40K FAQs – There Should Be ONLY ONE

I think GW should take a page from Privateer and simplify the entire FAQ process for everyone’s sanity – both their’s and yours.

I LOVE the new GW. They have come back into their customer base with both arms open and given people pretty much what they have been clamoring for – for decades.

But like they say, you should be careful what you wish for – because you just might get it.

For quite a while, folks have been saying things along the lines of: “The game would be perfect if only GW put out perfect rules and regular FAQs.”

The problem of course is obvious.  We now have a game that is 3 months old with TEN FAQs out already. They drop at random times and are a mixed bag. Sometimes we get big game changers like the flyers don’t count as units on the board for instant death ruling – sometimes we get points updates, sometimes we a comma moved a couple of words to the left.

We are going to get an annual Chapter Approved book each year.

It all sounds great doesn’t it?

It does except that the last time GW did something like this it was a mess.  Most of you don’t remember but 1998’s 3rd Edition had annual rules updates and supplements in the Chapter Appoved Volumes 2-4.

These guy and his buddies

3rd was a game that was also a clean break from the previous edition. It too started with very clean efficient rules. Then it slowly became overly complex and unwieldy with more and more rules, and errata added over the years.  Just before 4th came along, you needed stack of books, printouts and codexes to play a game.

The Kurgan finds it easier to cut off heads than print out all the FAQs.


What to Do?

I do think there is a real risk of chasing your tail on rules and while there will always be unblancing forces in any game as complex as 40K.  GW can show prudence by not over-reacting.

I propose the following approach – used by Privateer Press:

  • ONE Warhammer 40,000 FAQ (Forge World can do it’s own)
  • The ONE FAQ covers everything, core rulebook and codexes
  • The ONE FAQ is released on a pre-anounced regular schedule (say quarterly)

“I think there should be only one…”


What Does this Do

  • This lets GW not rush to judgement. They can take time to evaluate the game and not only identify the real issues, but have the time to fix them correctly. Measure twice, cut once and all of that.
  • This gives the organized play events a known FAQ schedule. They wont get blindsided by sudden FAQ drops or imbalanced at the last moment. I’m sure some type of FAQ schedule can be worked out to be ideal for the small number of major annual events.
  • This simplifies things for players.  You only have to mess with ONE file.  Just snag it once every 3 months, and you are totally current with the game.  No more shifting around over a dozen PDFs or showing up at the game table only to be blindsided by something that came out a week back for an army you don’t play.


I want you to look at these two sample FAQs to compare them and see what I am talking about.

GW 40K FAQ/Errata (Main rulebook)

Warmachine/Hordes Main FAQ (old example)

Of course these days Privateer also have all unit cards online and they are updated with FAQ/errata updates.

~I’d be all for this approach and want your opinion on it.





  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    Quarterly updates would be fine.

    They aren’t going to do it.

    Their new business model relies on pumping out FAQs very quickly to fix clearly visible problems that slipped through the cracks.

    • Pacer

      There previous business model was almost never doing FAQs to fix clearly visible problems that slipped through the cracks. I don’t like the deluge, but it’s better than nothing. Literally, this is better than the nothing that we had.

    • sidra alina

      In Last four weeks I actually have created $18623 simply by victimisation my computer and dealing time solely three hrs every day.. I am a full time college student and just working on this for 2 to 3 hrs a day. Every person can now get extra cash online by just use the information here.,..,,
      Website Below
      ===>>> Get This Now

    • ZeeLobby

      FAQ is better than no FAQ. Constant FAQ is kind of too much though. And not to say that it’s a GW problem. I’m not exactly a huge fan of PP’s new living ruleset either. Just feels like you never have a chance to grasp the game before it shifts again. That said I’d always take fixes over broken, so I can’t complain too much :D.

  • DoctorBored

    Yeah, appending a single file would be WAY better than throwing out dozens of pieces of paper. Appending one file and keeping it updated would really reduce the confusion. Then, throw all that info into the Chapter Approved when it comes out at the end of the year with all of its fixes too. Then, if you’re doing something quarterly, you only have to be putting out 3 free FAQ’s per year, and one Chapter Approved that replaces last year’s. One easy source. Boom, done.

    Yeah, people may have to play with broken rules for about three months, but don’t we already do that?

  • BrianDavion

    so instead of 5 5 page PAQs you want us to have 1 25 page FAQ?
    this is going to achomplish… what?

    • Damon Sherman

      One place where you know EVERYTHING IS UP TO DATE. Also, PP is pretty good about printing the new errata in different colors if you pinching paper.

      • BrianDavion

        yeah except they do that as well, we’re just given the option not to bother downloading the errata we don’t need. yet again, 5 5 page errata’s instead of 1 25 page errrata isn’t much of a pratical differance. the only real differance is flipping through a buncha pages for codexes that aren’t relevant to find what is. yet again why would putting it all in one document make ANY differance?

        • James Regan

          I think some competetive players are trying to get all of them (to keep up to date with the ‘meta’), meaning that, for them, its more practical to have 1 so they don’t have to find the 3 they don’t actually need. I don’t think they realise that for the rest of us, a rule book and a sinbgle codex is better because its then easier to find the relevant stuff.

        • Heinz Fiction

          You’ll need less clicks to download it and don’t have to alt+tab so much. If it’s clearly structured I’d say it would be an improvement, although a rather small one.

          • BrianDavion

            maybe on the other hand if you only need 2 or 3 codices FAQs it’d be a mild annoyance,m “ohh they updated the FAQ, but is it for the new Codex: Orks, which I do not care about, or is it updates for Codex: Space Marines which I do” also adopting a quarterly update schedule for FAQs would just mean longer periods of waiting for FAQs after a codex release.

        • J Mad

          Its not different, people are just lazy.

          Also if its 1 faq and i dont need ALL the pages, like i only play 1 army, its better for me to be separate.

        • marxlives

          The other thing is with the PP FAQ most of the fixes are not with the core rules and are wording changes. But these are also updated on the downloadable pdfs for cards. So you don’t need ALL the FAQ. I thought 40k cards for units were free and updated with the FAQ. If they were you would only need 1 FAQ for core rule changes and then just updated the verbiage for the cards and in the FAQ just state what cards have been changed.

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      It works very well for SAGA.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Ha yeah…I mean how ridiculous…Now bear with me, call me crazy if you like….but what if….people took some initiative and filed the FAQ’s in a binder or something!

      Also I don’t understand why if people do choose to print them they don’t:
      a) Double side print them
      b) Print each page to A5 thus fitting 4 pages on one sheet of A4.

    • Ryan Miller

      5 5 page faqs within 5 days of eachother that contradict eachother over 1 25 page faq that works for 3 months is good

  • Davis Centis


  • threeorangewhips

    “Most of you don’t remember but 1998’s 3rd Edition had annual rules updates and supplements in the Chapter Appoved Volumes 2-4.”

    How the hell do you know what I, or anyone, remembers? You don’t. Stop with the sloppy copy and put some thought into what you write.

    “As you may recall…”

    Here endeth the lesson.

    • UnpluggedBeta

      This seems like a…. forgive the word, but stupid thing to call a guy out on. Demonstration of logic:

      “HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DOESN’T?! You’re assuming a bit much there!”




      • threeorangewhips

        It’s not a logical exercise, it’s just bad copy.

    • Ben_S

      It’s not a claim about any individual’s memory, but about most readers. And if most readers weren’t playing 15-20 years ago, then they won’t remember how things were in 3rd.

    • Lebowski1111111111

      i have 30 guys at my club, 3 of us played in 1998. i dont think its a stretch to say most people playing today, dont remember 1998’s chapter approved. I mean ive played snce second, i dont remember this chapter approved book, ive still managed to live a full life.

      • threeorangewhips

        I congratulate you and wish you continued success in all your endeavors.

  • Iconoc1ast

    Oh i love that film so much!! Hahaha

    • euansmith

      I think that Clancy Brown is always great value in a film or TV show. The guy has got class, charm and gravitas. Without him, Bill Paxton and Michael Biehn the action genre would have been a much poorer place.

      Also , Sean Connery’s Spanish-Egyptian accent is a work of art.

  • ja_kub_sz

    FAQ = Sloppy rules

    Add in multipliers as needed… This whole process is exhausting! Release a book, release an FAQ, release another FAQ, release a book, release another FAQ, etc. I as a avid GW follower, but tepid player am really hesitent to jump back into 40k with all this BS going on.

    I must say though as ridiculously complex old 7th ED. and 30k books were I’m enjoying reading through my Horus Hersey Books and loving the idea of a master 30k rule set.

    Maybe a new and improved 40k isn’t what I need nor want, but rather a flushed out and done up 30k core rule set will do?

    • UnpluggedBeta

      Trust me, from the Warmachine side of the hobby, getting rules updates and errata was amazing.

      I will grant you that 40k 8th seems to have a lot more than anyone was expecting, but it will only improve the game from here!

    • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

      I am really enjoying 7th. After a dozen or so games of 8th going back to 7th reminded me how tactical and deep it was. Yes some of it is overcomplex, some formations were broken, but at least everything was updated and FAQed, it is for once a complete edition of 40k. With communication and consideration between friends its an awesome game.

      A lot of the good things about 8th are badly implemented. I wish we had something half way between, basically 7th with an M characteristic an armoursave for vehicles and progressive damage for MCs.

      Proper Bolt Action style AA would be great too, but GW just don’t seem to roll that way.

      Can’t wait for the new 7th rules from FW.

    • ZeeLobby

      My recommendation, which is not easily taken, would be to play an older edition or hold off for a year or two. This is basically like a start up company’s brand new game. They got rid of all their core designers and then spent two whole editions not really designing anything. Then told them to make a new game. I’d say in 2 years 8th edition will be in a stable well polished state. Now waiting that long can be a challenge, but there’s plenty of distractions out there.

  • Just a player


  • Mike Forrey

    I’m gonna go right ahead and call that what it was when PP did it. An UTTER 100% failure to address important game breaking issues at the time they were discovered. Which lead to weird game interactions that were left in for to long and players new to the game were taught incorrectly. If you cannot bother to look up and keep up to date with the rules being updated go play something else.

    • Bigwebb

      Well said Mike well said. Why do we have a whole article whining about having to look up the FAQ’s I mean really.

    • BrianDavion

      the entire reason this article is yacking about how we should have a quarterly FAQ scheudle etc is so that TFGs know exactly for how long etc they can abuse a broken rule.

  • Ravingbantha

    Good grief, for years people complained that GW never addressed balance issues that came up within the game. They complained that GW didn’t took forever to address imbalance issues. Now they’re actually on the ball with doing just this, and people are still complaining. No matter how much play testing you do, the game will always encounter WAAC players that find new loopholes to exploit in ways the game designers never intended. Constantly updating the FAQ to adjust for these new issues is a great way to do this, and since it’s free, there should be no complaint. In fact the only people that suffer from this are the WAAC players.

    • NNextremNN

      It’s less of a complain that there are FAQs it’s more of a complain about how they are delivered.

      Why not just make one FAQ file? If you don’t need all pages don’t print out all pages.

      And why do we need pdf files anyway? Why can’t they make fully digital rules that gets updated?

      • Pete Croucher

        Why print it out? I just have them downloaded to my phone – so much less hassle, and because they’re individual small files, it’s easier to scroll through quickly!

        • NNextremNN

          Even more of a reason to have only one file so you don’t have to switch between all of them.

          • Pete Croucher

            I’ve never really felt the need to open up anything other than the rulebook and Xenos 2 for my Orks?

            Hell, even then, checking the FAQ is such a monumentally rare task that I’d rather just have the files seperate for easier scrolling.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            It’s because you have to make sure you know what your opponents are capabe of and to make sure they aren’t cheating you. At least that is what I gather from some of these commenters. WAAC players to generate paranoid peoples.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            There the problem is with the people you’re playing; particularly, if they have the pettiness to cheat at toy soldiers.

            [Note: Obviously, in a game, casual or competitive, knowing about the various armies, including errata, is useful.]

          • Pete Croucher

            If you’re playing people who cheat at toy soldiers, stop playing people who cheat at soldiers.

            If a game is making you so paranoid you can’t trust someone else’s copy of a FAQ, that’s unhealthy.

          • BrianDavion

            so basicly they’re saying GW should inconveniance the majority for the sake of a minority?

          • Severius_Tolluck

            When I made my comment it was in jest, not a serious response. However that being said, often that is how it goes. If you are going to play at a very high level of competition, you can expect others to be aware of all rules, not just their own. This frequency albeit annoying, is keeping everyone informed. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

          • BrianDavion

            … how often do you need to open the file for codex grey knights when you’re playing a game of Eldar vs Tyranids?

      • Ravingbantha

        Having 1 massive FAQ file makes no sense. First off, it’s the book, not just the game that’s being altered. Secondly, if it was one big file, then you’d need to print off this one big file every time there’s a minor change. Third, by doing them individually, you can put these printouts with their corresponding book and not need to worry about all the other crap. Fourth, by keeping them separate like they are, you can check in from time to time and see if your army has an update, otherwise it would get updated and might not apply to your army. So you’d have to go through the update just to see if it applied to your army.

  • zeno666

    Yes, GW could learn a lot from PP.

  • Hendrik Booraem VI

    I thought the reason 8th edition was going to be amazing and fix everything was that we were going to only need one 12-page set of rules and our codex? Are you saying that you guys sold me a bill of goods trying to persuade me that 8th would be great, and now you realize you were wrong?

    • Pete Croucher

      I dunno, the people complaining about FAQs now seem to be the same people who complained that balance issues were never fixed in previous editions.

      Maybe don’t listen to people who whine loudly all the time?

      • NNextremNN

        Maybe you just don’t understand those people. They don’t complain about that there are FAQs they complain about the way / interval they are delivered.

        • Pete Croucher


          The monsters.

          • NNextremNN

            Yeah I’d rather have monthly updates than quarterly but that’s arguably.

            I’d still agree on the just one FAQ file. And rather have a good regular updated rules army builder app. Just like Battle Scribe … maybe with fancy pics and links to the official store. If they must (and we are talking about GW $.$) even as paid access.

          • Xodis

            I can see some wanting the option for a single FAQ file, but at the same time I dont want Ork, Tyranid, 3/4s of the Imperial armies, and TAU FAQ info cluttering up the information I need for my armies.

            A great app is impossible to argue against though.

          • eMtoN

            I agree with the app idea. It can even be a simple one: select the units you’ll be using and presto, 1 PDF is generated with just the rules for those units. It doesn’t even need to add up points or anything like that

    • NNextremNN

      One book a few free core rules and maybe one FAQ file would have been amazing. Sadly we don’t have this.

  • NagaBaboon

    GW NEED to release or support a low cost or free army builder app, which updates in line with the FAQs. We basically already have it with battlescribe anyway but doing that allows them to update to their hearts contents and be as messy with their FAQs as they like becasue every time you build a list it will include all ammended rules within the printout/on screen PDF. They’ll still sell books for fluff and pictures and becasue people like having hard copies to peruse but we’ll have a concise way to build our armies and to make sure everyone is on the same page when they play.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      There is an app coming like the one for AoS. Also the Warscroll builder for AoS (see link) is getting adapted for 40K too. There is also a dedicated ‘forum’ page coming where questions can be raised for answering and will be answered to a degree in live time.


  • mrt181

    This suggestion is bull…bad. The easiest way would be to update the rulebook and codex with any change and offer a free PDF download. Then you can just use the latest version. But GW rules are so awesome, you must pay money for them – offer an app where you buy a rule subscription – horrible but greed.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    I don’t understand why if people do choose to print them they don’t:
    a) Double side print them
    b) Print each page to A5 thus fitting 4 pages on one sheet of A4.

    Also there is this thing called memory. If you need to refer to various FAQ’s during a game then the issue is not wholly with the rules but your ability to remember them.

  • gordonshumway

    I know I throw constant shade at BoLS, and generally it is deserved, but people can surprise you. Like this surprisingly well conceived article with a pragmatic idea about 40k…and with fewer than the average typos!!!

    Now if only 50% of posts could be like this…oh well…here’s to improvement!

  • Randy Randalman

    GW will move to something like quarterly updates, but for now we’re dealing with codices coming out at a rapid-fire pace. For a few months, there will be a lot of them. Just as PP was a huge flurried mess at the beginning of Mk 3.

  • Greg Betchart

    Nope. They are fixing the game, which is good. The current way only hurts people who are hoping to have goofy weird armies that WAAC, in which case good too

  • Mark Toney

    Easy fix: Have a free to download living rulebook that gets updated whenever errata / FAQ come out

  • Peripheral

    insert a code in all hardcover books that allow you to get an electric version for free (dream) or severely reduced price so that errata can be integrated in at least one of your rule sources.

  • Master Avoghai

    I think that keeping the future blurry by not releasing FAQs following a schedule is deliberate.

    Ave you seen how fast they react against the razorwing spam and ravenspam?
    And have you seen the rules of the Throne of Skulls?

    “We’ll use the most recent FAQ”

    That way, the professional spammers are de facto out from this competition. If they build a list with obvious spam, GW will publish a FAQ before the competition and they’ll be obliged to update their list or lose…

    That way, GW found a simple way to prevent ridiculous spam lists from their competition.

    I often read that if GW has resolved the problem of death star they haven’t resolved the problem of spam… they did and it’s called unexpected FAQ…