Stuff to FAQ for Daemons?

[Sir_Prometheus]

I am alright with there being an initiative 0, that is below power fists, charging through cover, and all the other things that make you I 1.  I am bothered that a new initiative step is springing into being, out of whole cloth, seemingly by accident. 

Ah, well, GW's fault.  Good ruling Sam. 

[keithb]

Also, who the heck is Simon?

I thought you were.  Sorry. 

Changing topic:

I honestly believe that RAI > RAW in many cases.  I do not believe GW has given much thought to what happens if an initiative goes down to 0.  Previously there was no mechanic for that happening.

You could also argue that counting down from I 10 to 1 was merely illustrative, as that was all the initiative steps that were possible.

I mean the answer is pretty clear:  Do you, in any way, actually think that GW meant 95% of things charged by seekers to be unable to attack, at all?  No?  Well, then there's your answer.

I agree with this Matt.  Just a point of advice.  Don't try to argue what the rules actually say, while arguing how you think it should be played at the same time.  Certainly don't be condescending towards people who disagree with "how you think it should be played" as if they aren't reading what the rules say.  They are very separate points, and can(and should) be argued separately.

I think GW meant to sell models. So in a month if Slannesh stuff is not selling, you might not be able to attack.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Mea culpa.