Before anyone gets excited, its only the 40K ones that got updated today, but every single thing got updated, including supplements. Most of these are probably wording changes to fit with 8th edition, but hopefully Warhammer gets its own update soon, maybe even before 9th..... anyway since the FAQs are impossible to find on the black library site, heres the link, keep checking, maybe soon they'll be updating lizardmen. http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html
I would expect updated FAQs for all the books when 9th comes out to make sure everything works with the new rules. But I'm not holding my breath that anything comes out before then.
I'm feel pretty confident in saying that the appearance of 40K FAQs is in no way an indicator that Warhammer ones are coming any time soon. I don't even think we'll get them for 9th. I bet it will be a whole new game, essentially, and all our current books will not be able to fit in with it. No, I think that 8th is the end of the line for Warhammer as we think of it. Once 9th comes along, we'll have two types of Warhammer to play, and GW won't have any need to support the "old" way via FAQs. Frankly, it's one reason I've lost a lot of my drive to paint my remaining Lizardmen. Too many decisions come down to FAQ answers, and I don't think we'll ever get them. GW's FAQ policy has pretty much cut off purchases and enthusiasm for me.
Very true. It's a bit sad that they haven't bothered with FAQs for Warhammer army books that have been out for many months but when a new edition of 40k comes along they even make a new one for Orks 3 weeks before they get a new Codex.
You're saying if both of those things got faq'd what you'd be painting would be drastically different? I'd like to hear why that is the case, because the FAQ issues within the lizardmen book are clarification issues only. PF applying to supporting attacks doesnt make saurus suddenly worth taking, it makes them marginally better at most. Engine of the gods is still garbage, with or without a burning alignment faq. I have an extremely hard time believing its specifically the FAQ issues that are mucking up your decision making process, because a lizardmen FAQ wouldn't change the power level of any unit effected by these clarification issues.
I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I've been turned off immensely by the 7th edition 40k update, to the point where I plan on selling my army entirely. It's a matter of priority, and "feel" for what you are putting effort into. You easily throw 50 hours into painting a small army (or at least I do), and the fact that GW can't be bothered to spend an hour or two to write a much needed clarification is just bad for my motivation. In other words: If they can't be bothered with it, why should I? It's lazy of GW to just ignore it like that. Of course, I only have 1 40k and 1 fantasy army, and my lizardmen have gotten a whole lot of attention since 7th edition hit.
=> I've gone into this before in more detail, but you know me - I'll pretty much never turn down a chance to rehash something. Yes, if FAQs got updated and contained answers to the questions that most divide opinions around here (even the clear ones like PF that simply need to be either confirmed or given an errata to chance them), it would make a significant impact on my personal buying and painting choices. I spend a minimum of an hour, and usually upwards of 3-5 hours, on a single infantry model. Painting a block of 40 troops is a significant time investment for me. Right now, I have a pile of Saurus with hand weapons and shield and none with spears. I also have about 20 cold one riders with spears. These are all currently not fully painted and would take me a long time to finish. I also have only 8 Kroxigore, but would love to do a proper horde of them at some point, just as I've done with my Ushabti in the past. It's glorious. Presently I own one Ancient Stegadon (and 3 old metal ones I think of more as the standard version Stegadon). So, that's my current state as it applies to this discussion. I have many more models, but that's not germane for this discussion. As I've shown in my reports, I tend to take the Ancient, 8 Krox, and about 23 Saurus in a 6-wide formation. I've also, by the way, stopped using the Troglodon with any regularity, which saddens me. The Ancient usually goes where I think I can get the most out of his combat capabilities, which often takes him far away from the Saurus Warriors. He goes off and smacks into something. The Kroxigore smash into whatever I think I can kill with them (generally knights). The Saurus deliver an old blood on cold one and then muck up the middle, try to take a Watchtower, or whatever. That's how thing unfold me me now. Here's what would change, immediately, if PF and Burning Alignment were ruled differently. - I'd buy and paint 10 more Kroxigor so I could do a horde. - I'd paint my Trogolodon, and probably buy and paint another. - I'd buy and paint another Ancient Stegadon. - I'd buy and paint 40 Saurus with spears. Current retail sales being forestalled by GW's lack of FAQ: $491 USD. Give or take. It would change how I play. I would no longer need the shields to parry on my Saurus, since I'd have to Ancient Stegadons hanging near them to give them a ward save. With PF giving a full 2 Attacks on all model in 4 full ranks (spears and horde), I would now have a Saurus block that outputs 81 Attacks that generate a further 27 Attacks due to PF+Troglodon (as a goal anyway) instead of a Saurus block that generates 19 Attacks + 2 further Attacks (PF front rank only). That is a massive difference. Once the Saurus were engaged, I could double blast Burning Alignment, hitting what they are fighting and making the fight go even better for them. There would be a reason to have two of them (redundancy and double blast) and to keep them in a different part of my deployment than I do now. My Kroxigor would enjoy a similar boost. Right now, the 8 of them (4 wide) generate 24 Attacks + 2 more (PF front only). In a horde, with PF on all Attacks and a Troglodon this becomes 54 Attacks + 18 more from PF. Holy yowzers! Of course I do realize that I am comparing non-hordes to hordes in my examples, but the point is that right now it's not worth it to go horde on the units I have, with the rules that exist. Changed (or clarified, or whatever) rules would change my approach, which is the thing we are talking about here. So why am I not at least finishing up the Saurus warriors? Why am I so demotivated? Time priority. The same reason I don't paint and play War Machine as much as I would like, or just play X-Wing as often as I should. Time spent doing those things is time away from getting my first love (Warhammer armies and hobbying) done. Like most folks, I only have so much time, and the thought of wasting it on a block of Saurus Warriors that would be dropped from my lists entirely if a FAQ came along just kills me. On the flip side, painting the Troglogon in the hope (man, I hate using that word) that one day a FAQ will come to justify the 40-60 hours I would spend painting it is just as painful. I would not be using it now, which would mean wasted time. The Cold One Riders are in the same boat as the Troglodon. Getting doubled Attacks from the second rank, plus boosted PF, would make them worth it to me, but I'm not going to paint them now (in a rules environment where I don't want to use them) just on the off chance that someday they will be worth using. Instead, I paint skinks with javelins. Those I know are useful. Those have no ambiguity/wishful thinking in their rules. If the FAQ came out and said that what they wrote under PF is actually what they meant, then I could finish up my Saurus with hw+sh knowing that the unit offers exactly what it does and thus painting time spent on them would not be wasted. I just hate this limbo! So, believe it or not, the FAQ, or lack thereof, is having just an absolutely massive effect on my purchasing, painting, and playing.
Fair enough. However, as I stated it seems like that comes down to your personal decision. Ultimately PF isn't making that much of an impact. If the "limbo" as you put it is all that's keeping you from painting those models... I dunno. First, a quick question. edit* the post directly below mine stated my question/point much more elegantly than i did. Hand weapon and shield will STILL be the way to build saurus because PF on supporting ranks doesnt make their biggest short comings better. Low I and WS means they take too much damage before they attack to make up for paying 11 points a model. Besides, what if 9th comes out and removes parry, or does something else that makes spears more desirable. At least then you'd already have spear saurus and hand weapon saurus (which is what i plan to do) or hell, magnetize them so you can have as many of either in any combination you please. So I can understand how it might affect how comfortable you personally feel investing the time into painting those models, but with or without those faq clarifications, a horde of kroxigor, spears on saurus, EotG, and troglodon are all going to be almost identical to how they are now. It sounds like you want to build an army around maximizing PF attacks. That sounds like an extremely interesting and fun idea. I dont think any type of FAQ is going to change that, and i dont think any type of FAQ is going to make that build noticeably better. I think if you want to do something like that you should just go for it. It's a suboptimal list any way you slice it, I don't think the potential that it might be slightly better than it is now should be that much of a determining factor. I can understand where you are coming from, I just can't understand how something so minor plays such a pivotal role in your overall hobby experience. Considering I guarantee you could play that army with PF on supporting attacks and not one single person would care, especially if you framed it like "i really want to see how PF on supporting attacks would affect my list, is that alright?" Or you could play it without and you'd probably enjoy it just as much. You dont want to, and that's fine. I respect that you feel that way. But ultimately it still comes down to you're imposing an extremely rigid, and in some situations entirely unnecessary, framework over your game and then allowing it to affect your overall enjoyment. And on top of all that you're waiting for GW to do something that you've admitted to having little confidence in them doing. Sometimes it seems like you go out of your way to make your own experience less enjoyable. /shrug. If you want to adhere rigidly to RAW, that's fine, I admire that kind of consistency. However, it seems counter productive to make the conscious choice to do so, and then to also rail on GW for "sloppy" rules writing, when there whole philosophy has always been "make cool armies, forge sweet narratives, and most important HAVE FUN". Sorry if it seemed like i was railing on you.
What kind of FAQ/clarification would double the attacks from the second/third/fourth ranks? I wouldn't hold out for that type of FAQ. At best the FAQ would allow PF to work from the 2nd+ rank, but I don't think anyone has suggested that Saurus Warriors would get their 2nd base attack from supporting attacks. Your math seems a little off to me, too (probably based on using full base attacks from non-front rank units) A full horde of Saurus Spearmen would get 50 attacks + PF With PF in front row only you get 50 + 3.3 PF attacks (on average) with all ranks getting PF you get 50 + 8.3 PF attacks (on average) With Troglodon those numbers would be: Front Row: 50 + 3.6 All Rows: 50 + 16.6 So on average the difference between FAQ and No-FAQ is about 5 extra attacks without the Trog and 13 attacks with the Trog. I still don't think the Trog is worth it for an average of an extra 8 attacks once per game. (or twice per game for twice the price!) (If you want an extra 5 attacks add a Scar Vet for cheaper than a Troglodon...) If you are a beast at rolling 6's then you could possibly get 80 attacks from your Spearmen. But if you're basing your entire army on rolling 30 6's all at the same time, then you might to better with Skink Javs. Either way PF gets FAQed, Skinks with Javs will likely still out perform Saurus. As for the Krox horde, the bulk of your extra damage is coming from adding 10 more models to the unit (30 attacks!) Which dwarfs the (average) 6 PF attacks you would generate if the 2nd and 3rd ranks got PF. Predatory Fighter should not be what's holding you back from making that unit a Horde if that's what you really want to do. I think you are heavily over estimating the usefulness of "full PF". I know you're totally against house rules, but I would suggest playing a game or two with full PF. I don't think you'll find yourself to be any more successful. I've played the rule both ways (with big hordes of Hand Weapons, Spears, and Temple Guard) and it's made very little difference.
Sleb, am I missing something? Why would a change to PF give supporting models their full attacks? That'd be a complete overhaul to the base rules, which I think is a pretty poor assumption to make. If that was the intent of the rule then it'd be much clearer, but there's no suggestion of that at all. This might explain why you believe the PF FAQ will be such a bigger game changer than I ever have. The most I think we can expect is for supporting to attacks to benefit from PF, but otherwise remain 1 attack per model (with the exception of PF).
Yep, yep, yep. Sorry folks, I got ahead of myself on the supporting attacks thing. My goof. While the numbers are, therefor, not quite as dramatic, my central issue remains the same. I guess I didn't make my conundrum clear enough. I'll try again. Right now we have a set of rules. Those rules tell us that we cannot Burn into combat, that PF is front rank only, and so on. Them beez da rules. Since time is a limited resource, and since I really hate playing with unpainted models (I do it while building an army, but I really do hate it), I want to ensure that my purchasing and painting decisions give me the maximum return. I'm going to have fun no matter what, by the way, because it's still Warhammer, but within that arena, I want to make the decisions that make the best use of my dollars and painting time. For the love of Pete, I'm 42 years old and don't have many good painting years left before the shakes overtake me! So, here I sit, with rules being what they are and time being what it is. If I assume that we'll get no FAQs, then I am left arguing with people (not in a mean way, but a way that does diminish the fun to an extent) over what I can and cannot do from one game to my next. I cannot possibly emphasize strongly enough how much I abhor the rules of the game (or life, or marriage, or gardening, or...) changing from moment to moment. If a thing or set of things acts one way one day, that thing or set of things should act the same way the next day! How can one possibly build a plan, develop continuity, or proceed with a course of action if the foundation upon which the decisions are made actually changes for no good reason!?!??! Anyway, yeah. So. Presently I have the stuff I said I have. I don't play with a horde of Saurus Warrios or Kroxigor or with a Troglodon because, in the current rules, there is not enough return on the investment of cash, time, or tactics to make those choices meaningful. However... IF the rules were FAQ'd to be different, all those things would increase in value to me. We can argue the extent to which they would increase, but there would certainly be an increase, and that increase would be enough for me to make the investment. If the rules were FAQ'd to be 'yep, you understood correctly alright - no change', all those things would be confirmed as not worth including in my lists and I could get on with what I have presently and make the most out of it. Unfortunately, we are left in limbo. We had a firm commitment from GW to provide timely FAQs. They were great at it for while. Truly great. Now we are 13 months gone since the last batch of FAQs, and several army books are left with typically shoddy writing and no support in sight. And yet...there remains the possibility of FAQs. There remains the chance that my army could require a big redo in order to make the most out of the rules, and that's highly offputting. I would rather they just say "Hey, you know what? Screw you. Figure it out yourselves. You're not getting FAQs." I'm not saying I would like this, only that I would prefer it to limbo. Send me to Hell or let me into Heaven. Either way. Purgatory is torture. The problem with that, though, is the problem we have now. No matter how well worded the rule for PF is, or how much we may debate Burning Alignment and Kroak's spell, we still will have games where the rules as I know them to be are different than they were in the last game I played. I am still going to run into, for example, fellow Lizardmen players who try to blast BA into combat, get a judge to make a call, and shoot me up. My army would have been built differently had I known that this ruling would be made, just as it would if PF got rewritten. The amount of difference anyone feels it makes is irrelevant when it comes to the question at hand - Does a lack of FAQ impact my enthusiasm for the game. It does, and I've explained why. I want consistency. I want to know that the hundreds of dollars I've spent on goddamn RULES actually bought me effing RULES and not just whimsical ideas on how to try to work out things from one afternoon's activity to the next. Grr. EDIT: No, wait. I don't think I did get ahead of myself on PF+Supporting Attacks. The argument is no about getting PF from rear ranks. I actually think that they DO. The problem is that Support is limited to 1 Attack (or 3 for MI), so even if you roll a 6 in ranks 2+, you don't actually get to roll another attack. The change that would have to come would be either to modify supporting attacks or change the PF rule to somehow reword how those attacks are made. It goes hand-in-hand. Right now, if a Saurus in rank 2, with 2 attacks, makes an attack, he only rolls 1 die, and it comes up a six, it is the Supporting Attacks rule (not the PF rule) that prevents him from making another attack. Any solution that would allow him to make the second attack would have to come from a change in the Supporting Attacks rule. So yeah, now that I think about it, PF is not the problem. Supporting Attacks is. You get to make another Attack from PF on a 6, but Supporting Attacks denies its use when in ranks 2+. EDIT 2: But never mind all that. This is not, strictly speaking, a PF debate. The point is that there are some rules, whatever they are, that need help and will impact what I buy and paint depending on what that help gives us. => Nah. I just go out of my way to try to understand and apply the rules, even when they go against me, so that my experience at the table can be less argumentative and therefor more enjoyable.
Fair enough. I still think an army geared around PF (with or without it applying to supporting attacks) would be fun and interesting and if you have the spare cash and enjoy the process, it would be worth doing. If you have your current list already painted up/finished i'd think its as good a project as any to start next. However, you're firm in your belief and at the very least it's well thought out. I can respect that. I'm hopefully for new FAQs soon. I imagine by the end of the year we will either have a new edition or updated FAQs (or both!). I think 9th will be a lot like 8th with some bits and pieces shuffled around. 8th seems to be quite popular in the competitive UK scene especially, and i imagine that scene is probably the most "in your face" for the GW heads. I think too drastic of a swing away from what is currently so popular would be quite a risk. Either way, it was nice to have a reasonable conversation about your stance without it turning into something angry. cheers!
A FAQ could easily just say "Attacks generated via PF are not limited by the Supporting Attacks limit of 1(or 3)". If the FAQ went so far as to say "Supporting Attacks are no longer limited to 1 (or 3)" then that would have a massive impact on the entire game... I doubt that would be the way they would go. Also a FAQ saying "Models with PF are not limited by the Supporting Attacks limit" seems just as unfair/unlikely (as you have calculated, it gives a ridiculous amount of extra attacks to Saurus hoards). What I predict is no FAQs until 9th edition. And I think 9th will remove Supporting Attacks completely (but keep Step Up). Models with "attack in extra rank" will get all of their attacks. That's based off of nothing what-so-ever though.
Man i was thinking the same thing, What if they just ditch the support attack rule in 9th. because we have one of the few spearmen units with 2 attacks on their profile.
Sleboda, you always seem to take that argument too far. PF is worded differently than other bonus attacks, it says that every attack in CC that rolls a 6 gets another attack (we have argued this to death in another thread). That wording can be interpreted differently by different people, saying "it's obvious" doesn't clear things up. If you want to play it, play it and roll a d6 if your opponent disagrees or don't if it is against tournament (Europe and the USA apparently differ) In a horde you would get 20+3.3 from front rank, 10+1.6 from second and 10+1.6 for 3rd When you are talking about 40+ attacks, 3-4 extra attacks lost or gained is not something to base your anger or your army on. And that is assuming a horde gets all its attacks (which almost never happens). Play what is fun, not what maximizes a strategy that might get you 1 or 2 extra attacks. With that being said: yeah, I doubt there is a FAQ till after 9th. Even though it would take almost no effort.
Well it does take some effort...or else you end up with no overrun against daemons/undead that die as result of instable/crumble...or have contradictory definitions of Unmodified Leadership in the same FAQ....or answers to FAQ that deviate from the basic rules of the game without explanation/justification...etc. A good, thoughtful FAQ is obviously preferred, but a hastily made one can sometimes be worse than no FAQ at all (as we have seen in the past). You want them to spend at least a day's worth of work checking that their answers are correct, clear, and rules supportive.
=> Yeah, let's not turn this into another PF argument thread. All I will say (since you snuck one in, I get to too ) is that the wording is irrelevant since it's a Special Rule that grants another Attack (somehow, some way), and we know that's forbidden. => That's at the heart of everything I just wrote though, isn't it? My army could be 100% the same from game to game. 100%. And yet, based on the result of a 4+, not only would it become more or less powerful across the board, it would have influenced my entire purchase and painting history - all because of a simple single die roll. Ugh. No thank you. => Again, the point is that I would from 24 models, 6-wide to 40 models, 10 wide and change my weapons and supporting monsters all based on the rule. It's not as simple as just saying to play with a horde and not bother with the difference. It's not "oh hey, look, I guess this unit just got more attacks than how I was playing it." It fundamentally shifts my entire army design. => I do play what is fun, and part of the fun for me is getting the most out of my build. I enjoy spending endless time designing lists and figuring out how I can do better. Putting pretty models on the table is part of the fun, but the actual attempt to do well is also, and without a FAQ, I don't actually get to know what is a possibility and what is not. A lack of FAQ makes the game less fun for me.
It doesn't seem rational to run your units in different sizes purely because of PF. You will get way more combat benefit from the extra models from Horde formation and the larger frontage than you would from either interpretation of the PF rule. Much like you tell people that they shouldn't base their strategy on the Magic Phase, I feel the same argument can be made towards your strategy of "if PF worked for all ranks then I would run hordes of Spears". I don't see how an extra 16% attacks would fundamentally change your army design. If you need an extra 5 attacks that will only hit half the time for your army design to be successful, then it's not the wording of Predatory Fighter or Supporting Attacks that you're aggravated about. The Lizardmen are a Movement & Magic Phase focused army, and you like to play like it is a WoC Khorne army. It makes for neat themed armies (and I'm sure nice looking models), but it will lead to endless frustration when it comes to trying to win battles. More-so than PF I think the "Burning Alignment/Deliverance of Itza targeting into CC" question would have a greater affect on army composition. But even a list based around that that would make for a fun gimmick, but its not a strategy that will work for more than a game or two.