8th Ed. Join the Cold Blooded Cause!

Alright Everyone,

Here is the scoop. We want some answers from GW and here is what I propose we do about it so please read this and help out our community. On a post discussing the PF rule and how it should be implemented I came up with an idea. Let's send them a single question that has been an issue. Just one from all of us and let's see what happens. I know there are a lot of us on here, maybe our voice will be heard?

Here is my previous post:

"Let's come up with an unbiased question, such as... "In the Lizardmen army rule book, does Predatory Fighter give attacks to all models in the unit or just the front rank?" No explanation as to what you think, no extra information, just the question. Now that we have our question can we all send GW the exact same question. Let's see what we get back and post it on here. If we get an unanimous answer, awesome! We have our answer. If we get mixed results, well, we still get an answer. That answer being that GW is a confused child that cannot make up its mind."

Send them the question, see what we get! Post results on this or the PF debate! If we can get their attention, maybe we can push the FAQ. Who knows? If we get an answer and no FAQ, maybe we can do the same thing with another question? The only way we can get results is if we try!

Here is the email address. gamefaqs@gwplc.com

It takes less than a minute to cut and paste the question and send it off. Let's do this! (Followed by a resounding HUZAH! That's how I play it in my mind anyhow...)

I got sent within 3seconds

You’ve reached the rules mailbox for Games Workshop - thanks for your email!

We’re not able to respond to each email individually, but we read every one and feed all comments back into making Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 even better.

Information in this email and any attachments is confidential, subject to copyright and must not be
used or disclosed except for the purpose it has been sent, unless required by law.

Games Workshop Limited, registered in England and Wales, under company number 1467092, and
registered at Games Workshop, Willow Road, Lenton, Nottingham NG7 2WS.

Madrck said:

I got sent within 3seconds

Click to expand...

same here...

lordkingcrow said:

If we get an unanimous answer, awesome! We have our answer. If we get mixed results, well, we still get an answer. That answer being that GW is a confused child that cannot make up its mind."

Click to expand...

Blast them twice, 2-3 weeks apart and see what happens ...

Moderate Huzzah.

This is a reasonable way to try to get an overdue ruling on this. I endorse said e-mail campaign with the unbiased approach Lordkingcrow suggested

The response you get is just a standard mail.

And as I said in the other thread, I'd actually prefer not getting an answer by mail. I'd much rather have them spend their time on making the actual FAQ, rather than waste their time writing a pointless mail that isn't really a valid answer anyway, considering how easy it would be to fabricate such things.

SilverFaith said:

I'd much rather have them spend their time on making the actual FAQ, rather than waste their time writing a pointless mail that isn't really a valid answer anyway,

Click to expand...

based on the wording of the auto-reply..... it sounds like they agree.

latenightswords said:

SilverFaith said:

I'd much rather have them spend their time on making the actual FAQ, rather than waste their time writing a pointless mail that isn't really a valid answer anyway,

Click to expand...

based on the wording of the auto-reply..... it sounds like they agree.

Click to expand...

And yet we still don't have an FAQ after all this time. Despite just giving one to Wood elves.

Ditto:

You’ve reached the rules mailbox for Games Workshop - thanks for your email!

We’re not able to respond to each email individually, but we read every one and feed all comments back into making Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 even better.

I'll be willing to take part.

May this campaign gain momentum and have everyone in the community participate (not only on this website, but all Warhammer community websites)!

However, I disagree with the original poster on two points:

1) The long overdue Errata/FAQ for the Lizardmen book is needed for much more than one question. If we flood their electronic inbox with only a single question (or, heck, say a small set of 5 questions), the best-case scenario you can possibly hope for as a result is a grossly incomplete FAQ. As a filler, shortly after armybook publication, I think that would be great! But after waiting for over a year (and more like a year and an half on some questions on the High Magic lore), the collected set of questions submitted (and, more importantly, any answers provided in a published Errata/FAQ), should be extensive, encompassing as many unclear rules as possible, as it is likely to be a one-time FAQ publication that will last for several years before getting a new one/update.

2) GW does, very rarely, actually respond to some FAQ e-mails. However, when these quick-responses are provided, they are sometimes given with superficial thought (this is not because the responder is careless, but most likely because they are not a GW rules official and may have very limited knowledge/experience of the extent/depth/root of the question, or maybe even with the Warhammer game). I've received a response from GW that was very inconsistent with core rules of the game, as have others (a friend of mine did, and various people have posted others over the years on the interweb); and these instances only caused more confusion (not only for the person who received the response, but for the community when that answer is shared within the Warhammer community). This is why I would explain, in detail, the question you are asking and reference where any conflict, or perceived conflict, in the rules exists. Quoting the rulebook(s) and/or providing page numbers are essential to ensure any answer, if provided, is thoroughly thoughtful of the question being asked. The answer-boys that you may hear from need complete information to provide a quality answer; quick-response answers to short questions (which can easily seem superficially simple without providing details to the root of the question), are not always helpful.

I tried to lead an e-mail campaign last year, and it, thus-far, has fell upon deaf ears at GW. I hope this one doesn't suffer the same fate. As always, I would encourage everyone to submit your list of Warhammer rules questions, or FAQ, to GW.
Do it NOW!

I couldn't agree with you more hardyworld and the rest in support of a FAQ! Your points are both very valid and noted. My goal was to hopefully get some responses, compare them, and then proceed to move to another very prominent question, thinking that we had a better shot with a united front than each of our own individual rants. However, due to the complete lack of response on their part the plan is faltering. I should have known that GW cares very little for consumer concerns, so much so that they haven't answered a single question.

To anyone still reading through this, please continue to send GW any concerns you have regarding our army book.

You’ve reached the rules mailbox for Games Workshop - thanks for your email!

We’re not able to respond to each email individually, but we read every one and feed all comments back into making Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 even better.

GOD DAMMIT WHY!?!??!?!?!?!?

This was my Email:
We REALLY need a FAQ for our rules so can you send one by now?

Also for Ideas for 9th ed. check out this: Wishes for 9th

My problem with a list is that they might look at the tons of lists they get, and go "Nah, too much trouble". Considering how lazy they've been so far, that seems to be the case, at least to me.

And I severely disagree with the notion that they should use quotes from the rulebook, and explain why the answer is given. No FAQ have done this to my knowledge, and neither should this - if they start giving an explanation, some people WILL dispute it, despite it coming from GW themselves. I don't want even the slighest chance of some idiot on the internet starting a flamewar because "Nuh, the GW employee doesn't know what he's talking about!".

I'd much rather have a one-word response: Yes or no. Then we don't have to deal with people who can't stop arguing.

Also, people need to stop being angry about the auto-reply they get within 2 minutes of sending the email. It doesn't mean you wont get an answer. It just means that they have to sort by priority, and considering we are multiple people sending the same mail, it would make far more sense to answer none of them, and just release an FAQ.

I was saying the people who ask the questions (us) should be thoroughly specific on the details of the question(s) they are asking; including any relevant rulebook quotes and/or page numbers. Otherwise the people reading (and hopefully answering) the question(s) may not fully understand the extent/depth/root of what is being asked.

I wasn't saying the GW guys need to be so thorough in their written answer. As long as their answer is fully thought through, it doesn't need to be that detailed.

hardyworld said:

I was saying the people who ask the questions (us) should be thoroughly specific on the details of the question(s) they are asking; including any relevant rulebook quotes and/or page numbers. Otherwise the people reading (and hopefully answering) the question(s) may not fully understand the extent/depth/root of what is being asked.

I wasn't saying the GW guys need to be so thorough in their written answer. As long as their answer is fully thought through, it doesn't need to be that detailed.

Click to expand...

I misunderstood your post then, sorry.

Giving as much info as possible could be a good idea, but I agree with Lordkingcrow on keeping it as simple as possible, in order to keep it unbiased. If you start putting arguments into the question, you start skewing the answer you get.

I'd much rather have a straightforward "Does this work or not?" question, and have them answer that. Dark Acolyte was perfectly clear in its wording, and using it differently was cheating/homebrewing. The FAQ gave a clear answer on the intended use, and that is all thaht matters.

We can only follow the RAW, because we have no way of knowing the intention behind the rule. But when they make an FAQ, the only thing that matters is RAI. It doesn't matter how much in conflict with the rules it is, if that's how it was intended to work.

I do not see why they would not get the predatory fighter in the second rsnk? I have always been playing with this..

temple turtle said:

I do not see why they would not get the predatory fighter in the second rsnk? I have always been playing with this..

Click to expand...

We have a 35+ page long thread about it. If you want to kill a few hours/days, you can go read it to get a better idea of the issues with the rule. The Supporting attack rule specify that you can't make more than 1 supporting attack, not even because of special rules, which Predatory Fighter is. The whole issue then boils down to "Does the AB > BRB rule allow Predatory Fighter to be used in the second rank?" which we can only really answer through assumptions or simplifications, hence why we really want an FAQ to clarify.

Got the same generic answer as everybody else. Back in sixth when i was a more active player we always played ab>brb,and as the ab does not say front rank only, i guess ill play it on all attacks, not just front rank. Iguess a faq is not coming soon, end times and 9th being a timedrainer already.

cresty said:

Got the same generic answer as everybody else. Back in sixth when i was a more active player we always played ab>brb,and as the ab does not say front rank only, i guess ill play it on all attacks, not just front rank. Iguess a faq is not coming soon, end times and 9th being a timedrainer already.

Click to expand...

We aren't Chaos or Empire, and the mistakes they made rushing our book out haven't made us power over anyone, just made people power over us (especially because they put out our book and Vampire Counts in a hurry, all balanced then upped the power balance) because we aren't beating their favourite armies into the ground we aren't worth a FAQ.