Different rules for the same stuff?

[pchappel]

Not sure where to ask, but is there any chance for a FAQ sort of update that unifies the various rules for "stuff"? For example, a Storm Shield is different depending on which army fields it, same for other things like Smoke, etc... I know it would require perhaps some point adjustments, but it would take at least some of the pressure for new army books... Especially with those armies playing with 3rd/4th ed codexes...

[Subject Keyword]

I far as I know you just deal with things the way they are in your particular 'Dex (unless you make a house rule).
I hope someone knows differently, because it's always seemed stupid to me.

[Nabterayl]

The Dark Angels FAQ (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1810079_DarkAngels_Oct_2008_5th_Edition_FAQ.pdf) provides good guidance on this matter. What it really boils down to is that you should standardize to the most modern version if requested by your opponent, but "as written in the codex" is the fallback position.

[Lerra]

It's doubtful that GW will revise their FAQs to include updated wargear.

I agree that it's a bit confusing that wargear operates differently between codices, though, especially with allies or team battles. I hate needing to say, "The smoke on this rhino gives me a cover save, but the smoke on that rhino reduces pens to glances."

[Chumbalaya]

Of course not, that would make too much sense.

[eagleboy7259]

Puffier smoke! The BT codex for the most part makes sense, it the older system of unit pricing and whatnot from an edition back. You have to get some advantage for your 15pt more base cost Rhinos which have to pay for smokes. Same with Assault Terminators, sure no 3+ inv. storm shields but you have access to furious assault and PF for the whole army. I think thats why they still work relatively well while DA and BA suffer somewhat. The unit pricing in those books makes zero sense to me, well actually where it come from does: its just the ******* child between the two editions previous SM codex and a fluff meets modern age ideas transition period influence.

[mysterex]

You should try playing one of the Inquisitorial lists with allied space marines. The stormtroopers get the old smoke launchers on their rhinos while the space marines get rhinos from their codex and so new ones.

Similarly give the Inquisitor a land raider and it has no machine spirit but can take a dozer blade while the allied one has a machine spirit but no dozer blade option.

Now, if you're like me and have fairly similar colour schemes for the vehicles of both parts of the army it's a recipe for confusing your opponent and sometimes even yourself.

Roll on the new codex!

[eagleboy7259]

Nope the FAQ gave the =][= lists Land Raiders with the newer Machine Spirit but it still uses the old smokes and has access to psycannon bolt nonsense making them among the best Land Raiders in the game

[DarkLink]

Nope the FAQ gave the =][= lists Land Raiders with the newer Machine Spirit but it still uses the old smokes and has access to psycannon bolt nonsense making them among the best Land Raiders in the game

Well, Grey Knight Land Raiders get PotMS. GK Crusaders may also move 12" and still fire their Hurricane bolters in addition to PotMS.

However, Inquisitorial Land Raiders are technically different from Grey Knight Land Raiders, and technically don't get either PotMS or the Assault Vehicle rule. The FAQ only updates Grey Knight Land Raiders.:rolleyes:

[eagleboy7259]

Well, Grey Knight Land Raiders get PotMS. GK Crusaders may also move 12" and still fire their Hurricane bolters in addition to PotMS.

However, Inquisitorial Land Raiders are technically different from Grey Knight Land Raiders, and technically don't get either PotMS or the Assault Vehicle rule. The FAQ only updates Grey Knight Land Raiders.:rolleyes:

LMAO you have got to be kidding me! You can make a case for RAI but that's some serious dropping of the ball by GW in terms of Errata and FAQ's

[BuFFo]

Not sure where to ask, but is there any chance for a FAQ sort of update that unifies the various rules for "stuff"? For example, a Storm Shield is different depending on which army fields it, same for other things like Smoke, etc... I know it would require perhaps some point adjustments, but it would take at least some of the pressure for new army books... Especially with those armies playing with 3rd/4th ed codexes...

1) FAQs are not official changes to the game. FAQs are all house rules. I believe you mean Errata.

2) Why would you want to change one army to fit another? They are different armies for a reason. Do you want all marine chapters eliminated and all Marine players just use the Space Marine Codex?

[Melissia]

1) FAQs are not official changes to the game.

No matter how many times you scream this, it does not make it true. They are more official than any rule you can come up with.

[Sangre]

No matter how many times you scream this, it does not make it true. They are more official than any rule you can come up with.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=3400019

Sorry, Melissia. He's right. FAQs explicitly carry no more authority than house rules. By the orders of above.

[Lerra]

FAQs carry as much authority as the gaming community gives them. Which is a fair amount.

[Melissia]

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?aId=3400019

Sorry, Melissia. He's right. FAQs explicitly carry no more authority than house rules. By the orders of above.

Regardles of any claims made or links provided, the official GW FAQs are by definition more official than any houserule you want to come up with. I can take the errata and faqs anywhere and use them, and people will accept far more often than any house rule, because they are official GW material, rather than some random guy coming up with rules that are probably just made to benefit his own army, like most houserules are.

[BuFFo]

Regardles of any claims made or links provided, the official GW FAQs are by definition more official than any houserule you want to come up with. I can take the errata and faqs anywhere and use them, and people will accept far more often than any house rule, because they are official GW material, rather than some random guy coming up with rules that are probably just made to benefit his own army, like most houserules are.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

GW, in their OWN WORDS, bluntly states that their FAQs are no more 'official' than anything you can come up with in the link Sangre provided.

Sorry. You are just wrong.

Erratas are changes to the rules, FAQs are not.

[Sangre]

Regardles of any claims made or links provided, the official GW FAQs are by definition more official than any houserule you want to come up with. I can take the errata and faqs anywhere and use them, and people will accept far more often than any house rule, because they are official GW material, rather than some random guy coming up with rules that are probably just made to benefit his own army, like most houserules are.

Did you even read the page I linked? Allow me to quote the Games Development Department.


The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

Let me quote it again, with important bits in bold, just in case you still want to be pig-headed about it.


The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

Are we getting any clearer yet?

[Melissia]

I know what GW says.

What makes you think I care, or that it is at all relevant to my argument? No matter what GW says about their FAQs, they're still official GW FAQs. They're still accepted as essentially law everywhere I go, and anyone wanting to use rules different than that will need the opponent's permission to do so. What GW says matters less than how the players react to it, as we all know from discussions about RAW and how it leads to unintended side effects.

[DarkLink]

In practice, I've never seen anyone treat FAQ's as anything less than ironclad, even if they're technically not. But then again, we technically can just make our own rules up, so...

Edit: And Merry Christmas!

[pchappel]

1) FAQs are not official changes to the game. FAQs are all house rules. I believe you mean Errata.

2) Why would you want to change one army to fit another? They are different armies for a reason. Do you want all marine chapters eliminated and all Marine players just use the Space Marine Codex?

Why? Well, I'd like all of the same equipment to work the same for all of the armies using it... The armies themselves are different, but a "Storm Shield" should be the same for all of the Marines/Imperial forces, whatever the color of their armor... That and the real odd situations with "smoke" being different for different vehicles within the same armies. I'd envision something like the way that Thunderhammers are actually defined in the rulebook. Especially since the "differences" are just "it was written for a previous edition of the rules"...

[Sangre]

I know what GW says.

What makes you think I care, or that it is at all relevant to my argument? No matter what GW says about their FAQs, they're still official GW FAQs. They're still accepted as essentially law everywhere I go, and anyone wanting to use rules different than that will need the opponent's permission to do so. What GW says matters less than how the players react to it, as we all know from discussions about RAW and how it leads to unintended side effects.

Fair enough. You're still hugely wrong though.

[Lerra]

It seems like this argument boils down to the old question of "Who is the ultimate authority on 40k, GW or the players?"

I'd argue that it's the players. We choose to follow GWs rules most of the time, but if GW went off the deep end and started to seriously ruin the game, we'd probably just ignore them and follow the current rules (or use fan-made rules). GW says that their FAQs are just houserules. Most players treat them like they are official because they come from a neutral authority.

Imo, FAQs are official until the playerbase decides otherwise. This is about as official as a codex is.

[Melissia]

Fair enough. You're still hugely wrong though.

Except that I'm not.

[Sangre]

Except that I'm not.

Fine, but you are. You can't escape that. It might work as a system for you, but that doesn't mean you're not 200% wrong in the way you're interpreting GW authority.

[Lerra]

Does it really matter if someone on the internet is wrong? I'm pretty sure it has happened before :P

[Melissia]

Sangre: Quiet down little boy.

[Sangre]

Sangre: Quiet down little boy.

Don't get too authoritative. A) you've demonstrated you have no understanding of authority and B) authoritative women turn me on.

[Melissia]

I have a far better understanding than you, Sangre. The fact (and yes, it is a fact, no matter how much you scream otherwise) remains that official FAQs are still official FAQs, GW's statements on its webpage notwithstanding, and they are more often than not treated as such as the gaming population. GW can say what they want, they say you don't even have to use the rules in the rulebook and you can make **** up all you want, but that doesn't change anything.

[Nabterayl]

Gotta agree with everyone else on this, Mel. You're stating, essentially, that what GW says is the rule, even if they insist in the clearest possible words that it's not. But that logic doesn't apply to White Dwarf battle reports, right? If the rulebook said, "The rule is X, though here at the studio everybody plays Y because we're all such great mates - still, should there be any confusion, the rule is X" then surely the rule is X, not Y, right? That's exactly what the FAQ page says.

[Lerra]

Yet, if everyone plays with rule Y and ignores X, then Y is clearly the "real" rule, regardless of what X states.

I understand what you guys are getting at, but I think game-as-played is more important than game-as-the-owner-says-it-should-be-played. It doesn't really matter what GW says if most tournament organizers and rules judges treat FAQs as official.

[Fellend]

You are both wrong due to the goldenrule anyways. So play nice children

[Melissia]

Lerra: Which is what I'm saying, but in different words. no matter what GW says, the players treat the FAQs as law, at least around here. You need to have your opponent's permission to use anything OTHER than the basic rules and the FAQs.

[DarkLink]

I agree with Melissia and Lerra here. Everyone I've seen play treats FAQ's as law. In theory, it isn't anything more than GW's houserules, but in practice it's ironclad.

Edit:

"You are both wrong due to the goldenrule anyways. So play nice children"

While I agree with the playing nice part, truth is objective, not subjective. Just because someone is rude while telling the truth does not mean they are wrong.

[Sangre]

I always make a point of bringing up any FAQ discrepancies I think are glaringly obvious when I game on the table. Naturally I can't think of any now that I'm thinking about it.

[Subject Keyword]

I have a strict "rules go if they don't suck" policy. Going on about which version of the rules is the more "lawful" one is just putting importance where it isn't necessary. And do you know why it isn't necessary? Because it's a game. A pig****in' FUN game. As soon as rules get in the way of fun, I burn them. Bullsh*t arbitrary rules are for other things like traffic court and getting arrested for having sex in public (good times...).

POWER TO THE PLAYERS!!!:cool:


B) authoritative women turn me on.
Sangre wins everything forever. I bow to him.

[Sangre]

Sangre wins everything forever. I bow to him.

That's going in my signature.

EDIT: Or not. Seems draconian laws forbid BBcode quote tags in signatures. Perhaps they fund terrorism?

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Melissia]

At the risk of sounding cliche, this conversation is starting to bore me. If we include Sangre's trollish posts, We're already at the point of one side saying "you're wrong" without justification, just saying it for the sake of saying it. Reminds me of two kids saying "yes you are" and "no I'm not".

I'm out.

[Rapture]

Can a mod put a leash on these two? Wading through their uncompromising arguments is starting to get on my nerves.



I'm out.
Get the last word and leave? How mature. We all know that you will still be regularly checking this thread so spare us the charade.

[Denzark]

I'm out.

As they say in Moscow:

"BBBBBBBBBBYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[The Mystic]

Maintanence issues.:D

[Nabterayl]

I think what Lady M is saying is that GW can bang on all it wants about FAQ's being unofficial, as long as people treat them as official (and most do) they are. Gamers perception is far more powerful then this disclaimer put out by GW, and the majority of gamers perceive that FAQ's are law.

If that's what we/she means by "official," fair enough. I don't think that's a controversial statement.


Has anyone mentioned Shotguns yet? Why are SM ones better then IG ones?

This one I buy. Scouts are S4; Guardsmen are S3, and we should expect shotguns to have a conventional amount of recoil (i.e., a lot). So it doesn't seem strange to me to assume that Astartes shotguns are larger and more powerful than Guard shotguns, simply because the men handling them are significantly beefier.

[mysterex]

What about these shotguns? I dont see why SM ones should be better then IG ones. A shotgun is a shotgun......

I vaguely remember something about "manstopper rounds" in an earlier edition that increased the weapon's Str (sorry can't find the reference). Different ammunition would explain the different stat line for the weapon.

On the topic of ammunition, I don't get why scouts get Hellfire Shells for their heavy bolters and no one else does. If anyone should get this upgrade it should be Sternguard, particularly as they seem to be the current Death Watch equivalent.

[DarkLink]

If you think about it, shotguns don't make much sense for Astartes.

The whole benefit of shotguns is to have more firepower. A 12-gauge shotgun is a .72 caliber chunk of metal, quite a bit bigger than a .223 or .308 caliber of an m-16 or m-21, respectivly.

However, Astartes have bolters. .75 caliber, with high explosives in the tip. If you've got that sort of firepower, you don't need a beefier shotgun. That's what plasma rifles, meltaguns and such are for.

So if the firepower's roughly equal, there's no reason for a shotgun. Shotguns are ackward to use compared to assault rifles. They're less reliable, much more ackward to load, slower to fire, etc. Their benefit is more firepower, but if you don't get more firepower why'd you even use

Oh, and a shotgun would have greater recoil than a bolter, too. A bolter uses a small blast to toss the rocket in the air, and the rocket can take it from there. A shotgun must impart all its energy into the bullet in the chamber, however. That means more recoil than a bolter.


Really, a Bolter is the shotgun of the future. It has the firepower of a shotgun, but more range, accuracy, ease of use, rate of fire, reliability etc. Even the modern shotguns that are overcoming the traditional limitations of a shotgun are becoming bolter-like (the AA-10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnrizaO-X00) and (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQYp9fOJ9VI) Frag 12 (http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/FRAG%2012.pdf) shotgun and ammo, respectively).

[Denzark]

I vaguely remember something about "manstopper rounds" in an earlier edition that increased the weapon's Str (sorry can't find the reference). Different ammunition would explain the different stat line for the weapon.

On the topic of ammunition, I don't get why scouts get Hellfire Shells for their heavy bolters and no one else does. If anyone should get this upgrade it should be Sternguard, particularly as they seem to be the current Death Watch equivalent.

Back in the day only scouts had hellfire.

[pchappel]

On the FAQ issue, I guess it never really occurred to me that GW would consider them "unofficial". Shouldn't be surprised I guess, but I've only ever seen them treated as "official" everywhere I've played...

On the Shotguns... I carried an old 870 (Remmington) for a few years for aplications the 5.56 of the M-16 wasn't really the best tool for. Simple to maintain. I think that would be why I'd assign them to Scouts. Either the new troopers (normal Marines), or the potentially "longer deployment" for the Wolves where it might come to working far behind enemy lines for an extended perios of time... Might have to make/capture ammunition, and the Shotgun seems like it would be easier to do than the Bolter rounds...

[BuFFo]

Regardless of how childish some posters can be, FAQs are just opinions by gamers. Nothing more, nothing less.

GW has it up on it's website in black and white. There is no gray area here. FAQs are not law nor are they official.

For the 'Ard Boyz, one FAQ ruling was different in the semi finals in Orlando than it was in the finals in Chicago.

Thems the breaks!

Hell.... Back in 2006, when I attended Adepticon with my Chaos Dwarfs, I talked to the head judge before hand through some emails since there was NO FAQ regarding Chaos Dwarf and some rulings. Afetr the event, the same questions i asked were passed onto the GW website, and till this day, you can see 'My FAQ' on there. If you play Chaos Dwarfs, and are using the 'US GT ONLY' FAQ as your ruling stick, you are in fact, playing the game by my opinions. No GW entity looked it over for balance or anything of the sort.

So I know FIRST HAND that FAQs are just questions by gamers and answered by the same gamers.

So yes, FAQs are not official, and saying they are is just wrong.

[Sangre]

Regardless of how childish some posters can be, FAQs are just opinions by gamers. Nothing more, nothing less.

GW has it up on it's website in black and white. There is no gray area here. FAQs are not law nor are they official.

For the 'Ard Boyz, one FAQ ruling was different in the semi finals in Orlando than it was in the finals in Chicago.

Thems the breaks!

Hell.... Back in 2006, when I attended Adepticon with my Chaos Dwarfs, I talked to the head judge before hand through some emails since there was NO FAQ regarding Chaos Dwarf and some rulings. Afetr the event, the same questions i asked were passed onto the GW website, and till this day, you can see 'My FAQ' on there. If you play Chaos Dwarfs, and are using the 'US GT ONLY' FAQ as your ruling stick, you are in fact, playing the game by my opinions. No GW entity looked it over for balance or anything of the sort.

So I know FIRST HAND that FAQs are just questions by gamers and answered by the same gamers.

So yes, FAQs are not official, and saying they are is just wrong.

Translation for childish posters like me:


BAM! Sangre was right. Do a strange variety of dance.

[entendre_entendre]

A shotgun is a shotgun......

unless, a shotgun isn't a just a shotgun, maybe it's a space marine shotgun!

joking aside, maybe the scouts have different ammo, maybe flechette rounds or something (maybe like the SCMITR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCMITR ), although this would probably affect the AP instead of the S of the shotgun. perhaps the guard using buck-shot while the marines are using 'nid-shot. maybe GW flubbed up.

updating all the gear would be nice, but doing it would make too much sense!

[Sangre]

Centralised wargear book. Not just a reference amalgamam of all the current codex armouries, but a definitive, authoritative base of all shared equipment. That way all storm shields, shotguns and smoke launchers are the same. No confusion, and GW has an excuse to flog you a whole new book. Everyone's happy.

[Aldramelech]

Goodbye

[Lerra]

Ideally, each weapon would have only one profile to eliminate confusion. A shotgun is a shotgun is a shotgun. I agree with Sangre that it would be handy to have it in the BRB or a centralized book, too.

In a perfect world, GW would either give both the IG and SM shotguns the same stats, or (more likely) change the name of one of them. I would rename the space marine shotgun to an "Astartes Shotgun" or maybe a "Blastgun" or something similar. Fluffwise, it would make sense for the space marines to have more powerful shotguns than the guard, but with the difference in power, a new name would make sense. If I designed a gun with 133% more power, I'd want to put my name on it, or at least differentiate it from its lesser cousins ;)

[mysterex]

If I designed a gun with 133% more power, I'd want to put my name on it, or at least differentiate it from its lesser cousins ;)

Agreed - as in Hellgun and Lasgun.

[Lord Azaghul]

What about these shotguns? I dont see why SM ones should be better then IG ones. A shotgun is a shotgun......

I was really hoping IG shotguns would get the upgrade. It would give me an excuse to model a squad of guard with 'em...still might...

[RocketRollRebel]

My BA TH/SS Terminator sgt was laughed at by my opponent when I mentioned that he only got a 5+ invul from shooting... Then he made his save and hit that stupid space elf in the face with his hammer :D