Codex updates

[Madness]

I was skimming my rss feeds and I saw the jp GW site released a small update for C:SM, I was wondering if you kept track of such erratas and how. It might also be an intresting feature for some BoLS posts.

Sauce, googletranslated. (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fjp.games-workshop.com%2Fresources%2Fwh40k%2Fspacemarines08. htm&sl=auto&tl=en)

[lobster-overlord]

I just checked it out. They are the same updates found in the Errata portion of the C:SM FAQ.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&start=2

JohN M>

[Madness]

So they are posting the faqs as errata now? Man, that changes stuff.

P.S.: I re-checked, they post errata with faqs in documents called faqs, so I'm really unsure how unofficial faqs are.

[Melissia]

Madness: Dunno about other peoples' play areas, but GW's official FAQs are damned official in gaming stores here, anything else you need the opponent's permission to use. Buffo's arguments are, and have always been, completely and utterly irrelevant when compared to this fact.

[BuFFo]

So they are posting the faqs as errata now? Man, that changes stuff.

P.S.: I re-checked, they post errata with faqs in documents called faqs, so I'm really unsure how unofficial faqs are.

I don't know what you are talking about.... Erratas and FAQs have been posted in the same document for about a decade online.

This is the page you probably have not seen, which is the page right before all the Errata links....

Erratas and FAQs (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=1000018&section=&pIndex=0&aId=3400019&start=1)

This should give you insight on what an Errata and what a FAQ is.

[david5th]

I just wait until it's mentioned on BOLS and go to the link.;)

[Madness]

After 9 years in software development I think I have a pretty good idea of what a FAQ is, and that page only strengthens my opinion.

Sure, faqs are not errataed, they are only officially issued and suggested house rules, something I'd use as more of an opt-in than an opt-out, and considering how often the people I know butchers the official rules to create funky scenarios, they're as good as rules to me.

Can't speak for other people.

[Sangre]

Madness: Dunno about other peoples' play areas, but GW's official FAQs are damned official in gaming stores here, anything else you need the opponent's permission to use. Buffo's arguments are, and have always been, completely and utterly irrelevant when compared to this fact.

Yeah but you're bad and wrong.

[Nabterayl]

We actually do draw a theoretical distinction between FAQs and errata. Most of the time people are happy to adopt the GW FAQ, but we all agree (locally) that in theory we're ready to reject a FAQ. To give an extreme example, if a FAQ said:


Q: Can models launch an assault after firing rapid fire weapons?
A: Yes.

We'd certainly throw that out. If it was an erratum instead, we'd say, "Hot damn, that changes things!"

Can't think of the last time somebody felt strongly enough about a GW FAQ that we actually threw it out, but we're pretty easy-going folks when it comes to rules.

[Madness]

You know you can decide to change how you play the game without GW telling you to, right?

[Faultie]

Madness: Dunno about other peoples' play areas, but GW's official FAQs are damned official in gaming stores here, anything else you need the opponent's permission to use. Buffo's arguments are, and have always been, completely and utterly irrelevant when compared to this fact.

I have no idea what Buffo says, but I know that on my computer, when I goto GW's webpage, they state that their FAQs are their own house rules, and you should feel free to make your own instead. "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."

Does Buffo say otherwise?

[DarkLink]

I have no idea what Buffo says, but I know that on my computer, when I goto GW's webpage, they state that their FAQs are their own house rules, and you should feel free to make your own instead. "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."

Does Buffo say otherwise?

No, that's what BuFFo says. The thing is, every single person I've ever met, played, or talked with in person treats FAQs as ironclad rules.

[Henshini]

Yes but generally everyone uses the GW FAQs so that everyone is playing with the same rules. How confusing would it be if everyone you ever played against used a different set of house rules?

[Madness]

At a tournament it would surely be, but for normal games, it's actually funnier if you mess around with them.

[BuFFo]

Yes but generally everyone uses the GW FAQs so that everyone is playing with the same rules. How confusing would it be if everyone you ever played against used a different set of house rules?

Not confusing at all to me, nor the players in my area at all.

I play two Ork players. One rams with the Deffrolla and the other doesn't. I play a few Nid players, and two of them Doom's troops in transports, and the other one doesn't. \

Maybe the group I play with is magical, and we are able to have FUN as we make sure all players are happy in our games, I don't know.... We must be the exception.


No, that's what BuFFo says. The thing is, every single person I've ever met, played, or talked with in person treats FAQs as ironclad rules.

Oh really? So it is what I say? I didn't know I was on the GW Development Team! Well, in that case, you should read my official announcement on the subject.

BuFFo's Law (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019)

FAQs are not ironclad rules in the slightest. If you wish to make them so, then that is fine since that is your choice and I respect that, but you are wrong if you play someone and you attempt to FORCE the FAQ house rules on that person.

[Madness]

There's no such thing as an ironclad rule, faq, errata or whatever. Everybody is free to play the way he wants (provided the opponent wants to) or organize a tournament with any ruleset.

[Melissia]

we are able to have FUN
You act as if having fun and using the official FAQs and Errata are mutually exclusive.

I assure you they are not.

[Henshini]

I play perfectly enjoyable games to the letter of the FAQs, I don't know why you can't. I realize I could play the game any way I wanted to, say making rapid fire weapons rending or some such nonsense, but why not just play the same game as everyone else. I don't play in a set group, I meet new players almost every week and it's just easier if we say just use all the rules as written/intended by GW. And yes, the FAQs are RAI interpretations, otherwise GW wouldn't have put them on their site. But to each his own.

[Madness]

Because changing things is fresher and keeps you sharp, as opposed to mastering the same stuff over and over again.

[Melissia]

In my experience, "keeping things fresher" usually means "how can I make my army stronger by altering the wording of a rule today?", which is what most house rules end up being.

[DarkLink]

I play perfectly enjoyable games to the letter of the FAQs, I don't know why you can't. I realize I could play the game any way I wanted to, say making rapid fire weapons rending or some such nonsense, but why not just play the same game as everyone else. I don't play in a set group, I meet new players almost every week and it's just easier if we say just use all the rules as written/intended by GW. And yes, the FAQs are RAI interpretations, otherwise GW wouldn't have put them on their site. But to each his own.

I once played a game where we modified Rapid Fire rules to basically have the following profile: 24" range, Heavy 2 -or- Assault 1.

I'll tell you, that changes the meaning of 10-man tactical squads. Sitting still in cover, and they lay down a hailstorm of fire. It did have the unintended concequences of making my opponent's LR Crusader crazy good, but the game was an absolute blast.

Try it out. You'll never think of 10 man tactical squads as mediocre platforms for special weapons again.


Because changing things is fresher and keeps you sharp, as opposed to mastering the same stuff over and over again.

I'd personally just make up special mission scenarios if I felt a need for change. Or proxy another army. I have tried out a few homebrew rules on rare occasions befor though, and had fun with them.

[Melissia]

You'll never think of 10 man tactical squads as mediocre platforms for special weapons again.
IF you ever did you aren't playing right.

[DarkLink]

IF you ever did you aren't playing right.

I've never figured out how to play tactical squads. I can play Sister squads just fine, you'd think I could figure it out:rolleyes:. But personally, tactical squads seem defensive rather than offensive. They can rapid fire and melta something, sure, but their main job is to provide bodies and control territory. Changing the rapidfire rules like above makes them brutal at range, as well as being tough to kill.

[Melissia]

Sisters are more specialized than Marines. They are pure anti-infantry firepower pretty much, even though you give them meltaguns so they can deal with other situations the main reason you have sisters is for bolter spam and flamerspam.

Tacticals are adaptive and durable. They're good, not the best, but they really get more out of their points than Sisters do for Battle Sisters, though not quite as much as Guard does (but then they're Guard)

[BuFFo]

You act as if having fun and using the official FAQs and Errata are mutually exclusive.

Well, your assumption is wrong. :cool:


... I don't play in a set group, I meet new players almost every week and it's just easier if we say just use all the rules as written/intended by GW...

Same here. I travel between New York City and my home here in Melbourne. Here in Melbourne, for the most past, we use the house rules up on GW's site.

But even among these house rules, there are a few that some players won't follow because to them, the house rule makes no sense/is stupid/whatever their reason is.

Up in NYC though, lol.... The group I grew up with don't even know what a "GW FAQ" is. If it isn't in the main rule book or codex, they won't even consider it.

And to be honest, the only reason why the majority of us down here in Melbourne even give a 'crap' about the house rules posted up on GW's site is because we do play in the yearly 'Ard Boyz, and of course, both our two local locations and Chicago use GW's house rules.

So when in Rome....


Because changing things is fresher and keeps you sharp, as opposed to mastering the same stuff over and over again.

Agreed.

[Lerra]

I treat GW FAQs as official unless we have decided otherwise before the game starts. I'm perfectly fine with ignoring them, too, but by default, all games around here are played using GW FAQs with Adepticon's INAT FAQ as a secondary source.

Some groups can play without FAQs and not have rules arguments. From personal experience, most can't - even if you 4+ it or have a gentleman's agreement, someone feels like they got gyped. If it's in an FAQ, you can blame GW for the injustice instead of your opponent, which is an all-around amicable solution. GW makes a great punching bag.

[Madness]

In my experience, "keeping things fresher" usually means "how can I make my army stronger by altering the wording of a rule today?", which is what most house rules end up being.
My experience is somewhat different, but then again I like being the underdog and winning against all odds.