New FAQs

[me_in_japan]

Seems logical to me. I mean, it's basically a teleport homer. Termis and oblits teleport in, nothing else does. Thus, it only works with Termis and oblits.

[Admiral-Badruck]

I do not see where it is easier to play. I seed were it hurts folks that play jump infantry but there is nothing making it more complicating. IMHO

[job]

Well, it is only one minor change, but when you add up all those FAQs it shows how much I think GW could streamline things.

To start I don't think you can ever substantiate rules form fluff. Of course it's great to imagine the reasons behind the rules for the excitement of the game, but almost all of us I'm sure lack accurate knowledge of the working of a teleport homer or a Chaos icon. So, the minor issue of streamlining is that deep strike has now been divided into two categories for just chaos icons. If the players understand and remember the rules for this particular equipment, all is fine, but in all likelihood is that someone will make a mistake in the future.

[Primarch]

Its not that the rule has been changed, but that they have clarified it to make it clear how it works. This is an FAQ, not an amendment.

[job]

Its not that the rule has been changed, but that they have clarified it to make it clear how it works. This is an FAQ, not an amendment.

Isn't that just symantacs? Anyway, amendments are included in the same document. Before they completely amended several SM codexes to include new drop pod and storm shield rules so I don't see your point.

[Tenorikuma]

Stuart has a little Dwight Schrute in him some days.

[Admiral-Badruck]

Well, it is only one minor change, but when you add up all those FAQs it shows how much I think GW could streamline things.

To start I don't think you can ever substantiate rules form fluff. Of course it's great to imagine the reasons behind the rules for the excitement of the game, but almost all of us I'm sure lack accurate knowledge of the working of a teleport homer or a Chaos icon. So, the minor issue of streamlining is that deep strike has now been divided into two categories for just chaos icons. If the players understand and remember the rules for this particular equipment, all is fine, but in all likelihood is that someone will make a mistake in the future.

So GW should not try to make clarify rules if it makes a different rule than the ones that exist in the BRB?

[Primarch]

Stuart has a little Dwight Schrute in him some days.

That was a scandalous lie and my lawyers proved that no such liason ever occured.

[me_in_japan]

Isn't that just symantacs?

No, it's not. An FAQ clarifies a rule. They are written because a significant number of players mis-read or misunderstood a rule which the designers felt was clearly written. The FAQ is intended to re-state or re-phrase an existing rule so that everone understands it in the same way. An amendment is a change to a rule, for whatever reason.

In short, an FAQ means a rule hasnt changed; an amendment means it has.

To start I don't think you can ever substantiate rules form fluff. Of course it's great to imagine the reasons behind the rules for the excitement of the game, but almost all of us I'm sure lack accurate knowledge of the working of a teleport homer or a Chaos icon. So, the minor issue of streamlining is that deep strike has now been divided into two categories for just chaos icons. If the players understand and remember the rules for this particular equipment, all is fine, but in all likelihood is that someone will make a mistake in the future.

Take the above as an example. As I understand it, what you're saying is that while having a USR for deep strike is OK, having special rules for chaos icons isnt? Surely the same complaint could be levied at space marine drop pods? Or, say, jet packs vs jump packs? Following your logic to its conclusion, we should probably just forego all special rules and give all miniatures identical stats, since, as you say "in all likelihood ~ someone will make a mistake in the future."

god forbid we should have to learn some rules to play our wargames...

...or would you like to release an FAQ to clarify your original statement?

*edit* oh, and it's semantics, not symantacs.

[job]

Isn't that just symantacs?

No, it's not. An FAQ clarifies a rule. They are written because a significant number of players mis-read or misunderstood a rule which the designers felt was clearly written. The FAQ is intended to re-state or re-phrase an existing rule so that everone understands it in the same way. An amendment is a change to a rule, for whatever reason.

In short, an FAQ means a rule hasnt changed; an amendment means it has.

To start I don't think you can ever substantiate rules form fluff. Of course it's great to imagine the reasons behind the rules for the excitement of the game, but almost all of us I'm sure lack accurate knowledge of the working of a teleport homer or a Chaos icon. So, the minor issue of streamlining is that deep strike has now been divided into two categories for just chaos icons. If the players understand and remember the rules for this particular equipment, all is fine, but in all likelihood is that someone will make a mistake in the future.

Take the above as an example. As I understand it, what you're saying is that while having a USR for deep strike is OK, having special rules for chaos icons isnt? Surely the same complaint could be levied at space marine drop pods? Or, say, jet packs vs jump packs? Following your logic to its conclusion, we should probably just forego all special rules and give all miniatures identical stats, since, as you say "in all likelihood ~ someone will make a mistake in the future."

god forbid we should have to learn some rules to play our wargames...

...or would you like to release an FAQ to clarify your original statement?

*edit* oh, and it's semantics, not symantacs.

Really? Your going to argue my choice of words? or the spelling? don't you find that ironic?

Okay, I'll restate so you can read again: the FAQ contains amendments. So it is entirely up to GW whether it decides to alter a rule or just clarify its meaning.

Next, @ MiJ and Badruck, I wrote twice before I'm not asking for fewer or less rules (although I'm not against that either), but I want streamlined rules. That is a completely different point which you guys entirely failed to read or contemplate. I've played games that are far, far more rules heavy then 40k, but these games were far more streamlined and the guiding principles behind the games were more consistent throughout all the rules they wrote. I get really irritated that GW has to periodically make exceptions to all sorts of rules they write. Things should be more consistent and streamlined.

Thirdly, Mij, your counter argument doesn't model anything of what I am talking about. "Should the stormshields of the DA work any different from those from the SM codex?" would be more accurate. Or, as another example: "should force weapons from one codex ignore Eternal Warrior while all other force weapons don't?" Drop pods are a separate entity in mind. They have specific rules that state how they work that makes them apart from Deep Strike.
I'm not arguing that there should not be different rules, or even variation, but on the other hand, when GW writes "force weapon" or "deep strike" we should be able to readily understand it across all codexes and without having to qualm over whether it is an obliterator, terminator, raptor or some other category.
(I will accept that lesser daemons and their summoning are described by entirely different rules. That is just their nature. But, it really makes one more negative point to a unit that is already ignored by most CSM players for a host of reasons. )

Furthermore, I will point out that the warptime rule got you, too. We played a game and we went along and played warptime as if I could re-roll any misses I liked. So, these misreadings continue partly due to universal poor reading by all gamers and also poor writing or explanation by the authors.

I might make one last point that the CSM codex has been around for several years. While late is better then never, it kind of irritates me that GW corrects this discrepancy now. Possibly only months before the next codex....