by the BS, anything it touches is hit. Nasty if you ask me.
3) I have a BT friend that is asking the same thing. Until GW FAQs this in a serious 5th run, your out of luck. You will not be able to consolidate into another target. So stand there and take it like a Templar!
Kudos to you guys for getting this link posted ... I'm really impressed with this site.
uh misterh, did you mean,
Daemonhunter Land Raiders are NOW Assault Vehicles
?
Wow you guys really haven't played a game in 5th Ed and there's already a lot of comments.
Here's one that will BLOW everyone's minds out. In the Space Marine Codex it says for "And they shall know no fear" rule, refer to the Universal Special Rules section in the Warhammer 40,000 rule book.
Lo and behold, that rule does NOT exist in the USR section. I understand that it is probably being put in the codex later on, but if you follow the rules blatantly, marines won't have this unique rule any more.
And yes I've played 5th Ed rules already, my friend and I got our pre-order rulebooks on Monday and we finished our first 5th Ed game about 3 hours ago. Fun? Definitely :)
quote:
-----
These FAQs are the ones we've been BEGGING for for years to fix the tweaks in 4th ed. And they release them now so they're obsolete in 6 hours?
----
heh I guess someone didn't see the filename for every file that said "FAQ 5TH EDITION"
Been playing 5th now for a month, and believe me, these wont clear up all the issues. For example...
How many attacks does a unit thats attacking a squad of Dire Avengers with Defend but also splitting their attacks against a squad of guardians actually have?
This question seems to be indirectly answered in the Dark Eldar faq. It should be that only the models attacking the Avengers get their attacks reduced. (See dark eldar Wych clarification.)
In classic fashion it appears that they had an intern whip these up last night.
There are a ton of applicable ways they could have changed the Space Wolves' No Matter The Odds that would have kept the intent of the rule intact and playable for 5th. So which did they decide to go with? The FAQ simply says to ignore it all together... =o I lose again!
My guess is that the ork 'Waaaugh' essentially gives the greenskins 'Fleet of foot' for a turn. Way to go GW, 8 years for a codex, and less than a year later you're already negating the new goodies....
-Corey-
hmm the tyranid venomcannon still suck. pardon my language.
A Techpriest Enginseer can now take servitors without them counting towards his wargear limit. A definite improvement!
Quote:
-------
This question seems to be indirectly answered in the Dark Eldar faq. It should be that only the models attacking the Avengers get their attacks reduced. (See dark eldar Wych clarification.)
--------
I think I'm giving myself a headache thinking about what happens if they decide to split their attacks. I really think its more simple than my brain is thinking it is.
For some reason, last night it appeared much more complicated.
All these FAQ's are the same ones that were available before the site upgrade. Look at the dates that are on the file names. These supposed 5th Ed FAQ are nothing but what's been available, only relabeled as 5th Ed FAQ's.
@Corey- it's not "Waaaugh", it's "Waaagh". And it doesn't negate the goodies at all- we can now Run turn 1, then Waaagh turn 2 and Fleet into Assault range. Seems great to me.
yay for good machine spirit for DH!
smells like a crusader will actually be usefull as an assoult vehicle. moving 12" and then burning its multi melta into a enemy vehicle.
or ladnraiders which move 6" and fire both lases at other vehicles.
oh and especially fun: null rod inquisitor in a purgator suqad with 4 psibolters. die harlequin, die zoantrope (yeah, cause the goddamn 2+ save is a psychic power!), die eldar nutcases which go outside tihnking a 5+ cover save from warlock is cool!
*takes out the DJ* burn ehretics!
While its nice to see FAQ's out, the FAQ's themselves are piss poor.
Half the issues they address didn't need to be addressed, many are simply too vague or don't cover enough, some are answers to questions nobody had ever asked or just granting new abilities to units in contradiction to the actual rules (units moving in their assault phase after Deep Striking for example)
For example, there's a lot about Victory Points in a couple of the FAQ's (used only in Ties), but there isn't a *single* mention of Kill Points in *any* FAQ.
While there were a couple of good catches, the vast majority of these documents look like they were written up by the office intern in a couple hours for the whole lot.
I'm not impressed.
Too little too late and not even close to answering the questions that will soon arise.
I can only talk about the armies I know - mostly Inquisition - and asking myself why I'm supposed to spend money and modeling time on something (I'm thinking about stuff like Repentias, Arcos and Penitents - YES, I know they weren't any good before!), when GW obviously doesn't bother to let somebody think about the FAQs they publish for even one minute, and just ruins those units completely with one half-baked sentence...
When I saw Rage, I expected some streamlining, just like the Seraphim fallback move being replaced by USR Hit&Run in 4th.
And it would have been so easy to remodel the original "Holy Rage" with the new USRs: It's "Rage" + "Fleet" + a clarification that the PE can always fire its flamer (even after running). Or - just don't touch it, because it worked.
Now there's even more disambiguity instead. E.g. can you keep yourself from assaulting (which "Rage" says you have to) by running (which "Rage" says you may do)? That would have been a nice topic, but unfortunately most of the FAQs don't bother dealing with arising 5th edition problems, as they're only sloppily c&p-ed from the 4th Ed. Adepticon FAQs.
Want another example? Why should you need to clarify that the Eversor may assault after using its pistol? Because whoever compiled the FAQ didn't even think about why this passage was there in the original Adepticon FAQ. (It was there, because the wording was bad as usual and said he could always fire twice, as he always counts as being stationary - not mentioning that firing a pistol twice also prevents you from assaulting. The real question in 5th would have been: Can he still fire twice, because his codex rule overrides the new pistol rule?)
It's also interesting that they mention him in the DH FAQs, but not the WH. Same for other units that both codices share, but are only treated in one document. Most prominently the Land Raider - there's a lengthy description of its assault rule, as it isn't mentioned in the rulebook anymore, afaik. Missing for WH. What about True Grit for the Deathwatch? Silently gone like ATSKNF for Vanilla Marines?
With these FAQs GW shows some serious disrespect for their customer's needs and expectations. (Not only for the players of armies like mine, which I know don't generate much money for them anymore compared to other codices.)
There's nothing new regarding gaus weapons in the Necron FAQ. Looks like the Necrons really are nerfed in 5th ed. at least until the new codex is out
......
Dark Eldar Wargear
Q. What do gruesome talismans do?
A. They no longer any effect in this edition of the
game.
ENGRISH in my faqs? thanks GW
The DH FAQ makes me both ecstatic and furious at the same time. Most of the stuff in there really does solve longstanding arguments that I've seen rage across teh internets for *years*. The fact that most such loopholes are now clarified/closed *is* A Good Thing.
On the other hand, the FAQ is obviously buggy and not actually playtested ... or even copyedited!
I don't know how to feel about Power of the Machine Spirit. It looks like a hack job to me, as one of the phrases is, "Therefore a weapon that has moved at combat speed can fire two weapons". And it can apparently fire with the crew's BS, too. And it only applies to Grey Knight raiders. What about raiders bought as dedicated transports for Inquisitors?
And if they're going to go through the effort of actually, FINALLY, giving us Power of the Machine Spirit, why not the obvious Assault Cannon update, too? How can the DH be the only Imperial army to have not gotten the memo about Assault and Rending?!
ATSKNF? That's not all! Where's Sustained Attack? Ignoring for a moment the problems of properly identifying daemons (do we go with the new CSM and Daemons codexes -- and therefor the obvious -- or must we continue to follow the "codex supercedes all, even common sense" rule and stick to what the DH codex says?), does Daemonic Infestation even continue to exist?
But really, we can't ignore how Daemons are defined ... unless the intention is that the DH no longer have *any* anti-daemon special rules? There's no way to know, really. Provided one can come to an understanding about what constitutes a daemon, all that seems to apply anymore is the final sentence of the Rites of Exorcism special rule. (Roll difficult terrain dice to determine assault distance when assaulting GKs. Whoopee.)
And where's the Rhino Repair special rule? And....
Gah! To give us so much, and still leave so much that is so obvious left out is ... galling, and unacceptable, and pathetic, and GW should be *embarrassed*.
They *really* need to allow playtesting (and copyediting) from outside the company. They are obviously incompetent. It's apparent that nobody there even *plays* the DH army, or something would long ago have been done about all this!
Woot - they seem for the most part pathetic! In the Witch Hunter FAQ, they go against the effects of Shield of Faith from the rulebook!
Jon ‘yakface’ Regul should be given a swift kick up the arse, not praised.
Well now marines no longer have "And they Shall Know No Fear".
It's not in the big book as a Universal Special Rule, and all the codex's tell players to refer to the Space Marine codex... which tells you to refer to the current edition of the rules...
So yeah, no more And They Shall Know No Fear I guess.
Pretty bad job overall, why don't they just reach out to a couple of the best forums and ask the mod to organise putting together the real FAQ's and then GW answer each of them.
I can't help wondering if they do a rubbish job on these sort of clarifications deliberately as it fuels more forums = more of a community = more involved players = more sales (Too Cynical?)
Why post an "updated 5th ED" Eldar FAQ when nothing has changed?
I can't express how frustrating it is to pore over the FAQ only to realize it's the same one posted prior.
AKA don't change the FAQ's name if nothing has changed.
(If something did change, highlight it in red).
Ungrateful prats!
Every single FAQ was already up there on the site with many (most) of the items listed already (so you could of had plenty of time to look at the 4thed before). They just tuned the FAQ to account for problems with 5th.
They are not going to relevel, rebalance or unbreak anything that your favorite army "needs".
They are ONLY there to make it playable.
Also for those who remember the transition from 3rd to 4th you'd know that there were no FAQs of any kind to be had for a very long time, and even after trying to tease out the correct intent of the interaction of the rules between editions that they were still mostly useless.
These FAQs are VERY good compared to what they were before. No they don't tell you every thing but the vast majority of issues are evident if you look at them and apply common sense. (Plus most people's "questions" are merely statements of obvious things that are intended to get a pat on head and a "Thats right Timmy!"
The comparative clarity of the FAQs and the rules are like seeing the the light at the end of the tunnel after playing 10 years.
Talk to someone who's observations rise above the level of questing for minutiae that you use to justify your screaming fits of "GW Sucks!"
If you think it sucks so bad please do all of us a big favor and play something else.
There are times to complain, but you don't slap a dogs nose because instead of chewing your slippers he brought them to you WITH the paper, but forgot to microwave you a freaking hotpocket as well!
In this case, the dog brought me a bloody squirrel, mopping it all over the rug instead of my paper... Playing something else? Maybe I will...
By the way, Yakface didn't do the FAQ. GW picked from his homemade FAQ at Dakkadakka. Which FAQ are better than GW's own. Actually, he should sue them for sullying his good name.
Phil
@ james
Hmmm, you know given that the "waaagh.com' is bookmarked on my browser's toolbar, you WOULD think that I'd manage to spell it correctly...
Putting it that way, it may indeed be a good thing. However now with everyone running around, a 'Waaagh' doesn't sound as unique to the army as it once did, rather its just a slight variation on what everyone else can do.
-Corey-
@Eltnot said...
["Jon ‘yakface’ Regul should be given a swift kick up the arse, not praised."]
Actually Jon 'yakface' Regul got off of previously mentioned arse and wrote up a massive document of errata when GW wasn't giving out any.
He did it entirely unpaid, uncompensated and on his own time.
Additionally GW took pieces of his FAQs for theirs, not even the entire things. Which might explain the half assedness.
I think you owe the man an apology.
@up too late for 'tards,
Insulting much? Beyond the "clever" name you chose, your entire post can be boiled down thusly:
"GW is not responsible for its own Quality Assurance/Quality Control."
Really? Then exactly *whom* do *you* think *should* be responsible for QC with respect to GW products?
The fact is, GW ought to be responsible -- and must be held accountable -- with updating outdated and broken rules as codexes and the base game itself advances. Allowing codexes to refer to nonexistent units and rules due to their own actions is UNACCEPTABLE.
You said, 'They are not going to relevel, rebalance or unbreak anything that your favorite army "needs".' Except that this is [i]exactly[/i] what the did in at least the DH FAQ! Where did that hack job of Machine Spirit rules come from if out of NOWHERE? I think it's safe to infer that they did that to redress a longstanding rules incompatibility between land raiders in one codex and land raiders in *every other codes*.
I would say that this kind of errata action is *exactly* the purpose of a FAQ. Shy of providing a brand new codex, how would you propose such issues get redressed?
"up to late"...
These FAQ's are supposed to bridge the gap to 5th edition. They do not.
"And they Shall Know No Fear" now has NO RULES. Many things alter game setup/first turn. With the massive changes to mission types there are items/characters in many codexes that work in very strange ways if not FAQ'd.
If this was just a thrown out release we would be fine, but they have been bragging about these new FAQ's for MONTHS.
Most people have been having a go at the FAQ's, and they may not address EVERY issue.
But anyone saying they are completely useless is 100% incorrect.
I play Dark Eldar, the least loved army and we got quite a few clarifications, eg:
1. Characters with skyboards can Run, but may not Fleet and may NOT Assault 12" with combat drugs.
2. Raiders with Torture Amp may NOT ram. (they can still tank shock infantry)
Whoa, WH FAQ is a complete waste of time... Did not even bother to look at Necrons after I read through comments here.
Sorry, GW, but you have me half way out the door with this treatment. Why not just have SM and CSM as your two choices? That would make your life and work so much easier.............
Pathetic. The fact that I wasted last three years building, converting and painting my two armies makes me sad actually.
To the person above that is defending GW by saying that this is better than nothing - not sure what you do for a living, but I am only expected to make stuff work, and not work just 50% of the time...
"Better Than Nothing" is not a good enough situation for these FAQs. This new edition is going to be used at many tournaments, that means we NEED them to be accurate and up to date. Leaving glaring holes in the codex's is not "good enough".
Marines no longer have legal rules for "And They Shall Know No Fear". That's a HUGE oversite.
It's like requiring all cars to run on Unleaded gas but you can only get it in Michigan.
ok am I asking the obvious here, but given they've only just released the new edition, how is it that they can already have FREQUENTLY asked questions? I'd have thought you'd need at least a week and a notebook to see which were asked most.
"Next to the name, you'll see a date that will tell you when the FAQ was put on the web site. This way you'll be able to tell which FAQs have been added or changed since your last visit."
Given that all the dates are pre-2008 (there's one from 2004 fer goodness's sake), all they did is update the "language" to 5th ed.
Thus, its like they changed the display description on a horrible art piece in some hotel's lobby, and all of us arrived to scream down the management for "getting us the same piece of crap"... even when said crap didn't exactly change much.
Also, judging from the itallic'ed sentence above, it seems like they are just about to go on an updating storm...
... Then again, this is GW. Only time will tell (Lots of time sometimes...)
I can feel a hate crime coming on....
To everyone of you who feels the need to spew their scorn and negativity on everything that gets posted on these pages, congratulations you whiny pathetic gimps you've actually made me angry.
40K is a game, its not a unifying theory on physics, or a manual on life, the stated design philosophy of this edition was to shift the focus off tournament play and back to the club and home play.
Its written by artists gamers and writers for people to PLAY! PLAY people... as the term implies means NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
Sure you're entitled to your opinions and some of you have valid points but please, do you really think anyone else cares about your problems or opinions about whats broken? Positive constructive comments or suggestions are far more relevant and effective.
Thats why BOLS is such a great site, because it GIVES to the hobby and the hobbyists it doesnt just sit in the corner moaning and demanding solutions to pissant problems like some spoilt child...
You drive potential hobbyists away & make websites like this less enjoyable with your idiocy and rules-lawyer mentality, if ultra competative gaming is the only thing that matters to you change armies, or change games.
Considering they had months to put these together, this is an embarrasement.
One that came up yesterday. If Blood Claws pass a Leadership test for their counter charge move, do they get +1 or +2 Attacks? By the rule in Fifth, it says specifically +1, but they get +2 if they charge. No ATSKNF - really, how do you miss that one?
I wasn't expecting rules changes (new point values, etc. - giving Grey Knights a SM landraider was nice, but the inquisitor doesn't get it?) But, I was expecting the FAQ to address 95% of the problems of using a third/fourth edition codex in fifth. It appears though GW just threw this together in one night and didn't even bother to read the codeci and look for problems.
@Dwayne Dibbly,
It's exactly the "hobbyists" who will need the most help here, and thus require the most Due Diligence out of GW. Especially if they're "new to the hobby"!
What if, like me (many years ago), someone is attracted by the DH models and wants to build that army. Suddenly, they have lots of unanswered -- and unanswerable -- questions regarding why their land raiders work differently from everyone else's, why their assault cannons work differently than everyone else's, what counts as Daemons, where is Sustained Attack and with its absence, what happens to the GK special rules, and so on and so forth.
Or, more likely, a new hobbyist wants to play Space Marines. What does ATSKNF mean? There is no definition anymore? Who is supposed to answer this question with any certitude?
These are not "stupid questions", and they are not easily answerable! You're strawmen "tournament" players are not on a different level than your strawmen "hobby" players in this situation. *None* of us has any answers to these questions.
Without those answers, it's not obvious how we, as gamers, should answer them. Neither for ourselves in casual play, nor for ourselves in tournament play.
Stop making excuses for shoddy work. Call a spade a spade.
Yes, I will freely admit that there is still lots and lots and LOTS to enjoy about this game and GW's involvement in it. If I didn't, I wouldn't care enough to post here. But the fact is, I -- and I assume, most other people -- DO care about this game. Care about it more than GW apparently does, because the issues I'm talking about are NOT difficult to resolve ... if you're GW. It would take all of a few hours out of a single day, and POOF! Problems solved. All of them.
Why they don't do that is unacceptable and infuriating in the extreme.
These FAQ's seem pretty half asses to me. I can understand you want to get an update out to match up with the release of the new edition. Although some FAQ's are pretty good and update things, there are a lot that don't. I would have rather waited another month or two and get a full set of proper done FAQ instead of these.
PS Anyone know how a neuroshredder works against a vehicle since there is no glancing table now...
@Artur from Chicago
I am an engineer by trade and if I dont get my job 100% right then it is possible that people may be injured and killed.
This gives me a bit of perspective on how important getting a correct FAQ for a wargaming hobby is. (eg, no one dies)
Players have been making do with practically no FAQ's for years, I dont think this will be driving people away in droves. (I haven't had a Codex in 8 years!)
But I do agree to some degree, the FAQ's are not 100% complete or always much good.
But cant people be at least thankful the GW is doing SOMETHING to help out gamers.
Think of it as an indication of things to come. Maybe they will update FAQ's more often.
(Seriously, I am an engineer ;)
@ damon
You'll have to excuse my "emotional" outburst yesterday it came off the back of reading this column, and the complaints(!) about the BoLS Capitol Imperialis and the new forgeworld stuff. I have to say the combined effect of this had really shook my normally quite placid disposition hence the anguish was unfairly focused purely on this particular topic.
Somewhat hypocritically I admit, I just cannot understand why people feel the need to post their negativity on here. And while I can see your point about new gamers and the ATKNF being strangely absent, NO ONE complaining is new to the game or lacks access to the old rule book where the rule is quite explicitly printed... did you all burn your old copies when the new one came out? is this some insurmountable problem you can’t wait a month to be resolved by a new codex.. If you’re about to play a friendly match with someone who refuses to aknowledge the validity of the old definition of ATSKNF in the absence of a new one, take your battered old 4th edition rulebook and insert it into their battered 4th edition rectum!
No GW isn’t perfect and there will be flaws, but please? Do you think Jervis Johnson is going to bust through your window on an abseiling harness and give you a reassuring cuddle just because you vent your spleen on this site?
"Do you think Jervis Johnson is going to bust through your window on an abseiling harness and give you a reassuring cuddle just because you vent your spleen on this site?"
Heh. I kinda hope not, though that would be an interesting sight.
And you do have a point. However, I feel it is hypocritical of GW to publicly announce that all codexes will be self-contained and the game will be much more consistent going forward ... and then to fall flat on their faces first time out of the gate. In so many ways, so many *obvious* ways.
As you fail to understand why I so vehemently insist upon Due Diligence from GW, I fail to understand why the only acceptable attitude is a shrugging of the shoulders, a cue for the laugh track, and a wink to audience with, "Oh, that crazy GW!". ;)
Yes, why the negativity? I understant your point of view. I'm a pharmacist, and my mistakes can also have dramatic effects. But that doesn't mean I haven't a right to complain. I do it here, I also do it to GW.
Why? Because I've insted lots of time and money over the years. As such, I'm a good customer and am entitled to good service. The same way I strive to give good service to my customers.
Why the level of anger? Because I've believed GW's (possibly imagined) promises of better rules, FAQs, codex updates, etc. And now, I'm "trapped" into their hobby. Sure I could sell my minies on eBay. Even get a few thousand dollars worth (I have a lot, and nicely painted). And then what? Tell my friends who play Nids, Eldar and Space Marine to also quit the hobby? Make new friends?
A hobby, especially something one can become as dedicated to as I am to GW's products, is not just a game. A hobby has its roots in the efforts and investment one puts into it. A hobby usually comes with a circle of hobbyist that become friends.
When GW fails to give proper service to it's customers, all this comes into accounts.
Thus, I'm thoroughly pissed.
Phil
The reason we are upset is simple. They produced 5th edition. Tournaments will be done in 5th edition. They promised us with smiles and handshakes that all the codexes would work just fine in 5th edition.
EVERY codex has glaring issues that anyone who simple reads through the rules ONCE can find. I don't play Tyranids and I was able to find several questions about 5th edition on my very first time reading through the codex.
Shouldn't they be held to the same standard that you would have a PLAYER of the army held to? I expect someone playing an army to have read through the rules section of their codex at least once. These questions are obvious to all of us gamers, if they were serious about producing a quality 5th edition product they would have found these problems in play testing.
These FAQ's are actual proof that 5th edition was never play tested. If any writer at games-workshop had actually played a 5th edition game they would have noticed some of these problems wouldn't they?
Post a Comment