Can Independent unique characters benefit from his upgrade of 5 points for Cybork armour?

Warbosses and Big Meks already have Cybork bodies as a wargear option.

I suspect his implication is for the unique characters - like, say, Ghaz or Snikrot.

I don't have my Ork codex in front of me, but they do pretty much all state for unique characters that they must be fielded with the wargear they're listed with, and cannot have any additional wargear. Since Cybork is a wargear upgrade I would submit that would block it unless the Ork unique characters lacked that rules addendum.

Yeah the problem is it just says Any unit. So can Snikrot etc take it? It's also not a purchasing of wargear its just a special rule the guy has.


THat's pretty much it.

Well, you got me to dig out my Codex.

Okay, firstly - yes, the added Cybork bodies are wargear. It is a special rule that allows the wargear to be purchased, but it doesn't change it from being wargear.

Second - there's no rule in the 5th edition Ork codex about unique characters only having their set equipment, and the Doc's rules allow any 'unit' in the army to get the upgrade. Since an IC is officially a 'unit' then it can equip the Cybork body.

So, yeah, unless somebody knows something I don't I think you can have a Cybork Snikrot or Zogwort if you so desire.

Yeah, the whole spiel about special characters and being used exactly as listed has been phased out it appears. I suppose because of the new style of listing unit options and the disappearance of the armoury meaning that except in very rare cases where one model allows other models to take upgrades, it's not an issue anymore.

In this case I think the RAW would definitely be in support of them having access to the cybork bodies, although I think alot of opponents wouldn't like it.

Yeah - my problem is I play so much DE and Space Wolves I'm sort of on automatic for the old unique character wargear lockdown. Mea culpa, I suppose.

Snikrot alone could not have Cybork, but the entire unit (Snikrot plus commandos) can do.

Unique characters simply do not have any normal options, this is not a "usual" upgrade however!

Hollismason wrote:Yeah the problem is it just says Any unit. So can Snikrot etc take it? It's also not a purchasing of wargear its just a special rule the guy has.


THat's pretty much it.

HQ's get cybork bodies for 5 pts instead of 10

any unit can have cybork bodies ( 30 ard boys with 4+/5+ and FNP yeah!)

You cannot give one model a cybork body you have to upgrade the unit.

Yup, Special Characters can buy it. There is nothing preventing them from benefiting, so they can

30 man grot squads with Cybork armor. Lol.


No he had Ghaz and Mad Doc and gave Gaz a cybork armour so I dunno.

He's great for accompanying a unit of Mega Armoured Nobz, giving them the Cybork upgrade they need, and the Feel No Pain they can use. And they provide a Battlewagon for everyone to ride in.

Hollismason wrote:30 man grot squads with Cybork armor. Lol.


No he had Ghaz and Mad Doc and gave Gaz a cybork armour so I dunno.

Well, Ghaz has a Cybork body anyway...

Nurglitch wrote:He's great for accompanying a unit of Mega Armoured Nobz, giving them the Cybork upgrade they need, and the Feel No Pain they can use. And they provide a Battlewagon for everyone to ride in.

And most importantly for them he confers fearless so the expensive meganobz don't get tankshocked and fail their mediocre moral!

The FAQ prohibits unique characters from taking the upgrade (well, it limits unique ICs specifically-- it's implied that other unique characters cannot, either).

kartofelkopf wrote:The FAQ prohibits unique characters from taking the upgrade (well, it limits unique ICs specifically-- it's implied that other unique characters cannot, either).

With all due respect, the FAQ means Sweet feth All. If they wanted it to not apply to Special Characters, they should have put it in the errata. The RaW is clear, ANY unit can take it. Deny it to Special Characters and you are breaking that rule of ANY unit.

The FAQ on this is clear:

FAQ wrote:Any number of units can be upgraded. This
includes Gretchin ... and independent characters (except for
unique characters).

GW says that FAQ are "studio house rules,' but that's GW being spineless ("there is no right and wrong answer..." - Bull Crap! You're a game company! Write the rules, dangit!) when they should be explicit. If your opponent is the type to try to cybork a unique character despite this FAQ - shake his hand and walk away. Life is too short.

D'Ork wrote:GW says that FAQ are "studio house rules,' but that's GW being spineless ("there is no right and wrong answer..." - Bull Crap! You're a game company! Write the rules, dangit!) when they should be explicit. If your opponent is the type to try to cybork a unique character despite this FAQ - shake his hand and respect him for playing by the actual rules.

Fix'd

Gwar! wrote:Fix'd

You'll waste hours playing against an unreasonable person. Someone who does this - to gain a minuscule advantage in clear violation of the FAQ - is not worth playing against. I see the logic behind your position, Gwar, but you miss the point.

D'Ork wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Fix'd

You'll waste hours playing against an unreasonable person. Someone who does this - to gain a minuscule advantage in clear violation of the FAQ - is not worth playing against. I see the logic behind your position, Gwar, but you miss the point.

This is where you and me differ. This person is not being "Unreasonable", in fact, you are the one being unreasonable for denying him a perfectly legal option.

If you have agreed beforehand to use the FAQs then by all means go ahead, but do not try and enforce them as rules.

GW have always maintained that unique characters don't get funky benefits from things. The FAQ reinforces that.

So, those that wrote the game said no.

Then they released a FAQ and again said no.

The disclaimer that FAQs are just house rules can be afforded precisely the same weight as the statement at the beginning of the rulebook that you can invent rules and roll D6s for things. Either accept the FAQs as statement of intent from GW or allow all rules as mutable.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The disclaimer that FAQs are just house rules can be afforded precisely the same weight as the statement at the beginning of the rulebook that you can invent rules and roll D6s for things. Either accept the FAQs as statement of intent from GW or allow all rules as mutable.

1,000 times THIS. This is what I meant when I said GW was being spineless.

What a bizarre world it must be where one can dismiss rules clarifications from the people that wrote the rules as meaningless to a discussion of what the rules are.

That aside, it's useful information to give the OP in case he does go to, well, -any- tournament, which is almost certain to use the GW-provided FAQs.

Gork forbid we try to be helpful...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW have always maintained that unique characters don't get funky benefits from things. The FAQ reinforces that.

[Citation Needed]

So, those that wrote the game said no.

[Citation Needed]



Automatically Appended Next Post:

kartofelkopf wrote:What a bizarre world it must be where one can dismiss rules clarifications from the people that wrote the rules as meaningless to a discussion of what the rules are.

Who then turn around and say "But they don't actually count". If GW had said "These FAQ's are how it is supposed to be played", then fine, I can live with that, but they have explicitly stated that the FAQ's are a bunch of rubbish.

A bunch of rubbish...

"They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments "

... that happens to be A) Useful, B) Widely used, C) Written by The Powers That Be.

Yes, it's "soft" material-- but TPTB feel that way about -all- of their rules.

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

^Has a really good description from Gav Thorpe about GW's approach to rules.


All that aside, the point remains that it is helpful to let OP know about FAQs (especially when they are near-universal in pick-up and tourney play)

kartofelkopf wrote: A) Useful

As a chocolate Teapot, as they leave 99% of the REAL rules questions unanswered and are poorly written and editied (See: Space Marine FAQ with wrong numbers and Blank Page for nearly a year now)

B) Widely used,

Again, debatable

. C) Written by The Powers That Be.

Apart from the ones they were too fething lazy to write and got yakface to write them

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW have always maintained that unique characters don't get funky benefits from things. The FAQ reinforces that.

I somewhat agree with this - heck, it's how I started the thread. But I would note that a lot of the newer codices have clearly stepped back from the old ban on wargear for uniqur ICs - they just avoid giving them any sort of access to the armory (of course they're doing that for almost everything nowadays) My DE and Space Puppies still have that rule, but a lot of newer books, including the Orks, don't. If they don't have the rule then...well...they don't have the rule, and you probably shouldn't infer from older codex books.

The problem with using the FAQs is it's very much like the YMDC Tenents in this forum. Some of the tenets are ways to "clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines..." The Moderation Staff can use the tenets as "moderation guidelines in this forum."

So, as a member of this forum (Dakka x2) and the sub forum (YMDC) I have some rules (as in rules in a rulebook) that I should obey and then some tenets that include some clarifications of the rules (perhaps to be read as errata...?) and then some moderation guidelines which means, I suppose, things they suggest I go with, but are indeed tenets (read perhaps house rules...?) and not rules themselves, else they would be rules.

It's reasonable to point to the FAQs and note that they suggest that, say, Zogwort cannot get a cybork body. However, since it's not errata nor a rule it's also perfectly and *equally* reasonable for your opponent to walk up with his Cybork Zogwort and challenge you to a rousing game of ye olde 40k.

Till GW grows a set I see no reason to pretend they're a stud is what I suppose I'm driving at.

@Thor

No one's contesting that (in fact, Cyb-Zogwort would be a fun conversion.... hmm....). Heck, if you're so inclined, you can play games with nothing but Super-heavies or mixed armies of IG and SM! (Wait... what's this "Apocalypse" you speak of?)

Just pointing out that the FAQ exists (I doubt OP would've created a thread if he'd read the FAQ)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TO their credit, the IG FAQ doesn't suck.

Still some unanswered questions, but several major issues were addressed.

All of these rules interpretations need to be based on how the game is played in a tournament setting (RTT GT) otherwise you can just play the game however you feel like and any of the rules could easily be disputed. However if you use the rules as if you were playing in a tourney then by default you have to use the FAQ's as rules. I have never seen any RTT or GT that did not use the FAQ's as definitive rules. Even non GW tournamnents use the FAQ's as fact. So using the argument that FAQ's mean squat is really not valid because one could easily say any of the other rules mean squat also, because in the BRB GW specifically mentions that you can feel free to use the rules as is, adjust them as you see fit or come up with new ones. So as stated before if you answering rules questions based upon tournament regulations is the best way. Otherwise you may just say Ill pick and choose what rules I want to use and ignore the ones GW says I can ignore, even if it specifically adresses problems.

da gob smaka wrote:All of these rules interpretations need to be based on how the game is played in a tournament setting (RTT GT)

An interesting thought, but there has been substantial vocal support for the concept of including HYWPI (or whatever the acronym is - how you would play it) in the forum. That said, i agree, I have no problem with the FAQ being discussed, I was personally just sounding off on the concept of those who suggest the FAQ = rules - which it clearly does not.

The FAQ represents the decisions of the creators of the game on how to resolve potential grey areas. Frankly if the people that made the game choose to roll in a particular direction then that's a pretty good direction to roll in.

FAQ represents their answers to our questions. They fix actual misprints with errata, they clarify with FAQs.

The included 'oh, it's just the way we play it' is included as part of the catch all play it the way you want attitude that makes all rules non-concrete as printed on the inside of the BGB.

Given the attitude that holds dominance in GWs writing and gaming style, that of flexibility and casual and mutual agreed resolution, I find people's dogged insistance on the minutiae of the wording to be completely at odds with the game, both in spirit and playability.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The FAQ represents the decisions of the creators of the game on how to resolve potential grey areas. Frankly if the people that made the game choose to roll in a particular direction then that's a pretty good direction to roll in.

FAQ represents their answers to our questions. They fix actual misprints with errata, they clarify with FAQs.

The included 'oh, it's just the way we play it' is included as part of the catch all play it the way you want attitude that makes all rules non-concrete as printed on the inside of the BGB.

Given the attitude that holds dominance in GWs writing and gaming style, that of flexibility and casual and mutual agreed resolution, I find people's dogged insistance on the minutiae of the wording to be completely at odds with the game, both in spirit and playability.

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps GW's attitude is wrong?

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The FAQ represents the decisions of the creators of the game on how to resolve potential grey areas. Frankly if the people that made the game choose to roll in a particular direction then that's a pretty good direction to roll in.

FAQ represents their answers to our questions. They fix actual misprints with errata, they clarify with FAQs.

The included 'oh, it's just the way we play it' is included as part of the catch all play it the way you want attitude that makes all rules non-concrete as printed on the inside of the BGB.

Given the attitude that holds dominance in GWs writing and gaming style, that of flexibility and casual and mutual agreed resolution, I find people's dogged insistance on the minutiae of the wording to be completely at odds with the game, both in spirit and playability.

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps GW's attitude is wrong?

Not as many times as I've considered yours wrong.

kartofelkopf wrote:
TO their credit, the IG FAQ doesn't suck.

Really? My summary of the IG FAQ was:
no-one asked*: 3
YMDC was right: 4
Me and Gwar! were right**: 1
Totally contradicts the rules***: 3

That's even mixture of pointless answers, RAW answers and answers that outright violate the rules.

Sadly, I agree with you that this was one of the better FAQs.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The included 'oh, it's just the way we play it' is included as part of the catch all play it the way you want attitude that makes all rules non-concrete as printed on the inside of the BGB.

Except that because they have that rule printed in the rulebook it would apply to any "rules" they provided in the FAQ. I still have no idea why their FAQ, like most other games I've played, doesn't just count as official rule clarifications/changes.

They specifically go out of their way to clarify that what the FAQ is not; is rules. I see no problem with reacting to it, then, differently from the rules.

Gwar! wrote:Has it not occurred to you that perhaps GW's attitude is wrong?

They made the flippin game dude.

FAQs are how the rule in question should be played. The people that made the game, made the rules, and make the minis just told you how you are supposed to interpret a rule.

What dont you get?

PanamaG wrote:What dont you get?

Why people think it is stone inscribed rules when the game makers themselves have stated "Yeah, btw these FAQ's don't actually mean anything."

PanamaG wrote:FAQs are how the rule in question should be played. The people that made the game, made the rules, and make the minis just told you how you are supposed to interpret a rule.

Apart from the times they had to ask yakface and co to do them because they were too lazy (and with all due credit, they are the only FAQ's that are well written).

PanamaG wrote:They made the flippin game dude.

No, they didn't. I highly doubt anyone related to the creation of Warhammer 40k still works at Games Workshop, let alone has any sort of influence as to what goes on. Of course, I do not know for sure, so feel free to enlighten me if this is the case.

I don't think this should continue as another Gwar against the world thread.

Gwar is correct in stating that even GW says that FAQs are merely a "house rules" type of reference. He is entitled to play that way if he chooses.

However, in most gaming environments, at least the ones I've played in, the FAQs are always respected as a source to solve a rules dispute. I would say a vast majority of people would respect the answer coming from an FAQ. Does that make it an offiecial rule? No, but there is little point in arguing over that merit as that is how it will be played 95% of the time.

So wait a minute. The FAQ's aren't official. Did I get that right?

So when did GW start excluding the FAQ's from their tourney's? When did the FAQ's become inadmisable for use in RTT's by the direction of GW?

It seems to me that there are two camps here.

Camp 1): The FAQ's are official; the phrase in question is being taken out of context.

Camp 2): The FAQ's are not official; the phrase in question is a clear directive ot that effect.

Did I get that right?

grizgrin wrote:It seems to me that there are two camps here.

Camp 1): The FAQ's are official; the phrase in question is being taken out of context.

Camp 2): The FAQ's are not official; the phrase in question is a clear directive ot that effect.

Did I get that right?

The phrase in question is from the GW site FAQ and Errata section;

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. ...

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. ...in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments ....However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. ...In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

So as I read and interpret it;

Errata=rules

FAQs = ...something that is not rules, we call them house rules and suggest them for arbitration in tournaments but they are not rules. (roll a die)

You can, of course, decide for yourself how you choose to interpret the above info they provide on their FAQs.

Interesting. I've been playing 40k for years and the FAQ's, before this were always canon. Never heard of someone ignoring them, or a tourney "throwing them out". Things change. How long has this been up? And, also, does anyone have any answers for my questions about how GW have been using the FAQ's with regard to their tourneys and the RTT's? gak, does GW even have any officially sponsored tourneys anymore?

Well this has derailed rather quickly.


Personally I don't like the GW faqs as really its just their house rules also its not written by a designer I dont believe.


IE the person who originally wrote th codex doesnt write the faqs hell he may play completely different rules.


Who knows.


Also, the GW faqs generally take RAI over RAW.


Look at the Astropath thing there isnt any way other than interpreting it as a +2 hell there is even another codex that does the same thing.


The GW faqs are not even FAQS.


Have you read some of the bizzaro land questions?


The FAQ frequently ask questions is rarely that. Hell there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the rulezboys and the faq writers.


Some guy just goes well its time to make a FAQ lets release it ; Kay.


Thats it.

grizgrin wrote:Interesting. I've been playing 40k for years and the FAQ's, before this were always canon. Never heard of someone ignoring them, or a tourney "throwing them out". Things change. How long has this been up? And, also, does anyone have any answers for my questions about how GW have been using the FAQ's with regard to their tourneys and the RTT's? gak, does GW even have any officially sponsored tourneys anymore?

The writeup on the Errata/FAQs page is dated November of 2008 - I can't speak for if it was up prior to that as I got back into the game about that point. I have played at some RTTs that reference some of the FAQ, but not all, and those that totally use it as written. The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at. To the best of my awareness 'official' GW events use the FAQ - though currently official GW Con competitive play is on a slight hiatus of unknown duration (hopefully just for a reorg, but in the usual GW way, mum's the word). I do believe across the pond and down under they still have GW sanctioned tournies.

Thor665 wrote: The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at.

The authors of the INAT FAQ, like all reasonable people, defer to the GW FAQs.

Hollismason wrote:Well this has derailed rather quickly.
...

Glad to be of service.

Thor665 wrote:

grizgrin wrote:Interesting. I've been playing 40k for years and the FAQ's, before this were always canon. Never heard of someone ignoring them, or a tourney "throwing them out". Things change. How long has this been up? And, also, does anyone have any answers for my questions about how GW have been using the FAQ's with regard to their tourneys and the RTT's? gak, does GW even have any officially sponsored tourneys anymore?

The writeup on the Errata/FAQs page is dated November of 2008 - I can't speak for if it was up prior to that as I got back into the game about that point. I have played at some RTTs that reference some of the FAQ, but not all, and those that totally use it as written. The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at. To the best of my awareness 'official' GW events use the FAQ - though currently official GW Con competitive play is on a slight hiatus of unknown duration (hopefully just for a reorg, but in the usual GW way, mum's the word). I do believe across the pond and down under they still have GW sanctioned tournies.

So, you are stating that GW is claiming that the FAQ's are optional/mutable, and yet they are canon for their events? Essentialy, they are the way GW plays the game, and enforces their officially sactioned events to play?

olympia wrote:

Thor665 wrote: The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at.

The authors of the INAT FAQ, like all reasonable people, defer to the GW FAQs.

I would have thought that the INAT FAQ would have been written with the GW FAQ's as canon, but I've never read the thing so....

To my knowledge, only non-special character Hqs can take cybork bodies

I consider the FAQs as official and always have. To me people who dispute them want more leeway as to how they personally interpret the rules.

G

grizgrin wrote:

olympia wrote:

Thor665 wrote: The INAT FAQ seems overall more popular at the events I've played at.

The authors of the INAT FAQ, like all reasonable people, defer to the GW FAQs.

I would have thought that the INAT FAQ would have been written with the GW FAQ's as canon, but I've never read the thing so....

@olympia - so you're saying because I believe the FAQ does not = rules then I'm unreasonable? GW also believes (and openly states) the FAQ doesn't = rules. Are they unreasonable? Please stick to shooting down my position with a bit more focus and less the person holding said opinion (after all, how am I to defend my point if the attack on said standpoint is that I'm unreasonable? Just show how I'm unreasonable factually and then you'll be winning the argument.)

@grizgrin - The INAT FAQ is written so as not to address the GW FAQ with the then presupposition that probably anyone using INAT will use the GW (certainly for their specific con they do). At my local shop we use INAT paired with a modified GW FAQ. I noted it was more popular because (strangely) it is better written and meshes better with the rules as compared to GW's FAQ in the opinion of myself and many of the people I play with.

I would never quote from INAT, GW FAQ, or my shop's local house rule FAQ if I was asked what the rules are. (I would quote from Errata, and I'd potentially quote from all sources if I was asked how I play it)

Green Blow Fly wrote:I consider the FAQs as official and always have. To me people who dispute them want more leeway as to how they personally interpret the rules.

G

It is perfectly fine to consider them official - It is equally perfectly fine to not consider them official (and I feel more supported by GW is the latter interpretation). I, personally, don't do it for leeway - I do it because GW refuses to call them official, which annoys me.

Edit - to clean up a bad quote box.

All major tournaments accept the GW FAQs as writ; likewise with the INAT authors. There are a few very prolific posters who pollute this forum with RAW fundamentalism: to wit that they would refuse to play someone who brought a GW FAQ to settle a rules dispute. Simply put thor, rejecting the GW FAQs is not only unreasonable it's absurd, a totally untenable position as was outlined by many people in this thread, notable D'Ork.

Rejecting the FAQs is not untenable as a position when they tell you you may do so in the preface to all FAQs.

Here is a summary of my view of GW FAQs:
"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player)."

As opposed to thoughts on the Errata (which is included in the same document):
"The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). . . The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book."

shrug

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rejecting the FAQs is not untenable as a position when they tell you you may do so in the preface to all FAQs.

"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer- in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player)."

See, this as far as I am reading it, is saying that there is a grey area without a clear answer, so the rule book didn't cover the eventuality...ergo there cannot be a RAW solution...ergo using the FAQ rather than reaching a mutual accord would seem an eminently sensible choice. The FAQ is the suggested solution and as stated there cannot be a solution with a 'higher' authority on the matter since it is written that there is no right or wrong answer.

The FAQ is the educated suggested resolution that most of the warhammer/40k playing world chooses to use.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rejecting the FAQs is not untenable as a position when they tell you you may do so in the preface to all FAQs.

QFT.

Gwar! wrote:What dont you get?

Why people think it is stone inscribed rules when the game makers themselves have stated "Yeah, btw these FAQ's don't actually mean anything."

PanamaG wrote:When have they said that? Quote it. I doubt its as "these are completely pointless" as you are making them out to sound. You just want the rules to go your way

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer- in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules.

House Rules are not the actual Rules.

Gwar! wrote:No, they didn't. I highly doubt anyone related to the creation of Warhammer 40k still works at Games Workshop, let alone has any sort of influence as to what goes on. Of course, I do not know for sure, so feel free to enlighten me if this is the case.

Okay MAKE the game. Stop nitpicking every post word for word to get what you want out of them just like you do the rules. So once again I am right in the real world, but not in gwarland where everything is INTERPRETED the way you want it to (and then call it "as written")

Oh, I am sorry, I thought this was Rules as Written Forum. Please accept a thousand apologies. The fact is, you can use the FAQ if you want, I don't care, but to pass them off as "This is what the rules say" is just plain wrong.

I see your point of view but no once again it isn't "just plain wrong" like every other opinion that differes from your opinions.

Have fun using your artificial worldview at a tournament.

PanamaG wrote:Have fun using your artificial worldview at a tournament.

Like the ones I run?

Gwar I am totally gonna start a RAI army you start the RAW then we will fight and go out for beer.

olympia wrote:All major tournaments accept the GW FAQs as writ; likewise with the INAT authors. There are a few very prolific posters who pollute this forum with RAW fundamentalism: to wit that they would refuse to play someone who brought a GW FAQ to settle a rules dispute. Simply put thor, rejecting the GW FAQs is not only unreasonable it's absurd, a totally untenable position as was outlined by many people in this thread, notable D'Ork.

I don't believe that I've said I would refuse to play someone using the GW FAQs (to be honest, I play using them) however, that doesn't change the fact of whether or not they are rules and whether or not they should be quoted as rules.

GW, the makers of said FAQs, openly claim that they are not rules.

I agree with GW.

Apparently that makes me fundamentalist in my belief of how the rules are played...and I guess since I want to agree with how GW writes those rules (including how they choose to use the FAQs) then, yes, that makes me and GW fundamentalists about the rules. I am comfortable being thought of as unreasonable and absurd in this belief, but would prefer it if you didn't tell me I was, since factually I believe I am standing on very solid ground and I also find it kind of rude and hurtful to tell me I'm unreasonable for going with GW's interpretation of their own FAQs.

And now you get to be harangued like Gwar!, lol.

Gwar! wrote:Oh, I am sorry, I thought this was Rules as Written Forum. Please accept a thousand apologies.

its not, these are the tenants of YMDC

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

and

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

clearly YMDC is about literally you making the call and not "all raw", so FAQs are relative to every discussion here.

kirsanth wrote:And now you get to be harangued like Gwar!, lol.

For the record I feel I am a much more handsome man then Gwar!, so he should probably still be the more hated upon.

To be fair, according to GW, if you play in a tournament or against a stranger, you -should- use the FAQs. If you play with your buddies, well, you might come up with rules that better suit you.

So.. Gwar's assessment that the FAQs mean nothing is a bit strong. Sure, The GW police won't show up to stop you if you don't use it, but they suggest you do. If I remember right, the BRB itself makes a similar claim regarding all the rules anyway, So by RAW, strict RAW, anything is possible. Reasonable people differ.

Barakia wrote:To be fair, according to GW, if you play in a tournament or against a stranger, you -should- use the FAQs. If you play with your buddies, well, you might come up with rules that better suit you.

So.. Gwar's assessment that the FAQs mean nothing is a bit strong. Sure, The GW police won't show up to stop you if you don't use it, but they suggest you do. If I remember right, the BRB itself makes a similar claim regarding all the rules anyway, So by RAW, strict RAW, anything is possible. Reasonable people differ.

I don't think Gwar! is saying this... page one he even says

"if you agree ahead of time to use the FAQs...." then its ok

But what I read him typing is that the RAW fact of the matter is that yes they can take it until the errata is made

This does not mean you're "breaking rules" (has a negative connotation) for following the FAQ per say, but rather simply that you are playing with agreed upon house rules for difficult situations when you are following FAQs.

At least that is what I am reading.... am I right in this?

well for snikrot is this even an issue? Hes not an IC, hes an upgrade char without IC listed in his special rules so .... he gets cybork as normal doesnt he? even by the faq, for what that rag matters.

olympia wrote:All major tournaments accept the GW FAQs as writ; likewise with the INAT authors. There are a few very prolific posters who pollute this forum with RAW fundamentalism: to wit that they would refuse to play someone who brought a GW FAQ to settle a rules dispute. Simply put thor, rejecting the GW FAQs is not only unreasonable it's absurd, a totally untenable position as was outlined by many people in this thread, notable D'Ork.

QFT !!!

Nowhere in the errata does it say the FAQs are not official. Those who say they are not simply hope others will not check what exactly the errata has to say themselves. Deception is a very bad thing in my book and should not be tolerated. I think many of us have to come realize one source where this comes from on a daily basis.

G

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Source please

Green Blow Fly wrote:QFT !!!

Nowhere in the errata does it say the FAQs are not official. Those who say they are not simply hope others will not check what exactly the errata has to say themselves. Deception is a very bad thing in my book and should not be tolerated. I think many of us have to come realize one source where this comes from on a daily basis.

G

If it was in the Errata, I do not think one source () would have the issue that irks you so.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer- in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

Why make a FAQ for things that DO have right and wrong answers, especially when you qualify them with statements like the end of this one? Remember, they also print Errata.
It seems asinine, generally, makes questioning the changes valid. Regardless of who is questioning it - even knowing that many (most?) people will use them anyway.

Green Blow Fly wrote: Nowhere in the errata does it say the FAQs are not official. Those who say they are not simply hope others will not check what exactly the errata has to say themselves. Deception is a very bad thing in my book and should not be tolerated. I think many of us have to come realize one source where this comes from on a daily basis.

G

You're right, they dont list it in the errata, it's located right above the faqs youre clicking to view, as a heading to the entire faq section, which states exactly that.

Gwar! wrote:

PanamaG wrote:Have fun using your artificial worldview at a tournament.

Like the ones I run?

Where? Pics please or I'm calling BS.

Oh and STOP USING OVERSIZED LETTERING TO EMPHASISE WHEN YOUR BEING PATRONISING, WE ALREADY GET THE POINT

Hollismason wrote:Source please

It's from some White Dwarf I think, I just found it lying around on the internet somewhere.

kirsanth wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
"The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer- in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

Why make a FAQ for things that DO have right and wrong answers, especially when you qualify them with statements like the end of this one? Remember, they also print Errata.
It seems asinine, generally, makes questioning the changes valid. Regardless of who is questioning it - even knowing that many (most?) people will use them anyway.

Most will use them anyway, what is perhaps annoying for me is the attitude of some here that to do so is in some way 'wrong' or not l33t enough.
The idea that things that are FAQ'd already have a 'right' answer that GW isn't using? Again you are pertaining to something that just doesn't wash, the RAW ideal that is being held aloft here that is not RAW, rules are one thing, citation of extracts from the rulebook, often from distinct areas of the book with slanted emphasis on certain wording from that paragraph or sentence (see all of the weapons etc) is not a ruling from the book, it is conjecture. It is supposition not an explained rule. So when there exists a grey area, one that many people ask about, like the strange notion that WH/DHs could suddenly not take the tank their codex said they could due to the inclusion of the word 'squadron' in the new ImpG book, GW notes this and says yes it's business as usual you can still take the damned tank.

The disclaimers in the front of the book and at the beginning of the FAQs are actually there to alleviate rules as written constriction, so if you want to maintain that FAQs aren't worth gak, carry on, you are in a minority both in casual and tourney play since worldwide the vast majority will continue to use the FAQs as the rulings of the design team for the game system, or as in the case of the Ork FAQ, rulings from Tourney FAQs that GW endorsed and gave the official stamp of approval to.

Wow, clearly I have been caught in an argument that started long before this thread and, I suspect, really has very little to do with what I have said, or have had said, to me in this thread.

And exit, stage right.

MeanGreenStompa has hit the nail on the head very precisely.

Mauleed I think invited the intrepretation by RAW. He was a pioneer. Unfortunately he was also extremely competitive. You can be so competitive that you remove yourself from the playing field. The hobby is not Man United versus Bayern Munich, it's still very much a hobby and anybody that can't figure that out eventually becomes a collector of models.

G

nosferatu1001 wrote:Rejecting the FAQs is not untenable as a position when they tell you you may do so in the preface to all FAQs.

Not sure I have gone so far as to buy in on that yet. Although, I am afraid to say, it appears that it is coming down to be opinion based so I am not going to be pointing fingers and being a gak wit toward people about it without provocation. Bear with me.

gwar wrote:No, they didn't. I highly doubt anyone related to the creation of Warhammer 40k still works at Games Workshop, let alone has any sort of influence as to what goes on. Of course, I do not know for sure, so feel free to enlighten me if this is the case.

Rick Priestley still works there, I believe. He wrote 40k originally (as part of a team with him as principal writer and designer), as he was directed to, to boost model sales. Seeing as how he is the Creative Director at GW, it would appear that he is still very involved in the system. You are now enlightened. Somewhat, it's a very narrow blip in a very narrow field.

Thor665 wrote:...
GW, the makers of said FAQs, openly claim that they are not rules....

I think now we have come to the crux of the matter. The issue is that GW has said one thing (Faq's=/=rules), but they are doing another (using the FAQ's as rules, and not allowing official tourneys the option of dispensing with them). So, we have a choice. Do what they say, or do what they do. Opinions on that?

Deleted by the modquisition warning to follow.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The idea that things that are FAQ'd already have a 'right' answer that GW isn't using? Again you are pertaining to something that just doesn't wash, the RAW ideal that is being held aloft here that is not RAW, rules are one thing, citation of extracts from the rulebook, often from distinct areas of the book with slanted emphasis on certain wording from that paragraph or sentence (see all of the weapons etc) is not a ruling from the book, it is conjecture. It is supposition not an explained rule. So when there exists a grey area, one that many people ask about, like the strange notion that WH/DHs could suddenly not take the tank their codex said they could due to the inclusion of the word 'squadron' in the new ImpG book, GW notes this and says yes it's business as usual you can still take the damned tank.

So you think none of the FAQs contradict the rules previously written?
Or is this about the pet tanks only?
---
Also, I think "pertaining" is misused - or just trying to confuse things. I am not related to, connected to, belonging to something that just does not wash.

kirsanth wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The idea that things that are FAQ'd already have a 'right' answer that GW isn't using? Again you are pertaining to something that just doesn't wash, the RAW ideal that is being held aloft here that is not RAW, rules are one thing, citation of extracts from the rulebook, often from distinct areas of the book with slanted emphasis on certain wording from that paragraph or sentence (see all of the weapons etc) is not a ruling from the book, it is conjecture. It is supposition not an explained rule. So when there exists a grey area, one that many people ask about, like the strange notion that WH/DHs could suddenly not take the tank their codex said they could due to the inclusion of the word 'squadron' in the new ImpG book, GW notes this and says yes it's business as usual you can still take the damned tank.

So you think none of the FAQs contradict the rules previously written?
Or is this about the pet tanks only?

Define 'contradicts' and define 'rules', do you mean directly goes against a written rule or doesn't mesh with various things written in the book? I don't doubt there may be some contradictions in the books, that's GW for you, that's why people's insistence on RAW for a game not written to the level of legislative text continually amuses me, hmm, let me correct that, the people who construe supposed RAW from various areas of the book and cry out that it's law, that the amusing thing, these books were not written by the finest minds known to man, just some hobby geeks made good.

As to why the tanks?
Gwar posted that he had been vindicated with the release of the FAQs, that they agreed with him and were therefore right-on, it was then pointed out to him by several of us that he was quite wrong on the WH/DH tanks, we then saw him shift tack and start muttering that the FAQs weren't the real thing anyways, I could actually picture him kicking the dirt and huffing as he wrote it.
This 'trend' in FAQ bashing has only really taken off in this area of the boards since that incident and is now driven home in virtually any of the fairly numerous posts from our mutual friend.
The FAQs are still an adjudication from GW or the careful compilation of problem solving discussion taken place by the owner of this site and those who helped him.

You and I both know this, the caveat at the front of the FAQs and the 'Most important rule' in the rulebook are both Jevisisms. They are GWs way of being elusive and shrugging off the 'absolute' that so many game players would like to see. They free GW from 'being caught out' or looking like they owe us a solid answer or a well written book.

The FAQs are very useful (for the most part, the space marine one did indeed have some very poor aspects), I will continue to use them as rulings on issues I and my group of friends find, in fact all fourteen people in my gaming group would never once take issue with a FAQ and abide by them and I don't think I've ever met, other than in this forum, anyone who'd argue against using them.

kirsanth wrote: Also, I think "pertaining" is misused - or just trying to confuse things. I am not related to, connected to, belonging to something that just does not wash.

Pertaining, alluding to, relating with, hinting at. Christ man, you don't get to quibble with my text, you're a bloody colonial...


(and we all know the colonists don't wash...)

Maybe when discussing we should say..... When Playing using FAQ's , this happens or this is how I understand it.

And... When playing with out using FAQ's..... THIS is how I understand it to be played.

When playing RAW ..... etc

ETC.......

May save some time......? just a thought?

(waiting to get flamed/shot down).....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My 2cents worth, which in my country doesn't exist in coin value but only electrionicly..

Man I really need a picture of a train derailed to post here.

Ironklawmadgutsmek wrote:Maybe when discussing we should say..... When Playing using FAQ's , this happens or this is how I understand it.

And... When playing with out using FAQ's..... THIS is how I understand it to be played.

When playing RAW ..... etc

May save some time......? just a thought?

It's a good idea, but we do then face a situation wherein:
Some like myself feel FAQs resolve and should be given due attention and that the caveat about how you use them is just the fashion at GW HQ of Jervis promoting you play it as you like it.
Some feel they aren't RAW due to the caveat and that therefore they can include anything in them but remain impotent as a rule and people are free to ignore them.

So I, for example, feel that FAQs are rules to be taken seriously, I believe the 'do what you want' bit in FAQs is precisely the same as the 'do what you want' bit in the rulebook.
So the FAQs provides the guidance if the situation should arise. I have stopped using deffrollers to attack other tanks, I don't want that and would far rather attack tanks with it since the Ork army does lack a healthy level of tank killage imo, but it's the conclusion drawn from a well constructed document drawn from many hours play-testing and debating by Yakface and co, plus it makes my regular opponents happier.

Hollismason wrote:Man I really need a picture of a train derailed to post here.

The thread hasn't derailed, it's digressed into a wider discussion of the original questions point raised, if it had been derailed we'd be arguing about the merits of J-Lo's musical contribution over the last 4 years or the concept of evolution vs divine creation.

The OP has bowed out, his question has been provided with several answers and he'll take the one he reasons is the best for him onboard and run with it. But the thread had gone on to talk about the wider implications of how 'valid' FAQs are, since a FAQ gave an answer to the original question.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The thread hasn't derailed, it's digressed into a wider discussion of the original questions point raised, if it had been derailed we'd be arguing about the merits of J-Lo's musical contribution over the last 4 years or the concept of evolution vs divine creation.

Personally I feel that Rebirth was one of her better albums but recently she has been producing lacklustre material.

Ha ha, please stick to the topic.

I didn't find it funny. This to me is a serious conversation.

Carry on.

G

Pertaining, alluding to, relating with, hinting at. Christ man, you don't get to quibble with my text, you're a bloody colonial...


(and we all know the colonists don't wash...)

We colonists took by force what we wanted from you. We then went on to save your well-cleaned arses from the germans on a couple occasions. So please don't think poorly on us for our lack of washing.

Back on topic: I honestly don't see what the arguements are about here. GW officially says the FAQs are not official. 99% of gamers and tournament directors do use them as "official."

So we all win I think. All of us FAQ supporters can move ahead planning armies with the FAQs in mind. Those that don't like them can play with others that feel the same way. Or they can talk about how they want to play things before a game.

I think that, for the purposes of answering questions here, both parties are entitled to there opinions on the FAQs. So while Gwar or other non-FAQ people might answer a question one way and I might answer it a different way (using FAQs to direct my answer) both answers can be correct.

augustus5 wrote: We then went on to save your well-cleaned arses from the germans on a couple occasions.

Your Russian?

And if you claim the 1st one as well as the second, then you're just tripping.

Back to topic-ish...
The problem is that Gwar, prodigious poster that he is, is tubthumping 'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong' across the YMDC sandpit.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Back to topic-ish...
The problem is that Gwar, prodigious poster that he is, is tubthumping 'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong' across the YMDC sandpit.

Actually, it's more like:
'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong but you are free to be as wrong as you like, I do not care either way' (That was a joke btw)

You only took by force thanks to the French, a fact you seem to have ignored ever since

FAQs are not rules, they are houserules. AS it says in the document.

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Back to topic-ish...
The problem is that Gwar, prodigious poster that he is, is tubthumping 'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong' across the YMDC sandpit.

Actually, it's more like:
'FAQs aren't propa and if you use them you're wrong but you are free to be as wrong as you like, I do not care either way' (That was a joke btw)

The part about you caring was the joke? Because you've stated the rest of that in more than one post I've read, in fact it's become something of a catch all for you, the 'well of course if you want to ignore the rules and be wrong you can use them'.

Now, about those tournaments you mentioned, I'm interested to know more about those, can you provide me with some details, I'm very keen to know how such a rigid adherence to the written word went down at them and perhaps visit the website or read up on them on someone's blog? See some of the armies that took part?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Now, about those tournaments you mentioned, I'm interested to know more about those, can you provide me with some details, I'm very keen to know how such a rigid adherence to the written word went down at them and perhaps visit the website or read up on them on someone's blog? See some of the armies that took part?

Have I ever maintained I run my tournaments with no sort of FAQ? No, I haven't. What I do is use the GW FAQ where it does not directly contradict Clear RaW (Deff Dread Attacks for example) along with a Modified INAT FAQ (i.e. Remove the rule changes disguised as "Clarifications").

nosferatu1001 wrote:You only took by force thanks to the French, a fact you seem to have ignored ever since

What does that even mean? Could you work on that and make it a sentence?

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Now, about those tournaments you mentioned, I'm interested to know more about those, can you provide me with some details, I'm very keen to know how such a rigid adherence to the written word went down at them and perhaps visit the website or read up on them on someone's blog? See some of the armies that took part?

Have I ever maintained I run my tournaments with no sort of FAQ? No, I haven't. What I do is use the GW FAQ where it does not directly contradict Clear RaW (Deff Dread Attacks for example) along with a Modified INAT FAQ (i.e. Remove the rule changes disguised as "Clarifications").

So you take the best fit from each, according to your perception of which makes the best sense.

That's all I needed really thanks.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Now, about those tournaments you mentioned, I'm interested to know more about those, can you provide me with some details, I'm very keen to know how such a rigid adherence to the written word went down at them and perhaps visit the website or read up on them on someone's blog? See some of the armies that took part?

Have I ever maintained I run my tournaments with no sort of FAQ? No, I haven't. What I do is use the GW FAQ where it does not directly contradict Clear RaW (Deff Dread Attacks for example) along with a Modified INAT FAQ (i.e. Remove the rule changes disguised as "Clarifications").

So you take the best fit from each, according to your perception of which makes the best sense.

That's all I needed really thanks.

No, I use them when they do not contradict the RaW. I do not "Pick and Choose", I use the bits that do not break the rules.

So then I take it you feel that some parts of the FAQs are up to your snuff and good enough to be considered official.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:So then I take it you feel that some parts of the FAQs are up to your snuff and good enough to be considered official.

G

Only the Parts that actually clarify areas of contention (such as Shadow in the Warp vs Eldar Runes), not parts that totally ignore the RaW, such as Deff Dread Attacks. What GW need to do is stop the BS and just let someone make a comprehensive FAQ/Errata Document.

I suggest Myself. 4 weeks with a Sharpie I could errata fix all the issues brought up in the INAT and Official FAQs.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:So then I take it you feel that some parts of the FAQs are up to your snuff and good enough to be considered official.

G

Only the Parts that actually clarify areas of contention (such as Shadow in the Warp vs Eldar Runes), not parts that totally ignore the RaW, such as Deff Dread Attacks. What GW need to do is stop the BS and just let someone make a comprehensive FAQ/Erreta Document.

I suggest Myself. 4 weeks with a Sharpie I could errata fix all the issues brought up in the INAT and Official FAQs.

Really? Because you spelt Errata wrongly.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Really? Because you spelt Errata wrongly.

That's because you quoted me before I fixed the typo

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Really? Because you spelt Errata wrongly.

That's because you quoted me before I fixed the typo

So it already went to press before you'd fixed it, make sure that's an Errata fix mind you and not a FAQ...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Really? Because you spelt Errata wrongly.

That's because you quoted me before I fixed the typo

So it already went to press before you'd fixed it, make sure that's an Errata fix mind you and not a FAQ...

That's why I hire Dakka as proofreaders They fixed multiple problems on my 2nd article in about 5 minutes

I think we should just change the name of this thread.

This thread has gone off the deep end and is now closed.

I think we've all learned a valuable lesson here, as detailed in this graph: