New FAQ and Errata system incoming

[Turragor]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

This is a pretty neat structure and, as I read it, I thought "hey they are so going to do this for AoS".

Lo and behold they also added that question in the quick FAQ at the bottom:

"What about Warhammer Age of Sigmar
It’d make sense if we rolled out a similar process… Check back soon!"

So I think that means we can look forward to a similar system - probably with the GHB  in the place chapter approved.

What kind of changes do we think it'll lead to? Perhaps the timing of certain big events?

[Twitch of Izalith]

Nice. It feels like they have instantly responded to my suggestion in the community survey 

[AmurayiWestgate]

"Chapter Approved" is basically already a clone of the "General's Handbook" listing updated points values.

[heywoah_twitch]

This is a good thing. Hopefully they keep on with these reasonable balance and update changes and do stuff like roll the FAQs into the digital products themselves and the basic rules (when the FAQ for your basic rules is longer than your basic rules, it's time for a re-write and integration).

 

[someone2040]

I think what you take out of this, is that for 40k (at least for now) they are formalizing how frequently FAQs and updates will be published and they may occasionally publish trial rules for the game. That's about it really. I mean, it's definitely a good thing, we never have any idea when a FAQ is going to drop, even though there are a ton of things that need answering.

The trail rules are a bit more interesting, but they seem more on a 'gameplay' or possibly points basis. This could be interesting for Age of Sigmar, because maybe they'll try and push more trial rules out there to see where they fall. As a made up example, they could say "We're going to trial - If there are any enemy units within 3" of a unit, you can only target those units with attacks - this is in an effort to curb shooting out of combat". Whether or not it makes the final rules in GHB, that's a different matter, but allows more feedback on the rules.

That being said, they're still not changing warscrolls (except in the most extreme circumstances). Which is a little disappointing, still hate that Dragon Ogors are damage 1. Some things should be fixed by warscroll changes, not rebalanced by points. So we're still a bit stuck in the whole 'battletome update cycle'. Just not as bad because points can be tweaked which does help somewhat.

[heywoah_twitch]

Definitely agree that changing warscrolls should be an option - it's a reasonable and powerful tool for them to have available, and works fine when used smartly in similar games the world over [and to be perfectly honest, sneaking FAQs in that totally change how an ability works might as well be changing the warscroll anyway - I'm looking at you, stonehorn].

It's too bad that their first attempt at it blew up so spectacularly in their face that I fear that they're now afraid of the entire prospect, rather than seeing it as simply an isolated PR mistake.

If grundstock thunderers should have taught us anything, it's that every legal option for a unit's gear load-outs should come in the box full stop. If any number of orcs can have shields, include 10 in a box of 10. If arkanaut company can have up to 3 light skyhooks, then put 3 in the box. This is basic, basic stuff.

I hope it didn't make them think "we should never change warscrolls" as that would be taking a potential teaching moment and running away with the wrong lesson.

[Killax]

I think it will continue as mentioned, while certain Warscrolls will end up changing I do think it's probably the last thing they want to do because that was the initial design etc. However we indeed now have met one rare case where Warscroll design did not meet up with the actual box contents.

As others have said though, I think that this design will indeed also be applied to AoS which basically means we'll see a quicker FAQ/Errata on the released Battletome. However it has been a while but it's good to see that seem to intend to speed up things. Afterall most big questions appear quite fast after a Battletome's release and for AoS in particular the wording used to be quite open and thus unclear. The last thing is something I think will change.

Other than that though I don't think the changes will be extremely noticeable. I think that for the new year they'll slow down the pace a little for the 40K Codex but that's a good thing actually.

[Elmir]

I actually wrote something similar as my main feedback to GW for their rules team (including floating the idea of beta rules).

If there is one product I hope GW makes (and this is for both 40k as AoS), it's a type of A5 sized plastic sleeve map that can hold robuster, thicker warscroll/datasheet cards for you to tailor your army around. A map with 30-ish sleeves would be plenty. 

Print out the faction specific rules on an A5 thick paper an do the same thing for command traits and artifacts (one on front, one on the back) for each sub-faction.  Make warscroll cards like they did for some factions for all factions and add them to the battletomes that now have extra space in them for additional bestiary entries, unique battle/major narrative event battles for each faction. 

This means you only have to take your "army map" with you to a pick up game (that usually ends up using competitive rule elements anyway) and it means that GW  would actually be able to change warscrolls (first via  a print friendly beta version if need be) and then release a proper card if they decide to go through with it that can be picked up cheaply via their webshop/B&M shops/LFGS/... for a very low cost. 

Essentially a physical version of the AoS app, but with a nice quality feel and finish.