Why Not the GW Draft FAQ?

A lot of tournaments seem to be shying away from implementing the current GW draft FAQs, but are there really any good arguments against doing so?

Let’s take a look at the various points of contention and the arguments that are used against making immediate use of the FAQs.


1. Because they’re not official yet.

Aren’t they? Why not? Certainly they do say that it is the “draft FAQ,” but Forge World has had “experimental” rules for some units for several years running now- obviously these things don’t mean the same to the Citadel teams as they do us because they certainly aren’t treated as though they were temporary or test versions. They aren’t posted to the same place as the other GW FAQs, certainly, but it should be pointed out that there are currently two properly “official” versions of the GW FAQs posted right now- so the fact that there is a third version somewhere else with additional info should hardly be surprising.

The argument for the illegitimacy of the draft FAQs relies entirely on the word “draft” in their title- and while that certainly can be taken as some kind of indicator, I don’t think it should be an overriding one. There is every reason to think that they will all be integrated with the standing FAQs just as they are.

Moreover, it’s pretty clear that GW has put them up specifically so that people could test them out and give opinions on them. Now, plenty of stuff in there is clearly either perfectly fine or obviously bad for the game, but there’s also things that lie somewhere in the middle; how are we to evaluate those things if, as a community, we are rejecting their use until they are 100% set in stone? Would not the time to implement them be now, when there is still some possibility that they can be amended or that sufficient commentary and evidence can support a case that they are problematic? Argument is one thing, but having actual results to back up an argument is wholly another.


2. Because they might change.

So what? Anything could change, at any time. GW could release a new codex or official update to their “normal” FAQs tomorrow. Frontline could update the ITC FAQs in a heartbeat if they so wished. Tournaments can change their rules and strictures at essentially any time they please. All of these things are well within the realm of possibility- indeed, have happened in the past at relevant times. So what’s the all the brouhaha about? The world didn’t end. It’s hard to argue that they even had a significant negative effect on anything.

GW posts their updates to the draft FAQs at regular intervals at a known time. It might be inconvenient to see a FAQ pop up the Wednesday before a tournament, but you know it’s a possibility and it’s something you can plan around- if the TO wants, it is a simple matter to disregard that one part of the FAQ just to ensure that everyone has more than a full week of warning on everything. Nine or ten days should be more than enough to be ready for any tweaks to the rules- and nothing we’ve seen yet has wholly invalidated army builds or radically resculpted the game, bad decisions regarding Drop Pod doors and ruin walls aside.

bad dude

3. Because some factions haven’t been updated yet.

Again- so what? Some codices haven’t been updated yet, either, but we keep on playing the game anyways. Some supplements and Imperial Armor (I’m sorry, Armour) haven’t been updated for quite a while past “yet” and they are still allowed. The way that stuff is released for 40K means that there will always be some stuff that is not kept completely current as compared to other stuff- it’s the nature of GW’s release system and schedule, and it’s by most interpretations an acceptable compromise on how do handle things.

It’s not like the factions and books that haven’t gotten an FAQ yet aren’t functional or interpretable; they simple aren’t as well-updated as the others. In most cases, this is no real disadvantage at all because the ITC and other entities have covered the major gaps already- the GW FAQs are, more often than not, simply retreading old ground when it comes to major codex issues. Nor is it even particularly “unfair” to the books that haven’t gotten updated, since the FAQs are as likely to make something weaker as they are to make it stronger. In short, incompleteness of the FAQs means nothing more than the fact that ITC has yet to answer questions regarding things like the Doom of Mymeara- which is to say nothing at all.


4. Because there’s some parts of them we don’t like (and we are hoping they will get fixed.)

While this is certainly understandable- there’s plenty to dislike in these FAQs, as no doubt everyone is aware- it shouldn’t be what holds us back from using them. We already well know which parts of it ITC intends to ignore- Drop Pods, ruins, Stomp, and multi-level blasts. There are other parts that are contentious also, but they aren’t going to become any less so if we stubbornly sit by and refuse to try them out in actual play. Instead, it will only make people more entrenched in their individual ways of playing things and cause more problems with “well that’s how WE always did it” once tournaments finally get around to implementing the FAQs in full.

Maybe GW will fix or change things, but if the Roused to War rule for Dreadnoughts is any indication, if they are going to do so they will do so immediately rather than waiting for the entirety of the FAQ to be released. And this makes sense- since all it takes is a few minutes in Photoshop or Gimp to do a bit of typing and then a few more seconds waiting for Facebook’s uploader to work, why bother to do a slow-and-steady job of it? We’re living in the digital age, there is no reason that we should deny ourselves the benefits of that.


5. Because they’re not easily accessible.

This is, as I see it, the only legitimate complaint about things. It’s true, if you don’t know where to look and don’t keep up with 40K news on a consistent basis, it’s easy to get blindsided by these FAQs because no mention of them is made on the main GW site and they aren’t specifically archived anywhere. (Though, to be fair, the reverse is true as well- the Facebook page makes no mentions of the “normal” FAQs at all.) At the same time, however, finding them is almost trivially easy for anyone with the most basic knowledge of how to use the internet- a search on Google, Facebook itself, or any of a dozen Warhammer 40K news sites will bring up the whole list of images and/or links directly to them. Anyone who can’t manage to do at least that will similarly be incapable of finding the ITC FAQ as well as the current GW ones as well, so I think we can safely put that case aside and work from the assumption that most players are going to be more competent than that.

If tournaments simply make mention of the draft FAQs alongside the ITC FAQ and other relevant information for players that they include in their mission packet, I doubt it will be an issue- even the handful of “I will never ever use Facebook because arglebargle mwaaaaaaaaaaaaa” people can easily just download some images from the web and get everything they need.

In conclusion, I don’t really see any strong reason not to begin using the new FAQs now, rather than waiting for some nebulous future date when they might eventually be finished. If the current pace is any indication, it could easily be months until that happens, and delaying until then for such half-hearted reasons feels like a very weak choice to me; better to start things off now and get them over and done with.


About abusepuppy

AbusePuppy is the one who has been ruining 40K for everyone this whole time. He is also searching for the six-fingered man and is one of the three people who know the secret recipe for coke (not the soda, the illegal drug.)

60 Responses to “Why Not the GW Draft FAQ?”

  1. Avatar
    Threllen July 12, 2016 6:08 am #

    “Because they might change.”

    This has been my biggest beef with those who don’t want to implement the new FAQs in their games. Ease of access and some of the others I can understand, but not the fact they are subject to change. Regardless of whether they say “draft” or not, all FAQs are subject to change. So are all the codices. And the big rulebooks. And Dataslates. And literally everything in this game. They might make some slight alterations to these FAQs before publishing an “official” version on their website, but I’d be willing to bet we see a new Space Marines codex before we see a signficant update to these FAQ. Back when GWs FAQ let Heldrakes fire 360 no one was like “let’s wait to implement this because it might change.” And then when it did get changed no one said “well let’s hold on to the old rules because these are subject to change, too.” At some point, these are going to become official. I don’t see the point in throwing out the entire FAQ just because they may change at some point in the future.

    • Avatar
      Dakkath July 12, 2016 6:23 am #

      100% THIS

      I respect Reece and the ITC board for the most part but I’ve grown sick of seeing him pass this off as the excuse/reason in the comments section. Ok, yes a couple of the FAQ’s got amended a couple days later as people pointed out unclarity or typos. But the vast majority of them stand as they were originally posted. Rather than the “They might change at any moment” (paraphrased) or “If they don’t change” I see so often.

    • Avatar
      Luke July 12, 2016 4:13 pm #

      I mean it’s not that big of a deal, but with them releasing roughly one a week, it’d be kind of a pain to have to learn about the weekly changes to the game. I am one who agrees that it’s more sane to just do it all in one go when they are made official (especially since the earlier ones has outright typos and changes that they made). Whether there are large changes to the first drafts of not is mostly irrelevant, but I’d rather just have one round of changes than 12 rounds of changes

  2. Avatar
    Sanchezsam2 July 12, 2016 6:17 am #

    GW literally said they didn’t post them up for testing and feedback. They put them up for rewording and clarifications only.

    The problem with the GW faqs is the same reason GW said its not official. The wording may change later and drastically depending on clarifications and other faqs.

    A huge example is battle brothers transports. The literal interpretation of the faq is no one can deploy in any other army list transport however a lot of people believe the interpretation is only different codex can’t deploy battle brothers transports.

    Something like that is a massive change. The fact is not all faqs are clear.

    • Avatar
      abusepuppy July 12, 2016 7:47 am #

      Whether GW wanted them for feedback and testing or not, such testing is still valuable to us as a community because it helps the ITC (and other tournaments/organizations) decide how and if they will implement them.

      The “literal interpretatino” of the Battle Brothers thing is meaningless- I don’t think anyone _actually_ believes that was how they intended it to function, and there are plenty of ambiguous rules elsewhere in the game that can be read in absurd ways. (Remember the Death Ray hitting all models in a unit? Wraithguard being unable to shoot? Flamer weapons being unusable?) The existence of an absurd reading, and one that is clearly unintended, holds no meaning at all for the question of whether or not we should use the FAQs.

      • Avatar
        Sanchezsam2 July 12, 2016 9:21 am #

        It most certainly does hold meaning for the question because the faqs are not coat or finished. The point is you are making judgements and calls on half arsed written rules that are obviously unintended and incomplete.

        The question really should be why should we be using B them when GW themselves stated they are no official or complete. This is akin to playing with 8th edition rules that is still in playtesting and feedback stage. If someone leaked 8th edition rules would you also be clamouring we should be playing those rules even though GW hasn’t posted them officials yet.

        Right now I can point out several drastic changes in the faq that is written so poorly it’s obviously not intended but you are asking people to just make up whatever they feel like even though he posted them asking for feedback first.

        • Avatar
          Blight1 July 12, 2016 12:31 pm #

          Please point them out.

        • Avatar
          Threllen July 12, 2016 1:46 pm #

          I would like them pointed out as well. I don’t remember anything that really stuck out to me as “wow this is worded so poorly it opens up a whole can of worms.”

          So if you could please point us to those we can determine that together. Maybe it turns out there really are a few which need to be cleaned up. Should that tiny percentage of the overall questions cause us to say “screw this we aren’t using any of it?”

          What if the “finalized” (or “more finalized”) version of the FAQ comes out and there are still a couple that aren’t worded super clearly? Should we never ever use the FAQ because of that?

          The whole reason for the FAQs is because of the poor wording of the codices/rulebooks themselves. Should we just say “no one gets to use the Tau codex because a few of the rules weren’t written correctly.” That’s not a whole lot different than throwing out the entire FAQ because a few of the questions weren’t answered in a manner you found satisfactory.

          • Avatar
            Sanchezsam2 July 12, 2016 4:14 pm

            First one I already mentioned was transports and battlebrothers which literally says battlebrothers can not deploy in each other’s transports.

            Drop pods is the other clearly obnoxiously broken rule as written.

            Then we have several conflicting faqs from fnp in different sections saying different things, to upgrading models where a captain to chapter master is fine yet tank commander to pask even though it’s worded exactly the same is different.

            I can keep going on because every faq had more questions that required clarifications.

            Don’t put words in my mouth you are wrong I never said we can’t use these faqs because they are still crappy and unclear. I stated even GW said these are not official and still not clear yet and still a work in progress. I said these are akin to using leaked 8th Ed rules that are still in playtesting.

            It’s fine if you don’t give a crap about any of the above but don’t be jerks about people who don’t drink your koolaid and expect everyone to agree with your opinion.

  3. Avatar
    Horton July 12, 2016 6:38 am #

    ATC is using them, and the event will have around 250 players. We will see how it goes. The majority of the captains wanted to use the GW FAQ. Including me.

    • Avatar
      Karvala July 12, 2016 10:22 am #

      Except for the drop pod insanity of course!

    • Avatar
      Adam July 12, 2016 12:32 pm #

      Thank you Horton, I believe our Captain voted yes as well. Hope to see you and Twitch on the table!

  4. Avatar
    Ragnulf July 12, 2016 7:10 am #

    Not playing the GW FAQ feels like wasting time and holding on to an older edition and lists we know are probably not going to be legal once the FAQ is adopted. If the final version of the FAQ comes out and it’s slightly different, making those changes at that time should be relatively minor. The sooner players and TO’s get comfortable with the FAQ the better. The ITC proposed changes on drop pods and other issues can be implemented at the same time.

  5. Val Heffelfinger
    Val Heffelfinger July 12, 2016 7:37 am #

    Devil’s advocate here – FLG is hooked up and partnering with GW. If they think these “might” change then I’m thinking they probably will. Also, GW is doing too much right to not listen to feedback on the most contentious rulings.

    The difference between the uncertainty behind the fact and the general uncertainty of codex releases and rules is that a codex lasts for a three year cycle. These FAQs might remain in their current form for three months at most.

    Also the FAQ only governs the BAO and LVO. Everyone else, as always, can do whatever they want!

    GW seems to intend these as a 7.1 patch to hold the game together as currently intended until a design shift/new edition in 2017. They will be finished on time and on schedule I’m sure.

    I find it odd that folks still don’t cut the team behind this any slack. They’re delivered on all their commitments so far. I see no reason as to why they won’t complete the task in a timely fashion .

    The FAQ or whatever ITC keeps from it will be in effect for the LVO. Bullee dat.

    • Avatar
      Threllen July 12, 2016 7:56 am #

      %”These FAQs might remain in their current form for three months at most.”

      According to what?

      Look at the FAQs on the GW website or the BL. The last time they got changed was even before the last codex drop for some books.

      99% of the FAQ changes are for two reasons:
      1. Someone had new questions that weren’t previously included in an old set
      2. A new codex or new big rulebook has dropped which prompts a need to revisit old questions or ask new ones.

      Not sure why either of those two scenarios precludes us from using the current FAQ just because they might change when new stuff is released.

      • Val Heffelfinger
        Val Heffelfinger July 12, 2016 11:43 am #

        Seriously? What has to happen for folks to realize this is not the same team that let the “official” errata on the website go without a meaningful update for years?

        Clearly there is a small team diligently chugging through a 3 year buildup of broken rules and confusing interactions. They haven’t missed a single week. Why would they not publish a final copy? Especially when the fans clearly want final clear decisions? They’re working on it… lol… am I on crazy pills? Does no one else see what I’m seeing?

    • Avatar
      westrider July 12, 2016 4:50 pm #

      “These FAQs might remain in their current form for three months at most.”

      The same is true for the ITC FAQ. It gets revisited every three months.

  6. Avatar
    ArchonKalafex July 12, 2016 8:08 am #

    Maybe it’s just me, but it would be appreciated if you could stop writing articles that have negative over tones and tell people that their opinion is less than yours. If you don’t like the way the ITC functions make your own events and stop telling the community they are wrong. We voted, this is the result, accept it as is or don’t. You can still have an ITC event and use the GW FAQ so who really cares? We don’t need you to tell us how to play, that is why we vote. And the vote is essentially just a gentlemen’s agreement to a plug and play set of boundaries that we view as a whole to be more enjoyable. But please keep your negative views snarky attitude out of our community as it is toxic for growth. You just wrote something not long ago about haters needing to stop or leave 40k, walk the walk!

    • Avatar
      Threllen July 12, 2016 8:17 am #

      AbusePuppy can get snarky in his comments from time to time, but even re-reading this article I don’t see anything all that snarky about it. He presents his *opinions* (hence the editorial tag) on why the FAQ should be used. If you don’t agree with that opinion that is fine. If you have legitimate responses to the questions he asks or the points he raises then you can voice those. But if your only response to someone else’s opinions was “well I voted the other way and I was in the small minority so you aren’t allowed to have your opinion and you aren’t allowed to voice it in front of me” then the internet might not be the place for you…

      • Avatar
        Threllen July 12, 2016 8:18 am #

        Sorry small majority* I meant to say. Since it was a close-ish vote.

    • Avatar
      bogalubov July 12, 2016 8:45 am #

      I’ll side with ArchonKalafex on this one. The article is written from the point of view that all the concerns that people have are illegitimate and pointless. That tone immediately puts people on the defensive and decreases the chances of them being convinced. It would be a lot more effective to list the reasons to accept the changes than try to refute “incorrect” points that you chose.

      I’ll say the same thing I say about all rules debates. I don’t care what the “correct” answer is. The beauty of the ITC is that we vote and the discussion should be settled after that. Having yet another place to look for rules is not helpful for this clarity.

    • Avatar
      elwrath July 12, 2016 1:05 pm #

      +1 to ArchonKalafex’s comments

  7. jy2
    jy2 July 12, 2016 8:45 am #

    Just a point of distinction here. ITC didn’t make the decision not to use the GW FAQ’s for their events. We, the players, did. But people will change. It’s always like this. We resist change at first but eventually, we accept and adapt. Just give it a little time, folks.

    • Avatar
      abusepuppy July 12, 2016 9:01 am #

      ITC chose to avoid implementing them before the vote; that has not been the case for GW’s other FAQs.

      • jy2
        jy2 July 12, 2016 9:25 am #

        If you implement them, then there is no need for a vote, is there? Why does the ITC have to implement something that says Draft? Just like when the FW Experimental units came out, no one allowed them immediately. A lot of non-ITC tournaments still do not allow them. The ITC is just taking a more cautious approach to it by letting the player-base decide instead rather than to fully adopt a series of unfinished and non-official rulings.

        • Avatar
          Blight1 July 12, 2016 12:36 pm #

          Though I do believe that this article is an appeal to the community to overturn their decision. He can correct me if I’m wrong but that seems the intent and I, at least, think it’s a valid one.

          • jy2
            jy2 July 12, 2016 1:30 pm

            It is both an appeal to the community as well as an appeal to the ITC founders themselves (maybe not this time, but for the next time GW has a new release, whether a work-in-progress or a finished product). As an editorial, there’s nothing wrong with that. We are all passionate and we all try to push the game in a direction that we deem is “right way”. However, what most editorialists don’t have to factor in is the economics of it all. Hey, it doesn’t cost us anything to speak our opinion, right? Well, for Frontline, it’s not just a policy decision. It is a business one as well and one that could potentially cost them a lot of money. Hence why they prefer to be more conservative and why it’s better for them to leave the decisions to us. You put your foot down and make a decision, you could potentially lose a lot of “customers”. However, a community-based decision will usually be more palatable to more people than an authoritarian approach and hence, less risky on the bottom-line.

  8. Avatar
    Drachnyen July 12, 2016 8:49 am #

    IMHO, I think ITC needs to switch gears and accept to take a more leadership role by moving away from voting.

    Voting can only result in a player base influencing the game for their own designs (ie: voting for what’s best for their army)

    Humans will generally vote against change and definitely against something that can penalize them.

    Even if you DO the voting option, you will still have a lot of people that are not happy with the results. If you look at the June results, most of the responses were very close ties, nothing was ground breaking except one or two questions. This means we already have a fractured community, so let’s not bring this argument around.

    Myself and I am sure many others would agree, would prefer for ITC folks to just “call the shots”. The mass of people following ITC would probably follow the rulings. With, of course, some not being happy with decisions (this will always happen, even if you do voting)

    We just need to find ways to establish governance and apply rulings based on the meta with a sole purpose of making the game better. Whether it’s Reece alone, a closed committee, an elected committee or any other way we can think of, I think this would be a welcome, positive change for the future of ITC events.

    My 2 cents.

    • Avatar
      Sanchezsam2 July 12, 2016 9:29 am #

      Except it really hasn’t
      And most of the ITC votes ended up exactly as GW intended the game to be played while many other tournament organizers have been playing house rules for the last two years ITC has been playing mostly as GW intended. In fact the only 3 clear rules changes the ITC has ever made was 2+ rerollable, 6 roll on str d table, and invis nerf.
      Beyond that garagautuan toe in cover, entering and leveling. Reserves same turn, blasts and flying creatures, warp spider changes, IC buff sharing, formation buff sharing, etc etc are all home rules other tournament organzoers decide was the “correct” interpretation based in thier own agendas and was just flat out wrong calls.

      • Avatar
        Drachnyen July 12, 2016 9:34 am #

        Very true Sanchez…

        Except for the last survey, it was possible to pick and choose what rules we wanted or not. Last survey’s intention was a lot more than “playing as GW intended”.

        • Avatar
          Sanchezsam2 July 12, 2016 7:10 pm #

          That’s not true the last vote only changed corsairs nothing he wanted was changed because GW literally said these are draft and not official yet and thy said they don’t want feedback only clarity.

    • jy2
      jy2 July 12, 2016 9:33 am #

      The downside to that would be to be accused of favoritism or being 40K tyrants by the critics who don’t like their rulings.

      • Avatar
        abusepuppy July 12, 2016 4:16 pm #

        They would (and have) be accused of that regardless of the decision they make.

    • Avatar
      Adam July 12, 2016 12:35 pm #

      I’ve always been curious how many of the voters are actual tournament players. I presume the majority but someone put a bug in my ear and it actually made a lot of sense. The people who complain and moan the most about Codex: This or Army: That are usually the people who like to play fluffy, narrative games and only occasionally show up to a monthly tournament at their local GS.

  9. Avatar
    1PlusArmour July 12, 2016 8:58 am #

    > Moreover, it’s pretty clear that GW has put them up specifically so that people could test them out and give opinions on them.

    No, they -explicitly- stated that they were posted to get feedback on the wording, NOT the content. As a result of the wording, many of these FAQs need revisions to make the rulings clear and/or not create other rules holes.

    > Nine or ten days should be more than enough to be ready for any tweaks to the rules- and nothing we’ve seen yet has wholly invalidated army builds or radically resculpted the game, bad decisions regarding Drop Pod doors and ruin walls aside.

    Flesh Tearers, and lists based around the buddy pods, would like a word with you. Also, errata in FAQ form, when there’s specifically Errata sections, is bizarre.

    > Certainly they do say that it is the “draft FAQ,” but Forge World has had “experimental” rules for some units for several years running now…

    Yes, and -many- events and formats do not allow experimental rules. In fact, this is only allowed in ITC because it passed by vote (much like how the Draft FAQs failed to pass by vote).

    There’s another thing here missing, and that is lack of consistency. The poster child for this is Feel No Pain, and it’s 3 (or is it 4 now?) separate rulings on -exactly the same mechanics- within the draft FAQs.

    40k is enough of a mess as it is, even with thorough FAQs like ETC or ITC. That mess doesn’t need to be made even worse with poorly worded work-in-progress documents that will need further errata/FAQs on top of them by the same groups mentioned before.

    ATC and ETC this year will be quite telling, but what’s funny is that the list deadline for ETC lists has already come and gone, and there’s a pretty solid chance that at least some of those lists will be invalidated by draft FAQs before the event… putting us right back into the argument of why not to use them in the first place 🙂

    • Avatar
      Drachnyen July 12, 2016 9:08 am #

      Did you see ATC’s FAQ? Its well done!

      They have successfully mixed: Death from the Skies, Draft GW Faqs and ITC FAQs

      • Petey Pab
        Petey Pab July 12, 2016 9:42 am #

        I agree Drach, the ATC FAQ was well mixed, but it is VERY complicated. Looking through it, I could tell what they did however it was a large document and their editing was not perfect. They also make no mention of things in the GW FAQ that they did not include. So it is very easy to assume the entire GQ FAq is ok and play some minor ruling incorrectly.

        On another note, all they did was copy paste the ITC FAQ and plug in their own rules and GW FAQs. It would be much more readable if they just formatted their own FAQ.

        The ATC is meant for competitive teams and players, and their FAQ is suited for their tournament just fine. I guaruntee that the high caliber players at the ATC will not be fazed by the level of complexity of the ATC FAQ. The ITC however, is mostly dominated by casual players who just want a system of 40k designed for tournament play.

        On the bright side, we all just need to be patient. There will come a time when we do get to use the GW FAQ in its entirety and still have plenty of time to practice for the LVO.

        • Avatar
          Jason Wolfe July 12, 2016 11:46 pm #

          I think the complexity is unavoidable. If/when ITC takes in the GWFAQ, it will be nasty. There is no clean way to double the size of the ITC FAQ.

      • Avatar
        Jason Wolfe July 12, 2016 11:46 pm #

        Yeah, liking the ATC. I think they did the right thing which is put the GW FAQ into the rule stack, but then unbreak the broken parts before putting it in.

    • Avatar
      James Ramsay July 12, 2016 11:21 pm #

      The ETC had a cut off of the 16th July for draft FAQ updates. So the dark angels one is the last one in effect, otherwise we are using the new GW FAQs.

      I believe the only two they are ignoring is the ‘not able to move through ruins’ and ‘drop pod’ rulings.

  10. Avatar
    tag8833 July 12, 2016 9:44 am #

    I find the demand, haste, and urge to use these FAQ’s against the wishes of GW and the 40K player base to be so confusing. GW has said these are a Work In Progress document, and they will be finalized for usage. It isn’t just the word “Draft” it is the posts that accompanies them defining how they view them. The ITC voted on using them, and voted against it. Still despite that 2 of my last 3 GT’s have decide to use them. Why? Where is the fire? What is the rush?

    A vision of Tournaments as the testing bed for game mechanics is so foreign to me. Can you imagine if Tournaments didn’t playtest their missions ahead of time in a non-tournament setting? I tried out death from the skies in an informal setting at the local game store. I didn’t wait until I showed up at a Tournament that used them. I would like to think that we all have the capacity to play in a non-tournament setting.

    You know that sometimes we can think things over, and test things outside of a tournament setting, right? Why do you need Tournaments to rapidly and without thorough testing and feedback modify their rules? What is the urge for this? Why such the hurry?

    • Avatar
      tag8833 July 12, 2016 9:54 am #

      I may not have been clear about this, but I am legitimately confused.

      The reason offered in the article: “It will be easier to change now rather than later” is a very weak justification, and one that doesn’t hold much water or make much sense to me.

      The reason that I’ve heard from some people “GW wants us to use them” is factually incorrect based on their facebook posts, and weird, because GW wants us to play massive games without points, and we aren’t rushing to do that.

      Are there any affirmative arguments for immediately in-cooperating the FAQs?

    • Avatar
      Heldericht July 12, 2016 12:48 pm #

      Yeah, I don’t understand why articles like this keep popping up. We’ve already voted against it and there are several good reasons for it.

      The only rebuttal in the article is that GW has posted them. Well they’re still incomplete. This is nothing like a codex. We KNOW these rules will be finalized in the very near future, why are people trying to implement them? Especially when there are some controversial rulings (especially a few related to drop pods), that will drastically change the game if they aren’t clarified further.

      In 3 months we’ll vote again and we’ll see if the FAQ has been finalized. Until then there is really no point bringing this up again.

  11. Avatar
    Davis Centis July 12, 2016 10:21 am #

    Good article, and thanks for bringing up all the points! I’ve heard all of these in person, and to me they just don’t hold water.

    At the end of the day, points #1 through #4 are all the same. They’re all saying “but this isn’t official yet” as if it was given to them by some guy in a trench coat. They’re not. They’re given by GW. They may not be the final product, but in our game, nothing ever is really final, and everything is subject to change. As such, not playing with them is like not playing Warhammer at all, because the rules might change. Play it out, suck it up, and if it changes again, well then it changes again, just as it has since the game was first released.

    I agree that the only real complaint is that they’re not accessible. No argument there. However, any tournament worth its salt can easily print these off and keep them on hand, thereby making it accessible. Now you could say it’s not fair for people who didn’t know about them, but White Dwarf and other esoteric releases happen all the time, and the argument of “well, I didn’t know” doesn’t apply then, so why should it apply now?

  12. Avatar
    Grunt July 12, 2016 11:01 am #

    Some stuff might change, but I would say only 10 percent of it at the most. So most of the draft FAQ will be played as it is written. We need to make the change now!!

    • Avatar
      Sanchezsam2 July 12, 2016 4:45 pm #

      If someone leaked the GW playtested 8th Ed rules no one would suggest playing them until it was final.

      The fact is these are clearly poorly written and not final. This is the beta version of faqs. That is so clearly not intended to be played they haven’t even posted them on the GW page and have a giant disclosure over every faq posting on a Facebook page how those faqs are a DRAFT and not final until all the faqs are completed and clarified.

      There is no sense playing broken rules such as drop pod changes, battle brother transports and several other majorly screwed up wordings of rules that will drastically change the game until they are official and clearly stated.

  13. Avatar
    donthemagnificent July 12, 2016 11:20 am #

    So, I just want to say. You can put this all on the ITC and you would be wrong. They put the draft FAQ to a vote. We, as players, stated that we did not want to utilize the draft FAQ. Please stop pointing fingers at the ITC stating that they are mistaken or wrong for not utilizing the draft FAQ as is.

    One more time, “we”, the players are responsible for not using the draft FAQ currently.

    Your arguments for why the draft FAQ needs to be used are the exact same as for why the Death From the Skies or Apocalypse rules need to be utilized in an ITC tournament. The players have voted on these issues and stated which they would prefer.

    As people have already stated, these rulings are only hard rules for BAO and LVO. The first rule of the ITC is you can alter any part to suit your needs. If you want to use the draft FAQ, bring it up to your TO. They can make the decision for their event whether they will be utilizing it or not.

    Please stop “trolling” and posting negative comments about the ITC for something that you can easily amend at your events. They are good people and do honestly want as many people to be happy as possible.

    • Avatar
      Blight1 July 12, 2016 12:46 pm #

      I think he wanted the community to look into the issue again not Reece. He knows it was a vote and the reason he wrote an article was to sway public opinion. If he thought it was just the ITC organization he could have just sent them an email.
      Personally I feel like the community as a whole has gotten to the point where every change no matter if it has “draft” on it or not won’t be accepted. I begin to worry about how 8th edition will be recieved or more realistically the next codex supplement/update.

  14. Avatar
    Scotyknows July 12, 2016 11:54 am #

    Stop bothering with 40k, there will be a new edition out next summer and all of this will just be time wasted. The rules, as is, are fucked.

    • Avatar
      Heldericht July 12, 2016 12:44 pm #

      You’re right, lets just all stop playing 40k until next year because the rules are going to change at some point.

      Pack it up boys, discussion’s over!


      • Avatar
        Scotyknows July 12, 2016 3:04 pm #

        -stop playing 40k

        I have become seriously disillusioned with 40k. My army is “too competitive” for my local meta. I thought painting and playing a warcon would be fun but now everybody just gives me looks and groans if they have to play me in a local tourney. Never mind they are playing eldar/tau(mostly just eldar with riptide wing) and summoning deamons all over the place. The game needs a serious overhaul. I shouldn’t need 4 books to just play a game(knights, cult, skitarri, core rules). It feels like i constantly need to study the rules and codexs to stay on top of what other armies can do(just so i know people arnt pulling the wool over my eyes). Its a game, I just want to play and have fun, not devote multiple hours a week to memorizing needlessly complex rules.

        Im trying out AoS, I was never into fantasy before but it seems to be what I want out of a game. (good models, not as bloated as 40k)

        • Avatar
          Heldericht July 12, 2016 3:47 pm #

          I don’t disagree with you. The game IS bloated, and it definitely needs to be overhauled. But that is exactly what it looks like GW is doing in 8th ed as all rumors have been stating.

          However, in the meantime, we have to deal with the now. We have to figure out how best to continue playing the game, and that is what the discussion is about.

          As a side note, I too want to check out AoS. The models are fantastic and it seems like GW is on the right track to fix the problems that plagued it on launch.

    • Avatar
      Threllen July 12, 2016 1:51 pm #

      And then next summer you might as well pack it up and stop playing because a bunch of armies will be getting codices soon since a new edition dropped. And once those codices have all finally trickled in, well GW will probably have broken the game enough that a 9th edition rulebook is necessary. So you might as well wait until then to start playing again…

      • Avatar
        Scotyknows July 12, 2016 3:09 pm #

        I just ment stop bothering with trying to fix the rules. The game is what it is. In my opinion the whole style in which they release codexes and rules needs to be overhauled. Im still eagerly awaiting 8th. 40k is like a drug that I will never be able to kick.

  15. Avatar
    Skyler Hoeft July 12, 2016 12:51 pm #

    this may not be the best solution, but at my FLGS last tourney we used both GW FAQ and ITC. We used GW as the main FAQ and then we used ITC for balance changes like ranged D or invisibility nerf.
    It seemed to go well, but it wasn’t a big tourney with people trying to abuse the new FAQ either.

  16. Avatar
    Turok117 July 12, 2016 2:00 pm #

    I guess I am just wondering what you are trying to accomplish with this article. Pretty sure that if the articles and discussions before the vote didn’t convince people (the ones that voted to wait), then this isn’t going to be any different.

  17. Avatar
    vercingatorix July 12, 2016 6:30 pm #

    Yes, it could work with the FAQ, but it definitely is working now. This is like any company with regulations. You don’t start changing things before the president has even signed it. You take it into account when looking to the future but you wait for it to enacted before changing everything in the company.

  18. Avatar
    Jedper77 July 13, 2016 3:05 am #

    Think its kinda funny how some people are still complaining about why we dont play with the FAQ. ITC did the best thing they could and let the people vote. Most of us voted that we don’t want to play with unfinished FAQ. I voted to not use the FAQ, Becuase I dont want to use it Becuase it’s not finished and GW are releasing it bit by bit. Why not wait until they are ready with the final and finished FAQ? So why are you moaning? You think We should play with it just Becuase you think so. Most people wanted to wait so live with it and stop crying about it. It’s a game and the ITC will use the faq when it’s ready. Your grav will work on the VSG soon, keep calm 😉

  19. Avatar
    VonCrown July 13, 2016 12:11 pm #

    I can understand not immediately rushing to use draft errata, but… At some point not using an FAQ that explains how rules are implemented, rules you are already supposed to be using, is just willfully misinterpreting there rules. Things like how powers like psychic shriek work, or the grenade rules, are literally just expansions of how we should have been playing it all along.

  20. Avatar
    Garry Leonard July 14, 2016 11:18 am #

    I agree with using the FAQ but I’m also one to be against buff, meeting, and other such alterations from he game rules. I really only want the ITC to help clarify rules so that everyone can play the same game. Once we get into rules changes it gets quite silly in my opinion.

Leave a Reply