FAQs for every codex - finally!

A review of Rules of Engagement from earlier encounters.
User avatar
Val'Sitsor
Shas'Saal
Posts: 139

FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#1 » Jan 20 2017 10:43

GW releases final versions of FAQs.
Except new ones, like Deathwatch and Genestealer there isn’t much new, but still. Some of rules shenanigans were nerfed.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 775

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#2 » Jan 20 2017 12:50

I'd like to reiterate that this is what proper rule clarifications look like.

Getting an email from a gamesworkshop employee about rules clarifications has never been an acceptable form of FAQ. Ever. In fact, the most recent "email from gamesworkshop" about the Combined Firepower special rule was 110% wrong and should have never entered serious discussion.

Getting information from a codex in a different language is also not rules clarification.

As always, the Golden Rule should be adhered to whenever rules are in question but an FAQ does not exist for that question. Ask your group of friends or Tournament Organizer for help, or see to unofficial FAQs like ITC for assistance in clear up confusions.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2659

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#3 » Jan 20 2017 01:47

I'm just happy that the Firestream Wing formation got 'fixed' again. First the BRB FAQ forbids their reserve shenanigans, then the Tau FAQ allows it again for them specifically and now it's finally forbidden again. :D

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 176

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#4 » Jan 20 2017 02:16

The Pulse Bomber starts with a Pulse Bomb? Capital idea!

What's the deal with them talking about Ordnance weapons on a Riptide though? The IA isn't an Ordnance profile weapon...

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2659

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#5 » Jan 20 2017 02:35

Overheal wrote:The Pulse Bomber starts with a Pulse Bomb? Capital idea!

What's the deal with them talking about Ordnance weapons on a Riptide though? The IA isn't an Ordnance profile weapon...

The IA becomes an Ordnance weapon when you use its Nova profile.

User avatar
Vector Strike
Shas'La
Posts: 938

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#6 » Jan 20 2017 03:43

AnonAmbientLight wrote:I'd like to reiterate that this is what proper rule clarifications look like.

Getting an email from a gamesworkshop employee about rules clarifications has never been an acceptable form of FAQ. Ever. In fact, the most recent "email from gamesworkshop" about the Combined Firepower special rule was 110% wrong and should have never entered serious discussion.

Getting information from a codex in a different language is also not rules clarification.

As always, the Golden Rule should be adhered to whenever rules are in question but an FAQ does not exist for that question. Ask your group of friends or Tournament Organizer for help, or see to unofficial FAQs like ITC for assistance in clear up confusions.


But when you're discussing rules on the internet, e-mails are indeed some source of intention of the team because, as we're seeing now, FAQs take a lot of time to show up and sometimes put an end to discussions (if they do ti at all).
The Combined Firepower by those e-mails was wrong, but the overwatch/interceptor usage of Multi-tracker was right, as was Gargantuan creatures firing every weapon they have at whatever target they want.
If we don't use e-mails as temporary answers to hotly debated topics, noone will agree on the internet. Threads will take 20 pages of stupid circular discussions.

User avatar
AnonAmbientLight
Shas'La
Posts: 775

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#7 » Jan 20 2017 05:49

Vector Strike wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:I'd like to reiterate that this is what proper rule clarifications look like.

Getting an email from a gamesworkshop employee about rules clarifications has never been an acceptable form of FAQ. Ever. In fact, the most recent "email from gamesworkshop" about the Combined Firepower special rule was 110% wrong and should have never entered serious discussion.

Getting information from a codex in a different language is also not rules clarification.

As always, the Golden Rule should be adhered to whenever rules are in question but an FAQ does not exist for that question. Ask your group of friends or Tournament Organizer for help, or see to unofficial FAQs like ITC for assistance in clear up confusions.


But when you're discussing rules on the internet, e-mails are indeed some source of intention of the team because, as we're seeing now, FAQs take a lot of time to show up and sometimes put an end to discussions (if they do ti at all).
The Combined Firepower by those e-mails was wrong, but the overwatch/interceptor usage of Multi-tracker was right, as was Gargantuan creatures firing every weapon they have at whatever target they want.
If we don't use e-mails as temporary answers to hotly debated topics, noone will agree on the internet. Threads will take 20 pages of stupid circular discussions.


GW emails has never been a source of information because they are often wrong and too easily faked. I wasn't joking when I said no one takes them at face value. People in the past have often sent in emails about the same topic and gotten different responses. They've never been reliable and never will be reliable.

FAQs used to be non-existent as I am sure you know. FAQs coming out so quickly is a new thing for GW and comes as a welcome surprise. I would like to point out, if you'll care to acknowledge it, that the email you had posted (I think it was you) was extremely far off the mark so much so that it seemed almost fake based on the dialogue between the two people in said email.

Also, just because it was right on one topic (which wasn't that big of a controversy anyway), doesn't pull away from the point that GW emails are not a source of rule clarifications.

This message board claims to take extreme pride in getting accurate and exact information on everything Tau. So you can imagine why I was so disappointed to see pretty much everyone clinging to that email as definite proof. (it broke rule #2) I even suggested in those threads that we should build lists and tactics around the idea that it was NOT shared USR and etc. I argued that it was a waste of time because the email wasn't proof and that we should instead look to unofficial groups like the ITC to figure out a proper way to rule. If none of that was acceptable, then be sure to double check with your opponent before using this rule with all USR shared.

Unfortunately, no one cared to listen and the thread continued in that direction. Then people started to post tactics and cadre lists with that interpretation in mind.

Literally dozens of threads and hundreds of hours spent on the wrong information because this forum allowed its own rules to lapse. Extremely disappointing.
Sky IS Falling, T'au WILL Suck, Sell Me Your Models

CommanderDeathrain
Shas'La
Posts: 31

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#8 » Jan 21 2017 02:58

I'm fine with our FAQs
They haven't really nerfed us but clarified how our rules work.
I love the ruling for coordinated fire power as that's how I was playing it as otherwise it was stupid lol.

Hawkins
Shas
Posts: 25

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#9 » Jan 21 2017 07:51

I'm kind of disappointed that they haven't offered clear clarification on whether Tau characters can take multiple signature systems.

The 40k main rules FAQ states:
Q: How many relics/artefacts can a single model be
equipped with?
A: A model can only be given a single relic or artefact
unless specifically noted otherwise.


And Commanders are worded with:
May take items from the Signature Systems list.


This still implies that applicable Tau characters can take multiple signature systems, but I just know that i'll come up against a that guy who will take issue, and a clear clarification in the FAQ would have saved some trouble.

Stranger In T'aun
Shas'Saal
Posts: 26

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#10 » Jan 21 2017 07:57

Hawkins wrote:I'm kind of disappointed that they haven't offered clear clarification on whether Tau characters can take multiple signature systems.

The 40k main rules FAQ states:
Q: How many relics/artefacts can a single model be
equipped with?
A: A model can only be given a single relic or artefact
unless specifically noted otherwise.


And Commanders are worded with:
May take items from the Signature Systems list.


This still implies that applicable Tau characters can take multiple signature systems, but I just know that i'll come up against a that guy who will take issue, and a clear clarification in the FAQ would have saved some trouble.

I'll offer up a counter-that-guy argument: Signature Systems are not relics or artefacts. They are Signature Systems. Nothing in the rules defines them as relics that I can see.
Edit: also, codex trumps BRB.

User avatar
Jefffar
Shas'Vre
Posts: 1010

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#11 » Jan 21 2017 10:03

Also, at least one member of The Eight has multiple signature systems.

Rtb01
Shas
Posts: 18

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#12 » Jan 22 2017 07:33

I still don't understand why an anchored stormsurge instantly dies when run over :dead:

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 176

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#13 » Jan 22 2017 02:09

Panzer wrote:
Overheal wrote:The Pulse Bomber starts with a Pulse Bomb? Capital idea!

What's the deal with them talking about Ordnance weapons on a Riptide though? The IA isn't an Ordnance profile weapon...

The IA becomes an Ordnance weapon when you use its Nova profile.

How would I know that on the reg? The weapons profile sheet doesnt state that it just says Heavy 1 large blast gets hot

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2659

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#14 » Jan 22 2017 02:29

It does though
Image

User avatar
Overheal
Shas'Saal
Posts: 176

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#15 » Jan 23 2017 10:41

.......I knew that

fraction64
Shas'Saal
Posts: 170

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#16 » Jan 27 2017 04:28

I will point out that in a related answer they say that a model can only have a single relic or equivalent. That still confuses the issue.
Also special characters have been known to carry more than one relic.

It does seem strange that Tau would be the only army to not be limited by this rule.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2659

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#17 » Jan 27 2017 06:51

fraction64 wrote:I will point out that in a related answer they say that a model can only have a single relic or equivalent. That still confuses the issue.
Also special characters have been known to carry more than one relic.

It does seem strange that Tau would be the only army to not be limited by this rule.

It does but at the same time we have entries that specifically allow us to take more than one (and i'm not necessarily talking about the ambiguous plural of item being used but instead of the Crisis Shas'Vre one).

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 596

Re: FAQs for every codex - finally!

Post#18 » Jan 28 2017 04:12

Edit: Whoops, I need to work on my reading comprehension. Strike the next line.

You're referring to the MSSS and the C&CN, presumably, which state that they can both be used at the same time?

But I still think it worth discussion, so I'll leave the rest of my post up.

However, I'm coming to conclude that the wording is potentially ambiguous, and that in light of the FAQ and its broad language (Is the "unless explicitly stated" wording still there? I believe it is), ambiguous wording should not be enough.

"Can be used at the same time" could easily be meant to be understood as: when both Relic-wielders are part of the same unit, they can both be used during the same phase and the effects will stack.

More explicit language would have used the words "A model/The wielder can use both the MSSS and the C&CN at the same time..." or "...MSSS and the C&CN can be used by the wielder/model at the same time..."



Combine this with the fact that the wording for Relic list choices already tend to be ambiguously plural even in Codex: Space Marines ("may take items from the X, Y, and Relic lists"), and the special snowflake status of Tau Signature Systems seems harder and harder for me to justify (aside from some SS fluff, in which there are undoubtedly multiples of several Signature Systems floating around, though other Signature Systems - I'm looking at you, Talisman - are unique artifacts).

Return to “Archival Datacore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest