Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Disclaimer: I understand that by publishing some of the material I may be risking the LO terms of psoting with regard to copyright. I've attempted to change the post as much as possible, although I feel that publishing this information warrants the risk.
Today I recieved a personal reply from Mr Andy Hoare, the lead designer (I think?) of Games Workshop, to a letter I wrote a few weeks ago. I've included a link to a scanned copy so its validity can be verified (apologies for the file size, but I wanted to make sure it was legible). Furthermore, I've included the original letter below. Whilst I was writing the letter, I looked around the boards quite a lot to see what the most discussed topics were, and included them, as well as some of my own thoughts. So don't be suprised if you see something you mentioned here ;-). I can't find the thread that a lot of these ideas were posted in, so credit goes to those who suggested them. You know who you are.
"Dear Mr Hoare
I am writing to you to stress my own thoughts, and what I believe to be the general consensus of the Daemonhunters players within the Warhammer 40,000 community.
As the fan of a fantastic game, I feel that while the Daemonhunter army provides a unique and challenging way of playing the game, it is unfortunately frequently out performed in both friendly and tournament situations. While I understand that an updated Codex for an army that is not as popular as others, including the Space Marines (for which I would like to extend my commendation with regards to the new Codex) or Imperial Guard, may not be appropriate or feasible, I believe that an additional updated FAQ alongside the recently published 5th Edition Daemonhunters FAQ would require considerably less effort and settle many of the disputes queries rife amongst the Daemonhunters community, and would certainly provide appreciated help until a new Codex is released. For your convenience, I have included, in bullet form, what I believe to be the most pressing questions regarding the Daemonhunters Codex -
- Why has the Assault Cannon remained at Heavy X not Heavy X, <Special Rule concerning 6's>, as it has been updated some time ago in other Codices?
- What is to be done considering with regards to the Rites of Exorcism rule now that Instability rules no longer exist? Furthermore, the Codex states “<Read ya codex>” – does this mean that they also strike at initiative 1?
- Similarly, what is to be done about the Daemonic Infestation rule? With the updated Daemons Codex, this gives the Grey Knights a considerable disadvantage while fighting Daemons – while I appreciate that all armies must be effectively equal, I question the appropriateness of this rules’ existence in it’s current form, especially considering it was originally included for game balance.
- Do Daemonhunters’ Rhinos and Chimeras have the special rules exhibited in their parent Codices (i.e. repair and amphibious, respectively)?
- Why do new rules in the main rule book regarding universal wargear (e.g., smoke launchers) not override older Codices?
- When wargear is updated in a new Codex (i.e. Storm Shields in the Space Marine’s Codex) does our wargear change with it?
- For a X point model, why does the Brother-Captain only have X wound(s)?
Furthermore, I would like to provide a few suggestions with regards to updating unit stat lines that I feel, along with many other Daemonhunters players, are appropriate –
- The Grand Master should be an Eternal Warrior, and possibly Weapon Skill 6.
- All Grey Knights should have True Grit, including Terminators.
- All Fast Attack Grey Knights (and possible even Dreadnoughts) should be able to Deep Strike from turn 1, as Space Marines can do with drop pods - or at least make a reserves roll from turn 1.
I would like to stress my thanks to you for reading this letter, and I hope that you may be able to provide answer(s) to any of the above questions, and address other issues that I have stated.
Yours Sincerely, "
What you can see from the scanned image is that a fair few of my questions remain unanswered, which, to be honest, I expected. I am pretty pleased with the guy for writing me a personal response, though. EDIT: The bit about going through difficult terrain/cover doesn't seem to match the rulebook. I was under the impression it was the fact that they were in difficult terrain, not necessarily (although more often than not) cover, and as such that was why the striked at lower initiative. /EDIT. However, I appreciate he can't write a FAQ just for me, or even update the one published (since they'd go back on themselves).
The other issue I've got is that he seems to have contradicted part of the FAQ concerning the codex-rulebook presidence question. This seems very interesting to say the least, especially since it effectively means (with a bit of imagination and opponents permission) our transports are rededicated.
Last edited by Fixxxer; November 18th, 2008 at 14:26. Reason: Error Correction
Nice! Thanks for sharing.
And extra thanks for paying attention to the rules
Very insightful indeed.
LO RulesOriginally Posted by AnonymousOriginally Posted by Cyric
My own response from Mr Hoare was similar to yours. Of course, I asked similar questions regarding non-existent rules, outdated weapons/wargear, etc., and got pretty much the same response.
It's worth noting that even the GW games designers themselves don't always play the game according to the rules they themselves write! Jervis Johnson has himself stated that they never use their own FAQs because everybody in house "just knows" the "correct" way to play the game! (Let that sink in for a moment....)
In that light, I am not surprised that he erroneously reports how Rites of Exorcism actually works under 5th edition. Truly, I think we were all surprised that a direct consequence of the new rules set meant that daemons strike at I 1 when assaulting GKs! As this was likely never the intention, Hoare -- and, I think it's safe to presume, the rest of the GW staff -- doesn't play it that way, and simultaneously probably doesn't understand why any of us would!
They espouse RAW, but actually practice RAI. This is a huge problem, and the biggest reason the game continues to generate disputes. If GW would playtest out-of-house, this would go a long way to addressing such idiocies. After all, divining the intentions of rules is not always easy....
In a similar vein, I am not surprised that he misunderstood your question vis-a-vis Codexes and the BRB. I suspect the guy's getting a lot of mail of late, and has to kind of hurry through responses. He probably reads the letter quickly, responds quickly, and has to move on to more pressing tasks. I'm willing to cut a little slack there.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. I hope that many of us DH gamers have written to GW to make them aware of what we're thinking and needing.
ninjabackhand: point and click, again, really? even after i give you an military term "shock tactic" you still call it point and click.
RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014