1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

8th Ed. E-mail GW FAQ team

Discussion in 'Rules Help' started by PlasmaDavid, Jan 7, 2014.

  1. PlasmaDavid
    Kroxigor

    PlasmaDavid Active Member

    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Just a though, we should all drop a line or two to the GW FAQ department asking politley when we're going to see some WFB FAQs.

    The address is Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

    I've sent mine!
     
  2. godswearhats
    Saurus

    godswearhats New Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let us know if you hear anything. I think a lot of people have done the same (going by forum chatter in other places) to no avail.
     
  3. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we had a thread where we had compiled FAQ's to
    be sent to GW at one point, not sure if they got sent though.
     
  4. godswearhats
    Saurus

    godswearhats New Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know that the Lizardmen FAQ list from the Warhammer forum got sent to them in September with no response.
     
  5. PlasmaDavid
    Kroxigor

    PlasmaDavid Active Member

    Messages:
    307
    Likes Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Eh, just an idea to try to poke them. Since it only takes 15 seconds to send an e-mail.
     
  6. NexS1
    Carnasaur

    NexS1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Good idea, may the force be with you. Let us know what you find out
     
  7. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ahh here it is, E-mail this comprehensive list of questions.
    http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/lizardmen-8th-ed-faq.13582/

     
  8. sorrowquin
    Cold One

    sorrowquin New Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why send a List where you're suggesting all the answers already?
    That will in some cases only encourage them to decide in unfavorable ways oO
     
  9. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good point, :oops:
    I went back and edited out all of the answers. ;)
     
  10. Sleboda
    Troglodon

    Sleboda Active Member

    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    If I've already shared this short story, I'm sorry - my brainie bitz are not what they used to be. For those who've not heard it yet, here's why certain things need to be off of any list you may want to send to the FAQ team.

    When I worked at GW, one of my jobs was to round up the questions we got from e-mails, calls, and letters (yes, letters) and submit them to the design studio. They would reply in batches and we would then be able to deliver consistent responses going forward.

    At first we sent pretty much anything in to them with the idea that 'it never hurts to ask.'
    Well, we found it pretty quickly that it does. You can blame ego, tight schedules, prickly personalities, or whatever you want, but the reason doesn't matter - we were told, essentially, that if we were going to waste their time with "stupid" questions that are covered by the book or were clear enough as written, then we would not be getting any more help.

    Yeah, really.

    So, we stopped asking the sorts of questions that all pretty much boiled down to "We know what it actually says in the book, but we were thinking you probably meant it to say something else instead. So, does that mean...?"

    With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that if you send notes to the FAQ team, you do not include questions that are clear as day but just feel, to you personally, were meant to be another way.

    I see the following questions as fitting this description:
     
  11. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    words1.jpg
     
  12. sorrowquin
    Cold One

    sorrowquin New Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd agree with 14), 30) and 31) but that's it.

    If the others are so clearly written, would you care giving us the anwers? -..-
    Not that I'd agree with those....
     
  13. Sleboda
    Troglodon

    Sleboda Active Member

    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    => Oh no, I do. PF is the prefect example. I have yet to find more than maybe one person who actually thinks that the written text means you get to use it beyond the first rank. They may believe GW meant something else other than what they wrote and/or may refuse to play the rules the way that they themselves agree they are presented, but that's another matter.

    There are rules that are clearly written, and then their are guesses at what someone "actually meant to write instead."


    We used to get stuff back from the studio that quite literally said "If I meant to to be something else, I would have written it that other way instead. Stop bothering us with stupid questions."

    Sad.

    @sorrowwuin - Certainly! :)

    Army Special Rules

    2) Q: Do Supporting Attacks benefit from bonus attacks granted by the Predatory Fighter special rule (pg. 30)?
    => The rules state that no Special Rule (none!) can grant more than one Attack from a rank other than the first. PF is a Special Rule and thus we have our answer.


    4) Q: Do abilities/spells that allow units re-roll (BRB pg. 7) their To Hit rolls count the re-rolled die rolls of a 6 when determining which rolls grant additional attacks from Predatory Fighter rule and cause automatic wounds from Poisoned Attacks rule?
    => A re-roll is simply that - another chance to change the pips that show on the face of the die. They are not something...else. They are that same thing, just with a different number on the die.
    Think of it this way, if they were not 'the number used for the effect' then if you re-rolled an attack with a Runefang and the re-roll caused a hit, it would not wound or bypass saves automatically. Re-rolls are not 'alternate things of another type.' They are the 'same thing, just trying for a better number.'

    Magic Items

    9) Q: Are Regeneration saves allowed against the Blade of Realities (pg. 62)?
    => The blade is rather explicit, right? No armor or ward saves. Regen is neither of these and thus it still applies. In the absence of a countermanding rule, the original rule applies.

    18) Q: Can Skink Chief (or special character) riding Terradons or Ripperdactyls join units of Terradons or Ripperdactyls?
    => Basic rules tell us this is not possible and no exception (no conflict to this specific rule) is provided in the rules for a skink character on a terradon or ripper - not even the special character. Implication is not exemption.


    19) Q: Does the Skink Chief's mount option Ripperdactyl gain D3 additional attacks and re-roll failed To Hit rolls while attacking a unit marked with a Lustrian Blot Toad marker?
    => That ability comes from Toad Rage, a rule that is not found under the rules for these mounts and thus it is not applied.


    20) Q: Do skink characters mounted on a Stegadon or Ancient Stegadon gain an armour save from the Howdah?
    => Why would they? What rule, in the current book, says they do? A character riding anything gets +1 Armor Save. That's it unless specified otherwise, which is not the case here.


    Pretty much these are "Follow the rules in the books. Do you see an actual, explicit, direct contradiction (to a 'should be' or 'seems like') to the extant rule? If not, continue to follow the established rule.
     
  14. n810
    Slann

    n810 First Spawning

    Messages:
    8,103
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If GW had Clearly Writen Rules, then there would be no need for a FAQ, Ever.
     
  15. Sleboda
    Troglodon

    Sleboda Active Member

    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I disagree (shock!) since people will ______always______ use wishful thinking as a justification to ask questions, and frequently at that. (thus Frequently Asked Questions - which are different (or should be) from errata)

    Something can be 100% clear and yet still be questioned. See PF. Another culprit is folks' refusal to move on from one edition to the next.

    There was a time when undead were immune to poison. At one point, when the edition changed, this immunity was dropped from the text, leaving only the rule that poison wounds on a 6 to hit. People (frequently) asked if undead were immune to poison "since they used to be." No, they are not. In the printed current rule, there is no exception. It's clear, but some people still question it to this day (this was truly a frequent question when I was in that old capacity at GW).
     
  16. NexS1
    Carnasaur

    NexS1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    83
    While I agree with you in this (wishful thinking for any reason, mostly because something has been 'nerfed' through a new release), there are some technicallities that obviously take the rules in question out of the context they were definitely written in to apply BRB Rules to. For example; Burning Alignment & Deliverance of Itza, and the infamous Howdah Crew rules.

    Until GW address these, it seems we have to bite the bullet.
     
  17. Sunchax
    Saurus

    Sunchax Member

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    18) Q: Can Skink Chief (or special character) riding Terradons or Ripperdactyls join units of Terradons or Ripperdactyls?
    => Basic rules tell us this is not possible and no exception (no conflict to this specific rule) is provided in the rules for a skink character on a terradon or ripper - not even the special character. Implication is not exemption.

    Why is it that a rule that implies one thing to be possible are not be a exemption? Maybe i got it wrong since i am noob, but do not army special rules override the brb or something like that? I believe that we have special character that gives bonus to the unit he is in, and that do imply that he can join them in the same way that "it's raining" to the question want to go out often imply a no. And not just a statement about the weather, ignoring the question.
     
  18. Sleboda
    Troglodon

    Sleboda Active Member

    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    28
    => No offense to you - honest - but I'm not sure how to explain that beyond "because."

    I'll try.

    The rule says a character may not join a unit of flyer. Period. You follow that rule.
    There is a bit that says if there is a conflict between a basic rule and either an advanced rule or army book rule, then the latter takes precedence. Got it.
    Having something say that "when you do X" you get a benefit is not the same as saying "even though you cannot do X, this rule allows you to do it anyway." It's just not.

    I don't know how else to say it.

    :shrug:

    => No, it does not. Since you are admittedly new, it's worth mentioning to you that GW is notorious for writing rules based on assumptions that are not supported by other rules. It's really quite possible that he author of the book thought that flying units could be joined! It's also possible he knows of an upcoming change and wrote the rules for that new environment (remember, they are months, if not a year, ahead of us in terms of what rules they are using). It's even possible that they intended to allow him to join the units via a specific exemption, then an editor or other designer made a change and deleted the exception but forgot to delete the other reference as well. It happens.

    The point is that there are a great many things that could explain the inference, but we don't know which, if any, of them actually does explain the inference, and thus we, as gamers (as opposed to the authors) have only the actual printed rules to go by, and those rules tell us that unless there is an actual honest to goodness conflict (which an inference is not!), that we follow the original rule - in this case that a character cannot join a unit of flyers.

    Does it suck?
    Does it make us wonder?
    Do we think we probably know the intent?

    Hell yeah!

    Do we have a method within the rules to allow us to add a character to a flying unit?

    Nope.


    EDIT:
    I know I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it here again-

    You must follow a directive your Mom gives you unless your dad specifically tells you that you don't have to follow a particular directive from your mom.

    Your Mom says "You may not have cookies today at all."
    Later on your dad says "If you have any cookies today, be sure to wash them down with milk."

    This does not give you permission to have cookies. It just doesn't.

    Your dad would have had to say "Despite what mom said, I am telling you that you can have cookies today (thus directly creating a conflict). If you decide to have some cookies, be sure to wash them down with milk."

    Then you could have cookies.


    This reasoning applies to nearly all wishful thinking type of questions.
     
  19. NexS1
    Carnasaur

    NexS1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,176
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Keep in mind though, that there won't always be a "despite what the BRB says" line in all conflict situations. Sometimes it will just be two conflicting rules, both stated in a way that neither one is aware of the other.

    To use your analogy from before:
    Mother : You may not eat any cookies
    Father : You may eat cookies

    Who-ever holds the army book is right. I imagine the most common time this would come up is with older army books though.
     
  20. godswearhats
    Saurus

    godswearhats New Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We play that Predatory Fighter is all ranks. It just makes more sense.

    When I spoke to a friend at GW HQ who used to run the Studio, he said "the guidance the rules writers tend to give is to encourage players to interpret the rules as they see fit."

    So don't worry about the FAQs. Play the rules as they make sense to your local group. The only time it becomes problematic is when you're at a tournament (in which case talk to the TO), you're playing someone new (in which case, agree ahead of time) or you're arguing on the Internet. And you know what they say about arguing on the Internet ... :)

    ~gwh
     

Share This Page