PDA

View Full Version : Skaven Weapons Teams



Dogfax
22-04-2009, 20:07
Bit confused here... I have been playing that the weapons teams (ratling guns, warp fire throwers) can be singled out and targeted by any enemy missle fire without restriction....but....

As someone in the Skaven Tactica pointed out is specifically says in the latest FAQ for Skaven that these cavcalry bases cannot be singled out for enemy fire if within 5" of a unit.

I quote

"Does the cavalry base special rule mean that weapns teams can be targeted by shooting even when within 5" of a unit because they are on a larger base?"

"No. It says on page 26 "....they cannot be singled out as targets by enemy shooters because they are the same size as the other Skaven around them"

So which is right please?? This could make a massive difference to turn 4 and 5 of a custom mighty empires game I am in at the mo!

Lord Zarkov
22-04-2009, 20:18
It's a bit messed up tbh.
When skaven came out the rules for characters were different (the no targeting bit) to how they are now and the teams uses those rules.

When 7th came out the rules changed and charcters could now be targeted to the skaven book referenced a null rule and the teams became targetable. GW also issued an FAQ at the time to that effect.

Now GW has gone and released another FAQ saying they can't be.

Since this is a later FAQ contradicting a previosly released one (and both being post 7th Ed) I would play by the FAQ as irritating as it is. It's not like there isn't a precedent for army book rules becoming binding despite refering to rules that no longer exist (Old Mark of Khorne for example)

Dogfax
22-04-2009, 20:23
So the weapons team cant be targeted??? this is the best news I have heard in ages! wohoo! Cant see my mates being too happy though lol!

Necromancy Black
22-04-2009, 22:50
They can't be targeted normally. Scattering templates and things that ignore targeting restrictions, like Rule of Burning Iron can still pick them out.

EvC
22-04-2009, 22:56
They can be targeted, the FAQ question is obselete. This was specifically confirmed at the UK Doubles tournament at GW UK- ignore it if you like, but don't expect any serious gaming group to play by an old and now incorrect ruling.

Tunnel Rat
22-04-2009, 23:26
What's the point of re-labeling an old FAQ to 2008? GW just made it more confusing...

Clegane
22-04-2009, 23:44
They didn't simply re-label it to a newer date.

They went back and ADDED the targeting question back in, after having previously removed it.

EvC, while I agree with you that the ruling SHOULD be invalid, the fact remains that it is still part of a CURRENT FAQ. GW put it back into that FAQ intentionally and, despite having had over a year to go back and remove it, they still have not done so. Many FAQs have been altered and updated since 02/2008, but GW has left the Skaven FAQ intact, with the targeting restriction in play.

Any 'serious gaming group' would need to establish the weight of the FAQs and be consistent with it. Of course you can 'pick and choose' which FAQ questions you wish to abide by and which you wish to ignore, but that opens up an avenue that could be a pretty slippery slope.

By allowing people to simply choose which parts of the FAQ they want to use, based on their own definition of common sense, you are essentially invalidating the FAQ as an authoritative body of work.

In other words, I am cool with ignoring this part of the FAQ because it doesn't feel appropriate to play that way. But you'd damned well better be willing to entertain my own personal FAQ interpretations on issues that you may not be quite so fond of.

The Tomb Kings Casket of Souls versus Current MR errata debate comes to mind here.

There are basically three ways to handle FAQs:
1. You treat them as a Papal Bull and follow them to the letter. (This seems to be the most common approach for competitive gaming)
2. You disregard them entirely, as the Design team themselves state on their FAQ page that the FAQs are not 'ironclad' and are not required to be used.
3. You allow your gaming group to selectively pick and choose what parts of FAQs they like and don't like.

The third option seems to be the most sensible to me, in terms of friendly play. But for competitive events you need consistency in the rulings and I feel you should either embrace the FAQs wholly or disregard them utterly. Anything else leaves far too many holes open for rules disputes.

Lord Zarkov
22-04-2009, 23:56
They can be targeted, the FAQ question is obselete. This was specifically confirmed at the UK Doubles tournament at GW UK- ignore it if you like, but don't expect any serious gaming group to play by an old and now incorrect ruling.

If it hadn't changed since 6th Ed I might be inclined to agree with you, but unfortutely it's a change back from the original 7th Ed FAQ which allowed targeting of weapons teams. Therefore it's intentional and hence "dem's da rules" as silly as it might seem.

EvC
23-04-2009, 00:47
It's a MISTAKE, which GW makes sometimes. When someone is playing in a Grand Tournament at the HQ of the company that makes the damn game, and the referees make a special announcement specifically to let people know that this Skaven targetting FAQ is a mistake, then you can probably take their word for it.

Clegane- go to the GW website and click on the page for FAQs. You'll be presented with a big block of text before you can actually read the FAQs. There they tell you that the FAQs are not Papal Bull and that they are fallible. Thus, where an FAQ provides an answer that is totally wrong, you are free to ignore it, and I would encourage you to do so. GW sometimes makes mistakes and they don't always correct them physically. Good thing there are forums like this where we can all discuss and agree if there is a mistake in an FAQ.

Clegane
23-04-2009, 00:53
Clegane- go to the GW website and click on the page for FAQs. You'll be presented with a big block of text before you can actually read the FAQs. There they tell you that the FAQs are not Papal Bull and that they are fallible. Thus, where an FAQ provides an answer that is totally wrong, you are free to ignore it, and I would encourage you to do so. GW sometimes makes mistakes and they don't always correct them physically. Good thing there are forums like this where we can all discuss and agree if there is a mistake in an FAQ.

I am aware of that block of text. I specifically referenced it in my earlier post. I also stated the same arguments you did regarding FAQs in this very forum last week, in regard to the Casket vs MR issue and was fairly savagely torn to pieces by about 20 different posters, all telling me that FAQs were infallible, overrode all errata and printed material, and that if I was using "GW just hasn't gotten around to updating the FAQ-it is an obvious error" as substantiation for my arguments, then my arguments were inherently weak and flawed.

I'm glad that you have the common sense to take this approach, but I was making my statements regarding the Weapon Team question with the understanding that the 'general consensus', at least on these boards, was that FAQs are infallible.

I appreciate you referencing the UK GT in this instance, but I can assure you that it isn't likely to win your stance much support in this forum. I tried the same reasoning in regard to the Casket issue and was told off because an ad hoc ruling for an individual event does not override a universal or specific FAQ or Errata document. That said, I can sort of see their point. The FAQs are documents available to hundreds of thousands of players. Most of those players were not at the UK GT where this announcement was made. I suspect many of them would have difficulty believing the word of an anonymous internet poster over the clearly-stated black-and-white print of the FAQ itself.

Bottom line-Many people take the FAQs as infallible, regardless of any caveats issued by the Design Team. They've had over a year to go in and snip that erroneous line out of the .pdf. A line that strongly impacts one of the more popular builds for a relatively popular army. Why haven't they bothered to do it? They've updated half a dozen other FAQs in that time span...why leave this one to rot and sew confusion?

knightime98
23-04-2009, 05:09
Ah, yes.. Just read my signature with the quote.. It speaks volumes unto itself.

xragg
23-04-2009, 13:34
It's a MISTAKE, which GW makes sometimes. When someone is playing in a Grand Tournament at the HQ of the company that makes the damn game, and the referees make a special announcement specifically to let people know that this Skaven targetting FAQ is a mistake, then you can probably take their word for it.

Clegane- go to the GW website and click on the page for FAQs. You'll be presented with a big block of text before you can actually read the FAQs. There they tell you that the FAQs are not Papal Bull and that they are fallible. Thus, where an FAQ provides an answer that is totally wrong, you are free to ignore it, and I would encourage you to do so. GW sometimes makes mistakes and they don't always correct them physically. Good thing there are forums like this where we can all discuss and agree if there is a mistake in an FAQ.

Which makes me wonder why they dont fix them when they know there are mistakes. It takes no longer to fix it then it takes me to respond. GW really should make a better effort to make their FAQs current and correct, considering how easy it is to update websites.

Lordy
24-04-2009, 14:08
They also havn't fixed unit stats on the Website either, so does that mean they are correct because they are on GW's website?

You can target weapons teams imo but we do need something official, GW's website is shocking.

Shamfrit
24-04-2009, 14:44
So has this left us any clearer? :wtf:

Can they be targetted or not?

Clegane
24-04-2009, 14:46
So has this left us any clearer? :wtf:

Can they be targetted or not?

By the letter of the FAQ? They absolutely cannot.

If you are the sort who believes that FAQs 'trump' all other printed rules sources, then they still abide by the old 6th ed rule for targeting, because that is what the FAQ says.

If, on the other hand, you choose to follow reason and common sense, then yes they can be targeted.

All comes down to how much value you or your event coordinators place on the FAQs.

With all due respect to EvC, regardless of what may or may not have been announced at the UK GT...until they replace the current FAQ print with updated print, the FAQ still stands for those who prefer to view GW FAQS as credible or official sources.

Lordy
24-04-2009, 15:12
Didn't GW set up someone to answer any questions you needed answering? If so who is it and how do you contact him?

Clegane
24-04-2009, 15:15
Didn't GW set up someone to answer any questions you needed answering? If so who is it and how do you contact him?

They're less reliable than the FAQs.

Call the number ten times and you'll get 10 different answers. Or at least 5 different answers that directly conflict. They also cannot possibly 'override' printed material. The FAQs are used as a universal constant in most competitive environments, because that is the easiest way to settle rules disputes before they begin.

"This event will adhere to all of the current FAQs.' is much easier to state and follow than picking and choosing the bits you agree with and trying to make everyone remember which bits of which FAQs you're using.

Sure, you CAN just say "Well...we're omitting these 14 rules because we just don't like them.", but that's pretty rough at competitive events where the players amy not be familiar with one another. You need consistency in the rulings, even if those rulings themselves are inconsistent with other sources.

So in other words, if you attend a competitive event and they state "We're following all of the current FAQs on the webpage", then your Skaven Weapon teams are NOT targetable. Mistake or not, that is what the FAQ says and that is what will stand until GW get off their collective asses and fix the text.

Shamfrit
24-04-2009, 15:18
I don't play at tournaments, I don't intend to soon; my gaming group does pay attention to FAQS (partially caus' I make 'em :D)

I think it might take me some considerabel to make them see otherwise however, so I'd rather just keep them under the bed :( (The Skaven :p)

Clegane
24-04-2009, 15:27
I don't play at tournaments, I don't intend to soon; my gaming group does pay attention to FAQS (partially caus' I make 'em :D)

I think it might take me some considerabel to make them see otherwise however, so I'd rather just keep them under the bed :( (The Skaven :p)

*shrug* Your call, man.

Personally, I don't think the FAQ ruling is that bad, in principle. I mean...how many other armies pay 60-75 points for a single model with 1 wound, 3 Toughness, a 6+ save, less range than a shortbow, and one of the nastiest misfire charts in the game?

Not a one that I can think of.

Weapon Teams were all but useless in 7th before the FAQ was changed (and it WAS changed just last year to include the 6th ed ruling). The only way to field them was to invest ANOTHER 50+ points in screens for them, only to have them get maybe one round of shooting before they got wiped out.

EvC
24-04-2009, 15:48
So in other words, if you attend a competitive event and they state "We're following all of the current FAQs on the webpage", then your Skaven Weapon teams are NOT targetable. Mistake or not, that is what the FAQ says and that is what will stand until GW get off their collective asses and fix the text.

But what you fail to realise is that tournament organisers are not actually robots- they have this "free will" thingummy, and so while pretty much every tournament out there does say they use the current FAQs, you'll be lucky to find any that say you can't shoot Skaven weapons teams.

GW makes mistakes in FAQs all the time. Last major update they botched the rules for multiple shooting so there was no -1 to hit on them, and said that Tomb Kings can cast spells after a miscast 5-6 result. These were simply wrong, just like the Skaven ruling is (Look at the ruling: "they can't be targeted as they are the same size as the other skaven"- it makes no sense, and if you were really anal, you could say this FAQ applies to every character out there in every army, if they are the same size as the other troops around them. End result: you have broken one of the game mechanics: nice one). Some people REALLY wanted to play by them (in particular, new Dark Elf and Lizardmen players wanting no multi-hit penalties), most people were sensible enough to know to ignore them. Including tournament players, who are generally far more decent and amenable to good sense than the rules lawyers on the internet (no-one here) who would rather cling to a mistaken FAQ ruling than play a fair game.

Lordy
24-04-2009, 15:50
The problem for me is the actual text from the FAQ

Q.Does the Cavalry Base special rule mean that
weapons teams can be targeted by shooting even when
within 5" of a unit because they are on a larger base?

A. No. It says on page 26 “…they cannot be singled out
as targets by enemy shooters because they are the same
size as the other Skaven around them.”

What exactly is the cavalry special base rule? Wasn't that something from 6th edition?

Clegane
24-04-2009, 16:01
The problem for me is the actual text from the FAQ

Q.Does the Cavalry Base special rule mean that
weapons teams can be targeted by shooting even when
within 5" of a unit because they are on a larger base?

A. No. It says on page 26 “…they cannot be singled out
as targets by enemy shooters because they are the same
size as the other Skaven around them.”

What exactly is the cavalry special base rule? Wasn't that something from 6th edition?

No, that is something from the Skaven Army Book. It is a rule that applies to Weapon Teams.

Sirroelivan
24-04-2009, 16:02
Well, in 6th characters couldn't be targeted if close to friendly units. This didn't count for cavalry based characters though, I believe that's the cavalry special rule.

EvC
24-04-2009, 16:06
Yes, technically the answer is correct. The Cavalry Base special rule does not allow for weapons teams to be picked out; rather, the 7th edition rulebook means they can. It's a null question, like "How many attacks does a Hydra Handler have, two or three? Answer: Yes." or "Have you stopped beating your wife?"...

Clegane
24-04-2009, 16:15
Yes, I understand that GW makes mistakes.

What I don't understand is, if this were indeed an error, then why does it still sit and fester in that FAQ 15 months after it was added back in?

For that matter, what sort of 'mistake' results in the developers adding BACK IN a rule that they had removed in a previous version of the FAQ?

It isn't as if the error would be difficult or time-consuming to correct. It could have been done in the amount of time its taken me to write this post.

I'm not even saying that it isn't a mistake. But given that they've made more than a half-dozen updates to their FAQ page since 02/2008...why wouldn't they have snipped that line out if they didn't want it there anymore? Is it truly THAT far outside the realm of possibility that it was added back in by design? Perhaps to compensate for a model that is now grossly overcosted, since the protection whose value was inherent in its cost has been removed by the newer rules set?

moose
24-04-2009, 16:17
As I wrote in the Skaven Council thread;


It is true the FAQ does say they can NOT be targeted.

However,

This is generally considered a mistake on GW's part, and 99% of law abiding citizens will still follow the intended rules. The remaining convicts will be executed via warpstone.

Moose.

GW rules are a form of relativism not absolutism.


Moose.

EvC
24-04-2009, 16:47
Clegane- you might as well be saying, "Well if it's a mistake, why did they make it in the first place?!". Mistakes aren't intentional!! If it's a mistake then they've made the mistake by error in the first place, meaning they're probably not going to know they've actually made the mistake! It's like if you go read a book and find a typo... why is the typo there... it's a mistake. Ok, why isn't it corrected then? Well, because they missed that they made the mistake... and so on, for ever and ever!

The mistake has been pointed out now. There's usually a pathetic lead time of a couple of months with GW FAQs, meaning that they probably won't bother to correct it since the new Skaven army book will be out in a while. Unlike things like multiple shots, this isn't game-breaking, and they know that most smart players can work it out themselves. Unless you really have a hankering to go back to the days of SAD when everyone hated Skaven.

Shamfrit
24-04-2009, 17:16
Heaven forbid the Skaven book be broken or ocer the top or capable of dealing with the metagame, hey EvC :rolleyes:

This has been brought to their attention, if it was not how they intended it to be, after a FAQ was reverted and then reverted, then they should do something about it. If, according to their own FAQ, Weapon Teams can't be shot at, then that is how it is until he FAQ is changed.

If you don't like the FAQ, don't use it, but don't expect your opponent to agree. This might just make me play Skaven again.

nosferatu1001
24-04-2009, 17:33
It says they cannot be targetted because of the cavalry base special rule, which essentially states they are thee same size as skaven near them (needed in 6th) and so cant be picked out.

7th states that, as long as you have LOS, you can always pick units out. The FAQ says "they can't be picked out because they are the same size, which does not contradict the BRB stating "they can be picked out always" - so yes, unfortunately, they can be pocked out.

Clegane
24-04-2009, 17:44
I love the consistency in these forums.

FAQ trumps BRB. But only when it suits you.

Errata trumps FAQ. But only when it suits you.

BRB trumps FAQ. But only when it suits you.

Army book trumps everything. But only when it suits you.

FAQ trumps errata. But only when it suits you.

Bah. You follow the FAQs or you don't. If you start picking and choosing what parts of the FAQs are 'valid' and what parts are not, then the validity of EVERYTHING becomes subject entirely to player whim, with no consistency at all. If you're going to have an authoritative body of documents from which you draw your rules (in this case the FAQs) then you can't just start crossing out the stuff that doesn't suit you. Not without calling into question the validity of the entire document. After all, ANYTHING could be a 'mistake.'

Was it also a mistake, then, when they ruled that a flaming cannonball bounces off of an elf's face, just because he was wearing asbestos coveralls with some plates woven in? Because that ******** makes about as much sense as Weapon Teams benefiting from 6th ed rules in 7th ed. Actually, it makes even less sense. But there it sits, in black and white.

If I called every rule that didn't make sense to me a 'mistake' and crossed it out of the FAQ or BRB, I'd be laughed out of the event.

moose
24-04-2009, 17:53
Clegane - your logic does make sense, and I would be doing the same if my gaming group wouldn't try hang me if I even suggested it. (Most skaven players would).

People are afraid of ratling guns...but deathstar units etc etc are apparently fine...


Moose.

Mercules
24-04-2009, 18:40
I love the consistency in these forums.

FAQ trumps BRB. But only when it suits you.

Errata trumps FAQ. But only when it suits you.

BRB trumps FAQ. But only when it suits you.

Army book trumps everything. But only when it suits you.

FAQ trumps errata. But only when it suits you.

Bah. You follow the FAQs or you don't. If you start picking and choosing what parts of the FAQs are 'valid' and what parts are not, then the validity of EVERYTHING becomes subject entirely to player whim, with no consistency at all. If you're going to have an authoritative body of documents from which you draw your rules (in this case the FAQs) then you can't just start crossing out the stuff that doesn't suit you. Not without calling into question the validity of the entire document. After all, ANYTHING could be a 'mistake.'

Was it also a mistake, then, when they ruled that a flaming cannonball bounces off of an elf's face, just because he was wearing asbestos coveralls with some plates woven in? Because that ******** makes about as much sense as Weapon Teams benefiting from 6th ed rules in 7th ed. Actually, it makes even less sense. But there it sits, in black and white.

If I called every rule that didn't make sense to me a 'mistake' and crossed it out of the FAQ or BRB, I'd be laughed out of the event.

Flaming Cannonball is not big metal ball on fire. Rune transforms the kinetic energy and physical form of the ball into magical flame... upon firing... and sadly even the hottest flame can't burn through immunity to fire.

Weapon team can not be picked out... just like a Character near a block of troops. Except, characters CAN be picked out. So.... result is?

"Attached: ....Enemies wishing to target a weapon team with missile fire or spells have the same limitations as when targeting single characters on foot, as long as the weapon team is within 3" of a friendly unit of at least five models of similar size or larger."

"Q. Does the Cavalry Base special rule mean that weapons teams can be targeted by shooting even when within 5" of a unit because they are on a larger base?
A. No. It says on page 26 "...they cannot be singled out as targets by enemy shooters because they are the same size as the other Skaven around them."

That is under the Jezzail teams refering specifically to the Cavalry base which the FAQ also addresses. So... Skaven Weapon teams have the SAME limitations on targeting as you would have targeting characters on foot.

Can you target lone characters on foot? Yes.
Can you target weapon teams? Yes.

End of story. :)

Lordy
24-04-2009, 18:48
Yeah, i even just asked Warhammer.org admin Squeek, and he says that FAQ text was a question about 6th edition Jezzails teams.

Tunnel Rat
24-04-2009, 19:32
Thanks guys for straightening it out!

dariakus
24-04-2009, 21:45
This whole debate will be null and void in a few more months anyway with the new book :)

stripsteak
24-04-2009, 22:19
This whole debate will be null and void in a few more months anyway with the new book :)

sadly. i wouldn't put it past GW to carry over the same question into the next edition of the faq. relevant or not ;)

fubukii
24-04-2009, 22:46
actually i believe in the skaveen book that it says you have the same restrictions as shooting at a character, which doesnt exist anymore therefore you can shoot them

Necromancy Black
25-04-2009, 04:06
I love the consistency in these forums.

FAQ trumps BRB. But only when it suits you.

Errata trumps FAQ. But only when it suits you.

BRB trumps FAQ. But only when it suits you.

Army book trumps everything. But only when it suits you.

FAQ trumps errata. But only when it suits you.

Bah. You follow the FAQs or you don't. If you start picking and choosing what parts of the FAQs are 'valid' and what parts are not, then the validity of EVERYTHING becomes subject entirely to player whim, with no consistency at all. If you're going to have an authoritative body of documents from which you draw your rules (in this case the FAQs) then you can't just start crossing out the stuff that doesn't suit you. Not without calling into question the validity of the entire document. After all, ANYTHING could be a 'mistake.'


+1

Sums up my thoughts exactly. Someone copy-paste this next time we get a topic on the Casket of Souls and MR.

EvC
26-04-2009, 19:16
I am and always will be in favour of gamers thinking for themselves. A black-and-white "the rulebook/FAQ/errata is ALWAYS right, even when all indications and GW rules developers say otherwise" viewpoint is just stupid. Judge each case on its own merit.


Heaven forbid the Skaven book be broken

Do you actually think before posting? You have just argued in favour of an army being broken. Well done there.

Erie Ed
26-04-2009, 20:11
Here's how I follow the rules:

1. WHFRB
2. Army Book
3. FAQ/Errata

it seems pretty easy to me

Bac5665
26-04-2009, 20:47
Let me fix that:

1. Errata
2. BRB
3. Army Book
4. FAQ

Lordy
26-04-2009, 21:40
The problem for me is that noone seems to know if the correct FAQ has been uploaded for Skaven. It is the EXACT same FAQ from 2006 which is was then updated. It's just been changed since the GW site changed so if i had to guess i would say it is another of the website team's many errors where they uploaded the old FAQ rather than the new one.

nosferatu1001
26-04-2009, 23:33
It doesnt actually matter if it is the "right" FAQ: it states you cannot pick them out because they are the same size. This does not preclude you being able to pick them out due to some other rule. Like, for example, the 7th ed rule stating you CAN pick them out.

Just apply some thought to what the answer is telling you: you cannot pick them out due to them not being a different size. You can however pick them out whether they are the same size or not.

Erie Ed
27-04-2009, 03:26
Just apply some thought to what the answer is telling you:

and that answer right there solves %95 of rules arguments :)

Lordy
27-04-2009, 09:01
That doesn't actually solve anything in this case though does it..

nosferatu1001
27-04-2009, 09:43
Lordy - did you ignore the explanation I just gave? :rolleyes:

For the hard of thinking: FAQ says the teams cant be picked out because of cavalry base rule, which loosely states they count as the same size as clanrats

The FAQ does not state they can never be picked out for any reason, it just states that for one reason they cant be. 7th ed states that, as long as you have LOS, you can target any unit, regardless of size (well, it doesnt say regardless of size, but it doesnt include size as a condition) therefore you CAN shoot the weapon teams because the rulebook states you can

The FAQ and rulebook do not disagree, at all.

Mercules
28-04-2009, 13:28
That doesn't actually solve anything in this case though does it..

Do I have to quote the rules in question again? :)

Skaven Weapon teams are treated as characters for purposes of being picked out. That is what their rules say.

In 6th edition, characters could not be picked out if they were within 5" of a friendly unit of the same sized or larger base models. Thus mounted characters could be picked out next to infantry unit models. The FAQ however, points out that while the 2 skaven in the weapon team are on a cavalry base, they are not larger than the nearby 20x20mm based Skaven and so can not be picked out. This is all under 6th edition rules.

Come 7th edition characters can be picked out, even if near units. Base size no longer matters at all, only US of the character model(US 6 can be picked out inside a unit). Skaven weapon teams still follow their armybook rules which state they can or can not be targeted like characters. Well, characters can be targeted if outside units. The FAQ just states their cavalry base is ignored for this purpose.

So, in review, Skaven Weapon Teams not in units(and they can't enter units) can be picked out in the manner that Characters not in units can.

EvC
28-04-2009, 13:55
Nicely covered again, but I don't think the "I want my weapons teams to be invincible" crowd are bothering to read (much less understand) the arguments being put forth :o

Shamfrit
28-04-2009, 14:01
Given the nature of the FAQ it was a perfectly 'OOOH! AWESOME!' response to have; I was perfectly happy to ignore it and continue as I have done since I started the Skaven army, it's not something that really matters - it was more of a curiosity moment as to why the FAQ had been reverted.

It'd be nice if it was clarified to Weapon Teams retaining their old targetting rules - it really would, but since the issues with the Skaven book at present will hopefully be dealt with when the 7th edition book is released, there's no real need to make such a drastic change so near to release.

EvC
28-04-2009, 14:35
Yeah exactly mate, that's understandable :)