GW’s FAQs Who’s Really Using Them?

 

stormsurge hor tau

Another week, another first draft 40k FAQ is here from Games Workshop. The question is who is really using them?

Another Long War Two-Fer is HERE – Checkout our fantastical webcast and new and exciting podcast of table-top wargaming awesomeness.

logo-old-472x409 the long war

 

fb_banner_ALL long war

Team Long War: From left to right: Kenny Boucher, Stephen Fore, Rob Baer, and Mike Haspil

Podcast:

GW’s FAQs Who’s Using Them? – Long War Podcast Episode 59

This week we discuss the new GW FAQ in general, with a focus on the new Tau & Eldar ones, New Tabletop releases and more! The Boys are back this week, give us a listen!

 

Video:

  • Slaanesh Devotee

    I’m pretty sure the answer is 40K players.

    Call it a hunch~

  • knightsanguis

    Considering these are still in a draft phase, probably not many at the moment. As far as balance goes however they are a step in the right direction. It gives me hope that the next edition will be better.

    • Shiwan8

      “Not many” is a pretty big portion of gamers.

      • knightsanguis

        GW stores are very likely to use them (I wouldn’t know, I don’t have one close to me) and I’d imagine others will be trying them out, but until they become “final” I think there’ll still be plenty of people not using them.

        • Shiwan8

          Sure. All the tournament WAACs that somehow get their panties twisted because of them (I mean you, warp spider spammers) will demand to not use them but others….I just can not see any reason to not use them.

          • Andrew Thomas

            I can think of a few, but they’re mostly stupid, contradictory rulings that should get clarified once the final drafts get published. Key word being “should.”

          • Shiwan8

            Other than the drop pod thing, what are these rulings?

          • mikeleon

            Here’s one I encountered: Vanguard Vets have a special rule that they ignore the penalties for disordered charge. The GW FAQ says they lose this rule if any independent character is joined to their squad. But if you look at the rulebooks there is absolutely nothing written anywhere to suggest such a thing. I don’t think it was ever even in question. It even contradicts the same situation with other units. Why don’t sternguard vets, for instance, lose their special rules when an independent character joins them? It’s like they singled out this one unit and just made up new rules for them sort of randomly. I can’t even say it was just to nerf them, as vanguards were already bad anyway.

          • Shiwan8

            There are many special rules that are not inherited by units that join that unit. Then there are some that are inherited but there is no plausible reason for that to happen. There is no consistency in that to begin with.

            Yes, jump infantry is crap if it’s not warp spiders. Vanguard veterans however are not singled out. They just happen to suffer from the same ailment as any other melee orientated unit outside deathstars does…which is that melee is absolutely crap in this edition.

            Want to look at a really “kicked to the nuts” units? Look at blood thirsters. High cost. Zero to no ways to survive long enough to actually hit something. No shooting to speak of. You’d not think so but they are actually a lot worse than vanguard because the model can not hide and because of this, unlike those vets, you can not really use it to cap objectives.

          • mikeleon

            What you said is correct, but it’s not what we’re talking about. None of the units inherit or don’t inherit rules in this situation. The vanguard vets just lose their own rule.

          • Shiwan8

            Kinda like putting a terminator captain on to a scout squad that loses it’s infiltration capability. Like farseers in warp spider units. Like sorcerers missing out on meat shield unless they are without marks or nurgle, like the whole deathwatch team and so on. There are plenty of things that either straight up lose rules because something joining them and plenty of things that keep the rules but simply can not use them because something joined them.

            And honestly, who uses VVs anyway? They are the mutilators of SM codex…

          • mikeleon

            But those examples are all written in the rules that way. Only the vanguard vets example is a straight up rules change from the faq. It flies in the face of the rules as written.

          • Shiwan8

            We are not supposed to play this game with RAW. We are supposed to play this game with RAI. The problem is that GW sucks at making clear what their intention is. FAQ clarifies the intention, errata changes the rules. If FAQ says that vanguard loses the rule then that was the intention that was just not clear to us.

            Anyway, there are bigger losers out there. KDK now gets half of the tithe it used to just because it will never get a challenge going anyway and now it’s “sergeants” do not yield tithe if they die outside challenge. Just an example, there are many others.

          • mikeleon

            This is a really strange discussion. You asked for examples of contradictions in the FAQ. I gave you one, and now you’re in some kind of weird denial stage over it. Don’t worry, man. Everything is going to be okay. The FAQ has some boo boos. It was written by GW so that should surprise exactly no one.

          • Shiwan8

            You gave a player interpretation of a rule that is not in line with designers intent. That is not a contradiction in FAQ, it’s your mistake that is clarified in FAQ.

          • mikeleon

            I see now. GW, much like the Pope, is infallible. Every decision they make was mandated by God before it was written. So if they come out tomorrow with a FAQ that says “All Khorne armies lose at the end of turn 1” that would be a clarification, not a rules change?

          • Shiwan8

            Nice straw man. You are obviously wrong but it’s a nice straw man.

          • mikeleon

            Your understanding of the straw man concept is about as loose as your capacity for critical thinking.

          • Shiwan8

            A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal
            based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument,
            while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that
            opponent. That is the definition. I never said GW is infallible in any way connected to “God”.

            So, you ran out of arguments and realized that your previous ones do not support anything but the idea that you think you know 40k BRB rules better than their designer and now you are too deep in it to admit you were wrong.

            GW is far form perfect. HH is the only wargame they now have that is not totally crap. They also tend to suck at writing clear rules. That being said, them correcting bad wording is not a rule change.

          • Skathrex

            Did…did you just call Shiwan a GW-Fanboy oO. This just made my day. You just called one of the most critical voices towards GW on Bols a Fanboy.
            The argument is pretty clear. You say: “It’s in the Rules,so it can’t/shouldn’t be changed” His argument is:” Just because its written a certain way, doesnt mean GW can’t rewrite it/rule it to do what it intended”

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            GW is curbing deathstars. The Vanguard Vets just got caught up in the sweep, sadly.

          • mikeleon

            That seems to be the likely explanation.

          • Andrew Thomas

            Off the top of my head, Tank Shock killing Stormsurges, Firestream Wings getting to keep their infinite missile and Drone shenanigans.

          • Shiwan8

            So, the ever so slight possibility for an army not eldar or marines to kill a tau super heavy and a formation being able to do what it is supposed to do is somehow gamebreakingly bad in your mind. Why, exactly?

          • Andrew Thomas

            Front AV 10 should have a hard time insta-gibbing something that in any other circumstance would either Falcon Punch it into oblivion and/or grab its shoulder and indignantly go “oww.” And the Resupply rule was cheesy until they published the erratum that initially limited it to every other turn, and being a staunch critic of such cheese yourself, I’m surprised that you’re defending it.

          • Shiwan8

            We seem to have a different opinion of what is cheese. I do not think that weak small units that multiply pretty slowly are cheese. Units that can not be realistically killed by others than themselves and less than 6 other units in the whole game of hundreds of units are cheese. Thus few drones doing pretty much nothing in the end other than being annoying is not cheese, but “I’ll delete half of your units by turn 2” units, like the storm surge, are cheese.

            I can accept things that hinder stupidly op things even if it makes little sense.

          • babelfisk

            Every event I’ve been to since they have dropped has used them. Local TO’s seem happy to use them, and the local tournament players are happy to use them because it means they don’t have to spend a hour or two figuring out what the rules are going to be before going to an event.

          • Shiwan8

            This.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Aren’t most people using the new rulings? I mean they are “draft” but they will quickly become official.

    The only people I see not using them are the ultra competitive people who use the ITC.

    • Deamon

      Exactly

    • Old zogwort

      To be fair, some parts are less popular such as the multi lv template ruling and the grenades ruling.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        I forget, is ITC your template hits one level or all levels?

        • John Jourden

          One level

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Dislike. Kind of. I dunno. It’s one of those things where I like both but not enough to support either (unless I am playing Guard, then I suddenly have a firm option 😉 )

          • John Jourden

            Agreed. My army is BS2, so everything I have are template weapons.

      • John Jourden

        I’ll bet the house the reason grenades are getting crushed is because many of the power tournament players have a) Eldar b) Daemons c) Tau or d) combination of two or three. Now considering many armies purchase Krak grenades to help try and take these guys down, well, you can see why there was such an overwhelming majority SUPPORTING GW’s asinine rule change to only ONE grenade used in the assault phase. Their MC’s, FMC’s and GC’s will become virtually immune to infantry CC attacks.

        • Shiwan8

          I agree. Krak grenades are so damn awesome WK killers and absolutely decimate Imperial Knights.

          In all seriousness, grenades, the ones used in melee, do nothing more than threaten the already super weak units like carnifexes and dreadnoughts. The units that you use to justify the grenade party do not give a flying f*ck about them. Dropping the ‘nades house rule to what the rule book is saying gives the otherwise 100% obsolete units some use. It’s a marginal “boost” but at least 10 man tac squad does not kill a carnifex in one round by default.

        • Randy Randalman

          Space Marines death stars have been in the overwhelming majority of tournament results, not Eldar, Demons, and Tau. Grenades do nothing against those.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Pretty sure it has a lot more to do with people blowing up Space Marine vehicles – especially Dreadnoughts – than anything else.

      • Shiwan8

        The grenade ruling is in the rule book already. The multi level template ruling is pretty dumb but the reasoning is sound.

        • Ben_S

          No, the rulebook only limits throwing grenades, not using them in close combat. That’s why the FAQ changes things.

          • Shiwan8

            There is no “throw” or “clamp” action. FAQ states that you are wrong. People who have any idea how to read the rules agreed with the FAQ before the FAQ existed.
            The rule book says that you can use one grenade per unit per phase.

            You do realize that following your logic flamers and other not exactly ballistic weapons would also have unlimited shots? Eldar distortion guns do not shoot, they rip a small portion of reality. Following your logic, since they do not shoot anything, it’s not a shooting attack and just like you think how grenades work in the rules the distortion weapons should work like that too. “It’s not throwing a grenade so you can do that as many times as you want to” = “it’s not a shooting so you can do that as many times you like to”.

            The fact is that you are simply wrong. I have no idea why you insist on claiming the opposite even though the actual source of the rule has clearly stated that.

          • Ben_S

            What’s in the FAQ doesn’t change what’s in the rulebook. I have no problem with using the FAQ and grenades being limited to one in combat, but you’re wrong to say that was already in the rulebook. I don’t know anyone who played it that way pre-FAQ.

          • Shiwan8

            Well, the FAQ kinda spells it out for you when it states that it works like the BRB says it does….which is directly against your claim.

            Quote the BRB on the part that in your opinion explicitly states that you can use multiple grenades in melee.

          • Ben_S

            I’m not aware of anywhere in the rulebook that explicitly states that more than one model in a unit can use a power weapon, but no one’s ever queried it.

          • Shiwan8

            That is true. Though has nothing to do with this since the rule book explicitly states that you can use one grenade per unit per turn.

            Now, what are the exact words in BRB that state that you can use more grenades in melee even though that is directly against the previous ruling on the same page? Do you provide the quote, do you admit that you are wrong and/or do you insist on being wrong while denying it?

          • Ben_S

            No, all the rulebook says is that you can only *throw* one grenade. (Per phase I believe, not turn, unless they changed that too.)

            Can you point to anywhere where it says that you throw grenades in melee?

          • Shiwan8

            There is no “throw” attack or action in the game. There are shooting and melee actions that are tied to grenade rules. That is unless you can point out a separate “throw” and/or “clamp” phases. Actually, you’s have to point out some weird “clamping” non-phase since you can use one grenade per unit per phase and combat is a phase…

            Since you do not throw or clamp grenades in the context of rules but rather use grenade profiles to make shooting and/or melee attacks, where exactly does it say that you can use multiple models in a unit per combat phase to use a grenade attack instead of regular melee attacks?

            I get it, you are desperate to get more power for your armies even if it means breaking the rules like you are doing now. Many are, it is a common sickness in the midst of players in this game. Breaking the rules, like you are trying to do now, is still breaking the rules, which in yours and many other cases is done to get more power for the players army, which in turn makes it cheating and cheating is lying. Do you really need to win so badly that you are willing to lie to your opponent to get some slight advantage? If not, why do you do it?

          • Ben_S

            There you go making all sorts of assumptions and ad hominem attacks again.

            You don’t know what armies I play. In fact, I haven’t played 40k for over a year and I don’t know whether I will again, though I already said that (if I do) I’m perfectly happy to use the FAQ. I thought our disagreement was about what’s written in the rulebook, not how we play the game now (post-FAQ), which we agree upon.

            Why is there any need for anything like a ‘clamping non-phase’?

            You’re right that there is no defined ‘throw’ action in the game. But, by that logic, the rule that says you can only throw one grenade per phase is actually meaningless, because nothing is defined as throwing a grenade.

            In fact, you can find ‘throw’ defined in any dictionary. Words have a meaning independent of being defined in the game rules. Indeed, the game rules can only define game terms by using other words in their ordinary meaning.

            Throwing grenades has always meant, you know, throwing them. Go back to 2nd edition and it said meltabombs cannot be thrown, but they could still be used against vehicles, because no one ever considered that throwing.

            GW can change how grenades work in their game, sure, but they don’t get to change the English language. Perhaps, when 7th came out, they meant (i.e. intended) to limit units to using one krak grenade or melta bomb or whatever in combat, but if so they failed to say so.

          • Shiwan8

            I work with what you give me to work with. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think that you insisting on breaking the rules to get more bang for your buck and me calling you for it is ad hominem then you, sir, need to revisit the fallacy list.

            We are talking about what the rulebook says. You have yet to give any evidence that your claim was in any way true. I’ve asked for that evidence, repeatedly.

            Dictionary definition for “throw” is meaningless. The game has no such action.

            Now, do you have a quote in which the BRB gives you permission to use more than 1 grenades per unit in combat phase to substitute normal melee attacks with 1 grenade attack per model…or are you wrong?

          • Ben_S

            You keep asking me to provide evidence for something I never said.

            Did I say the rulebook explicitly allows you to use multiple grenades? No. All I said was that it doesn’t prohibit you from doing so.

            You were the one making a claim about what it does say. But all you’ve pointed at is a restriction on throwing grenades.

            Since throwing isn’t defined in the rules, and you think don’t take dictionaries to be relevant, I don’t see how you arrive at the conclusion that this limits any use of grenades, rather than being no limit whatsoever.

            Why should we assume that ‘throwing’ covers both shooting and close combat then?

          • Shiwan8

            So, where in the BRB are the rules for “throw” action. How about “clamp” action? Are these things you can do by the rules and if so where are the rules for these? If there are no rules for these then what makes you think you can perform either type of attacks at all? Are attacks made in shooting phase shooting attacks and in combat phase melee attacks? Since there are only shooting and melee attacks in the game, if grenades are used for neither, how can they be used at all for attacking?

            I wonder, how long are you going to deny the truth to avoid having to admit that you are wrong….

          • Ben_S

            If there is no such thing as throwing in the game, then a rule that restricts throwing doesn’t restrict anything that you can do in the game. So, if you want to be consistent with that approach, the logic of your position leads to the conclusion that a unit can use any number of grenades for either shooting attacks or melee attacks, because neither of these are defined as throwing.

            Alternatively, you accept the ordinary English usage of the word – as it has apparently been used throughout previous editions – according to which throwing a grenade is distinct from sticking it up the exhaust of a tank in close combat.

            Either way, going by actions defined in the book or ordinary language, no limit on using grenades in close combat is stated.

            That’s why so many people are commenting on this being a significant change now, and I don’t recall anyone commenting on it among the 7th edition rule changes, or even BoLS posting it as one of their ‘rule conundrums’ like Genestealer Cult allies or the Strength of a Space Wolf with a powerfist and riding one of the wolf things.

            If, as you claim, the rule was written in the 7th edition book, why are so many people who spend so much time thinking, writing, and arguing over these very rules only noticing a change now and not before?

          • Shiwan8

            You combined 2 conflicting positions to make a straw man argument and only one of those arguments is mine. Nice try but you failed.

            You should read the 6th edition grenade rules and compare them to 7th edition grenade rules before making claims about them.

            Quote the BRB on the specific rule the explicitly lets multiple models to use grenades instead of normal attacks or just admit that you are wrong. All other options just make you look stupid.

            I can not tell you why people failed to read the rule correctly. I did not and it’s honestly beyond my capabilities to explain why some person reads ” 1 per phase per unit” as “1 per unit per phase except combat phase in which this restriction is not applied”. The rule is clear. Some WAACs just cling to fluff to justify their rule breaking. I have seen a Beasts of War bat rep in which a guy like these who broke the rule claimed that relic missions relic movement restriction did not apply to his army because of the fluff that said that necron transports do not really carry the units but rather draw them forth from another dimension. That was obviously bull crap in game, just like the claim that a unit can use multiple grenades in a single combat phase, and it “flew” just like this grenade thing. Why? I have no idea, nothing in the rules supports those interpretations.

          • Ben_S

            I presented you with a dilemma. You either insist that ‘throwing’ means
            nothing, because it’s not defined in the rules, or you accept its
            ordinary meaning as found in a dictionary. Neither option supports your
            position.

            Sure, some people get the rules wrong, but others usually call them on it, at least if it’s widespread. And there are plenty of rules that have been debated at great length, here and elsewhere. So it would be very surprising if no one (besides apparently you) picked up on this change before, if it’s there in the core rulebook. One game, or batrep, maybe not – but if it’s widespread, then the chances that (almost) everyone is wrong seem slim.

            Did you ever try arguing with people about this before the FAQ? How did that go?

            The only way you support your position is by selective misquotation. I agree that the book says that units may only THROW one grenade per phase. (And, FWIW, there’s a slight difference of wording from 6th edition, where the limit only applied to the shooting phase.)

            But I don’t recall anywhere saying simply ‘1 per phase’ as you keep claiming. If it says that, please give me a page reference. If it doesn’t, then it was simply something that you – and very few other people – read into what’s written.

          • Shiwan8

            I insist that there is no “throw” or “clamp” attacks, which is the case. Everything that can be done in the game is defined in it’s rules.
            I know actually exactly zero people that are not in the WAAC business and got the rule wrong. That would mean that most got it right, did not like it and house ruled it, which is perfectly fine. Claiming that it’s not what it is just to get more power for ones troops is cheating.

            Well, past arguments on this subject have gone pretty much like this has gone. I present the proof, the opposition does not and then I get called things like “mean stupidhead” for not accepting their position based on nothing just because they insist that I should.

            Page 689 of the digital rulebook. It says that A MODEL (ie. not plural) can use A GRENADE in melee.
            http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/938d30f9e1ddfb4f1be2742267a31c2b507fbcd99a9c88de3582f50c76cc773e.jpg

          • Master Avoghai

            Nobody played it that way because everybody played it the way we used to do so since v3.
            That’s just an exemple of passing through the rule because the player consider he already knows it.

            And if the question raises then it means that somes noticed it

          • Ben_S

            I agree that sometimes players get rules wrong because of holdovers from previous editions, but I wouldn’t call this one of those times. If you read the 7th edition rules, the natural interpretation is the same as the 6th edition rules.

            They could have simply said that only one model can *use* a grenade each phase, if that’s what they meant, but the rules specifically refer to *throwing* grenades. Hence, the reader naturally assumes it only applies to throwing grenades.

          • Master Avoghai

            Yeah..

            They “could have” done… Actually, the sum of things GW “could have ” done differently to make the rules clearer is quite huge…

    • John Jourden

      BAO in California this weekend isn’t using the FAQ. The Slobberknocker GT in OKC has decided TO USE the FAQ drafts.

  • Boltstein

    weekly failcast

  • DarkSeren1ty

    The 2 FLGSs I go to use the FAQs, because:
    1. They balance out a lot of issues we had (such as tau detachment rules) with GWs poor rule writing.
    2. They help us shut up “those guys” who abuse a rule.
    3. We like new stuff.

  • Old zogwort

    Not this article it seems.

  • Sure

    I’m pretty sure any Adeptus Astartes player who wants Dreads to have four attacKS use them.

    • Admiral Raptor

      This. I’m looking forward to running dread heavy Blood Angels lists as soon as I finish getting my BAs back together.

      • William Jameson

        I’m also looking forward to trying out a 100% Dreadnought Space Wolves army with Bjorn and Chums (possibly with a cameo appearance by Gerantius)

  • markdawg

    Hey Kenny not everything needs to be playtested. Sometimes you can read a rule change errata or FAQ and just use logic and figure it out.

  • grumzimus

    Until they’re posted on the GW page, they’re just facebook fluff. I can’t be assed trawling the interwebs when I’m gaming. bad enough finding the rules as it is.

    • Shiwan8

      Why are text files of these harder to handle than the text files from the final versions? That is the real difference at the moment.

  • Admiral Raptor

    My group has been using them. The changes have affected a couple guys more than myself. Our Ork player is pretty upset over the melta bomb change, and one of our guys has totally shelved his Dark Eldar. For my part I’m running my Khorne Daemon Kin more now because of the change in summoning Bloodthirsters.

    If I hadn’t already started converting all my Blood Angels to 30k, I’d be playing them a lot more after the FAQ.

  • Tirelion

    Obviously most aren’t. It’s a DRAFT. This is the kind of crap that made me stop listening to and supporting you guys. Half the time you don’t know what you are talking about. You give wrong information and then never correct yourselves. Just, ugh you are bad.

    • Skathrex

      Don’t wanna argue the core of your argument, but you have to admit, when reading the comments, they are a lot of players playing it BOTH ways. I use them if my opponent knows them, if he doesn’t we don’t use them.

  • Alienerd the unbannable

    I laugh at the people who were calling out for the FAQs before they came out – knowing full well that they would only be draft, on Facebook and not in an actual rulebook etc etc… but then the FAQs are actually released… they look and see that the ruling goes against the cheese they were trying to push for so long… and so they now go the other way, standing on a 50 foot soap box, preaching about how the FAQ doesn’t mean anything anyway.

    • Geronimo32509

      That is certainly a possibility.

      Or the much more likely possibility that they realize these are drafts and not final as of yet.

      One of the two.

      • Alienerd the unbannable

        More than just a possibility. I literally know a few people who before the FAQs were saying “I can’t wait for this to be FAQ’d [in my favour]”, referring to the then upcoming FAQs, and then they turn tail once they are actually released and the argument goes against them.

  • Lewis Anderson

    Every comment on this thread shows why 40k as a pickup game has died. GW should focus on a good edition that can last…. Rewriting rule books constantly really hurts the casual gamer. I only get maybe ten games a year in but spend more than most very active gamers. GW is pushing me away and has been for a couple years.

    • Shiwan8

      It’s the WAACs that kill PUGs. Just saying.

      • Geronimo32509

        It is the unbalanced rules that GW writes that allows for that to such an extent.

        • Shiwan8

          Sure, but WAACs would be WAACs regardless of the rules.

          • Josh Watkins

            to an extent yes BUT with proper rules you can limit how much cheesed#ck a WAAC player can bring. A force org thats actually enforceable makes a world of difference. no BS spam armies that require you to shell out a years worth of pay checks an the blood of your first born to play. GW did this to them selves.

          • Shiwan8

            I agree.

  • Orodruin

    I’d just like to say I appreciate your ability to use apostrophes properly, RB.

  • RS TROUT

    Team Long War? I’ll stick to team Long Dick.

  • Dan W

    The definitive answer is;
    At any event or group that allows them; All players who believe the rule is to their benefit, use that current ruling.
    +mic drop+

  • Koszka

    Post draft I’m all about what GW decides, but until they get community feedback I just don’t see the point of using these Q&A’s. Some of them are a bit contradictory to the rulebook; some just make the game enjoyable (IE: drop pods)